1979-12-11N228
December ~,1979 (Afternoon Meeting)
~Adjourned from December 5, 1979)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on December 11, 1979, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from December 5, 1979.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 1:48 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 1:43 P.M.) and C. Timothy Lindstrom
(arriving at 1:38 P.M.).
Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush.
Officers present:
Tucker, Jr.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Robert W.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:48 P.M. by the Chairman who
announced that Mr. Roudabush is ill and will not be present today.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the Board must
still resolve questions concerning the Reservoir, the Pantops area and the Biscuit Run area.
He hoped that the Board would be able to come to some resolution so the staff can finish the
maps and a vote be taken by the Board at a subsequent meeting for approval of all of the
plans.
Mr. Lindstrom Said he had a proposal to make which would deal with two of these question~
He spoke with Mr. Roudabush by telephone this morning and went over these proposals in
detail. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Roudabush found his proposals acceptable for~purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan and also because he felt that there Would not be a formal vote taken
today. Mr. Lindstrom said he met with Mr. Tucker to discuss the zoning proposed for
south side of Route 250 East (Neighborhood No. 3). There is sufficient depth on that side
of the road to develop the properties internally rather than have highway-oriented commercial
such as that fmund on Route 29 North. He asked the staff to draft a concept for a planned
commercial district which would allow development only after the property owners of record,
at the time of adoption of such a provision, had received approval from the Board of Super-
visors or the Planning Commission for a site plan or subdivision plat, Hased on the applicant
filing a transportation plan showing all internal roads and all curb cuts on public roads.
By virtue of such a review, the Board could control access and limit orientation of com~
mercial development in that area so it would have to occur on internally developed roads.
Under Mr. Lindstrom's proposal, the area on the south side of Route 250 East - both that
shown for commercial and commercial office - would be designated as a planned commercial
district. Details of such a district would have to be worked out at the time the proposed
zoning ordinance is adopted. Mr Lindstrom also suggested that the commercial area shown
from the crest of the hill out toward 1-64 where no development has occurred, be deleted as
commercial because of the narrowness of the property and because of its potential impact on
Glenorchy Subdivision, and that this property be considered for some type of residential
use. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that under present laws, each existing property
owner has a right to one access to a~public road, and this proposal would put that one
factor into ordinance form.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Lindstrom and himself had discussed this idea
thoroughly. They realize that under existing subdivision regulations, no subdivision
can be approved administratively unless the lots are greater than five acres each, so they
did not think that a developer would try to "get around" the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said his
only concern with the proposal is putting this designation on the map at this time. For
other planned type uses, these uses are not recognized on the map until the area is actually
zoned for that category. Mr. Fisher said the last time the Board discussed this neighborhood
plan, he was going to recommend that all of the commercial zoning east of the ridge be
deleted because it is far in excess of projected needs. Mr. Lindstrom said if this com-
mercial property cannot be developed internally, he will nov support any of that zone east
of the ridge line. He still thinks this has serious implications for the Comprehensive Plan
because it is far above figures projected for commercial development, but a completely
different kind of commercial development can occur under this proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said
that is only one-half of the motion; the other half has to do with the watershed. He
proposed that the portion of the Urban Area that is within the watershed of the South Rivanna
Reservoir be deleted from the Urban Area and that it be dealt with as part of the rest of
the County, whatever category that will be designated. Mr. Lindstrom said it not appropriate
for that sensitive area to be given an urban des~gnation with all the implied incentive for
development that would indicate. This proposal is also based on studies by the County
Engineer which show that very little of that land lends itself to any density. The density
for Crozet can be dealt with through the use of an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek,, but
there is no such solution for this part of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said in order to get a
consensus at this point, he would move both of these things.
Mr. Dorrier said he would support scaling down the density on all of the land in the
Urban Area which lies in the watershed, but he was not sure that removing the area completely
from the Urban Area is practical. A great deal of that area is already developed, and the
County needs to control what goes on in that area in the future. Mr. Dorrier said there
will be a certain number of people moving into Albemarle County and if they are not absorbed
in this area, they will have to be absorbed somewhere else. The Crozet Interceptor is not
built, and may not be available until 1990. He asked Mr Tucker if the population density
lost in this area can be absorbed in other areas. Mr. Tucker said removing the watershed
from the Urban Area will not necessarily prevent development, although development will have
to occur at a lower density than what the Planning Commission has recommended. The Board
will have to decide where to pick up that population loss in order to keep the population
projections close to expectations for the next 20 years. Mr. Lindstrom said the plans
presented to the Board provide for an increase in population of about 60,000, whereas these
plan amendments for the next 20 years only project an increase of 13,600. Deletion of the
watershed from the Urban Area will still leave a holding capacity far in excess of the
20 year projection. Mr. Tucker noted that the ultimate holding capacity of the Urban Area
is projected to be 60,000.
