1977-05-16May_ i6, 1977 (Adjourned from I~a~ !!, 1977)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 16, 1977 at 7:30 P. M. at Jack Jouett School, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting
being adjourned from May !1, 1977. This was a joint public hearing with the Board of
Supervisors and the Albemarle County Planning Commission of the adoption of a revised Compre-
hensive Plan. Notice of this public hearing -was advertised in The Daily Progress on May 2
and ~ay 9, 1977.
Present: Mrs. Opal D~David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and Wo S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
officers present: county Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St®
John; and County P!anner~ Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Planning Commission Members present: Mrs. Joan Gra~es and Messrso W. Roy Barksdate, Pete
Easter~ David Carr, Paul Peatross and William Washington.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chai~an, Mr. Fisher who
introduced the Chairman of the Planning Commission~ Mr. David Carro
Agenda item No. 2.
rated.
IntroductiOn of consultants Kamstra Dickerson and Associates incorpo-
Mr. Tucker presented Mr. Beckham W. Dickerson and Mr. Bruce A. Drenning, Jr., the two
project planners who worked on this update of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Drenning
then proceeded with the presentation ~o the public. He said this is not a totally new plan,
but a revision of the 1971 plan. This has been printed in a newspaper format to save costs
and to make copies more readily available to the general public. ~ne process of revising the
Comprehensive Plan beqan about a year ago with what were called "You Tell Us~' meetings. ~ft~
those meetings, a joint steering committee of Board Members and Planning Commission Members
was formed. Then a citizen's advisory panel of eighteen people was formed. The people on
this panel represented divergent views and different geological areas of the county. A lot
information in the 1971 plan was outdated such as population and economic projections~ Work
was done on evaluating the county's failures and successes in following the 1971 plan. ~e
g~ais and objectives stated in the 1971 plan were e×amine~ and new maps ~ere prepared.. In
general, there is substantially more detail in this new plan because land use decisions made
by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission are subjected to more scrutiny in
court and subject to more guestions from citizens and citizen groups. The goals in the !971
plan were carried forward to this new plan intact, but the objectives were changed considera~
in order to be more precise and to orient to something the county can accomplish in a shorter
period of time~ After adoption of this revised plan, a land use management package will be
dsveloped consisting of a five~year capital improvement program and procedures for the Board
and. the Planning Commission to use in periodically evaluating the plan~ Included in the use
management package will be basic recommendations concerning changes in land use regulations
the county might make to implement recommendations 6f the comprehensive plan.
Following review of background materials, the consultants evaluated the performance of th
1971 plan. The county has not grown as fast as was estimated in that plan so there was not
full achievement in the time span between 1971 and !976.~ Economic projections of the
!971 plan were closer to base in terms~of employment income levels. The 1971 plan was dra%~n
to encourage most of the gro%~h in the urban area, seven communities, and fourteen villages.
~ile the 197i plan did not specifically address fiscal considerations, the consultants felt
that some of the goals and objectives implied these considerations. There was not a rapid
rate of gro%~ch in any of the areas of population employment or sc~qool enrollment. There was
less than a 25 per cent increase in those figures over this five-year period~ in contrast,
many fiscal indicators, such as total operating expenditures, outstanding debts and school
expenditures outpaced the gro-~th. This indicates that it is more than just the addition of
new people that affects the fiscal situation.
Between 1975 and 1980, it is expected that the county wiil grow by 6,000 people or
approximately what was e×pe~enced in the first half of the 1970's. As utilities and facilit
become available, that rate will accelerate up to about 12,000 persons per decade. These
population figures were turned into land uses beginning with housing. The consultants took
an increase of about I~,000 new housing units, and distributed these by types of housing
it is expected, that about 10,000 single-family houses and townhouse units will be needed.
Converting the housing projections into how much land will be used up, it is estimated that
approximately 8,300 acres of land will be needed, to provide for new residences.
After basic land demands were established, the principles and guidelines to be used to
accommodate some of these land uses were studied. For this, the county's goals and obi
were relied on; such as lower density development on slopes. Another area of importance is
where potential residential sites in the County should be located. Sites were chosen based
on orientation to transportation and the presence of public water and sewer facilities. The
standards of land use are essentially the same as those recommended in the 1971 plan; in
other words, urban area, communities, ~lages, with some rural development~ Part of the pla
was developed to retain scenic and. natural beauty.
