HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-21 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 2'1, 2001
February 23, 2001
1. Call to order.
AGENDA ITE M/ACTION
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
5.1 Resolution of Intent to amend regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance relating to home occupations. ADOPTED.
(Note: Ms. Thomas said she'd be happy to share with staff the
Governor's Transportation Commission's recommendations.)
(Attachment A)
5.2 Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water
and sewer, service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 & 30A (Baker-
Butler Elementary School). SET PUBLIC HEARING for 3/21/01.
(Note: Ms.,Humphris pointed out a typo in the staff report. It
should state "1.3 miles East, not 3 miles West...")
5.3 Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water
service to Tax Map 78B, Block P, Parcel 4, located in Glenorchy
Subdivision. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 3/21/01.
(Note: Ms. Humphris clarified that the one motion would cover
all the Glenorchy Subdivision lots except for TM78B, Parcel 1.)
5.4 Appropriation: DMV Child Safety Grant Inspection Team OP01-
57-57157, $6,700.00 (Form #20041). APPROVED.
5.5 Resolution to Deny SDP-2000-119.
(Note: Mr. Martin asked that a separate vote be taken on this
item. It was the consensus of the Board to do so.) ADOPTED
by a 5-1 vote with a few changes in the wording. (Attachment B)
5.6 Letter dated January 30, 2001 from Stephen L. Utz, County
Administrator, Madison County Board of Supervisors, re:
Shenandoah National Park Resolution. CONSENSUS to have
the Clerk prepare a resolution to be sent to Mr. Utz. (Attachment
C)
6. Public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Rd Plan for 2001-
2007. Instructed Planning staff to incorporate the Board's
suggestions and return a recommendation.
7. SP-2000-60. Church of Our Savior (Sign #95). APPROVED wi6
conditions. (Attachment D)
8. SP-2000-63. Grace Episcopal Church (Sign #65). APPROVED
w/3 conditions. (Attachment D)
9. Appointments.
· APPOINTED Richard C. Collins to the Joint City/County
vacancies on both the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and
the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, with said terms to
run from 1/1/01 through 12/31/02.
11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
· Mr. Perkins asked why staff considered the 12 principles of
the Neighborhood Model when reviewing the Church of Our
Savior application. Mr. Tucker said that although the Board
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members
present. Clerk: Laurie Bentley.
None.
Clerk: Send signed copy of resolution to
Wayne Cilimberg and Amelia McCulley.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons.
Planninq staff: Notify applicant of denial.
Clerk: Send signed resolution to Stephen Utz of
Madison County.
Planning staff: Incorporate the Board's
suggestions, including typographical corrections,
and return a recommendation to the Board.
None.
None.
Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions records.
Send appointment letters, copying appropriate
)ersons.
None.
to where the principles are applied. In this case, the
None.
principles were not considered when recommending
approval or denial.
· Ms. Humphris said she viewed the "balloon visibility" test on
the proposed ECC tower and found that telephone poles in
the area were more distracting than the pole will be.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that pine trees seem to provide the
best cover.
· Ms. Humphris mentioned that staff will soon meet with
residents of Earlysville Road to discuss the steps staff took
before the Board decided not to restrict through-truck traffic
on the road. She asked again that Planning staff provide
the residents copies of Board minutes on the subject.
· Ms. Thomas asked whether the Board needed to appoint a
new chair to the Jail Authority. Mr. Davis said the Board
had agreed to let the current chairman serve in that
capacity until his vacancy on the Authority is filled.
· Ms. Thomas alerted Board members that the SPCA might
be contacting them. The SPCA is concerned that the
funding formula based on the number of dogs they
euthanize may affect its financial resources. Mr. Davis said
only the capital request is under scrutiny, and that Roxanne
White, from the County Executive's office, and Linda
Peacock, from the City, are meeting to discuss this issue.
Adjourn at 9:05 p.m.
Planninq staff:
None.
None.
12 None.
Provide minutes to residents.
Attachment A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 5.2, Home Occupations, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations pertaining
to home occupations; and
WltEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 5.2 to assure that home occupations will have minimum land
use impacts so that the character of the neighborhoods in which they are situated is preserved and
they do not become a detriment to adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend Section 5.2 and any other related regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance to revise the procedures for applying for, reviewing, issuing and revoking
authorizations for home occupations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Section 5.2 and any other related regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest
possible date.
