1976-03-24NMarch 24, 1976 (Regular Night Meeging)
111
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 24, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J.
T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: J. Harvey Bailey, County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert Tucker, County Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mr. Fisher, Chairman. At this time the
Board conducted public hearings on zoning matters as advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 3 and March 10, 1976.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMP-?6-03. David L. Hale. To rezone 0.5 acres from R-2 Residential
to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road West).
Property is further described as County Tax Map 45H, Parcel 19. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Fisher announced that this item was deferred by the Planning Commission for a period
of 90 days. He noted that since the Planning Commission has not acted nor made any recom-
mendations to the Board, the Board cannot conduct their public hearing at this time. ZM?-76-(
will be readvertised for some future date.
Agenda Item No. 1. ZMP-76-01. H.L. and Helen, Roger L.: James L. Baber. To rezone
1.25 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is situated at the intersection of
Route 240 and Route 691 in Crozet. Property is further described as County Tax Map 56A-2,
Parcel 11, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: "This property is located on the southwest
corner of Route 240 (Main Street) and Route 691(Jarman's Gap Road) in Crozet. The
immediate area of the subject property has mixed land uses including residential,
quasi-public and commercial within 600 feet of the property. The Comprehensive
Plan indicates that this area is a part of Crozet's central business district.
There presently exists a service station on the property, which is non-conforming.
The applicant wishes to rezone this property in order to make it conforming. The
staff is of the opinion that this rezoning would be proper in view of the recom-
mendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the location of the property and the fact
that the use existed prior to zoning in the County. The staff feels a mistake
in zoning was made in 1968 and therefore, recommends approval."
Mr. Tucker noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, opposition to this petition
was made primarily because of pollution emitted from the paint and body shop. Due to this
opposition, the State Air Pollution Control was contacted and a copy of the following letter,
sent to Mr. Roger Baber, was received:
"Dear Sir:
Since viewing the emissions at your paint shop, I talked over the situation
with our regional director. We have come to the conclusion that some type
of control should be installed. We believe that either a filter system, or the
water scrubber type, which is a barrel of water, which you and I spoke of, would
be sufficient. I would like to see some type of control installed by May 19,
1976. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Thank you for
your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Ward Butler Control Officer"
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval by a vote of 7/1. Ths
person casting the dissenting vote felt expansion of this business might make it an annoyance
in the future. Also, the Zoning Administrator, feels this business cannot expand further
unless the property is rezoned~to "industrial".
Mr. Roger L. Baber said he has been in business for 25 years. The largest part of his
business is in general repairs, not paint and body work. He requests the rezoning at this
time because if the building were to burn down, he would not be allowed to rebuild. Mr.
Fisher noted that under this rezoning request, Mr. Baber would still require a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Baber has complied with requirements
of the State Air Pollution Control Board. Mr. Baber said they are working on a system to
control the venting of paint fumes.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Page Foster said Mr. Baber's
building is about one foot from his property line. He does not oppose the repair shop, but
does oppose the paint and body work being performed in the building. No one else from the
public wished to speak either for or against the petition, and the public hearing was declared
closed by the Chairman.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve ZMP-76-01
as recommended by the Planning Commission. There being no further discussion~ roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMP-76-02. Virginia Dryden Kellog. To rezone 35.434 acres from R-1
Residential to R-1/RPN Residential Planned Neighborhood. Property is situated on the south
side of Route 250 West. Property is further described as County Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A,
March 24, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
Location. This property ~is located on the south side of Route 250 West
across from Farmington and adjacent to the Boar's Head and Ednam Village.
Character of Area. This area contains urban characteristics with medium
to large lot residential development, commercial office and general
commercial located nearby. Farmington and the Textile Institute are
located to the north of the subject property. Ednam Village, Boar's Head
and Ednam Forest are adjacent to the east, south and west.
Existing Zoning In The Area. Farmington, located to the north is zoned
R-1 Residential; the Textile Institute is zoned B-1 Commercial; Ednam
Village is zoned R-2 Residential; Boar's Head is zoned B-I Commercial;
and Ednam Forest is zoned R-1 Residential.
