1978-06-7NJune 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
266
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on June 7,
1978 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle'County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher. Mr. Dorrier conducted a short prayer.
Agenda Item No. 2.
on 1650 acres zoned A-1.
May 3, 1978.)
SP-78-15. F. Bosley Crowther. To locate a planned community
Property between Routes 20 South and 631 South. (Deferred from
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
Request:
Acrease:
Zoning:
Location:
Planned Community (A-I/PUD)
+ 1650 acres
A-1 Agriculture
Property (described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 85A, part thereof; Tax Map 90,
Parcels 5; 15A; 6, part thereof; and 9A, part thereof; and County Tax Map ~0A,
Parcel 3, part thereof) is located between Routes 20 South and 631 south of
Lake Reynovia.
Character of the Area
This area is rural in nature, however, considerable residential development does exist.
Lake Reynovia and Southwood Mobile Home Court border this property on the north. Commercial
and industrial uses exist in the area. Route 20 South has been designated a Virginia byway
and Albemarle County Scenic Highway.
Comprehensive Plan
This property is shown on the fringe of Neighborhoods #4 and #5 in the Urban Araa in the
Comprehensive Plan. Relevant statements from the Plan are as follows:
--Mountain ranges to the south and east restrict extension and development in
those directions.
--There are three ~holes", or areas not well defined by natural features,
where special planning efforts will be required to retard the sprawl of the
urban area. These are along the Route 250 West corridor, the Route 20 South
corridor, and the 1-64 east corridor.
--Neighborhoods #4, #5,~.and #6 offer the best opportunities for well organized
neighborhoods due to their predominantly undeveloped nature. No public develop-
ment decisions should be made prior to preparation of detailed plans involving
residents, parties of interest, and the County.
--Although no significant expansion south of Charlottesville is suggested for
the planning period, any change in policy in the area should be preceded by
an area planning process.
--Residential Densities - Gross or overall housing densities should be
compatible with the local environment, the scale of public facilities/utilities
available or planned, and the character of development in the vicinity. Net
densities should be significantly higher than gross densities to provide usable
open space and visual amenity in suburban development, and to protect the
County's visual character and natural resources in rural development.
--Scattered Individual Homes and Small Subdivisions - In areas of the County
where recommended gross densities are in the range of 0.5-1.0 dwelling per
acre, the minimum subdivision or development scale s~hould be five lots.
Frontage and/or density bonus incentives should be used to create tight group-
ings or clusters of housing with substantial permanent open gaps between hous-
ing clusters. This standard is in response to one of the County's major
concerns which is the incremental encroachment of strip residential develop-
ment of the open/rural character of Albemarle's country and scenic roads.
--Planned Unit Development - The scale at Which application of the Planned
Unit Development (P.U.D.) concept is recommended begins at the 75-100 dwell-
ing unit range where a visable homeowners' organization can maintain
meaningful open space, recreation areas, and pedestrian linkages. Although
P.U.D.'s are recommended primarily as neighborhoods or mini-neighborhoods
within designated communities and the urban area, other locations may be
considered by the Cuunty where the possibility of establishing a "new village"
or the nucleus of a future community exists and where the development of such
P.~.D.'s would not preclude achievement of the Cmunty's objectives for the
urban area, communities, and villages. The suggested maximum scale standard
for planned unit developments is the same as for neighborhoods, i.e.,
5,000-7,000 population.
Impact on the Comprehensive Plan
A concern expressed during the initial public hearing of Biscuit Run Planned Community was
the potential effect of this proposal on the Comprehensive Plan. The following is the
staff's analysis of this proposal in regard to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
2G7
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Comments are directed to both the general proposal and specific land uses.
--General - As indicated earlier, this property is located on the southern fringe of
Neighborhoods #4 and #5 of the Urban Area. These neighborhoods have no physical boundaries
to the south to prevent "sprawl" development as do other neighborhoods (i.e. - Rivanna
River). Higher density residential, industrial, and commercial areas are located to the
north with density diminishing to one dwelling per five acres to the south. Staff recom~
mends that the Biscuit Run Plan, through the use of diminishing densities, internally
establishes the southern boundary of the urban area. Since this plan represents 18% of
the land in the Biscuit Run valley, an opportunity for the County to "lock-in" the future
development of a great portion of this problem area is provided through this application.
--Residential Density - The gross density requested is one dwelling per two acres
(1 dwelling per 1.82 acres if commercial and industrial acreage is excluded) which is
consistent with the current A-1 zoning and the density recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan for this area. (The Plan recommends a density of one unit per two acres for areas of
"rolling terrain and other rural areas not close to services" This may be tempered by the
statement that "Although only two distinct areas within the neighborhoods are so defined,
all critical slope areas should be treated sympathetically to their environmental and
visual functions~)
--Industrial Area - The Comprehensive Plan recommends about 200 acres located between
Routes 742 and 20 South be designated for industrial uses. Of this area, 45 acres are
zoned or developed industrially. Much of the remaining area is residentially developed
and therefore not available for industrial development. (The area around Hamilton Paper
Company and Avon Street business properties is the only other area south of Charlottesville
recommended for industrial useage in the Land Use Plan). Staff opinion is that the in-
dustrial area in Buscuit Run provides reasonable replacement for the unusable area shown
in the Comprehensive Plan. (Proper adjustment-of this industrial land use amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan can be accomplished at the neighborhood plan review.)
--Commercial Area - The commercial area as proposed would serve the residents of the planned
community as well as surrounding areas. The applicant has indicated service to adjacent
areas to be desirable in order to support the wide range of uses to be offered. (The
Comprehensive Plan recommends that each neighborhood could support an elementary school,
small shopping center, neighborhood park, churches and a restaurant.)
The Biscuit Run plan proposes the following uses:
Maximum Square Feet
Food Shopping (including meat dept. and produce)
Retail s~rvice facilities (such as hardware, drugstore,
dry cleaners, beauty shop, etc.)
Gasoline station (including service area)
Bank
Restaurant
Professional Offices (including doctor, dentist,
attorney, real estate, travel, etc.)
20,000
15,000
15,000
1,000
5,000
'4','000
TOTAL
60,000 sq.ft.