Attachment B
RESOLUTION DENYING SDP 00-119
WHEREAS, Home Depot sought on appeal from the Planning Commission approval of
a preliminary site plan to allow the construction of improvements on approximately 15.9 acres identified as
Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 11 lA and 11 lB (the "property"), located on the east side of Route 29
North approximately 1/2 mile north of the Rio Road intersection; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary site plan shows a building of approximately 130,184 square
feet, parking areas with over 500 parking spaces, travel ways and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the property is within the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning district,
which allows the use proposed by Home Depot as a matter of right; and
WHEREAS, the design of the project shown on the site plan requires that critical slopes
(slopes of 25% or greater), on the property comprising approximately 2.7 acres be disturbed, and the
disturbance of such slopes is prohibited under Zoning Ordinance § 4.2 unless a waiver is granted pursuant
to Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the Board of Supervisors, on appeal, denied by a three
to three vote Home Depot's request for a critical slopes waiver which had previously been denied by the
Planning Commission on November 28, 2000.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby denies Home Depot's application for SDP 00-119, sets forth the deficiencies in
the preliminary site plan that caused the disapproval, and generally identifies the modifications or
corrections that will permit approval of the preliminary site plan:
1. Deficiencies causing disapproval: SDP 00-119 is denied because the
preliminary site plan proposes to eliminate critical slopes on the property comprising approximately 2.7
acres of the property. The preliminary site plan depicts the critical slopes being eliminated, and the
building, the parking lot, and other impervious surfaces being constructed over the former critical slopes.
As such, the preliminary site plan does not satisfy the requirements of:
(A) Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.3.1, which requires that structures and
improvements be located on building sites, and building sites may not include critical slopes (Zoning
Ordinance § 4.2.1);
(B) Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.3.2, which prohibits structures, improvements
and earth disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement, on critical slopes.
(C) Numerous deficiencies of the preliminary site plan (reviewed
contingent upon the critical slopes waiver) were identified and addressed by 24 conditions which would
have been required to be met prior to f'mal site plan approval. Those deficiencies and conditions are not set
forth herein because the site plan now requires comprehensive revisions to address the deficiencies set forth
in (A) and (B) above.
2. Modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the preliminary
site plan: SDP 00-119 should be modified so as to depict development of the property without disturbing
critical slopes on the property prohibited from being disturbed by Zoning Ordinance § 4.2. In addition, the
revised site plan shall meet all other applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Attachment C
SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK RESOLUTION
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has in its possession many photographs taken in the early
1900s of family-members and homesteads of citizens in surrounding counties; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park also has in its possession artifacts and many of the
former belongings of those family-members; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has demonstrated an interest in showing those
photographs, belongings and artifacts to interested parties by its willingness to circulate photocopies of
some of the photographs and escort a committee of representatives through the warehouse to view the
artifacts and belongings; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park is engaged in cataloging and archiving those items and
images; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has recognized that time is of the essence in this process
due to the aging, infirmity and impending passing of individuals who might possibly identify these items
and images; 'and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has been asked repeatedly for at least a period of 40
years to grant access to those items and images, and access in most cases has been denied, due to concerns
over adulteration and further disorganization of those items and images; and
Whereas, the technologies for a new avenue of access in the form of digital photography,
scanning and dissemination via the World Wide Web and internet are widely used by citizens as well as the
Shenandoah National Park; and
Whereas, it is the historical interest of the United States that this knowledge be made available to
all Americans;
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, that members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby respectfully request that the Shenandoah National Park exercise all of its available academic and
technical resources, including accepting the services of students of instructional and digital technology and
volunteers to promptly create a website upon which pictures of all of the aforementioned images and
artifacts are displayed; and
Further Resolved that the Shenandoah National Park grant the widest available access by the
aforementioned individuals as well as others, with the least mount of adulteration and expense, in order to
accomplish the previously mutually agreed to objectives of identification.
Attachment D
PLANNING CONDITIONS
SP-2000-60. Church of Our Savior (Sign #95)
4.
5.
6.
A privacy fence shall be provided between the house located at 2412 Huntington Road
and the residential property located at 2414 Huntington Road;
The existing driveway entrance to the home at 2412 Huntington Road shall be blocked off
and the access between the church and the house shall be improved to allow for
emergency vehicle access to the satisfaction of Fire and Rescue;
The parcels containing the existing church and the house at 2412 Huntington Road shall
be combined to satisfy zoning requirements for parking;
The items listed above (1, 2, and 3) shall be performed and a zoning clearance must be
issued prior to church use of the building;
Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit
amendment; and
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the plan entitled,
"Alterations and additions to the Church of Our Savior", dated 1/13/87, prepared by
M. Jack Rinehart, Jr., and to the addition of the residence located at 2412 Huntington
Road. The thrift store located at 1147 Rio Road is not included in the special use permit.