After establishing standards and land use planning elements dealing with each ofthe land
uses, proposals are made as to what should happens>on the land. ~qe largest area proposed is
the urban~area; followed by two communities, one in Crozet and one in Hollymead, and then
the villages of Earlysville, Stony Point, Keswick, Nix, Scottsvi!le, Esmont, Crossroads and.
Ivy. This was done to show that the County preferred, the location of development in villages
rather than scattering development over the County. It is recommended that villages be
compact, and that roughly one-half a mile from the center of the village should be as far as
the limit extends.
For the community of Crozet, different patterns of land use are sho~. Also shown is a
proposed impoundment of ~i~kinghole watershed to act as a sediment and storm water contral
device and hopefully to keep water out of the upper watershed which drains eventually to the
1977 (Adjourned from May 1!, 1977)
South Fork Rivanna RiVer Reservoir°
The second, community called. Hollymead was called the North Rivanna community in the
1971 plan. This was changed at the suggestion of the Citizen's Stee~i~g Committee. ~ere
are major changes from the 1971 plan for this community. It is also ~roposed that all
residential development be kept on the east side of Route 29, keeping the west side for com-
mercial and industrial uses.
In the urban area around Charlottesville, natural boundaries were stressed to contain
the urban area so it does not sprawl out along transportation corridors. Stream valleys,
major ridges and valleys that adjoin this area, wherever possible, were used to define the
area. However, there are places where there are no natural boundaries. In these areas, the
County will have to pay particular attention to containing gro~h since there is not the same
rationale to contain gro~h as ~en there are natural boundaries. ?he land~!~use plan for the
urban area has its basis in the neighborhoo~ concept. These neighborhoods show a variety of
densities from low to high, with commercial areas, and in some cases, employment areas,
neighborhood centers and parks for each neighborhood.
~The plan for the rural area shows c~itical slopes, agricultural areas, conservation area
~5i~ streams and rivers and other rural lands, Out of an expected growth of 40,000 persons
in the next twenty years, it is suggested that the County should try and_ restrict rural gro~
to about 5,000 people, in order to make concentrated development areas, there must be public
facilities. The consultants recommend that the Ivy area not be developed or served by sewers
because this WOuld be a reason for growth to sprawl westwar~ from the urban area and there
would be no way to control that type of development.
The consultants also show transportation improvements which they feel are necessary 'to
implement the plan. Some improvements are needed to get westbound traffic to !-6~. Without
these improvements, people will have a tendsncy to travel back and forth on Route 250 West
between Charlottesville and Crozeto To avoid this tendency~ it is proposed that Routes 240
and Route 250 in Crozet be improved to allow better access to !-64 at the Yancey's Mill inter-
change. ~mprovements are needed to Route 637 as another route to the Interstate at ~vy and o~
nest Ni× in the eastern part of the county to get to Route 250 East~ Sho%~ in the plan is th~
realignment of Route 631 south of Charlottesville. This ~wouid be a significant improvement i~
serving a portion of the urban area. There are major problems in the Route 29 North corridor.
Route 29 is at capacity and. sometimes overcapacityo Anticipating a~ increase in future traffJ
as Hollymead develops, it is recommended that two lanes be constructed, in the median of Route
29 North to provide additional capacity. ~ne other, major improvement recommended isa !imite~
access highway beginning at the ~oute 250 Bypass and Hydraulic Road in the City, going north
crossing Route 29 North. just north of the Rio Road intersection, then going on the west side
of Route 29 North to serve the Hollymead~ area and. tie in, with the road from Earlysville. it
is felt that this is a critical transportation improvement. The consultants recommend that
the County move to stimulate the Virginia Department of Highways andTransportation to try an~
secure the alignment for this improvement.
At this time, Mr. Drenning'concluded his presentation.
Agenda Item No. 4. Comments from Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Members.
Dr. lachetta asked, why the route just described was chosen for the limited access highwa
from Hollymead to the urban area. He felt a better route would be to use Route 6~9 heading
east from the Airport intersection, crossing the railroad, at Proffit community, and traveling
do%~ the east side of the railroad and intersecting Rio Road at the Vocational Technical Cent~
He said this route would channel traffic out of the Hollymead area south and interrupt fewer
existing neighborhoods. It would also avoid the necessity of an unsightly overpass at Rio Ro~
and Route 29 North. It is a shorter route and would cost less per mile to.build.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the number of housing units that will be required during the plan-
ning period takes into account the nu~er of replacement units that may be necessary..~ Mr.