This commercial area will serve the residents of the Planned Community; serve the employees
of the industrial area (resident and non-resident); and draw non-resident, shOppers. Staff
opinion is that most non-resident shoppers will be:those shoppers from the south who would
normally patronize other commercial establishments in the''Urban Area. T~g 'commercial area
would not greatly increase traffic since these shoppers wo'~ld normally be'.north~ard bound,
but would serve to relieve some traffic impact to Charlott'e'sville''and other' portions of
the Urban Area.
--Summary - The Biscuit Run proposal represents about 4% of the population design capacity
of the urban neighborhoods. The residential density requested complies with the Compre-
hensive Plan and existing zoning. The industrial area would serve to replace ~hat portion
of recommended area between Routes 742 and 20 South which is otherwise committed to a large
ext~nt. The commercial area would serve residents, workers, and outlying areas, reducing
to some extent existing and future traffic impact to Charlottesville and other portions of
the Urban Area.
Since this request complies with the residential density recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan, the staff does not view Biscuit Run as an arbitrary extension of the'Urban Area.
However, due to the proximity to the Urban Area and the development scale, Biscuit Run will
absorb some of the future urban growth. The applicant projects a 10-year development phas-
ing which could absorb about 200-250 people per year. Therefore, about 10% of the annual
population increase would be absorbed under what staff believes to. be an optimistic
development schedule. (Historically, planned communities have developed at rates slower
than projected by applicants..) Historically, the southern Urban Area has not developed at
a rate comparable to other urban neighborhoods. Development of th~s projec't would provide
some relief, both in terms of traffic and development pressure, to other' portions of the
Urban Area.
Site C'~ac't'e~i's'tics (Much of this information is from Bas'i'c'Re'S.O.~ce:'In'fo~mation for
Albema'rl'e'Co'unty, Thomas Jefferson Soil Conservation Service,
Steeper areas of the site are heavily wooded with open pasture areas 'in the low lands along
Biscuit Run and its tributary branches. Some rock outcropPings ~exist in the steeper areas.
Soils are of the Culpeper-Albemarle-Louisburg Association' with 'a th~n band of the Davidson-
Starr Association along Route 20 South. General characteristi-cs 'of' these soils are as
folloWs. (Information is very general and not.:site'-~spec'~'fic~ ..So~ls--'studies are currently
bei'ng conducted bY the' applicant. Source.:'~as'i~' ~e'So~'c'e'~n'fo~at~6~ 'fo~ '~l~e~ril'e''C'ounty,
Thomas Jefferson SoiI Cmnservation Service, 196'8.)
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
26f
--Culpeper-Albemarle-Louisburg - D~ep to shallow, well drained, gently slop~g~
to moderately steep slopes. Moderate limitations to building sites and septic
fields. Soil of moderate potential for agricultural use, limited by depths and
irregular shapes; good for hardwoods and pines.
--Davidson-Starr Association - Mostly deep well-drained gently sloping to steep
soils. Slight limitations for building sites and septic fields. .Very productive
soils for agricultural use but limited for intensive use by slope; excellent
grassland. Excellent for growing hardwoods and pines.
--Wildlife - This area has a population range of 1-15 white-tailed deer per
square mile which is about average for the rural area of the County. This is
one of two areas of the highest concentration of wild turkey with 6-10 per
square mile.
This area has an above-average rating for openland wildlife and woodland wildlife as does
most of the County. This property contains both forest-openland interface and openland-
stream interface which are generally important feeding and breeding areas for wildlife.
Staff opinion is that development of this site and impoundment of Biscuit Run would be
detrimental to these forest-openland and openland-stream functions in the Biscuit Run
watershed.
Development Plan
Since the applicant has prov~ded a detailed narrative description of this proposal, the
staff will direct its attention to comment on the development plan. (Copy on file.)
--Residential Areas - The Farm'Community and Single Family areas are simply a low density
subdivision proposed for 425 units. The remaining 400 units would be accommodated in the
Cluster Housing area at a net density of 4.77 units/acre, which is a relatively low density
for apartment/tOwnhouse type of development. The Cluster Housing would be located in an
area of steep terrain necessitating extreme care in site planning and development. Two
acres in the Cluster Housing area would be in active recreation.
--Commercial Area - The 60,000 square foot commercial building area could be accommodated
comfortably on about 10 acres of the requested 25-acre commercial area. This area would
also be appropriate as a community center housing such uses as a branch library, private
or public child care center, a post office, and similar community facilities. Due to the
s~eep terrain in this are~, careful site planning and development will be necessary.
--Industrial Area - Under the industrial site selection criteria of the Comprehensive Plan,
this area would receive no priority ranking since the average slope is in excess of 10%.
Therefore, if this were a traditional industrial rezoning, staff would recommend this area
unsuitable for industrial designation. However, under the Planned Community designation,
the County can establish controls on the site development of this area not available under
standard rezoning. On that basis, with appropriate conditions, this area could be industrial
ly developed. As with the Cluster Housing area and Lakeside Village commercial area,
careful site planning and development will be necessary.
--Public Area - The 30 acres offered by the applicant for public use contains some of the
better buildabte land in terms of slope of the northern area of Biscuit Run. On April 25,
1978, the Albemarle County School Board voted 4-1, with two abstentions, to accept the
dedication of this 30 acres. The utility of this property can be better analyzed when
more accurate topographic mapping is available. Staff would recommend that dedication be
made to the County of Albemarle in order to provide opportunity for consideration of other
public uses.
--Greenspace - 6reenspace is employed in three general use categories:
(1) As access linkages from de~eZo.ped areas to the lakes.
(2) As pastureland along Rou't.e:i20. South 'and buffer areas along Route' 63t.
(3) As undistnnbed, reserved areas north Of the' main d'am.. This area may be 'dedicated for
permanent park, church, or'.re'c~eati:onal uses'. Ail greenspace will beowned and managed
by the Homeowners~ Asso'c±ati~n'.
--Lakes - The major 125-a~re l~ke ~o~ld b~ itha £o'cal point of the 'reside~tial''area. Develop-
ment of the dam will likely require r.e~ie~ by Virginia Department of HighWaYs and
Transportation, the State Water Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers. Detailed
analysis of the engineering of the lake would be covered under another special use permit.
(See comments from Engineering Department which follow.)