SP-2000-63. Grace Episcopal Church (Sign #65).
Church development shall be limited to the improvements as shown on the attached site
plan entitled, "Grace Episcopal Church", prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates,
Inc., and dated 1/29/00;
The church shall commence construction, if at all, within five (5) years after the date of
approval of the special use permit by the Board of Supervisors. If construction is not
commenced within the five-year period, the special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall terminate. All Health Department
requirements at the time of the ~ssuance of building permits shall be satisfied before the
Zoning Administrator will issue a certificate of occupancy; and
A landscape conservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape conservation plan
shall include a plan to minimize the clearing of trees to those required for the installation
of the improvements, and shall identify those threes that shall be preserved.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent to Amend the Regulations in the
Zoning Ordinance Relating to Home Qccupations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend the home occupation regulations to more
comprehensively address land use impacts, improve
permitting-related procedures, and to clarify regulatory
language.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, McCulley, Kamptner
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
February 21,2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Yes
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
Personal computers, fax machines and modern telecommunications services provide easy access to the world from one's
home. The cottage industries that used to comprise the field of home occupations are no longer limited to piano teachers,
dressmakers and one-chair barbershops. Today, an individual may conduct one or more businesses from the home,
sometimes in addition to holding a regular job outside the home. The County receives between 300 and 400 home
occupation applications eaCh year, and the number is likely to continue to increase in the future.
DISCUSSION:
The current home occupation regulations have become substantively inadequate to deal not only with the wide range of
home occupations, but also the land use impacts resulting from those home occupations. For example, the current home
occupation regulations do not identify the range of occupations that may I~e conducted as home occupations. Moreover,
some of the substantive requirements in the current regulations lack the desired degree of specificity to allow their easy
implementation. While these substantive regulations are being considered, it is suggested that the procedural
requirements for home occupations be reviewed and amended where necessary as well.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to amend various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance relating to home occupations.
01.028
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 5.2, Home Occupations, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations
pertaining to home occupations; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 5.2 to assure that home occupations will have minimum
hand use impacts so that the character of the neighborhoods in which they are situated is
preserved and they do not become a detriment to adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend Section 5.2 and any other related regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance to revise the procedures for applying for, reviewing, issuing and revoking
authorizations for home occupations. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TItAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 5.2 and any other related regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the
earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing 'is a true, correct copy of a
resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at
a regular meeting held on February 21, 2000.
- c/ Ella W. Carey/; ~.
Albemarle CountY Board of SulierWsors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Baker-Butler Elementary SChool - Request to amend
Albemarle CounTM Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for
Tax Map 46, parcel 30 and 30A.
SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider'holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water and sewer
service,
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA D___~ATE:
February 21, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS..:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGR.___~OUND:
The applicant, the Albemarle County School Board, is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer service
to a 53 acre site (Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A) which is the location for the new Baker-Butler Elementary School. The
property is located on the west side of Proffit Road, approximately 3 miles West of Route 29 (AttaChment A).
DlSCUS.~SION:
The subject property is located in the Hollymead Community Development Area. The western portion of Parcel 30 is already
in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service (Attachment B). The Comprehensive Plan provides the following
concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas:
"General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)."
"Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
"Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)."
RECOMMENDATION:
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated
Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends
proceeding to public hearing on March 21,2001 to consider water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A.
Attachments:
A- Location Map
B - Jurisdictional Area Map
01.029
A
ATTACHMENT A
~NTY
8
~o ~-
33F
45
18C
22 C
RIO
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
~0 ~
45
~c
GHARLOTTESVlLL-7..
AND RlVANNA DI.C:~IGTS
93 ,
92
sEC~'iON":-::46
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST:
Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water service to Tax
Map 78B, Block B, Parcel 4.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
February 21, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a parcel (Tax Map 78, Block B, Parcel 4) in the
Glenorchy subdivision which s ocated on the north side of Route 250 East in Urban Area Three (Pantops), just west of the 1-64
Interchange. The applicant is requesting Water service due t° a failing Well °n'sitel There is i'imited opportunity for locating a
new well on the property.
DISCUSSION:
The SubjeCt property is located in the Urban Area Neighborhood Three. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following
concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas:
"General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be serVed by public water and sewer (p. 109)."
"Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
"Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)."
All of the lots within the Glenorchy subdivision are located within the designated Development Area, with the exception of a
portion of one parcel (Tax Map 78B, Parcel 1 ).
RECOMMENDATION:
AS a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated
Development Areas. This requeSt is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff
recommends proceeding to public hearing on March 21, 2001 to consider water service to Tax Map 78B, Block B ParCel 4.