Drenning said yes.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the gro%~h proposed for the seven village areas is predicated upon
there being public water and sewer available in those areas. Mr. Drenning said in most cases
no. In the 1971 plan the villages were proposed t° be served by some type of small, independ~
sewer treatment system~and a public water system. Since that plan was drafted., theState Wat~
Control Board required that th~s area go to an advanced waste~ater treatment plant. It is
envisioned that the densities in most of these villages would be very low and. they will be
dependent on individual wells or common wells and septic systems; except for Scottsville.
Mr. Dorrier n~ted the lack of industrial sites in the southern part of the County. He said
there has been concern expressed that %fnite this part of the County does not want any signifi¢
development, there is room for at least another employer to help hold people in that part of
the County. Mr. Drenning said they relied heavily on existing water, existing sewer an~ the
presence of a major road in selecting potential industrial sites° Based on this criteria the~
did not feel that Scottsville was a major attraction for this kind of development. Mr. Dorri~
noted, the fact that the Town of Scottsvilte has now been designated as both a State and
national historical landmark and he felt that this fact should be noted in the plan.
Mr. Paul Peatross, a member of the Planning Commission, asked if the consultants had tak~
into con.~ideration the fact that the Highway Department said there is no money available to
build the proposed limited access road. He asked how fast the road must be built to support
the Hollymead community once it is designated and developing° Mr. Drenning said the develope~
will have a significant responsibility as far as internal distribution of traffic in Hol!ymea~
The PUD ~lan for Hollymead has aiready been approved as far as zoning and the number of housi~
units. Since Hollymead is already developing, something will have to be done to make it work..
Mr. Peter E~ster, a member of the Planning Commission, noted a chart on page 32 of the ~
plan which showea, that between 1960 and 1969, 68 percent of the people settled in the urban
areas and 31 percent in the'rural areas. From 1973 to 1975, this trend came close to reversin
itself. This plan proposes that these figures be reduced, to 13 percent for the rural area an~
87 percent in the villages, communities and urban area. Even though this is a worthwhile goal
he felt it will be hard to get people to do this because many people want to move into the
~nt
May 16, 1977 (Adjourned from May !1, 1977)
rural areas. Mr. Dickerson said what the consultants are proposing is that development go
back to ~at it was in the 60 to 69 period. He agrees with ~. Easter's concern and thinks
it will take some diligence to turn these distribution figures around.
Agenda Item No. 5. Comments from Citizen's Advisory Panel. Mr. Cart said he would like
to publicly thank all the individuals that participatd in the work of this panel.
Mr. Leigh Middleditch said there was one issue he %~nted todiscuss whicln he hoped
not be overlooked in the future. He felt some consideration should-~be given on how to handle
changed conditions. One problem of the 71 plan, was that the projections with respect to
population were significantly in error and. it did not take five or six years to identify that
Problem. Mr. Middleditch felt that citizens can provide more assistance when developing the
land use management package. Mr. Middleditch said one point that should hot be overlooked is
that the County will have to come to grips with the future availability of water. The Betz
study is about completed and he suggested that after the Betz report is received,.if it is
determined that there is need for another w~ter supply, an area should be identified so steps
can be taken to preserve that area for future use.
~r. Fisher said the question of how to handle changed conditions is one question the
County has the power to do something about. A review of t~e Comprehensive Plan could have
been done four years ago if the Board had. so wanted. The question of water supplies for the
future is a significant problem. It normally takes ten years from the time planning is
until the time when water production is begun.
Mr. Fred Scott, Jr. said this revised planlis a substantial improvement over the 71
.~his plan contains a lot of raw data and other information about the character of A!bemarle~
Statistics such as population, employment, sewer and water capacity, are provided. ~e felt
the new and modified goals and objectives of this plan~are an area of major importance. This
importance will be shown as the land use management package is developed. Before adoption
any ~prehensive P~an for Albemarle County, two-thirds of all development took place in the
urban areas~ During the time the 1971 plan was in effect, only one-third of the development
occurred in the urban area. ~his represents the basic failure in implementation of the 1971
plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan being discussed tonight suggests that this trend be
reversed and that nearly 90 percent of all future development take place in areas that have
already been developed. I~ost of the measurable objectives in the plan require future action
whiCh will be far from simple or easy. It is not enough to just adopt this new Co~prehens'
Plan. A compatible zoning ordinance is needed to implement the plan. A tool is needed to
tell if the County is making any progress towards~ the goal stated., not only so the plan can
be reviewed in five years, but so the County can make positive efforts if it is seen that
portions of the plan are not being accomplished° Mro Scott then thanked the members of the
advisory panel with whom he had served, K. Do A. Associates and the County Planning Staff.