May 5, 1978
To: Ron Keeler
From: J. Ashley Williams
Subject: Biscuit Run P.U.D.
In studying the proposed dam and lake for Biscuit Run P.U.D., I have noted two methods
by which the dam can be constructed in order to effect the downstream flooding.
First, by constructing the dam in a manner so as to allow only the capacity of the
downstream channel to be discharged during any stor~.the following will occur:
a) The water level in the lake will fluctuate considerably during heavy rainstorms.
b) Boat docks, beaches and even homes built too close to the lake may be damaged.
c) The far reaches of the lake may ex~eed beyond the development during storms.
Secondly, by constructing the dam to allow all of the flood waters to be discharged as
the storm occurs presents the following:
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
b)
There will be very little affect on controlling downstream flooding. The flood
limits, however, will not extend beyond the dam as they presently are shown.
c) The lake boundaries will stay within the property.
The bottom line is whether this impoundment is to be used as a flood control dam or as
a recreational lake. With a flood control structure, the land near the lake should be re-
served so property will not be flooded. With a recreational lake;the water level will not
vary appreciably and there will be little property damage.
The plan calls for the following land use acreages:
Land Use Net Acreage
% of Total
Single Family
Cluster Housing
Farm Community
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
430 acres 26.1
84 5.1
280 17.0
794 acres I~
Commercial 25 1.5
Industrial 120 7.3
Public 30 1.8
Lake 125 7.6
Greenspace 471 28.5
Rights-of-way 85 5.2
TOTAL 1650 acres 100.1%
--Sewer - The Lakeside Village, Cluster Housing, and Industrial areas are proposed to be
served by public sewer while the Single Family and Farm Community areas would be served by
individual septic systems, Public sewer will be available upon completion of the Advanced
Wastewater Treatment plant, scheduled for 1981.
--Water - Ail areas except the Farm Community would be served by public water. Construction
of the main lake would necessitate abandonment of the existing non-conforming central well
system, which currently serves about 400 dwellings, and connecting these dwellings to public
water. Currently, water consumption from this central well system is about 1.5 million
gallans per month.
--Transportation - The staff and Highway Department have met to refine the traffic pro-
jections since the Highway Department's letter of April 17, 1978. Revised projections are
as follows:
Vehicle Trips Per Day
Residential 6023
Commercial 7430
Industrial 5280
18~733:i
Of the total trips, an unknown quantity would be internal trips which would not impact
Routes 631 or 20 SoUth. Additionally, many of the commercial trips on Route 631 and 20
South would exist regardless of this development. Therefore, the actual increase in traffic
on Routes~631 and 20 South attributable to this development is difficult to estimate.
The Highway Department has recommended four-laning of frontage along Routes 631 and 20 South
according to the developer's proposed development phasing. (See letter of May 3, 1978 which
follows.) Additionally, the functional classification plan for Routes 631 and 20 South is
currently under revision as a result of this proposal.
May 3, 1978
Biscuit Run PUD
Route 20 & 631 South
Albemarle County
County of Albemarle
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Attention: Mr. Ron S. Keeler
Dear Mr. Keeler:
As we have indicated in the past, a total traffic analysis plan should be
developed by the-owner and approved by the County and the Department, to insure
that roads will be properly sized to handle the total traffic.
The following is the phasing we feel should be required for the develop-
ment of Biscuit Run, PUD. Utilizing the developers phasing program we feel that
in conjunction with Phase I of the development, all rights of ways on Route 631
and Route 20 should be dedicated to public use according to the functional plan
of improvements. The entrance connection to Route 631 should be constructed to
its utimate design. That is, two (2) additional lanes with median and turn lane
in the median. A taper at both the southern and northern ends with a portion
full width would be accommodated in that portion of land which adjoins Route 631
at the connection intersection.
Along With Phase II, the entrance connection with Route 20 should be con-
structed,j Again, utilizing the two (2) additional.lanes and median which will
be required of the ultimate development. Construction of the ultimate design of
Route 631 and Route 20 during the first two (2) phases will insure that no further
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
2 70
With Phase III ~Z internal roads should be b~ilt to the ultimate stan-
dards as per an approved traffic analysis plan. That is, each road should be
built to its ultimate standard as originally constructed. Phase IV would
entail completion of construction on Route 631 north of the entrance accord-
ing to the functional plan and completion of the remainder of the internal
road network.
Attached, with this letter is a detailed breakdown showing various
commercial uses and their trip generation based on floor area. An alternate
method of determining the same useage is that of a one generator shopping
center wherein one (1) large store is the anchor for the commercial area
with the remainder of commercial area being specialty~ shops. It is typical
of these types of shopping centers that they will generate approximately 393
vehicle trips per day, per acre.
If you should have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) W. B. Coburn, Jr.
Asst. Resident Engineer
Comparative Impact Statistics
Dwellings
Population
Employees
Commercial
Industrial
Vehicle trips/day
Domestic Water Consumption
School Children***
Elementary
Middle
Secondary
(1) Existing A-I* (2) A-l/PUD
782 825
2,5O2 2,465
--- 1,477-4,633
--- 193
--- 1,284-4440'*
5,709 18,733
200,160 gal. 226,740-289,860 gal,
556 587
266 281
149 157
141 149
(2) % increase
+5.5%
-1.5%
+228%
+z3-45%
+5.5%
*Assumes 86 acres (5.2%) in public right-of-way
** Low figure reflects 10.7 employees/acre, while high figure assumes 1/3 of industrial
property developed as corporate offices with 89.6 employee/acre.
***This does not reflect school children by dwelling unit type. Staff opinion is that
school enrollment would be less under this proposal than under existing zoning if that
factor were considered.
Staff recommends approval of this p~tition for the following reasons:
(1) The request substantially complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2)
The plan reflects the Self-support concept of a classic planned community through the
provision of a wide-range of land uses and housing densities and types. Internal em-
ployment and service is provided by the industrial and commercial areas.
(3) The plan favorably reflects County development policies. 0nly two access points to
the existing Public roads are proposed with buffering provided along existing and
proposed roads to minimize visual impact. Most notable is a development, setback of
one-fourth mile on scenic Route 20 South. Development would occur on the far side
of a ridge from Route 20 South, so visual impact to that road would be n~gligible.
Internally, residential development would occur on lesser roads and major roads
would not be stripped.