Since Glenorchy is located within the designated Development Area the provision of both water and sewer service to all of the
lots would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. The Board may want to consider amending the
Jurisdictional Area boundary to include all lots in Glenorchy that are within the Urban Area Neighborhood Three boundary for
water and sewer service.
Attachments
A, B - location maps
C - Jurisdictional Area map
01.030
~8
62
ATTACHMENT A
77
~'OM
5O
MONTIC~'LLO
92
SCOTTSVILLE AND
RIVANNA 'DISTRICTS
..............l I . ~ SECTION 78
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENTB
.. W LTON COUNTRY
14
GLENORCHY - SECTION I - D.B. 341Pg. 251
GLENORCHY- SECTION 2- D.B.341 Pg. 232
.... ~ RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 78-B
-ALBEMARLE
NTY
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - DMV Child Safety
Grant Inspection Team
OP01-57-57157
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of AppropriationS0041 in the amount of
$6,700.00.
AGENDA DATE:
February 21, 2001
_.ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDa.
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
j ATTACHMENTS_: Yes
STAFF CONTACT{S_):
BACKGROUND_:
The Police Department has entered into a regional partnership regarding child safety issues. The partnership includes State
Farm, The Institute of Highway Safety, Drive Smart Virginia, The University of Virginia Health Systems, Martha Jefferson
Hospital and area public safety agencies.
State Farm has taken a national leadership role in educating the public and public safety/health officials in the dramatic
increase in the number of children being seriously injured or killed in motor vehicle crashes across the coun try. Many of these
injuries or deaths may have been prevented with proper safety restraints.
Our Police Department plays a "key" role in the partnership. Through our traffic enforcement and educational efforts, we can
focus attention on this problem. Our Community Policing Division attends numerous neighborhood events throughout the year.
These events afford us an excellent opportunity to promote traffic safety education. Our officers are often asked to
demonstrate the correct methods to install child safety seats or answer questions in general Pertaining to safety restraint
systems. As public safety officials and partners in this regional effort, it is important that our officers know the proper methods
to install child safety seats.
The Child Safety Grant provides funding for: (a) training of our Traffic and Neighborhood Resources Officers in vehicle
occupant protection systems; (b) our public service educational campaign; (c) replacement equipment - reflective traffic cones
and portable signs; and (d) a portable awning, which will be used by the partnership for major community events.
DISCUSSION:
The actual grant is for $6,000.00. These are all federal flow-through funds. The local match, including $700 presented in the
appropriation request, is provided as in-kind personnel activities and equipment usage that will be funded from current
operations. Chief Miller will be present at the meeting to answer any questions the Board may have regarding this grant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 20041 in the amount of $6,700.00.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER.
NEW
X
20041
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV GRANT.
GRANT
CODE
1 1532 31013
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
800100 EQUIPMENT $6,700.00
CODE
2 1532 33000
2 1532 51000
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT
512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER
TOTAL
$6,700.00
AMOUNT
$6,000.00
700.00
TOTAL $6,700.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
DEC 11,2OOO
RESOLUTION DENYING SDP 00-119
WHEREAS, Home Depot sought on appeal from the Planning Commission
approval of a preliminary site plan to allow the construction of improvements on approximately
15.9 acres identified as Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 11 lA and 11 lB (the "property"),
located on the east side of Route 29 North approximately 1/2 mile north of the Rio Road
intersection; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary site plan shows a building of approximately 130,184
square feet, parking areas with over 500 parking spaces, travel ways and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the property is within the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning
district, which allows the use proposed by Home Depot as a matter of right; and
WHEREAS, the design of the project shown on the site plan requires that critical
slopes (slopes of 25% or greater) on the property comprising approximately 2.7 acres be
disturbed, and the disturbance of such slopes is prohibited under Zoning Ordinance § 4.2 unless a
waiver is granted pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the Board of Supervisors, on appeal, denied by
a three to three vOte Home Depot's request for a critical slopes waiver which had previously been
denied by the Planning Commission on November 28, 2000.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby denies Home Depot's application for SDP 00-119, sets forth
the deficiencies in the preliminary site plan that caused the disapproval, and generally identifies
the modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the preliminary site plan:
1. Deficiencies causing disapproval: SDP 00-119 is denied because the
preliminary site plan proposes to eliminate critical slopes on the property comprising
approximately 2.7 acres of the property. The preliminary site plan depicts the critical slopes
being eliminated, and the building, the parking lot, and other impervious surfaces being
constructed over the former critical slopes. As such, the preliminary site plan does not satisfy the
requirements of:
(A) Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.3.1, which requires that structures and
improvements be located on building sites, and building sites may not include critical slopes
(Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.1);
(B) Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.3.2, which prohibits structures,
improvements and earth disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement, on critical
slopes.