Comprehensive Plan.. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area be
proposed for low density residential (one dwelling unit per acre).
Proposed Impact Statistics Comparison (Estimates)
Dwelling Units
Population
Vehicles
Vehicle trips per day
Children
Impact Under Impact Under
Existing Zoning (R1)~ Proposed Zoning (RPN-R1)_
160 132
512 392
240 198
1120 924
157 78
Summary. of Pro~9~d Land Uses for Ednam
Residential
(Single-family detached-12 units)
(Single-family semi-detached-26 units)
(Single-family attached-44 units)
(Multi-family-50 units)
Open Space
Streets and rights-of-way
Total
20.41 acres or 58%
11.10 acres or 31%
3.92 acres or 11%
35.43 acres or 100%
The staff would note that the RPN zone requires a minimum of 25% to be left
in open space. The applicant proposes to provide 31% of the land to be left
in open space. Also, the maximum gross density allowable under this zone
is 5.3 units per acre while the applicant is proposing only 3.7 acres per acre.
Schools
The Albemarle County Department of Education has made the following comments
concerning the impact that development since January, 1975, would have on the
following schools serving this area, when the developments are completely
inhabited:
-Murray Elementary will have reached its capacity;
-Henley Middle School will experience overcrowdedness; and
-Albemarle High School will experience an increase in overcrowdedness
until the new Western High School is completed in September, 1977.
Water and Sewer Facilities
The County Engineering Department indicates that water availability is good.
Existing water lines are located along Route 250 West and along the east
side of the subject property. Water pressure is a problem in this area and
it must be addressed and corrected prior to any development of Ednam. (Mr.
Tucker noted a copy of communication called "Supplemental Submission Infor-
mation'' dated March 18, 1976. He said this was made a part of the Planning
Commission's approval of this petition. Same will be set out in full
later in these minutes.)
Sewage treatment would be handled by the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment
Plant via the Morey Creek Interceptor which is scheduled for service
in mid to late 1977. However, at the present time, there is no capacity
in Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant and there will be none until the
advanced wastewater treatment plant is completed about 1980. On an interim
basis, the applicant is proposing a temporary terfiary treatment plant to
treat the effluent from the Ednam community. The Engineering Department
also notes that the proposed water and sewer line layout is adequate to
service this development. More detailed plans will be necessary for
review at the site plan approval stage. This also is true of the storm
drainage plans.
Transportation Facilities
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has reviewed these
plans and made the following comments:
The easternmost entrance into the property should not be utilized because
of the poor sight distance. The applicant is aware of this and is in
agreement, stating that if this entrance were used it would only be for
emergency purposes.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommends that
entrance into the property should be located directly across from the
Farmington entrance. This has been complied with on the plan.
March 2~, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
113
e
A deceleration lane as well as a left-turn lane will be required along
U.S. Route 2%0 W~st. (Mr. Tucker noted that this will be at the
developer's expense.)
An island is proposed to be located at the entrance of the property
which will be discouraged by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
The entrance's length of pavement between U.S Route 250 West and the
internal loop road should be improved. The staff recommends a length
adequate to accommodate a minimum of five cars.
The internal roads have not been addressed by the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation since the applicant wishes to provide
privately maintained roads. The staff does not favor this.
Reservation of land for future widening of U.S. Route 250 West will be
required. (Mr. Tucker noted section entitled "highway access" included
on supplemental submission and included in full later in these minutes.)
Staff Comment
The staff is of the opinion that the applicant's proposal for an RPN on this
presently zoned R-1 property is good. The proposed uses are in character
with the surrounding development and the applicant has managed to lower the
allowable density permitted. The preliminary plan is good, provided the
above mentioned items of concern are addressed on the final site plan and
subdivision plat.
In recommending approval of this property for RPN/R-1 zoning, there are
several areas that the staff would note for future reference at the site
plan and subdivision plat review phase:
Access between Ednam and Boar's Head Inn complex would be favorable.
This would provide a quicker and safer access to the sports and
recreation facilities as well as the commerical uses.
Consideration should be given to the provision of state-maintained roads.
Homeowners' association agreements should be drafted.