(4) Public, commercial and industrial areas are internally-oriented and convenient to
higher density residential areas. Access would be provided by a network of bike
and pedestrian trails in open space linkages as well as by road~
(5)
The plan calls for the abando ~rzment of the existing, unapproved central well system
in this area. Public water would be provided to all areas except the Farm Community.
This would reduce groundwater consumption by about 1.2 million gallons per month.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Approval is for 825 dwellings distributed as shown on Approved Plan 1. In the
final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number
of units approved;
(2)
Commercial development shall not exceed 60,000 square feet in retail area.
use approval is for:
Specific
~I~93M SQUARE FEET
Food shopping ( including meat dept. and produce ) . ~ ~ 2~0, O00 ~floo~area
RStail Service facilities (such as hardware, drugstore, dry cleaners, beauty shop,etc. )15,000 floor area
Gas .station (including service area) 15,000 site area
Bank ~l, 000 floor area
Restaurant 5,000 floor area
Professional Offices (including doctor, dentist, attorney, real estate, travel, etc.) 4,000 floor a~ea
gune 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(]-3)
Industrial sites shall be limited to existing areas of 10% slope or less. Not more
than 10 ~individual uses shall be permitted. Permitted uses shall be in accordance
with the following uses; provided that similar uses may be substituted without
amendment of the special use permit:
- Publishing and broadcasting establishments
- Office buildings
- Hospitals
- Research and development establishments
- Technical education
- Research and technical manufacturing and the~processing, fabrication, assembly and
distribution of products such as computers, scientific instruments, communication
and electronic equipment confined to "light" industrial products or components
- R~creation service uses of a non-commercial nature, limited to those for use of
employees whose work is done within the area~
- Cafeterias and dining ~ooms serving employees of on-site facilities, visiting
customers and other owner-authorized visitors, but not the general public
- Product sales areas for employees only, limited to four thousand (4,000) square
feet per employer
- Assembly of electrical appliances, electronic instruments and devices, radios, and
phonographs and the manufacture of small parts, such as coils, condensers, trans-
formers, and crystal holders~
- Laboratories -- pharmaceutical and/or medical
- Manufacture, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of such products as
dairy products, drugs, perfumes, ~harmaceat~ca~s, perfumed toilet soap, toiletries
and cosmetics
- Manufacture of musical instruments, toys, novelties, and rubber and metal stamps
- Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products, using only
previously pulverized clay, and kilns fired only by electricity or gas
- Office and business machines, sales and service
- Public utilities; poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related or similar
facilities; water and sewerage distribution lines
- Public utilities: unmanned telephone exchange centers
- Printing shops
- F~re stations and rescue squad stations
Approval of a special use permit in accordance with Section 9A-4-2 and approval by
appropriate state and local agencies of the dam structure and main lake shall be
obtained prior to any fCnal site Plan approval;
County Engineer approval of small'er ±mpoUn'dments and dams before construction of' the
same;
Final site plan approval shall conform tm the approved Transportation Analysi's Plan
for internal streets;
Dedication of the 30 acre public area to the County of Albemarle;
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas,
pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located shall be dis-
turbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state;
County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements;
No grading shall occur within any area of the site until final site plan approval for
that area has been obtained;
Highway Department approval of improvements to Routes 631 and 20 South and approval
of plans and specifications of those internal roads to be dedicated to public use;
Public sewer as approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority shall be required
for all industrial and commercial uses and for the Cluster Housing; provided that
interim means of sewage disposal, as approved by the Health Department, may be
employed only after written agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority. ftc
hook to public sewer when capacity is available;
Ail areas except the Farm Commumity shall be served by public water as approved by
the Albemarle County Service Authority.
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
272
6.
?.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
lB.
14.
Mr. Tucker sa~d the P~an~n~[LCmm~i~sion?~eld~two/work sessions on this special permit.
He also noted receipt of several letters from the public both for and against this P.U.D.
He then said the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to approve this special permit
subject to the following 16 conditions:
1.. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with Approved Plan 1. Approval
is for 825 dwellings distributed as shown on the pian. In the final site plan and
subdivision pla~ approval process, open space shall be dedicated as such in proportion
to the developed area at a ratio of one acre of open space to each two acres of
developed area.
2. As recommended by the staff. ·
3. Strike first sentence. Remainder of paragraph as recommended by the staff.
4. Approval of a special use permit in accordance with Section 9A-4-2 and approval by
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies of the dam structure and main lake shall
be obtained prior to construction of dam and/or grading of lake bed.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
As recommended by the staff.
~ounty Engineer approval of grading and site work on slopes of 15% or greater; provided
that not more than 25% of the land area of such slopes shall be graded on any individual
site.
15. The following shall serve only as a general phasing guideline for the development of
Biscuit Run Planned Community:
Phase I: Planning/commencement of proposed lakes; commencement ~g~farm community;
dedication of rights-of-way to public use on Routes 631 and 20 South in accordance
with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation functional plan; con-
struction of entrance connection to Route 631 to its ultimate design.
Phase II: Initial development of residential areas in northeast corner 6f development;
development of portions of research park, village, and cluster areas; construction of
entrance connection to Route 20 South to its ultimate design.
Phase III: Completion of state road down eastern area of the development through farm
community; completion of~ research 'park, village, and cluster area; develoPment of
balance of eastern area of development; completion of all internal roads except north-
west corner and connector rca'ds to ult'imate design standards as per Transportation
Analysis Plan (Approved Plan 2).
Phase IV: Development of northwest corner; completion of all internal roads in
accordance with Approved Plan 2 (Transportation Analysis Plan); completion of construc-
tion on Route 631 north of the connector road entrance in accordance with the Virginia
Department of Highways and Tranlsportation functional cl~ssification plan; completion of
dam for main lake.
16. Access to the public property shall be provided to the major collector and the area of
Oak Hill on demand by the 'County of Albemarle, with a minimum right-of-way width of
50 feet.
Mr. Tucker then answered questions of Board members, which were strictly points of
clarification on the staff report.
Mr. Stan Tatum, representing the applicant was first to speak in the public hearing.
He said the Planned Community would ~ self-sufficient, and that the plans, as presented to
the Board, are well laid out and reasonable.