DeCember 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting)
(Adjourned from December 5, 1979)
Mr. Lindstrom said he was sensitive about speaking for Mr. Roudabush, but he had asked
Mr. Roudabush about bringing up this matter today, and Mr. Roudabush has indicated that he
felt he could go along with a motion to delete the watershed from the Urban Area because he
recognizes that this area is affected by special legislation that is different from the rest
of the Urban Area.
Dr. Iachetta said he had no problem with taking the watershed out of the Urban Area,
but he is not convinced that this goes far enough in the County's efforts to protect the
Reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he has never felt the Runoff Control Ordinance by itself is
sufficient. He agreed with the proposal to put the eastern section of Neighborhood #3 into
a better mode for control, but was not sure that this amount of commercial should be shown
since it is far in excess of what is needed for the next 20 years. Mr. Lindstrom said there
are some facts which mitigate against the high density zoning east of the ridge line. Even
though the County Engineer finally determined that the area could be served by gravity
sewer, it would cost so much to do so because of topography that it is not likely it will ~
ever be developed in that manner. Dr. Iachetta said Neighborhood #3 has a much better
potential for utility service than other areas, particularly those in the northern part of
the County, because there are relatively short distances from the sites to the Rivanna
Interceptor. ~n the Crozet area and the area north of Hollymead there would need to be
extensive and costly extensions of utility lines. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the Board
should consider including the Biscuit Run area because of its proximity to the sewage
treatment plant.
Mr. Dorrier said he felt the recommendation to include Biscuit Run is good and he would
support Mr. Lindstrom's motion if the Board could designate that area for development at the
density suggested, with some commercial zoning in the center of the Biscuit Run area and
some commercial along Avon Street Extd. (Route 742). Mr. Lindstrom said he had considered
adding Biscuit Run in his motion bytjdid~-_not for a couple of reasons. First, Biscuit Run
was created by the Planning Commission as a holding area for the population hhat was deleted
from other parts of the Urban Area. Second, there is a proposal to create a Piney Mountain
community waiting for committee recommendations. Both of these proposals have been justified
as a way to absorb density that has been reduced in other areas of the County. Mr. Lindstrom
said he did not mention Biscuit Run at this time since it would be more appropriate to
consider it along wi~h the Piney Mountain area, and it does not replace the type of housing
mixes that were planned for the watershed area.
Dr. Iachetta said there is a difference between the Piney Mountain and the Biscuit Run
a~eas. In the Biscuit Run area, there will be public utilities available when the waste-
water treatment plant is completed. For the Piney Mountain area, the Camelot Sewer Treat-
ment Plant is not large enough at this time and is not a high quality plant. Also, if the
Camelot plant is enlarged, it will have to be at the expense of the developer, so there is a
totally different economic picture. Mr. Dorrier said if the Board does not plan for the
Biscuit~Run area, it will plan itself.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to discussion of Neighborhood #3. He said it
ma~es sense to him to stop commercial development at the ridge line and delete the remainder
of the commercial area. He said there is obviously strip development on this section of
Route 250 East like that on Route 29 North. He was not satisifed with the placement of
residential densities, saying there should be some gradation of densities from low to high.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board will go forward with changes in the subdivision ordinance and
the site plan ordinance to put Mr. Lindstrom's proposal for a planned commercial district
into effect, he can vote for that part of the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said his proposal deals
only with changing the commercial area from the ridge line east, on the north side of Route
250. Mr. Fisher asked what density would be shown for that area. Dr. Iachetta asked if the
area could be cross-hatched to indicate a mixture of medium and low density residential
development. Mr. Tucker said yes. Dr. Iachetta said this would be prefer~aso that the
low density would not be right next to apartments with no transition. Mr. Lindstrom asked
what would be done with the area from Glenorchy Subdivision out to the Interstate. Dr.