Consideration should be given to the above comments made by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the Albemarle
County Department of Engineering.
Mr. Tucker said at the Planning Commission's first hearing on this matter, concern was
noted regarding the possible designation of Route 250 West as a scenic highway.~ The applicant
also addresses that question in the supplemental information. Questions were also raised by
local residents concerning the height of the buildings. The RPN district allows buildings
with a maximum height of 65 feet. An amendment regarding this height regulation may be
forthcoming from the Planning Commission in the near future. The applicant has presented two
alternatives for the multi-family units: 1) to provide two five-story buildings; and 2) to
rodime one or two larger three-story buildings. However, the lbwer the building, the less
open space that is left. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of this
petition based on items in the following supplemental submission:
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Ednam - Residential Planned Neighborhood
ZMP-76-02
Application for Rezoning from R-1 to RPN R-1
"The following supplemental information is submitted in support of the application
for rezoning of the Ednam property from R-1 to RPN and the accompanying preliminary
plan, as defined by Article 19, Residential Planned Ne ghborhood, of the Zoning
Ordinance of the County of Albemarle.
This information is subject to any further standards and regulations which may be
applicable as part of the required final site development plan submission.
It is understood by the applicant that this preliminary plan and application for
rezoning is intended to establish the general land use, density, general layout
for vehicular and pedestrian circulation, method of access, the general layout
for utilities including, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, and the number
of dwelling units by type and area. Specific details regarding roadway design
and geometrics, landscaping and planting details, exact location and design of
buildings, engineering design of utility systems and other required information
will be provided as part of the final site development plan, in accordance with
all applicable standards and regulations, and the administrative provisions of
Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and of the County Land Subdivision and Develop-
ment Ordinance.
1. Highway Access
Highway access, right-of-way, intersections, construction and landscaping
will conform to the standards and requirements of the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T), including:
A 60-foot reserve setback along Route 250 for a future four-lane
right-of-way shall be set (measured from the present south edge of
pavement of Route 250).
b e
A left turning taper for 200 feet from geometry acceptable to the
VDH&T shall be included in Route 250.
c. A deceleration lane (south side) shall be provided.
114
March 24, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
d. The island shown in the illustrative sketch will be deleted.
The length of pavement at the access road will be made of sufficient
depth to accommodate five cars (with a 50-foot radius of curb and
no acceleration lane as requested by VDH&T).
Scenic Highway
Provisions for the improvement of the applicant's frontage on Route 250
will conform to all applicable regulations and standards of Article
18, Scenic Highway Designation, of the Zoning Ordinance.
A setback of 150 feet shall be provided from the proposed right-of-way
of the four-lane Route 250 (measured as 210 feet from the edge of
pavement). In addition, full bank stabilization, erosion control and
landscaping will be provided in accordance with all applicable standards;
detailed drawings will be submitted prior to the final RPN submission.
Any signs will conform to all sign and scenic highway provisions of
Article 18.
Water Pressure
The supply (amount of flow) of water in the 12" and 10" lines, estimated
at 1500 &.P.M. is adequate to service the 132 units or approximately 400
users projected. We understand that any existing pressure and supply
problems at the end of the lines in Ednam Village and Ednam Forest are
intended to be corrected by plans and proposals now in the process of
submission to the County Service Authority Engineer, and that this solution,
consisting of a standpipe at the highest elevation in Ednam Forest, will
satisfy the requirements of existing and future residents.
Preliminary engineering studies for the proposed Ednam development indicate
a water service requirement of approximately 40,000 G.P.D. The system will
be engineered to provide:
-maintenance of adequate supply (flow) and pressure for Ednam, Ednam
Village, and Ednam Forest users as approved by the County Service
Authority.
-maintenanc.e of adequate supply and pressure for users on the other
side of the supply source on Route 250.
-if necessary, utilization of a standpipe on the Ednam property to
insure no measurable decrease in capacity or pressure for other
users on the same supply line.
The Ednam water system will be fully engineered prior to the final Site
Development Plan Review, so that all adjacent property owners will have
ample opportunity to review and discuss all engineering data.