(C) Numerous deficiencies of the preliminary site plan (reviewed
contingent upon the critical slopes waiver) were identified and addressed by 24 conditions which
would have been required to be met prior to final site plan approval. Those deficiencies and
conditions are not set forth herein because the site plan now requires comprehensive revisions to
address the deficiencies set forth in (A) and (B) above.
2. Modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the
preliminary_ site plan: SDP 00-119 should be modified so as to depict development of the
property withOut disturbing critical slopes on the property prohibited from being disturbed by
Zoning Ordinance § 4.2. In addition, the revised site plan shall meet all other applicable Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
of 5 to 1, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 21, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye
X
X
X
X
X
NaY
X
Clerk, Board of County Supe/~rs
Betty Herbst
1002 Linden Ave. #112
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 295-7372
McGuire, Woods, Battle and Booth
310 4th Street N.E.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ATT: Valerie Long
RE: Home Depot
Febmaryl9,2001
According to the OBSERVER article of February 14, 2001, Home Depot is "evaluating
all options and mulling over what to do next".
May I suggest that instead of beating a wounded horse, you consider another site in the
southern part of the county?
I understand that companies base new locations on the amount of existing traffic in the
area. However, it has been said that "if you build it they will come."
Avon Street Extended, south of 1-64, is a growing commercial area, with a well
-established nursery business and a new Food Lion complex. There must be property
available along this corridor.
This area is readily accessible - not only to City residents, and the nearby, expanding
residential development - but would also draw customers from all of the South-, East-
and West-em parts of Albemarle County (and further) using Rt. 20 and 1-64.
Customers would be glad to avoid the traffic congestion on Rt. 29!!
I would predict that easier access at a conveniem location would not only increase your
"market share" vis a vis Lowes, but would enhance your reputation in the community.
Thank you ~gr your consideration,
BettyH/e/~rbst~/~~'i~]'-'
BH/ef
cc: Sally Thomas, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK RESOLUTION
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has in its possession many photographs taken
in the early 1900s of family-members and homesteads of citizens in surrounding counties; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah NatiOnal Park also has in its possession artifacts and many of
the former belongings of those family-members; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has demonstrated an interest in showing those
photographs, belongings and artifacts to interested parties by its willingness to circulate
photocopies of some of the photographs and escort a committee of representatives through the
warehouse to view the artifacts and belongings; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park is engaged in cataloging and archiving those
items and images; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has recognized that time is of the essence in
this process due to the aging, infirmity and impending passing of individuals who might possibly
identify these items and images; and
Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has been asked repeatedly for at least a period
of 40 years to grant access to those items and images, and access in most cases has been
denied, due to concerns over adulteration and further disorganization of those items and images;
and '
Whereas, the technologies for a new avenue of access in the form of digital photography,
scanning and dissemination via the World Wide Web and internet are widely used by citizens as
well as the Shenandoah National Park; and
Whereas, it is the historical interest of the United States that this knowledge be made
available to all Americans;
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, that members of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby respectfully request that the Shenandoah National Park exercise all of its
available academic and technical resources, including accepting the services of students of
instructional and digital technology and volunteers to promptly create a website upon which
pictures of all of the aforementioned images and artifacts are displayed; and
Further Resolved that the Shenandoah National Park grant the widest available access
by the aforementioned individuals as well as others, with the least amount of adulteration and
expense, in order to accomplish the previously mutually agreed to objectives of identification.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5
to 1 as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 21, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors j)
IN REPLY REFER TO:
A38
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Shenandoah. National Park
3655 U.S. Hwy. 211 East
Luray, Virginia 22835-9036
May 11, 2001
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
......... Alb.emafle County Executive
.. 401 Mclntyre
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr, Tucker:
This letter is in response to a resolution passed by the Madison County Board of
Supervisors, and subsequently by several other county boards of supervisors, related to
Shenandoah National Park's archival holdings.
When Park staff met. with .members of the Blue Ridge Committee last year in r'eference to
46 unknown family photographs, .we were considering posting the photographs on our
Website. However, research into National Park Service (NPS) policy and advice from
some experienced leaders in our Washington Office has since indicated this is not a
course of action that is open to us.
Until 1994 the Park archives were the responsibility of the Division of Interpretation.