Iachetta suggested it be changed to low density. Mr. Dorrier said this proposal for densitie
on the north side of Route 250 seems to be reasonable. Mr. Fisher agreed that eliminating
the commercial on the north side of 250 and replacing it with mixed residential uses was a
better plan. He said he still does not believe so much commercial land is needed on the
south side of Route 250, but he knows that people have invested funds and made plans for
development, at least on the western portion of that tract. Mr. Fisher said with these
changes and with the understanding that a planned commercial district zone will be developed,
he was willing to support Mr. Lind~strom's motion for both areas.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Tucker to point out the watershed dividing line in Neighborhoods 1
and 7 and to give a brief summary of what is already developed in that area. Mr. Tucker
said there are condominiums (The Woods) on the SPCA road with a density of almost one unit
per acre. On Rio Road, there is CENTEL and some minor industrial uses, a mobile home park
and The Rock Store and some scattered single-family development. On Hydraulic Road, there
is Evergreen and the Garlick Tract, the County Schools, Georgetown Green, R. E. Lee, Inc.,
and part of Ivy Farms Subdivision. On Georgetown Road, there is apartment development,
duplexes and the recently approved Greentree. On Barracks Road, there are the Old Salem
Apartments, Montvue and Colthurst Subdivisions, and a recently approved RPN next to Colthurst
Mr. Lindstrom asked if most of the land in the watershed is presently zoned A-1. Mr. Tucker
said most of the land is, although there is other zoning. Dr. Iachetta said because the
area along the Reservoir is so steep, he does not believe it can be developed at one unit
per acre and still satisfy the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Fisher
said he would not support an increase in density to even one dwelling unit per acre in this
area without a very good reason to do so, and he does not know of any such reason.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are some hard decisions which will have to be made when the
proposed zoning map comes to the Board. He has said the watershed area is not an area where
higher densities should be encouraged and it should not be a part of the Urban Area.
Mr. Henley said he could see no reason why the density must be increased just to make
it a part of the Urban Area, but could see some advantages to having it in the Urban Area.
Dr. Iachetta said the Urban Area is the place wher~ the land will be used with a higher
intensity than that land found in the rural area. It is a ma~ter of being consistent with
what is defined as being permissible in an urban area.
December 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting)
(Adjourned from December 5, 1979)
Mr. Henley said he did not think it solves any problems to delete the watershed area
from the Urban Area. He felt the Board may at some time in the future regret taking it out.
Mr. Fisher said he does not believe this is an area where zoning densities should be
increased. This Comprehensive Plan amendment is for only the next 15 to 20 years, but the
Board must consider where the public water supply will come from for hundreds of years.
This area can always be added back to the Urban Area by some future Board of Supervisors if a
way is found to deal with the pollution problem.
Mr. Henley said to take the watershed area out of the Urban Area to keep it from growing
is not sufficient reason. It could remain in the Urban Area and still obtain that goal.
Mr. Lindstrom felt there are a lot of reasons for deleting this area from the Urban
area; reasons he has stated many times. Mr. Lindstrom said he is scared that considering
the way the Virginia Court system works, the County would not prevail in terms of preserv%ng
water quality if this area is left in the Urban Area plans. He asked if there had been a
second to his motion.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Biscuit Run area can be dealt with as part of the motion. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would be willing to do so if the Board had enough facts to deal with the
Piney Mountain community proposal at the same time. If the Piney Mountain and Biscuit Run
areas have been proposed as alternatives for the population loss in the watershed area, he
feels awkward about including it in the motion at this time. Mr. Dorrier said he feels
Biscuit Run should be a part of the Urban Area irregardless of the Piney Mountain situation.
He said the Biscuit Run area will develop and he feels the planning for it should be done
now. Mr. Henley said he does not think Biscuit Run and Piney Mountain are tied together in
any way and if the Biscuit Run area has merits, it should be considered on those merits
alone. Mr. Lindstrom said is he uneasy about dealing with these two applications which,
from the staff's analysis, have been proposed as alternatives for the population decreases
that have occurred in other areas as the deails of these amendments have been analyzed.
Logically speaking, it would seem to be better to take the two together. Biscuit Run is an
area well suited to development whether it is included in this Comprehensive Plan amendment
or the next amendment. Biscuit Run, plus Piney Mountain, makes a~l~ig&mant increase in
the population designations for the County that should have some more analysis. Mr. Dorrier
said Biscuit Run should not necessarily be tied to deleting the watershed area from the
Urban Area. He felt there should be three separate motions to accomplish what has been
proposed today. Mr. Henley said if Biscuit Run is a logical area for growth to occur, he
could see nothing wrong with designating it as part of the Urban Area, although just desig-
nating it will not cause anything to happen in the area.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to delete the South Fork Rivanna River
watershed area from the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Henley said he would support the motion because this is just a consensus vote.