Public Sewer Service
Sanitary sewer service for Ednam will be provided through the Albemarle
Service Authority by a direct collector connection to the Morey Creek
interceptor scheduled for completion in 1977-78. Upon preliminary re-
zoning, formal application for this connection and the necessary
allotment of approximately 40,000 G.P.D. will be submitted to the
Service Authority. Should the development demand service before the
interceptor is completed or before Moore's Creek Treatment Plant can
insure adequate capacity, the owner shall not obligate the County
Authority to provide service. In this case, the owner would make
application for a special temporary use permit to provide "public
sewer" in the form of a package tertiary treatment facility at his own
cost and meeting all applicable design and discharge criteria of agencies
having jurisdiction. In all likelihood, the temporary treatment facility
would be a joint undertaking of adjacent property owners.
Dwelling Unit T~pes
The number and type of dwelling units proposed in the preliminary plan
are as follows:
Single family detached:
Single family attached (including semi-detached):
Multiple-family:
Total:
Number
12
7O
5O
132 units
Single family detached dwellings would be free-standing structures on
designated lot areas, with private garages and walled yard areas.
Single family attached dwellings would be townhouse type structures, either
two adjacent (semi-detached units) or three to four in a row (attached units)
with common party walls, walled gardens and yards, and enclosed garages.
Multiple-family dwellings would be located in a maximum of two buildings,
on the higher land toward the interior of the tract.
March 2~[~976 (Regular- Night Meeting)
The roofs of the multiple-family buildings would be limited to a height
lower than the tree foliage at the top of the hill. Alternative archi-
tectural studies for this building type which are under consideration
include:
-two five-story buildings containing 25 units each;
-one or two larger three-story buildings with an entrance courtyard
and a limited number of penthouse units on the fourth story.
Ail of the residential structures would be of traditional or colonial
architectural treatment.
6. Preliminary Plan and Rezoning Appl~ication Submission Documents
The applicant has submitted the information and materials required by
Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinance, which are ~ shown on the following
documents:
Official Preliminary Plan Submission Documents
Map No.
1
2
3
Title
Context and Location Maps
Boundary and Topography
Slopes and Soils Analysis
Land Use and Dwelling Units by Type and Area
Existing and Proposed Roads, Easements and Utilities
General Plan - Recreation
In addition, although not specifically required by Article 19, the applicant
has submitted the following supporting illustrative materials in support of
this application for rezoning from R-1 to RPN/R-i:
Supporting Illustrative Materials
Map No.
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
13A
13B
13C
13D
13E
13F
13G
13H
13I
Title
Development Concept Plan
Single Family Detached Unit, Type 1 (architectural sketch)
Single Family Detached Unit, Type 2 (architectural sketch)
Single Family Attached Unit (architectural sketch)
Single Family Semi-Detached Unit (architectural sketch)
Multi-Family Dwelling, alternative study (architectural sketch)
Other Illustrative Materials, including:
Perspective Sketch from Ednam Forest
Chart Comparing Land Uses Permitted in R-i, RPN/R-1, and proposed
RPN/R-1 Ednam
Chart Comparing Maximum Allowable Density and Number of Units in
R-l, RPN/R-1, and Proposed RPN/R-1 Ednam
Site Plan Comparison of R-1 Subdivision and Proposed RPN/R-! Ednam
Aerial Photograph Showing Superimposed Ednam Concept Plan
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Highway Access Layout
Sketch of Alternative Multiple Family Building
Chart Showing Tentative Development Schedule
Land Use Comparison Chart, R-I, RPN/R-1, and Proposed RPN/R-1.
These supporting illustrative materials are intended as conceptual and
general site plan information, to assist in explaining the preliminary plan~
and are not intended to represent in any way specific or final plans or
designs.
7. Final Application Documents
Final application documents shall conform in all ways to the requirements
set forth in Article 17, pages 100ff of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County, for Site Development Plan review.
In terms of procedure, this shall include notice to adjacent property owners
of Site Plan Review meeting (Sec. 17-3'2) and the opportunity on their part
for public review and discussion of the Site Development Plan well in advance
of any formal hearing or review of such plans, as well as review by the Site
Plan Review Committee, the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, and
by the governing body, if required.