He said. all of these people have helped prepare~a document that is both readable and compre-
hensive, that is based on realistic assumptions, and whose objectives are achievable, and
whose goals are desirable.
~So Sally ~nomas said this plan ~ecognizes the crucial role of water and sewer utility
planning in shaping the gro%~th of the County. The planalso recognizes the importance of
South Rivanna River Reservoir and the importance of the Beaver Creek Watershed. Ms. Thomas
said the ~eakest parts of the plan are the maps on the urban area, Hol!ymead and Crozet.
These maps are only rough suggestions and need to be replaced with detailed plans which
be drawn up with citizen and landowner participation.. She said it will take constant
and hard work to follow this plan.
Ms. Katherine Tompkins expressed, her concern that transportation problems deserve the
most thorough and objective study. Unless something is done quickly, there will not be an
opportunity to put in an expressway close to Route 29 North. She also expressed, concern for
long-range plans for water supplies. She said there is a difference between conservation of
resources and development of resources. The County must preserve its resources in advance
in a much.longer time frame than twenty years. One key factor in this plan, is the develop-
ment of the community land use plan. She felt the plan as presented tonight has more
for implementation than the 1971 plan, but everyone will have to be willing to ~ake some
sacrifices for the good of the County.
Mr. Eugene Clements said he appreciated, serving on the Advisory Panel and it has been
educational experience. He said that out of the 45,000 population in the County there are
very few people present tonight. ~nis is a complex document. He feels the Board. might do
things to help stimulate more interest on the part of the public. Because of the fa
effects of the Comprehensive Plan, it might be wise to present it in the form of a film that
might be more appealing to some persons. Mr. Clements ~aid he is reluctant to say he
the Comprehensive Plan until he knows what sscrifices he will be required to make in order
have this plan.
Mr. Dominick Sti!lfried said he feels this is a good plan and he hopes it will not only
be adopted, but also enforced.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing; Comprehensive Plan. At this time, the floor was
opened for comments from the public.
First to speak was ~4rs. Peggy King, president of the Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood
Association in Charlottesville. She said there is strong concern in their Neighborhood
Association that the County's plan, particularily the part on transportation, should be
analyzed and. evaluated in terms of its effects on neighborhoods not only in the County but
also in the City. This Association will work to see that the Comprehensive Plan now being
prepared for the City is analyzed and evaluated in terms of its effect on county neighbor-
hoods.
Kay Peaslee, president of Venable Neighborhood Association in Charlottesville and
of the Federation of Neighborhood Associations in Charlottesville spoke next~ She said they
May 16, 1977 (Adjourned from May i1, 1977)
are concerned about the effect any extension of Michie Drive might have on traffic in the cit~
This is of particular concern to them because Rugby'Road runs through their neighborhood and
it is already impacted by traffic ooming from the general area of Michie Drive~ They also
share a concern about the public water supply° Mrs. Peas!ce said for the Federation of
Neighborhood. Associations she would like to speak for cooperation between the City and the
County as far as both governing bodies Comprehensive Plans are concerned.
Mr. Wallace Reid., representing the Barracks-Rugby-Preston Association was next to speak~
He said the proposed limited access highway from Earlysville would terminate directly on the
City's 'boundary pointed~directly at the Barracks-Rugby-Preston neighborhood. He supported th.
expansion of 29 North to allow additional capacity and. the extension of Rio Road. through
McIntire Park and continuing with McIntire Road within the City of Charlottesville. This wou
provide the best type of access from the northern part of the County off of Route 29 North.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has been trying to get some priority on the extension of Rio
Road into the City along some route and he understands this is still the bottom priority~on
the City's list of road improvements.