Mr. Bosley Crowther, reviewed the layout of the community, and the lot sizes in each
section, as well as roads and sewage treatment facilities. He stated that his community
would be energy efficient both in architecture as well as in the facilities contained
within the community. I .....
Ms. Jeanne M. Davis read the following letter to the Board:
June 6, 1978
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Gentlemen'
Re: Biscuit Run PUD
?_.?3
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Among other benefits of Planned Unit Developments are the following.
Traffic generated by a given number of houses has less impact on local high-
ways than the same number of houses in other types of growth beca~use the traffic
is in large part kept within the PUD.
Fewer streets are built, thus saving natu~at resources and money. Also,
the land not paved remains open so that rainwater can replenish groundwater
supplies, rather than running off.
By concentrating housing, rather than spreading it across the land in 2-acre
or larger lots, school bus routes are shorter, thus saving gasoline and its cost.
Utility lines--water, sewer, electric, and telephone--are shorter, thus
saving resources.
ReCreation space and facilities are available within the PUD, thereby
reducing demand for more county facilities.
Open land areas saved by grouping the housing, shopping, and industrial
areas within the PUD are used as buffers within the PUD and between the PUD and
surroun~;ing areas, thereby keeping the a~pearance of the land in a more natural
state than is possible by other types of development.
The proposed Biscuit Run Planned Unit Development is, in my opinion, well planned
and exceptionally well located.
If I can be of assistance to the Board of Supervisors in answering questions con~
cerning Planned Unit Developments or other planning or natural-resource related
questions within my areas of competence, please call me.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Jeanne M. Davis, A.I.P.
The following speakers all spoke in opposition to the proposed community:
Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, representing Dr. Charles Beegle, owner of Brookhill on Route 20
opposite this proposed project. He said that to approve this community would be to extend
the urban area of the County by 1,600 acres, which is the opposi~ of what the Comprehensive
Plan recommends. He further noted that the highways leading to the P.U.D. are not adequate
to handle tremendous additional volumes of traffic, plus the fact there are inadequate
shapping facilities in that area of the County. He finally brought the Board's attention
to a decision on another special permit (Whittington ZMA 77-18) where the Board said no
public water would be run to that area and that wells and septic systems would have to be
used. He said the precedent has been set, and requested the Board to stick to their
earlier decisions in the case' of Biscuit Run.
Mrs. Barbara Booker felt this P.U.D. would only destroy the count~yatmosphere presently
in the area.
Mr. Edward Waple said he agreed with Mr. Rasmussen in that he did not want to see
urban sprawl in this area.
Mr. Butch Houchens said he was most concerned about the pollution which would be
caused by the denser population. Also he would like to see a denser buffer zone between
the P.U.D. and the roadside.
br. Charles Beegle said he is an adjacent land owner, and he felt if this special
permit is~approved, it will mark the end of country life in that community. He noted the
problem of water to serve the community, and also the fact that runoff from this area
would effect wildlife surrounding Lake Reynovia. He concluded by presenting to the Board
a petition with 80 signatures 'of persons stating their opposition to the proposed rezoning
for special permit 78-15.
Ms. Marion Ross suggested the developer consider an alternative entrance to his
proposed community in order to save the integrity of the scenic highway (Route' 20 South).
Ms. Lois Harrington again mentioned the traffic problem and hazardous road conditions.
She also said further competition to the Charlottesville shopping community would cause
the downtown area of the City to deteriorate.
Mr. Charles Yost asked how this land would be taxed. Mr. St. John said as soon as
the land is rezoned, the tax assessment changes accordingly.
Mr. Crowther reiterated his points for the community, saying that the proposed lake
would provide-recreation as well as flood control; he would be developing the area in an
orderly way.
Mr. Rasmussen restated his points that there is not sufficient ground water to support
even the maximum development allowed under A-1 zoning. He also stated that if the Board
approves this development, then anyone in the area who also applies for such development
on their property cannot be denied.
At 9:25 P.M. Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. Meeting was reconvened at 9:35 P.M.
Board members first discussed the possibility of wastewater running into the Lake
Reynovia watershed. Mr. Agnor said before any plan is approved, the County Engineer would
have to approve any dam or water siltation structure. Mr. Tucker ~said when the finaI site
is received for approval, it may display the fact that no wa~tewater will run toward the
Lake Reynovia basin.
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
274
Dr. Iachetta asked if it were possible for industrial development to take place on
this property before any type of wastewater treatment plant is set up. Mr. Agnor said .if
some industrial development occurred before a treatment plant is built,~me~.~eC~.d ~c
by~o£ ~.me~m,~ ~s~~t ~o~t~ industrial waste. Mr. Roudabush commented that a "package
wastewater treatment plant" would require an additional special permit.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Crowther would be willing to donate additional land for the
use of fire protection facilities. Mr. Crowther said he would be willing to donate as
much as three acres for fire, police and rescue squad protection.
Discussion then centered around Route 631, with the possibility of changing the propos-
ed entrance to the development, possibly widening R~ute 20 rather than four-laning Route
631, and the six-year plan of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportations for
road development in the area. Mr. Dorrier expressed his concern about four-laning Route 20
because i~ is designated a scenic highway, also the possibility of placing a traffic light
on Route 20, and the possibility of having as many as 18,000 cars a day traveling that
road. He said if the development were less dense, he would have less difficulty~in voting
in favor because it would bett~r blend with the surrounding communities. He concluded by
saying that he would favor the development because of the respect Mr. Crowther has shown
the environment in his development plan. Mr. Fisher referred to the Comprehensive Plan,
saying that he could find nothing to support commercial or industrial uses in this area.
He also noted that the industrial acreage of the proposed plan is significantly larger than
required to support its own proposed population, and he felt it could become a major
industrial area and this should be carefully considered.
Dr. Iachetta brought up the matter of taxes. He asked if the proposed tax base of
the planned development would be sufficient to balance the increased expenditures to the
County in the area of additional services (i.e. schools, police, fire department, etc.).
Mr. Lindstrom suggested the planning staff or finance staff do an analysis of this
situation before any vote is made by the Board.