(Signed by Andrew T. Sullivan of Brown, Goldfarb, Sullivan and Associates)"
Mr. Tucker noted that the RPN Zone, as presently written in the Zoning Ordinance,
requires a rezoning of land. The applicant is tied to the preliminary plan submitted as to
such items as: concept of the plan, general location of streets, building, and particularly
to density. While this zone provides for 5.3 units per acre, the applicant will be tied to
3.7 units per acre as submitted on the preliminary plan.
Dr. Iachetta asked if a tertiary treatment plant for this site would not have to be
approved by the State Water Control Board. Mr. Tucker said yes. The plant would be for
temporary use until the Moore's Creek plant is available, at which time the development would
be required to hook on to the Moore's Creek Plant.
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of the following letter which was also made a part of the
Planning Commission's approval~
118
March 24, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
"March 23, 1976
Mr. David Carr, Chairman
Planning Commission
Re: Ednam Proposed Residential Planned Neighborhood
Dear Mr. Carr:
I have reviewed the proposed sewer and water arrangements for the proposed
development of Ednam. While the details of these arrangements can and
should be addressed at the final site plan and subdivision review, i think
that certain basic ideas should be addressed by the Commission in their
consideration of this RPN rezoning.
First, the developer should design, build and dedicate to the Albemarle
County Service Authority all water supply facilities for the development.
Second, since, for the foreseeable future, there will be no public treatment
facilities for sewage, the developer should construct a teritary treatment
plant, satisfactory to the County Engineer, to serve only the development.
This plant should be shown in concept on the RPN plan and should be noted as
a temporary facility to be used only until public sewage disposal is avail-
able. The developer should be required to hook on to the facilities of the
Service Authority when the same are available and, at that time, discontinue
and dismantle the private tertiary treatment plant. The developer should
establish an appropriate entity in accordance with Title 56 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, for the furnishing of sewer~ facilities before
the same can be provided by the Service Authority. This entity should be
responsible for the maintenance of all sewage facilities within the develop-
ment to the standards of the Service Authority. Provisions should be made
for the payment of all applicable fees to the Service Authority, at rates
then current, when the development comes on line with the Service Authority's
facilities. Finally, all sewer lines and appurtenant facilities, other than
the treatment plant itself, should be dedicated by the developer at the
present time on the following terms: Dedication should be irrevocable on
the part of the developer and his successors in the interest, but subject to
acceptance by the Service Authority at such time as the Authority shall
determine the acceptance of the dedication to be in the public interest. It
should be made clear to the developer that approval of this rezoning in no
way guarantees the availability of any public utility, this being a matter
entirely within the competency of the Service Authority.
Except for those matters which obviously should be shown on the plat itself
(e.g. the location of the treatment plant), I believe that these provisions
may be formalized at the time of final site plan approval, but I think it
important that the Commission and the developer bear these in mind in
considering the application. If you have any questions or comments, please
let me know.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Frederick W. Payne
Deputy County Attorney"
Dr. Iachetta said he did not think the County Engineer has any authority to approve a
tertiary treatment plant as referred to in paragraph two of the letter above. Mr. St. John
said the State Water Control Board will not review such a proposal until the applicant has a
permit from the local governing body. This is not just the' tertiary treatment plant, but the
total sewage collection system which will stili remain in use after the tertiary treatment
plant is dismantled. This collection system must be built according to Albemarle County
Service Authority standards and the County Engineer is the inspector for the A.C.S.A.
Mr. Bailey said neither the State Water Control Board or the County want the proliferati
of small tertiary treatment plants scattered throughout the countryside. He personally would
be opposed to the owner insisting on continued treatment in this fashion. Mr. St. John
agreed, but said it should not be built with the thought that it cannot last more than a
certain number of years.
Mrs. David asked if the Board should be going into details like this on a rezoning
request. Mr. Fisher said he felt the question of wastewater treatment must be answered
before approving any rezoning. The present zoning allows the developer to build single-
family homes using septic sytems without obtaining approval; but the multi-family concept
requires a central sewerage system. Mr. Bailey said the owner needs the Board's approval
before approaching the State Water Control Board for approval of such a plant.