Next to speak was Mr. Richard Collins, representing the Greenbrier-Brandywine Associatio
in Charlottesville. He also agreed with MSo Thomas remarks about the maps and the plan. He
said plans are more than spacial representations and are having an increasing legal impact
when there are conflicts between the public authority and those who would d~velopo He would
hope that if a conflict develops after the Board has adopted further instruments the plans
would be seen as a set of policies which the County is trying to achieve and not maps for
density, etc. He said the matter of most importance to their Neighborhood Association is the
Meadowbrook connector. They are also concerned with any road that would impact or aim direct
at.an existing neighborhood in the City!i~r the County. Mr. Collins said he believes the City
has taken the Meadowbrook connector off of its plan at this time and. does not consider it a
part of its official policy~ The major portion of that road would go through~City property.
His Association does not favor the plan and does not believe the City favors that plan any
longer. ~e asked that this be affirmed.. Mr~ Tucker said that was correct. Ee had talked
with the City Planning Director ~ao had. affirmed that ~he Meado~Drook connector has been take
off of the City's plan.
Mr. Collins said he believes the City and County Planning Staffs have collaborated use-
fully in terms of Meadowcreek, particu!arily with bicycle and wa!king paths and the PUD at
Holy Comforter that will connect with the development that is just south in the City. He
would hope that this could be kept flat and reserved, for those uses rather than automobiles
so that children and others would have an attractive area. He complimented KoD.A. for the
quality of the %~ork done and said perhaps an annual update could be adopted as a policy with
an annual meeting between the City and the County Planning Commissions. This would be a good
way to compare City budgets and policies %~ich are changing with.changing political attitudes
so the citizens would know when changes are anticipated.
Col. Carroll Smith was present on behalf of the Farm Bureau.
"16 MaY i~i~7 .
!. The proposed revisions to %he Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia have been
~reviewed by members of our Board of Directors, three of whom were members of the Citizens
Advisory Panel during the revision process. These revisions were further discussed at
board meeting on May 10th resulting in the following comments an~ recommendations.
a. Population estimates seem much more realistic than in the previous plan.
The "cluster" concept, although somewhat reduced in scope, still seems to us the
best way to permit regulated ~ro~h wi~n minimum encroachment on agricultural
lands. This concept should be further reinforced by provision of public water
and perhaps public sewer service.
The County goal proposed for agriculture reads "Conserve and promote use of the
best agricultural lands for their local economic benefit, scenic beauty, and
place in Albemarle~s heritage". There is no mention of the importance of food
and fiber production and it is very doubtful if that importance could be inferre(
from the term '~local economic benefit". There are those who say farmers in
Albemarle provide very little food for consumption by residents of Albemarle and
the vegetarians even say we waste a lot of cereal grains on livestock, most of
which is shipped out of state for slaughter and marketing. Eowever true these
allegations may be, we believe the situation will change drastically in the futu]
due to the adverse impact of the energy shortage on transportation. The time
will come when we can no longer depend on trucks to haul fresh vegetables in re-
frigerated trailers from Florida and California, or afford to ship our cattle to
Chicago for slaughter and distribution by truck° No longer will the average
worker be able to live out in the rural area and drive forty miles to and from
his place of employment each day. This should further reinforce the "cluster"
concept.
2. ?~ile we feel that this proposed revision is a definite improvement over the !971 plan,
we recommend that serious consideration be given to including:
a. Emphasis on the importance of food and. fiber production for local consumption.
Emphasis on the impact of energy shortages in the foreseeable future and. particu~
its effect on transportation of food and workers.
(Signed) Carre!l Bo Smith for
R. Bruce ~ogue
President, Albemarle County
Farm Bureau"
Mr. William Colony said this revised, plan is a great improvement over the 1971Comprehen.
sire Plan and is a logical transition from the 1971 Plan. Mr. Colony said. he would like to s~
Y
arly
Ma~ou~ned from May i!1~
the Board and the others responsible for this plan set aside time to go out to the people on
their home ground, sit do~, talk it out and listen. Communication is the biggestproblem
and. always has been and probably will remain so, but it must be solved.
iw~. Dan Roosevelt read the following communication for the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
"The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has reviewed the
proposed, revisions to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. We wish to make
certain comments concerning the effects this plan, as proposed, will have upon
the transportation network of the County. Further, we wish to make certain
reconimendations concerning the proposed improvements to the transportation
system~
Extensive improvements a~e recommended, in the urban area around Charlottes-
ville. As the plan itself indicates the transportation proposals advanced are
general in nature and have no~ received detailed engineering ana!ysis~ The
urban area shov~ in the Comprehensive Plan is included i~ 'the study area of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Re-study now un~erwayo As you know
tlnis study is jointly sponsored by Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville,
and the Department. It is our opinion that this study will be more detailed and
specific than the recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Although
recommendations from the Re-study may be as much as a year away, it is the
Department's recommendation that any transportation plan in the urban area be
deferred untili!the jointly sponsored Re-study can be reviewed and approved.