Following some further discussion by Board members regarding the highway problems
involved, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer this request to June 21, 1978, at
3:00 P.M. in the County Office Building Baard Room, and that a ~epresentative of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be present at that meeting to discuss
roads in and around this planned community. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78-22. Great Eastern Management Company, Inc. To locate a
315 multi-family apartment complex along with 8,000 square feet of professional office
space and 29 individual lots on 21.61 acres zoned R-3. Property located just west of the
City line between Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads adjacent to Westgate and Solomon Court
properties. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County planning staff's report:
Request:
To locate the following on a 21.6+ acre parce%:
315 multi-family dwelling units o~ 12.6+ acres;60 dwelling units on 29 lots -
7.6+ acres;8000 sq. ft. of professional--office space - 1.'4~ acres pursuant to
Sect--ion 6-1-21(10)
Please note that this request includes sections already approved as noted
Delow under "History"
Acreage: 21.6+ acres
Zoning: R-3 Residential ..
Location: West of the City ~line~,i bet[~ele~ Geo'r.ge~own' and Hydraulic Roa~s, behind and
adjacent to the existing ~We.s~'gate. and Solb,mon' Court ~par'tment's'..
History
The Planning Commission has recently approved the following development on the subject
property:
--Westgate IV Apartments; 68 dwelling units and a professional office building with
8000 square feet of new office space
--Solomon Court III Apartments; 24 dwelling units
Character of the Area
Along Hydraulic R~ad (east sire) the property is generally bounded by apartment develop-
ment (Solomon Court) with the exception of one s~ngle-family dwelling. Along Georgetown
Road (west side) the property is generally bounded by vacant lots with the exception of
two single-family dw~llings. Along the Benningto~ Road and Solomon Road side (south) the
property is bounded by single-family development.
Comprehensive Plan
The plan calls for high density residential uses for this quadrant of Hydraulic Road and
Georgetown Road.
Site Characteristics
The sUbject property is generally wood.ed with rolling terrain. The property drains in a
southerly direction and special attention will have to be given to drainage problems along
the southern and of the property at the site plan or subdivision stage. The property has
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
access from Hydraulic Road, Georgetown Road and from B~nnington Road. There is an exist-
ing residence on the site which is slated to be a clubhouse for the recreational facilities.
Comparative Impact Statistics
Acreage
Total number of du's
Overall Gross density
Total number of Vehicle Trips/day
School Enrollment
Elementary (K-5)
Middle (6-8)
Senior (9-12)
Total
Present zoning
R-3 (20 du's/acre)
Applicant's Proposal
21.6+ 21.6+
432 375
20 du/acre 17.36 du/acre
3024 v.p.d. 2625 v.p.d.
81.65 77.18
43.20 41.28
48.82 47.24
173.67 165.70
Traffic. Generation
315 Multi-family
2205 v.p.d.
29 lots (60 du's)
420 v.p.d.
Total
2--~25 v.p.d,
Total traffic generated: 375 dwelling units and 8000 square feet office
2625 v.p.d. + 83 v.p.dp = 2708
1976
*1978~ Estimate
Projected Traffic (SP-78-22)
Total
Hydraulic Rd.
6 22! v.p.d.
6950+ v.p.d.
644~ v.p.d.
7594~ v.p.d.
Georgetown Rd.
3488+ v.p.d.
3770+ v.p.d.
1644~ v.p.d.
5331+ v.p.d.
Bennlngton Rd.
113+ v.p.d.
113+ v.p.d.
420~ v.p.d.
533+ v.p.d.
*Assumes a 4% yearly increase
Staff Comment
The applicant indicates that if he cannot obtain other access to the 60 dwelling units on
29 lots, he proposes that their sole access be by way of Bennington Road. Of the remain-
ing 315 dwelling units, 68 will have access through the existing Westgate development (as
approved), 24 will have access through the existing Solomon Court development (as approved),
and the remaining 223 dwelling units would have access from Georgetown Road.
Present zoning of this site will allow the developer to build 432 dwelling units. In this
sense, the applicant's proposal is actually a reduction of the overall intensity of develop-
ment. However, the intensity of development of the property not to be subdivided will be
higher with a density of 22.5 du/acre and will also have a professional office building.
As of the time of this writing, the applicant has not indicated a desire to subdivide the
part of this parcel on which the offices are located; therefore, the density computations
reflect the acreage of the office site.
The staff's main concerns are the following:
--The d~ainage impact of this site on downstream facilities should be studied and
improvements required where necessary.
--Bennington Road must not be burdened by more traffic than it was designed to handle.
If additional traffic is to use Bennington Road as its primary access, then improve-
ments should be considered as well as their impact on the existing neighborhood.
--Access facilities from Georgetown Road should be adequate to handle the projected
additional traffic. Entrance requirements should include on-site as well as off-site
improvements sufficient to accommodate the increase in traffic from this site.
Staff Opinion
The staff feels that this property would be best developed by designing a residential complex
which would offer transitional development between the existing neighborhoods and the high
density apartments. Townhouses, duplexes, or patio houses would make good transitional
development.
The high density apartments should be located in a central location with the recreational
facilities at the top of the hill near the entrance off Georgetown Road. The staff also
feels that critical slopes and drainage s~ales should be left in their present state and
that all the units should be sited to minimize the impact on existing vegetation. Finally,
the staff feels that the adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhoods could be minimized
by orienting the entire project toward a central location with all new development having
access exclusively from Georgetown Road. This position is supported by comments of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation which follow~,~
Staff Recommendation
Staff opinion is that this application is supportable given that the above three concerns
are satisfied. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this request, the staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Site Plan approval;
County Engineering Department approval of adequate on-site and off-site drainage
facilities;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and
adequate dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along the Route 656 frontage;
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
e
Ail proposed r~sidential development, other than those sections already approved,
is to have access directly from Route 656 only.
April 28, 1978
County of Albemarle
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
SP-78-22
Westgate Apartments
Route 656
Albemarle County
Attention: Mr. Ron S. Keeler
Dear Mr. Keeler:
The County and the Department have recognized the already existing need to
improve Georgetown Road as is witnessed by its inclusion i~ the recently adopt-
ed Six Year Plan. The above mentioned complex as proposed will place an
additional 2,300 vehicles per day on Georgetown Road not including trips generated
~_~ by the professional office space.