Mr. Roudabush said the plan for Ednam does not show the proposed location of the tertiar
treatment plant (which is a requirement of the RPN zone); he asked if.approval of this would
be an advanced commitment for sewage treatment. Mr. St. John said the letter of March 23
makes it blear that approval of this plant in no way guarantees the availability of any
public utility. This is another reason why this letter should be made a part of any approval
of this petition. Mr. Roudabush said this zoning request is also subject to subdivision
regulations onc. e it is approved and there are no provisions for private roads in the sub-
division ordinance. Mr. St. John said the RPN zone of the Zoning Ordinance specifically says
that provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance must be complied with. The Planning Commission
has said they are deferring the question of private roads until the final site is seen. This
is alright, but not very practical. Mr. Tucker said this matter was thoroughly discussed by
the staff and the Planning Commission. The applicant intends to build the roads to State
standards, but they do not want to dedicate the roads to public use and would prefer that
they be privately maintained. Mr. Roudabush asked if any future amendment concerning the
height limitation in this district would be binding on a preliminary plan previously approved
~n
M~h 24, 1976 (Regu~ar~ N±ght Meeting)
Mr. St. John said the applicant would be allowed the height shown on the site plan approved
by the Board. Mr. Henley asked if the Board were reviewing the final site plan tonight. Mr.
St. John said no, this is a preliminary plan. The question before the Board is one of
rezoning based on a particular site plan for rezoning. THE RPN is a floating zone and is not
contract zoning. This zone states that the Board can put specific conditions on approval.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the applicant would not have to comply with the law in effect at the
time the final site plan is presented. Mr. St. John said if the applicant has expended funds
based on preliminary approval obtained, he would have a vested right in the preliminary plan.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. The first to speak was Mr. Marion
Kellogg, speaking on behalf of his wife, Mrs. Virginia Dryden Kellogg, the applicant. Mr.
Kellogg stated that this community was planned with four requirements in mind: quality,
security, privacy and service.
Mr. Peter Brown, architect and planner representing Mrs. Kellogg, stated that there are
three ways to develop this property: R-I, yielding 160 units per acre; RPN/R-1, yielding 187
units; or Mrs. Kellogg's plan yielding 132 units. In this plan, only 50 units will be of a
high-rise type, not exceeding height limitations prescribed by the ordinance. Mr. Brown
presented five maps: 1) context map showing dwelling units per acre; 2) boundary and to'
3) slopes and soils; 4) general plan--land use and dwelling by type and area; and 5)
water and sewer.
At 9:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M.
Next to speak was Mr. Andrew Sullivan, also representing Mrs. Kellogg. He stated that
discussions regarding water and sewage treatment have been held with the Albemarle County
Service Authority since August, 1975. The developer is well aware of requirements and possibZ
problems. Ail structures will be set back 210 feet from Route 250 West and all requirements
of the County's Scenic Highway Ordinance will be met.
Mr. Edward Silverstein, project architect, described the type of building design planned
for the 'development. Mr. Dorrier asked the approximate price range for units in this develo~
merit. Mr. Silverstein said they will range from $35 to $50 a square foot.
At this time, the public hearing was~ opened. The first to speak was Mr. Fritz Berry,
President of the Ednam Forest Homeowners Association. He said the proposed plan is not in
keeping with the surrounding communities. 132 units are proposed, but if the development
were consistent with the surrounding area, only 30 units would be built. He then presented a
petition signed by 46 homeowners requesting the Board to deny the rezoning request based on
the highway safety factor, water pressure problems and the tertiary treatment system.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said the group is generally
in favor of the proposal, but against allowing a 65 foot height for the multi-family dwellin
Mr. St. John commented on Mrs. Speidel's statement saying that legally the Board would be
wiser to specify height limitations at the time of granting any rezoning, rather than waiting
to do so when site plans are approved.