Based upon this recommendation, I will have few comments concerning the
Comprehensive Plan's transportation recommendations in the urba~ area.
i do have a comment concerning Route 29 North, however. The Department is
opposed to the recommendation for two (2) additional lanes to be constructed in
the median of Route 29 North from the Route 250 By-pass to the south fork of
the Rivanna River. it is our feeling that the relatively narrow width of the
median as well as the difference in grade between the north bound and the south
bound lanes make this recommendation a very costly improvement. Although I am
certain the transportation Re-study wi!l show a need for widening Route 29 North
by the year 2000, I do not believe use of the median for this purpose is
feasible, if you feel you must adopt a transportation recommendation in the
urban area at this time, the Department?requests that these median lanes not be
among them.
Concerning the major road additions and improvements outside the urban area,
the Department has no objections concerning wDst of them. The improvements shown
in the Crozet area, at Ivy, and from Nix to Route 250 appear to be valid needs.
you must recongnize, however, that construction of these improvements will depend
upon %~hen the actual need for the improvement exist, and when funds to finance
the improvement are avai!ab~e.~e Comprehensive Plan recommends no ~ajor improve-
ments to Route 20 from Route 250 north to Route 649 or from Charlottesville to
Scottsville. The Department already recognizes-the need for existing improvements
in these two (2) areas and future development should increase this need. %.Yae
recommend these two s~ctions be included in Comprehensive Plan's transportation
improvements°
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a series of scenic roads be designated by
the County. The Department has no objection to this system provided such
designation does not hinder or accelerate the improvement of such routes. The
designation of such routes should also not effect the Department's ability to
maintain these roads as they would any other secondary road.
~qe comprehensive Plan recommends that pavement widths in residental areas
be reduced and. off street parking be encouraged. ~e Department certainly agrees
that off street parking should, be encouraged. Studies recently made by the
Department, however, indicate that pavement widths should remainat current
approved standards. We believe the County should support these pavement,widths
and the addition of all qualifying residental streets to the State Secondary
System for maintenance.
Tine Department supports the agricultural use recommendations listed on page
25 of the Comprehensive Study. Under the current County Subdivision Ordianance
all land currently zoned agricultural can be subdivided into two (2) acre lots
by right. This, in effect, zones the entire county as a residenta! subdivision.
As a result approval can easily be obtained for resid.enta! growth-which overtaxes
the secondary system of the county. Tighter restrictions on the use of
agricultural land could result in the protection of secondary routes not now
constructed to withstand, heavy traffic volumes.
The transportation policy put forward by the Comprehensive Plan is some-
what at odds with the transportation philosophy currently adopted by the?County.
Although i admit that the current philosophy has been strongly influenced by the
Department, I believe the County should realize such a philosophy exists
it differs from that presented in the Comprehensive Plan. On April !3, 1977, the
County adopted a proposed six year improvement plan for the secondary system
which gave approximately equal emphasis to the improvement of major hard surfaced.
routes in the urban area and to the upgrading of gravel roads carrying more than
50 cars a day to a hard surface state~ This six year improvement plan also gave
emphasis to the improvement of substandard bridges throughout the County. The
transportation recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan appear to give over-
whe!ming emphasis to the improvement of major secondary roads in the urban area,
and to currently existing hard surfaced connections~between the village areas
and the primary and interstate systems. No emphasis is given to the upgrading
of existing gravel roads carrying relatively heavy traffic volumes or to bridges.
May 16, 1977 (Ad.journed from }4a¥ !I, 1977)
In fact the Comprehensive Plan recommends the adoption of a philosophy which would
deter improvement of these roads as a discouragement to growth and development in
certain areas. It is my opinion that the currently adopted six year plan is more
attuned, to goals for the secondary s~stem improvement program adopted by the
Department than are the recommendations put forth in the Comprehensive Study. We
believe the County should consider this philosophical difference as it effects
the secondary system when they review the transportation recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan."