Archives management was handled as a collateral duty by staff`who had no opportunity
for training in management of collections. There was no professional oversight of Park
collections, no required Scope of Collections Statement, no required Collections
Management Plan, and little understanding of the issues involved in archival use and
policy. None of the Park cultural resource collections were cataloged, nor had any finding
aids for the use of collections been produced.
Prior to 1994 many items were accepted for inclusion in Park collections that would not
have been accepted had a Scope of Collections been in place--items that had no relevance
to the Park's primary themes. No item offered was rejected. Many other appropriate
items were accepted with deed-of-gift restrictions that would not be acceptable by NPS
policy todayl The lack of understanding of policy and law allowed many photographs
and documents to be published that should not have been because of deed-of-gift
restrictions, privacy and copyright laws, and other statutes. These 'were published bY 'both
the' Park and by private individuals who were allowed to copy Park records stored in
various locations in the Park. Park staff now will make an effort to assure that deed-of-
gift restrictions, copyright and privacy laws, and alt pertinent National Park Service
policies are followed. We are guided in this by NPS Museum Management Manual and
by Director's Order 28 (Cultural Resource Management Guidelines). Interpretation of
these policies sometimes requires consultation with Department of the Interior legal staff.
With these facts in mind, it should be noted that the Park has two primary types of
archival collections:
Park resource management records--Government-generated documents covering
everything from exotic pest management to building construction that have been
generated since the authorization of the Park in 1924. These records contain maps,
specifications, reports, letters, memoranda, and photographs~ This category also
contains assembled collections that while not generated by the government have been
purchased by the Park for exhibits or interpretation.
Donated collections and/or items--These archival holdings have been donated to the
Park, primarily since the early 1960s. They include the Ferdinand L. Zerkel collection
(Park establishment materials); Park land records (copies of the Commonwealth of
Virginia survey, appraisal, and condemnation files); and dozens of other originally
private collections concerned with Skyland, a limited number of Park families,
Rapidan Camp (formerly known as Camp Hoover), and the Civilian Conservation
Corps.
Release of information contained in Park archival collections is covered by policy
derived mainly from two laws: copyright and privacy. The Park resource management
records are public records and use of these is not impacted by copyright law, although
Privacy Act regulation and policy is in effect for living individuals and, in some cases,
their children. Donated'collections are subject to copyright law, Privacy Act law and
regulations, and by any deed-of-gift restrictions placed by the donor. The NPS policy on
implementation of these laws is laid out in the Museum Management Manual.
The National Park Service does not, by policy, post non-government produced
photographs on park Websites for several reasons. These deal with both copyright and
privacy laws and the policies implementing such laws. It is the NPS position that
Websi_~e posting, is,i in effect, publication. The NPS Museum Handbook, Part IH, Museum
Collections Use (chapter 2, pages 3-19) states:
1. The original photographer (and heirs) own the copyright of an image for his/her [the
photographer's] lifetime plus 70 years;
2. Park Service possession of a photograph or a copy of such does not convey copyright
ownership;
3. Photos of living or well-known individuals are covered by privacy law.
NPS policy goes on to state that parks "..~ should not provide these materials [for use or
publication] without signed releases from all individuals shown..." and a signed release
"... giving [the park] all copyrights and written permission to use this material in anyway
you wish .... "(chapter 2, page 27).
This policy has been supplemented by memoranda from a former NPS Chief Archivist
stating a Department of the Interior solicitor's view is that:
1. "... if you are digitizing for distribution images of private living individuals or famous
dead or living individuals, be aware that privacy and publicity laws in many states
make it illegal for you to place the images~.o on the Web .... "
2. "... many images are sensitive or restricted as they contain location information on
protected archaeological sites .... ", and
3. "If you provide copies without having the copyrights and the user publishes or
distributes them (including placing them on the Web), your park may be sued .... "
The Park has accepted copies, not originals, of some local family photographs over the
past decade. The Park does not own the originals or the copyright of these photographs,
in most cases does not have signed releases for the use of the images, and the originals
remain with the families. When the persons photographed are unknown, it cannot be
ascertained if they are living and even if the individuals have any relationship to the Park.
Most of these images should not have been accepted into the Park collections as they are
not consistent with the Park's Scope of Collection statement. These photographs belong,
more rightly, in a local historical collection. We are looking into the legal possibility
and policy implications of placing some items from the Park's collections with a local
organization(s). However, these issues do not bear just on Shenandoah National Park, but
have potential impacts on all park units and must meet with NPS approval
The Park has disseminated materials during the period in which Park archives were
physically closed for public use. In 1998, one hundred mountain family photographs
known to have been part of the Park's resource management records (and therefore not
subject to copyright law and for which we believed no privacy issues existed), were
copied and made available to county libraries and/or historical societies around the Park.