Mr. Robert Rutland read and presented a petition from Ednam Village. This petition
showed that of the 17 homeowners, seven signed in opposition to this development and the
other 10 could not be contacted.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the Kirtley Estate of Ednam Village, felt the rezoning of
this property to an RPN designation could be detrimental to adjoining property owners. He
also felt there is a greater chance of runoff due to grading and that the site plan require~
merits should be more specific at this stage of approval as to wastewater treatment, water
pressure and site grading.
Mr. Donald Heyne, resident of Ednam Forest, was in favor of the proposed rezoning and
development~feeling it will be a good addition to this section.
Mr. Albert Alberle, resident of Ednam Forest, said he was against the development. He
felt the Board should have further investigated the possible impact of this type of zoning
before enacting it into law.
Mr. Charles M~ton was in favor of the rezoning stating that after looking at the
alternative, this is definitely the best plan.
Mr. Andrew Sullivan said his client hopes for a good relationship with the neighboring
communitites. Mr. Kellogg said the question of building height seems to be foremost in most
peoples thoughts. He and his planners will do everything possible to make. the buildings
visibly pleasing and not necessarily the full 65 foot height.
Mr. Thomas Dolan of Jackson Cross Company, PhiIadeiphia, reieterated Mr. Kel~ogg's
statement that they are receiptive to arguments of limiting building heights to 50 feet.
At 10:15 P.M., Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. He said the Board has a major
policy decision to make since~he does not think they want to encourage the proliferation of
local package treatment plants. More thought should be given to matters of sewage treatment,
traffic, water problems, fire protection and water storage. He then recommended that this
matter be deferred until April 21, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. He also recommended that the individual
members of the Board visit the site before that time and the staff make detailed recommendatio~
as to water storage for fire protection, and seek an opinion from the State Water Control
Board as to whether or not they will approve this tertiary treatment plant.
Mr. Henley said he would,support the rezoning ~ the land is ~ to be served by public
sewer. Mr. Dorrier requested more information from the Highway Department on the impact of
this development on traffic on Route 250 West. Dr. Iachetta said he would not support the
rezoning, or the project in general, if there are no public sewage facilities and it is
proposed to treat wastewater by a tertiary treatment plant. Mr. Roudabush was concerned with
building heights and the sewage disposal problem.
March 24, 1976 (Regular - Ni~ght Meeting)
Mrs. David then offered motion to defer action on ZMP-76-02 until April 21, 1976, at
which time the following items should be completed:
1) Board of Supervisor members visit the site;
~2)~ Staff members inv-estigate amount of water storage required to
allow for adequate fire protection of the proposed community;
3) staff inquire of the State Water Control Board, method of application
and chances for approval of a temporary tertiary treatment plant on
this site; and
4) request representative of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation to be present on April 21 to give additional
information as to entrances and exists onto Route 250 West.
Mr. Roudabush thee offered second to Mrs. David's motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES' Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier~ Fisher, Henley and Roudabus~.
NAYS: None.
At 10:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher called a recess and the meeting reconvened at 10:50 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMP-76-03. David L. Hale (See description at the beginning of this
meeting.) Mr. Fisher noted that his matter has been deferred by the Planning Commission for
a period of 90 days. He then recommended that the Board also defer action and that the
public hearing be readvertised when the new hearing date is set. Motion to this effect was
offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-03-76. North American Exploration, Inc. To locate professional
offices on 4.5 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the southeast side of
Route 606. ProPerty is further described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 57A, Charlottesville and
Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Tucker said this property is on the south side of State Route 640 approximately 0.6
mile south of the airport terminal. The area is rural in character with forest and open lan~
located to the east, west and south of the property. The Albemarle-Charlottesville Airport
is located to the north. There is very little residential development in the area. The
parcel in question is completely wooded. North American Exploration, Inc. is a firm of
consulting geologists involved in prospecting for minerals, among other related things,
throughout the country. They employ approximately 15 persons most of whom remain in the
field. The primary reason for locating on this site is to be near the airport since much of
their work involves air transportation. The staff~ feels that this is a good location for
this type of use since residential uses should be discouraged in this area. Mr. Tucker said
the Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions:
1)
3)
Access road to be maintained in a dust-proof surface.
Site plan approval by the Planning Commission.
Only those trees necessary for removal during construction
of office building shall be removed.