Mro Frederick Whiteside said. this was a good job and he hoped the County would stick '
to it.
Mr. Roy Patterson said he would like to~'~ma~e some observations on the Crozet map contain
in the plan. Henley and Brownsville Schools are shown in reverse on the map and Western
Albemarle is not shown in the right location. The Crozet cemetery is marked parks and
recreation. The Shopping Center on Route 240 .is in an industrial zone. ~ne 23-acre Crozet
park is m~medium residential. 'The proposed increase in the industrial area is in the
.~principal-~neighborhood in Crozet. He asked if this is justified. The proposed industri
area north of the railroad is in the Beaver Creek drainage basin and Beaver Creek needs
protection, in the industrial zone sho~<n north of the railroad, it would be difficult to get
in a railroad siding because the railroad is elevated above the,road. Mr. Patterson said any
discussion of mass transportation should include the use of the C & 0 Railroad from do%<ntown
Crozet to do~town Charlottesville; %~hich is a direct route. Mr. Patterson said the reason
he was speaking tonight is that the existence of Claudius Crozet Park should be recognized.
This 23-acre park should be classified as what it is; a park open to everybody. It has 23-
acres of prime real estate, a view of the Blue Ridge, a,swimming pool, two recreational build.
ings, a ball field, two tennis courts and a picnic area; all open to the general public.
· ~r. William Woodworth said he was glad to see the proposed Comprehensive Plan put stress
on conservation zones and on preservation of good agricultural lands by identifying areas
of the County where the best soils are located. He urged the Planning Commission and the
Board. of Supervisors to be bold. and to be courageous and test the limits of their authority
under the law and not be intimidated by developers who hold threats of law suits over their
heads on what can and cannot be done with land within their jurisdiction. He said more
attention should be focused on the public good and. not on that of individuals. Mr. Wood%~otth
said. he hopes the County can avoid, routing any major roads through McIntire Park which is
needed for the use of citizens in highly congested areas.
Next to speak was Ruth Wadlington for the League of Women Voters.
"May 16, 1977
The League of WOmen Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County approves the
goals and'objectives of the proposed Revised Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County.
We think the lower population projections and gro%~h expectations for communities
and villages provide a much more realistic framework for planning than did those in
the 1971 plan.
We strongly support 'the intention to provide incentives for channeling the majority
of future growth into the urban ring, Crozet, and Hol.lymead, and for preserving
open space and the best agricultural land in the county.
Furthermore, we support the recommendation that the residential density allowed on
a certain piece of land be determined by the environmental characteristics of that
land. itself--steepness of slope, soil type, drainage, wooded or open aspect, etc.
Graduated density regulations based upon such characteristics would provide an
effective meanS.icl implementing the conservation and agricultural goals of the plan.
The plan contains many excellent recommendations for specific policies and strategies
that would contribute to implementing its goals and objectives. We are especially
pleased that the plan contains the following:
--attention to protection of the South Fork Rivanna and Beaver Creek watersheds.
--the recommendation that flexibility in zoning be allowed so that neighborhood
commercial centers could locate within walking distance 9f residential areas.
--the emphasis on considering highway safety and. visual impact frQm roads in
reviewing plans for development of all types, but particularly commercial
development.
--the recommendation to survey and. study blue highways and r~vers of the county
and incorporate appropriate ones in the Scenic Highways and Scenic Rivers programs.
Thereafter, such designations would serve as further tools for protection of
conservation areas, scenic vistas, and water quality.
--the recommendation that transportation improvement plans be adopted sooR,
particularly for the U.S. 29 North area, so that rights-of-way may be obtained
before further development and increased land values make desirable alignments
prohibitive. We urge that the specific transportation improvements sho%~ on May 21
be considered as suggestions only, and. that final plans be adopted after'a complete
study of the alternatives.
We have several suggestions for additions that we believe would, strengthen the plan.
--We urge that ~ner~v conservation be adopted as an additional goal of the plan,
so that it will be a criterion when reviewing proposed land uses. Energy
conservation is an implied concern of many of the recommendations, for example, the
emphasis on compact development. Nevertheless, we feel the statement of such a
goal would encourage careful attention to avoidance of energy waste wherever possible.