Although, Mr. Lindstrom feels that run-off from Crozet can be handled with an impoundment on
Lickinghole Creek, Mr. Henley said he would be greatly surprised if it ever comes about.
Mr. Lindstrom said an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek is a way to deal with the problem
that is not available in the Urban Area. Mr. Henley said it &s~a~_~t~f~m~y to take care
of a very little problem. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered the following mOtion concerning Neighborhood #3: Leave the
commercial designations on the south side of Route 250 East with a proposal that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to include a PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT which will be applied to this
area. On the north side of Route 250 East, cross-hatch the medium/high density areas to
indicate that there will be a mix to be decided by the staff at time approvals are requested,
with the area from Glenorchy Subdivision out to the interstate being designated as low
density. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS,: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to the question of adding the Biscuit Run area
to the Urban Area plans. The Planning Commission recommends this addition to transfer some
of the density lost in the Reservoir area. The idea to add a community at Piney Mountain
has come about since these plans were approved by the Planning Commission, and has not yet
been acted on by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said as he understands what the
Planning Commission has been discussing, if the Board approves the Biscuit Run area as an
addition to the Urban Ara, that action will alter the proposal for Piney Mountain considerabl~
Mr. Fisher said the Board knows about the proposal for Piney Mountain but has not yet seen
the proposal, so that slows up the whole process of deciding what should be done about
Biscuit Run. Mr. Tucker felt each should be dealt with on its own merits. Mr. Dorrier
agreed. He felt that the Biscuit Run area fits in with the whole concept of an urban area
and also has a lot of merit because it will take some of the pressure off of Route 29 North.
Mr. Fisher asked the population proposed for Biscuit Run. Mr. Tucker said it is approxi-
mately 3450. Mr. Lindstrom Sa~d~he~s~uit~u~ area is obviously suited to the kind of
utility extension that is needed for any kind of development and it also would provide
housing for people who may be in proximity to their job locations. Piney Mountain would also
provide housing close to jobs because there is a lot of industry in that area. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the density proposed for Biscuit Run makes sense in terms of utility extensions. He
said the only Justification of this proposal by the Planning Commission was to compensate for
~o~.~.~tion lost in other areas. He did not think that was a good reason to create another
December 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting)
(Adjourned from December 5, 1979)
221
as an important factor for this designation. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the densities proposed
Mr. Tucker said the staff chose to show the area for the lowest density at the present time.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan that special care be taken so
that urbanization does not go down too far in this area because there is no natural boundary.
Mr. Tucker said tributaries to Biscuit RUn form the boundaries and should act as a boundary
for urban type development.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board foregoes planning for Biscuit Run at this time, in five
years when the Comprehensive Plan is amended, there may not be an opportunity. It is virgin
territory, therefore the County can plan for development in an orderly manner. If the Board
fails to do this, the County may be faced with what a developer can do under existing laws.
Mr. Fisher said he has a concern that really has nothing to do with either Biscuit Run
or Piney Mountain. These plans show sufficient densities in the Urban area to take care of
an additional 57,000 people. These plan amendments are predicated on a growth of 13,600 in
the next 20 years. He said the County already has more than an ample inventory of land
designated for all categories and he could see no reason to expand these plans. Mr. Tucker
said the consultants had looked at what the optimum size of the urban area should be, includi~
the City of Chrlottesville. They came up with a figure of 100,000. The plan is to keep the
growth somewhere in that range since statistics prove that once that figure is exceeded,
until the area goes to over one-quarter of a million persons, all services are more costly.
The idea is to maintain an overall population capacity that will be manageable and where
utilities are cost-efficient. If the higher densities are not shown at this time, even
though they provide for a population far in excess of this planning period, the land may
develop at lower densities, so the County could not provide that maximum capacity. Mr.