Mr. Forbes Reback was present to represent the applicants. He said there will be no
equipment to interfere with the neighboring airport. This will be a single-story structure
housing a maximum of six employees at one time.
Mr. Fisher was concerned about future uses on this site which might allow for a higher
density. Mr. Roudabush agreed and suggested a fourth condition to read: "Any enlargement of
the proposed structure either horizontally or vertically, requires approval of a special
permit by the Board of Supervisors. This condition shall take effect if, a~d when, any
deviation from site plan and plat presented at this meeting takes place."
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve SP-03-76 with the three conditions recommend.
by the Planning Commission and the fourth condition suggested by Mr. Roudabush. He then
initialed and dated plat of property and site plans submitted to the Board at this meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-05-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. To locate an inter-
cepting sewer in the general location of Morey Creek; beginning at Moores Creek near Route
781 and extending in a northerly direction through Bellair, across Route 250 West and ending
at Route 601. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker said this interceptor line is proposed to be located beginning in the north
at the C&O Railroad and traversing southward following Morey ~reek across Route 250 West,
Bellair Estates, Liberty Hill, Buckingham Circle and Nob Hill Subdivisions and ending by
tying into the Moores Creek interceptor at the corporate limits of Charlottesville. The area
is semi-rural~to urban in nature being located within the urban area of the county and
traversing through several residential subdivisions. The Morey Creek sewer line is a part of
the initial phase of the Regional ~a~.~m~t~Ma~ag.ement Plan ~ Charlottesville and
Albemarle County. Effluent from this~se~e~ii~'~i' fiow by gravity to the Moores~Creek
interceptor and ultimately to the Moores Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. The Morey Creek
~d
119
March 24, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
· ~ ..~-.. 1~-. -' ~.~ ---_-_ ~' .... -~-_~ . m March 24: 1974)
interceptor is to be completed by the summer of 1977. Utilization of the line, however,
cannot be made until the Moores Creek Sewage Treatment Plant has been recertified or until
the advanced wastewater treatment plant has been completed.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit with the
following conditions:
1)
2)
Reseeding of all disturbed areas immediately after the
placement of the sewer line; and
Grading permit obtained from the Zoning Department.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing open. The first to speak was Mr. John Pollock,
representing the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He said this sewer line is a part of the
Regional Quality ~e~Management ~lan which was approved by the Albemarle County Service
Authority, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, the County
of Albemarle and the State Water Control Board.
Mrs. Jessie Puckett asked how long the land will be disturbed. Mr. Pollock said there
will be a meeting set with all property owners of land directly affected by the proposed
sewer line. All property will be completely restored and reseeded to its original conditions
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against the special permit
request and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-05-76
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was then called, and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion: Totier Creek Park Road. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer discussion and action on this request until the
meeting of March 31, 1976, There being no further discussion, roll was called, and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At 11:20 P.M., motion was offered Mr. Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to
adjourn this meeting until March 31, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County
Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush~
None.
Chairman
March 31, 1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from March 24, 1976)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 31, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 24, 1976.
PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICER PRESENT: J. Harvey Bailey, County Executive.
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 P.M. by the Chairman who announced that the
purpose of this meeting was to hold a work session on the proposed 1976-77 County budget with
members of the Albemarle County School Board. Also present were: Carl Van Fossen, Chairman
of the School Board, and Elizabeth Rosenblum~ Ronald Bauerle, Charles Norford, Jessie Haden,
Charles Maupin and Peter Way.
Categories discussed in the Education part of the budget were:
1)
2)
6)
Education
Debt Service
Federal Education Programs
Cafeterias
Textbook Rental Fund
McIntire Trust Fund
During the work session, the following requests were made: 1) The School Board requeste(
the Board to take over the costs of recreational activities carried on in school facilities
wh±ah are a part of the County's recreational programs. 2) The County Engineer was requested
to study the heat/air system in the Western Albemarle high school. 3) ~he staff was requested
to check State legislation concerning payment of life insurance premiums for school employees.
4) Mr. Fisher requested a list of State mandated programs added to the budget in recent
years which carry no State funding°