Also proposed is 60 units which would have access to Bennington Road. This
would comprise an additional 430 vehicles entering the end of Bennington Road
which would greatly overstress its designed capacity. The design capacity for
this road being 250 vehicles per day, t'he Department recommends that these 60
units be rerouted such that their access is also to Georgetown Road with only
an emergency access, if any, to Bennington Road.
In view of the impact which this development could place on the existing
facilities, we would recommend the dedication of right ,of way along Georgetown
Road for its entire frontage along with development of a proper commercial
entrance. It is estimated that a minimum of 60 feet of right of way would be
needed for the proposed improvement to Georgetown Road. This would accommodate
four (4) 12 foot lanes on a curb and gutter section with sidewalk space for one
side only. That right of way should be centered about the existing Georgetown
Road through this property.
If you should have any questions, please advise.
Very truly ~urs,
(Signed) W. B. Coburn, Jr.
Assist. Resident Engineer
May 2, 1978
SP-78-22
Connty of Albemarle
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Attmntion: Mr. Carlos Montenegro
Dear Mr. Montenegro:
In reference to your questions of May 1st, 1978, it would appear based on
1976 Traffic Counts on Ben'nington Road (Route 1407) that 18 additional dwelling
units could have access tm Rou'te 1407 without overloading its designed pavement
capacity which is 25.0 veh~c, leS per day. The pavement width 'on' this road ~s.-24
feet. If additional units were to utilize Bennington Road it would be difficult
to determine their path beyond the intersection of Inglewood Drive (Route 1411).
If the other 42 units proposed for access to Bennington Road were to be
approved, we would recommend that Bennington Road be improYed to the appropriate
standards.
If you have any further questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) W. B. Coburn, Jr.
Asst. Resident Engineer
Applicant's Revised Proposal
On Thursday evening, May 25, 1978, the applicant, members of the area homeownerF~s associa-
tion, and a staff member met to discuss a revised "compromise" BFoposal submitted by the
applicant.
The revised proposal calls for the development of 22 residential lots with 34 dwelling
units, all of which would have access by way of Bennington Road. Of the 12 lots that back
up to the existing Bennington Court and Solomon Road development, two will have duplexes
or single-family attached units (numbers I and 12). Of the remaining 10 lots, number 13
will h~ve a quadraplex, number 20 a triplex, and the other eight will have duplexes or
single-family detached units.
The applicant also proposes a further addition to the Solomon Court apartment complex of
24 units. These units would have access from both the existing development and from Solomon
Road by way of Berkshire Road. Therefore, the applicant's proposal now consists of 34
dwelling units on 6.45+ acres, and 341 dwelling units on the residue of 15.15+ acres. The
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
The roadway proposed for the subdivision is a State Secondary road, 20 feet wide on a 40
foot right-of-way. The road will not have gutter, curbing, nor sidewalks.
Impact Statistics (Revised Proposal)
Ail ~igures presented in the May 9, 1978 Staff Report are the same with the following
exceptions:
School Enrollment: R-3 (20 du's/acre) Revised ?'roposal
Elementary 81.65 76.013
Middle 43.20 40.767
Senior 48.82 45.947
TOTAL 173.~67 162.727
Traffic Generation:
341 Multi-family
2,387 v.p.d
22 lots (34 du's)
238 v.p.d.
8,000 sq.ft, office
83 v.p.d.
Total
2,708 v.p.d.
Hydraulic Road
6,422+ vpd (1976 count)
'6,95~ vpd (1978 estimate)
Projected Traffic SP-78-22 812~ vpd
7,762+ vpd (TOTAL)
Georgetown Road
3,488+ vpd
*3,7707 vpd
1,575~ vpd
5,345~ vpd
Bennington Road (from Inglewood
to north end
113+ vpd
'1137 vpd
2387 vpd
351 vpd
*Assumes a 4% Yearly increase
Staff Comment:
A point that needs to be clarified is the impact additional traffic will have on the stretch
of Bennington Road between Inglewood and Barracks Road. This stretch presently handles
between 420 and 698 vehicle trips per day. Staff opinion is that when the roadway network
of Hydraulic Road, Georgetown Road, and Barracks Road is upgraded, including the improve-
ment of the intersections, then the majority of this local traffic will chose to enter the
area at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Inglewood.
Staff Opinion:
The staff feels that the optimal way to develop this property was recommended in the May 9th
Staff Repprt i.e., all units oriented toward and having access from Georgetown Road. How-
ever, the staff recognizes that Bennington Road is a residential street and feels that
additional residential traffic could be tolerated given that the roadway meets State re-
quirements for width and depth, and given that the additional traffic will not be of such
quality or quantity as to adversely affect the existing development.
With regard to the 24 apartment units proposed as an addition to the Solomon Court apart-
ments, the staff feels that the Planning Commission should approve only the increase in
gross density. The staff supports neither the layout of the units nor the proposed access
from Berkshire Road.
Mr. Tucker also noted that the Planning Co'mmission, on May 30, 1978, voted unanimously
to approve the petition with the following four conditions:
1. Site plan approval;
County Engineering Department approval of adequate on-site and off-site
drainage facilities;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access
facilities and adequate dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along the
Route 656 frontage, including increasing the payement depth of the existing
Bennington Road to satisfy Category II specifications from Inglewood Drive
to the end of the cul-de-sac;
This site plan is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided
that 34 of these units shall be located on Bennington Road extended, with
lots 1-12 and 22-27 developed as single-family dwelling units, and lots
13-21 to be developed as single-family and 2-family dwelling units with a
maximum of seven 2-family dwelling units as shown on plan dated 5/30/78
and initialled "R.W.T."
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Tucker if the developer planned to install sidewalks. Mr. Tucker
said that was something that would be required in the site plan stage of approval, not the
Special Permit.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin representing the Great Eastern Management Company summarized the plans
of the Great Eastern Management Company, and made special note that they did p~an to extend
Bennington Road with a 40-foot right-of-way, the same as the existing road all the way to
Hessian Hills. He added that they did not anticipate building sidewalks in this development.
He concluded by saying that the present plan is the absolute minimum they can present from
an economical standpoint.
Mr. William S~evens said he is the realtor/advisor for the Mowinckel property. He
reviewed the history of the property and said he felt it is only fair that this estate be
settled for the maximum allowed under the present zoning.