Fisher said that seems a little arbitrary.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Dorrier had made a statement that concerns him, and it is a
statement often heard. To say that the County will fall prey to any bizarre idea a developeri!
comes in with and all agricultural land is "up for grabs" is baloney. Under the present
zoning ordinance that is true, and that is one of the problems. Mr. Lindstrom said there is
a
public
investment, and the Board has a right to say certain areas need to be preserved for
futUre growth, or for agricultural production, or because they cannot handle subdivisions~
Mr. Lindstrom said it is only under a weak, wishy-washy, ineffectual zoning ordinance, such
as the one presently on the books, that it can be said that if no planning is done for the
area now, the ability to do so in the future will be lost. That is one of the reasons why a
new zoning ordinance is needed.
Dr. Iachetta said he cannot see jumping seven miles to the north of town (Piney Mountain
and creating yet another pollution source. The Biscuit Run area is near the wastewater
treatment plant, it lies well, and would be a decent place to live. It potentially has
enough economic viability at the densities proposed to warrant an extension of utilities and
is not so big as to become a blight for the people who live in the area. It is a logical
place to put densities a little higher than the rural density.
Mr. Fisher said he could see no clear and present public need to create an addition to
the Urban Area in the Biscuit Run area when it can be done during some future revision of
the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Piney Mountain plan continues to cloud the issue,
although the Board has not yet seen that proposal. Mr. Henley said he was agreeable to
including the Biscuit Run area now, but also felt it could left to a later amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dorrier said this plan for Biscuit Run is predicated on public
utilities being available to the area. Although the interceptor has not been built and the
wastewater treatment plant is not completed, these utilities will become available and he
felt the County should begin planning for the area now. Mr. Henley said the plan presented
was not a good plan for utilities because the densities are not large enough to justify
extension of the utility lines.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was a motion. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve the
Biscuit Run plan as recommended by the ?lanning Commission, but changing the road alignment
of the proposed new connector road as discussed at an earlier meeting, with the addition of
a commercial area to the center of the area, and a small shopping center type use near the
Calvary Baptist Church. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom said this
addition to the Urban Area does not make any sense, and he could not support the motion.
Mr. Henley said he did~not really see any need to include this area now although it is a
logical place for extension of utilities; but also did not feel strongly about not including
it. He said he did not think that what the Board does today will make any difference in the
way it develops and said it would probably be as an RPN rather than in small tracts. Dr.
Iachetta asked what would be the effect of including this area with respect to an RPN. Mr.
Tucker said an RPN would have to develop at the density called for in the plan. If a higher
density were proposed, the Board would be faced with approving something in conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley asked if clustering would eliminate the need for public
sewer service. Mr. Tucker said not if the houses were clustered at a density higher than
one dwelling unit/acre. Mr. Lindstrom said the Albemarle County Service Authority service
areas would also have to be amended. Roll was called at this time and the motion failed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Henley.
MeSsrs. Fisher (No; for the present), Iachetta (No; for now) and Lindstrom.
Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher said he had a concern about another item~that being ~howing areas for a
density that is somewhat different from the way that area has developed; such as, Carrsbrook
and Bellair. He is worried that if densit!ies of 1 - 4 dwelling units/acre are shown on
these plan proposals, people will start t~ convert existing single-family houses to multi-
family units, basement apartments, etc.' ~r. Iachetta said the zoning map should show thes~
areas at the zoning density at which they !are developed. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map will then be in confliict. Mr. Lindstrom said if an area is developed in
a way that is different from the way the ~oard would like to see it develop, he felt it was
legitimate to show it at a different desigination. But, to show an area in one way, and the
intent is that it will not be used that wa!y, is something he did not think the Board can do.
Mr. Tucker said the suburban-residential zione (one unit/acre) could be utilized to recognize
existing subdivisions, however, the staff ihad never envisioned any zoning category as indicat~
that the land would be
December 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting)
(Adjourned from December 5, 1979)
courts might say about this. He felt this might open the door to arguments by developers
that they should be allowed to develop at the highest density. Mr. Tucker said he could
understand the argument if it related to a vacant tract, but~did not see how this argument
would apply to an area that is essentially already fully developed. Dr. Iachetta said these
plans show Colthurst and Montvue at their existing land use pattern, and he felt~to be
consistent, this same thing could be shown for other developed areas, once an acreage criteri~
is established. Mr. Fisher said he understands that the staff does not like the idea of
doing this. Mr. Tucker said he feels it is unnecessary, but it can be done if the Board
would feel more comfortable doing so. Mr. Henley said he also does not feel it is necessary
to do this in the Comprehensive Plan; the actual zoning map will be another question. (Mr.