--Emphasis should be given to the need to plan subdivisions, villages and.
communities in such a way as to be accessible to anY future public transportation
system.
,d
May 16, !~977 (Adjourned from May_ 11,
1977)
-- In the area of water supply, planning cannot afford to look only 20 years
ahead. If the Buck Pit. Creek area is not purchased soor~ that option for
additional water supply may be lost forever. Also, more recognition needs to be
given to the dubious nature of ground water as a supply source. Even small
subdivisions can become a great burden to the water authority if their well runs
dry and they ask for public water.
--With regard to buffering of commercial and industrial land uses from
residential area, we suggest that the plan specify that noises and noxious odors
be taken into account in addition to aesthetic considerations.
--As the plan recommends, a detailed Housing Plan for the County needs to
be developed. Careful attention should be given to how to assure that housing
for low-income families will be available.
In addition,%~ve would like to emphasize that the land. use maps for Crozet,
Ho!lymead, and the urban area (Maps 14~ 15, and 18) should be considered as
tentative recommendations only, and that careful, detailed, plans for these
areas should be developed as soon as possible.
Finally, unless ordinances and zoning changes are made to implement this plan,
it will have little or no effect on Albemarle County~ We urge that when you
adopt a plan, it be with the intention to make it work~
Thank you for your attention.
(Signed) Ruth Wadlington
President"
Mro Fred Richardson, president of the Ivy Citizens Association, was next to speak. He
congratulated the Board on a much improved plan. He asked, who is to work out the details
for specific areas such as Ivy. He said the plan mentions a multi-disciplined, staff-assisted
team and this sounds too impressive° He asked who these people will be and how they will be
designated and %~aen they will begin. Mr. Drenning said the idea of a multi-disciplined,
staff-assisted team was the idea of the consultants to provide at low cost some assistance to
individuals who might not be able to go out and get the services of a surveyor, engineer, or
land use planner. These would be County Staff people. The idea of multi-disciplined means
that there would be many diSciplines available in the County. There are a variety of people
who will be responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Plan, but the final responsibility
lies with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Richardson said the Citizens in Ivy are ~il!ing and
anxious to work with these people on the details of the Ivy plan. They have already
collected, at no cost to the County, considerable information and it has been put on maps
and they are anxious to start work as soon as possible~
Mrs. Joanne Moyer from Crozet said it appears the Board may have been premature when it
gave its approval last week to the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the Jordan Develop-
ment Corporation to seek money to create a low income housing development in Crozet~ The
land is 27 acres of pasture and is zoned agricultural. Many in Crozet are suffering
consternation from the lack of openness they perceive on the part of the Board and the
Planning Commission for not giving better notice prior to the public hearing as it seems to
be the Board's intent to promote and aid welfare housing in a stable community.
At 10:30 P. M. the Board recessed and reconvened at !0:39 P. M. ~ ~ said this is a
good plan, but the County has a long way to go before achieving it. She lives in the urban
area and understands the consultants are not concerned with the details for the urban area.
There is one large area of townhouse density sho~,~, setting out in the middle of what is now
farm land. She asked what it means when the area is mapped, for that density. The plan
divides the urban county area into seven neighborhoods and recommends that detailed, land use
plans be developed for each neighborhood with participation by residents~ This sounds like
a good idea, but according to Mr. Tucker it might be five years before these plans are
developed. This is too long to wait. The urban area is the area of highest growth in the
county and adoption of these plans should receive the highest priority. Since the urban
mass in the plan is intended not bo be specific and seems rather arbitrary in some places,
she would like to see it dropped completely and left blank. ~n other words leave the present
zoning until details are developed and she hoped this would be ~aickly.
~,~o Roy patterson said he was not prepared to comment on the Crozet Housing Project
but from what he has heard, it sounds'like a good project since it will be ahhome for the
elderly.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Carr said he would like to call
a meeting of the Planning Commission for a public work session on the Comprehensive Plan on
Wednesday May 25 at ~:30 P. M. in the Board Room.
Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission will start work on the 25th on this plan and
the Board of Supervisors will wait for the recommendation of the Planning Commission before
deciding if further public hearings are required..
At 10:46 P. M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr~ Roudabush, to
adjourn this meeting until May 18, 1977~ at 3:30 P. M. in 'the Board Room of the County
Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
~t~- C~AI FcMAN