Photographic copies of these 100 photographs were made available for purchase at a very
modest cost from the Shenandoah National Park Association. Additionally, in 1997 the
Park archives produced a large volume synthesizing the data found in the Park land
ownership records that was also given to local libraries and/or historical societies for
resident and visitor use. In both cases, the Park has felt confident that the records were
public and that no deed-of-gin or. priYacy issues existed.: Intheimmediate future the~.. ,-
Park will again be distributing to local libraries copies of the four volumes of finding aids
produced to date for Park archival holdings. These aids cover some 350,000 documents.
Shenandoah National Park's collection does not include "many of the former belongings
of... family members". Most of the Park's cultural objects were acquired during the
construction of the Byrd Visitor Center and the fabrication of the Park's first visitor
exhibits in the early 1960s. Park museum collections records indicate that between July
1930 and August 1959 only five cultural objects were accepted by the Park (a froe, a
dulcimer, a loom, and two spinning wheels). Park employees and a former Baltimore,
Maryland, resident donated those objects. None has any known mountain family
provenance° This is not surprising when it is considered that, until the past decade,
Shenandoah National Park's primary emphasis was on natural and not cultural resources
and issues.
With the initiation of the effort to build Byrd Visitor Center, the Shenandoah Natural
History Association (now named the Shenandoah National Park Association) made a
major effort to purchase and solicit donation of items for exhibit. Association members
and NPS exhibit planners did not seek mountain family items, but objects that
represented items used in rural areas in the early 20th century. Thus, few of the items
purchased or donated had definitive mountain family connections. Between August 1959
and 1975, approximately 490 cultural objects were purchased or donated to the Park
collections. These objects range from crocks and apple corers to farm implements. Many,
if not most, were on display in the Byrd Visitor Center until they were removed several
years ago as part of a re-evaluation of our exhibits.
The Park continues to acquire items for exhibit. These objects, with the exception of
Skyland, Rapidan Camp and Civilian Conservation Corps, have no known relationship to
Park families unless donated by those families for exhibition.
No individual park has the authority to establish its own Website; NPS Websites are
regulated in the NPS Washington Office that has a standard template for Website pages.
All NPS sites are stored on a server in Denver, Colorado, and at this time graphics
storage is quite limited. In time, Shenandoah National Park and other parks would like to
include more images on our Websites and the NPS Washington Office supports this goal.
In fact, the NPS Washington Office is at this time developing a template with
Rediscovery Sof~ware of Charlottesville (the developer of the NPS museum cataloging
software) that will allow parks to move images from their catalogs onto park Websites.
The Park will participate in this effort once the software is tested and distributed. ! should
note, however, that the Park will never have the ability to post more than a representative
sample of its collections, and we will still only post images consistent with NPS policy
We appreciate the continuing local interest in Shenandoah National Park' s archival and
museum collections.
Sincerely,
-D9~'las K Morris
as .
Superintendent
BOARD MEMBERS:
CHAIRMAN
DAVID C. JONES
VICE- CHAIRMAN
JAMES R. HALE
JAMES L. ARRINGTON
BRIGHTWOOD, VIRGINIA
STEVENS. HOFFMAN
BRIGHTWOOD, VIRGINIA
GEORGE VOLCHANSKY
MADISON, VIRGINIA
labi on Coun mrb o[ Sup. or
~ 1 ~ NORTH MAIN ~T
P.O. ~ox 705
MADISON, VIROINIA 22727
STEPHEN L. UTZ
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(540) 94S-6700
V.R. SHACKELFORD. lll
COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TELEPHONE:
(S40) O48'ST00
FAX:
(540) 948=3843
January 30, 2001
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Attention: Charles S. Martin, Chairman
401 Mclntire Road
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Charles Martin:
Enclosed is the Shenandoah National Park Resolution the Madison County Board
of Supervisors approved on December 12, 2000 in regards to the Shenandoah National
Park Service putting unidentified photos on line for the public to see and identify. We
hope that you will agree with us and will do what you can to make this happen. We are
sending this Resolution to each of the neighboring Counties surrounding the Park.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Utz
County Administrator
SLU/rmj
Enclosure
cc: Shenandoah National Park Service
BOA~,.D SUPERVISORS
FAX (804) 972-4126
February 2, 2001
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
TTD (804) 972-4012
W. Brand McCaskill
5114 Dick Wood Road
CharlOttesville, VA 22903
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 72, Parcel 51 (Property of W. Brand McCaskill & Elizabeth T. & William Brand
McCaskill, Jr. or Cynthia Londree McCaskill) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. McCaskill:
N.B.: This letter replaces the determination of development rights for this parcel dated
January 24, 2001. This revises the number of dwellings on the property from one to two.