Dorrier left the meeting at 3:43 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said he would feel more comfortable if
the Comprehensive Plan recognized areas of 25 acres or greater that are already developed
and established. He asked if any other Board members shared his concern. Mr. Lindstrom
said it would give a little more margin of security.
Mr. Tucker asked if it was the intent of the Board that the staff go back and recolor
the Comprehensive Plan maps according to the consensus reached today. Mr. Fisher said that
was his intent. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any other unresolved issues. Mr. Fisher
said there is a proposal for an industrial site at the corner of 1-64 and the Route 250/29
By-pass that is unresolved, i6:iMr. Dorrier returned~to the meeting at 3:49 P.M.) Mr. Eckel
said the property mentioned is on Old Route 29 SQuth just past the Chinese Dragon Restaurant.
Mr. Fisher asked about the terrain. Mr. Eckel said there are some steep slopes and a gully
that runs down to the road. Mr. Tucker said, because this parcel is in a quadrant of the
interstate, it is not a feasible site for residential use due to the noise factor. Mr.
Fisher said he would like to look at the site before making a recommendation.
Mr. Tucker said comments have been received from the Highway Department relative to
road improvements in the Villages. He presented the following letter from Mr. W. B. Coburn,
Jrt., Assistant Resident Engineer, dated November 30, 1979:
"In response to the request for Department i~put on roadway improvements in the Village Plan
as proposed by KDA and roads requested for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, the
following is our analysis broken down into areas.
An interconnecting road running from Route 20 South of Interstate 64 to Route. 742 continuing
onto Route 631 South, is shown in Alternate 4 of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation
Study. I believe the need for this road will be thoroughly handled through the CATS Study.
This same road continuing from Route 631 to Route 29 apparently does not have adequate need
to be presented as part of the CATS Study. Since Route 29 and Route 631 are interconnected
through Route 64, it would appear that this connection would be sufficient and need not be
replaced at this time.
Ivy_. Two new roads appear in the Ivy Village. One on the southside of Route 250 which would
be the relocation of Route 786 to a point further to the east than the existing connection.
Providing adequate sight distance can be obtained, this would be a positive step in providing
greater separation from the C&O Railroad Underpass and could also serve as access to the
proposed park. The second road which is a realignment of Route 678 would be an improvement
in this area. Adequate sight distance exists at its proposed intersection with Route 250.
This would also shorten this section of existing 678 and eliminate the need for the improveme
to the existing Route 678. This road appears on a property which is currently requested for
rezoning to RS-1. I have sketched a general alignment which would appear suitable for
Route 678 as well as provide reasonable access to the property through which it passes. I
believe this access alignment would be the best, however the alignment shown in the proposed
Village Plan by KDA also appears acceptable.
Crozet Community Plan. Concerning the roads in the Crozet area shown on the map, the Depart~
could support the proposed improvements, realignments and new roads with the exceptiOn of
the realignment of Route 240 near the intersection of Route 810 at the railroad underpass.
While we recognize the need for an improvement like this, this would appear to be not feasibl
due to the existing development in this area. In addition to the roads shown, the Department
has examined a location for a connection between Route 240 crossing over top of the railroad
and intersecting the proposed connection with Route 250. I have sketched in red on the
overlay and a small topo map this general alignment. The point of intersection on Route 240
would be near the eastern boundary of the Acme property. The road would proceed south
crossing over top of the railroad, with a bridge over the railroad , continue south being
the main road with a connecting road from Route 1205 intersecting at right angles, would ~
continue south crossing Lickinghole Creek intersecting Route 250 approximately 1000 feet
west of the connection shown by KDA. This revised intersection point would appear to have
better sight distance as well as less developed property to traverse. In addition, the
Department recognizes the need for a road connecting Route 810 and Route 240 in the northeast
quadrant outside the developed area."
Mr. Fisher said as long as their are no significant objections to the proposals, he
felt the Board should follow the recommendations of the Highway Department.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of notice from Appalachian Power Company in
which it seeks an interim increase in annual rates and charges effective January 1, 1980.
The reason given is that this interim increase is needed because the Company's financial
integrity requires immediate earnings improvement and because its pared down construction
program must proceed on schedule to provide reasonable and reliable electric service.
Mr. Fisher said the Board needed to schedule an executive session to discuss personnel
matters relating to appointments to be made after the beginning of 1980. He suggested
December 19 at 3:30 P.M. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 4:10 P.M.) There being no
.further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:12 P.M.
~irman
Lt
.nt