Mr. Dick Johnson said he objected to the fact that the lots are so narrow that it will
not allow for off-street or even on-street parking. He voiced concern over the extension of
Bennington Road, and suggested fewer homes be built on the land.
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
278
Mr. Patrick Bird, a resident of Bennington Road, said he would like to see fewer homes
planned for the property. Also, if it is allowed to develop as proposed, it will lower the
assessed value of established homes by about 10%.
Ms. Peggy Bird urged the Board to deny this request as it did not blend with the
present neighborhoods.
Mr. Dave O'Brien of Bennington Road said the proposed plan is about double the present
density of Bennington Road. He said it ~s not in character with the presently developed
properties.
Mr. Doug Howard of Solomon Road said he felt Great Eastern Management was making a
great effort to satisfy all involved and recommended its approval.
Mr. Robert Whaley of Solomon Court said he supported the proposed plan.
Mr. Ed White said if other roads in the area are improved it will solve many road
problems on Solomon Road.
Mr. Charles Fry of Bennington Road said he supported the proposed plan because it
proposed less of a direct threat to his own property.
Mr. Marshall Shumsky of Bennington Road said there must be some way to develop a plan
which will be suitable to all and still keep the integrity of the neighborhood intact.
Ms. Gay Johnson Blair, a resident of Georgetown Road, said she was very concerned
about the additional traffic this will create, especially on GeorgetoWn Road, which is
already a main thoroughfare.
Mr. Bill Pleasants said if this plan is compared to the absolute maximum possible
(allowing 432 apartments), this is definitely the best plan.
Mr. Don Wagner, a principle of the Great Eastern Management Company, said he lives on
Solomon Road and has a personal as well as financial interest in this project.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hear-
ing closed. Dr. Iachetta said he had met With the Great Eastern Management people, and
did feel they were making an honest effort to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. He
asked if there is any way to have single-family homes on all the lots instead of mixed
with duplexes. Mr. Rotgin said he did not think a single-family home would se~l where it
backs up directly to the Westgate Apartment complex, and this is the area where the
duplexes are proposed.
Mr. Lindstrom said the land is already zoned R-3, and if the developer wishes to build
432 apartments on the property, it is his use by right. He said he felt they were doing
their best to accommodate the other property owners.
Mr. Roudabush suggested the possibility of townhouse units as a transition between the
apartments and the single-family homes.
At this point, Mr. Henley offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
At 12:44 A.M., Mr. Fisher declared a two minute recess.
12:50 A.M.
Meeting was. reconvened at
Mr. Lindstrom offered an amendment to Mr. Henley's motion as follows: Change condition
number four to read as presently shown with an additional sentence--"In the alternative, the
area proposed for subdivision on said plat may provide for townhOuses, having an exit only
onto Georgetown Road". (Definition of townhouses as shown in the Zoning Ordinance.)
Dr. Iachetta then offered a .substitute motion (saying due 'to the' lateness of the hour,
rather than impose conditions which are impossible for the developer to meet) that the
Board defer final action on this petition until Wednesday, June 14, 1~78. Mr. Henley then
withdrew his original motion. The substitute motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-78-06. Leroy R. Hamlett, Jr. and Thomas J. Michie, Jr. To
rezone just under five acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property known as
Lot 15, Greenfield Subdivision, is located on Route 631 (Rio Road). County Tax Map 45H,
Parcel 15, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31
1978.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the County planning staff's report,
Requested Zoning: B-1 General Business
Acreage: Approximately one-quarter acre
Existing. Zoning: R-2 Residential
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45H, Parcel 15, is located at the
Intersection of Rio Road and Greenfield Court.
Character of the Area
WWW Electronics is located on this property. To the northwest is the Rio West
office complex. A dance school and multi-family dwelling are to the southeast
and a mobile home park is to the rear of the property. Property directly across
Rio Road is undeveloped, with Charlottesville Hardware toward Route 29 North.
279
June 7, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density residential use in this area.
While the plan currently does not recognize the existing CO and B-1 zoning
adjacent to the property, Neighborhood Committee I has recommended that exist-
ing conforming uses be recognized.
Staff Comment
This request is sought for the purposes of refinancing. While staff supports
this rezoning request for B-i, since it compiles with adjacent zoning, staff
notes that the B-1 designation does not bring WWW Electronics into compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance. (WWW Electronics is an "original equipment manu-
facturer'' of printed circuit boards and does assembly work for Sperry and
Stromberg-Carlson.)
Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission on May 9, 1978, recommended approval
of this rezoning by a vote of 7-0, with one abstention.
Mr. Don Wright, the principal owner, said he wished the rezoning only to protect his
investment, which is presently a non-conforming use.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission and approve ZMA-78-06. The motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-78-21. George S. Howard. For a Home Occupation Class B on 200
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property known as Red Brook is located on northwest side of
Route 627 on east slope of Carter's Mountain approximately 10 miles southwest of Charlottes-
ville. County Tax Map 102, Parcel 36 and 37A, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County planning staff's report:
Character of the Area
All property in vicinity of the site is in tracts of greater than 50 acres.
The closest dwelling is about one-half mile away. Route 627 is a gravel road.
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to operate a cabinetry shop in an existing out-building.
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Compliance with requirements of Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation: Class B;
2. Staff approval of site plan.
Mr. Tucker said the' Planning commiasion recommended unanimously appr~oval with 'the
staff's two conditions.
Mrs. George Howard was present and said her husband planned to use an existing structure
for his business. Mr. Fisher asked if she would have any objection to a third condition
limiting the use to only the requested site. Mrs. Howard said there were no objections to
this.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-78-21 with
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, adding #3 to read.: "The use will be
limited to a building presently located on the site; as requested". Roll was called and
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment: Watershed Management Committee. Mr. Fisher said due
to the lateness of the hour, this item would be carried over to the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8. Clarification:
lying in watershed areas of the County.
to the next meeting.
Resolution for downzoning of County properties
Mr. Fisher recommended this item be carried over
Agenda Item No. 7. Executive Session: Land Acquisition. Motion was offered by Mr.
Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to enter into executive session for the purpose of
discussion of land acquisition. At 1:10 A.M. roll was called, and motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
· h~ Rn~ ~aomvemed ~nto omen session at 1:25 A.M.
June 77 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9.
to adjourn the meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
~/~hairman