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 72 Parcel 51 contains nine (9) theoretical development rights. The basis for
this determination is provided below.
Our records indicate this parcel contains 167.602 acres and two dwellings. The most
recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 304, page 549. It is
dated April 14, 1953 between Bruce D. Reynolds & Downing Smith,'Trustees and W. B.
McCaskill & Elizabeth McCaskill, and Almeyda T. Spratley & G.L. Spratley. It conveyed
175.7 acres.
Deed Book 810, page 398, dated July 25, 1984 between W. B. McCaskill & Elizabeth
McCaSkill and Lester L. Clark & Meredith Ann Clark conveyed 5.078 acres. The plat
noted that the residue of Parcel 51 retains four (4) division rights. That plat also noted
the residue contained 170.88 acres +/-.
Deed Book 997, page 268, dated January 7, 1988 between Elizabeth Twist McCaskill &
William Brand McCaskill and the Commonwealth of Virginia conveyed a strip of land for
the improvement of State Route 637. This transaction did not involve the transfer of
development rights. There have been no off-conveyances from this parcel since
January 7, 1988.
McCaskill Determination
February 2, 2001
Page 2
Further, it is my determination that Parcel 51 consists of two (2) separate parcels. This
is based on Ann H. Sanford v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County, Virginia
and City of Winston Salem v. Tickle. The parcel is divided by State Route 637. Each of
these separate parcels is considered to have had a full compliment of development
rights on the effective date of the ordinance. Therefore, the portion of Parcel located on
the North side of Route 637 has four (4) development rights. The portion of Parcel
located on the South side of Route 37 has five (5) development rights
The above mentioned parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other
applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature
but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres
allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel"
may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to
make.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning AdministratOr
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies: McChesney Goodall, ACE Program Coordinator
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
One additional parcel by Tax Map
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD PRIORITY LIST
NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Six Yea'r Secondary Road Priority List
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Public Hearing on Six Year Secondary Road Priority List
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
AGENDA DATE:
February 21,2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACH M ENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
IN FORMATION:
/
BACKGROUND:
On January 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on the Six Year Secondary Road Priority List. The staff
report for that work session can be found in AttaChment I.
DISCUSSION:
At their work session, the Board identified several ProjeCts for staff to review further. These ProjeCts inClude:
Hillsdale Road Connector
Proffit Road
· Catterton Road
· Old Ivy Road
· Barracks/Garth Road
Staff has addressed these projects in more detail in the public hearing staff report that follows the attached January 3, 2001
Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the County's Six Year Priority List (Attachment II of public hearing staff
report) after input from the Public. VDOT's financial document can be found in Attachment IXi
cOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Six Year Secondary Road Plan
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Work session to review the VDOT SiX Year Secondary Road
Plan and the County's Priority List of Road Improvements.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, FOley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
AGENDA DATE:
January 3, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
IN FORMATION:
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes . ~-------'""
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the Six Year Secondary Road Plan at their meeting on December 4th,
and unanimously recommended forwarding the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 2001-2007 and County Priority List of Road
Improvements.
DISCUSSION: -
The Planning Commission' discussed the attached staff report.~achment A) and recommended approval of the proposed Six
Year Secondary Road Plan and County priority List of Road Impr0vements (Attachments C and F of the staff report) along with
the following comments/recommendations for the Board's consideration:
· Request that VDOT provide an estimate for a railroad bridge improvement project (only) to compare with the cost for the
proposed road improvement project for the Old Ivy Road (current Priority #12);
· . Advance the Proffit Road improvement project (currently Priority #22) as quickly as possible;
· Undertake spot/safety improvements for Proffit Road in the interim of the ultimate improvement project;
· The Board Sl~(~'u'l~J consider using a public informational meeting approach comparable to that used for Rt. 635 to determine
public support for the Catterton Road paving project (current Priority # 58); and,
· Include a spot improvement/paved shoulder project for Barracks/Garth Road from Georgetown Road to White Hall;
RECOMMENDATION:
For information and discussion. The Board of Supervisors will need to hold a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Six Year
Secondary Plan.
00.270
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF pERSON:
wORK SESSION:
wORK SESSION:
JUANDIEGO WADE, DAVID BENISH
DECEMBER 5, 2000
SIX yEAR SECONDARY ROAD PLAN~ FOR 2001-2007
.introdUCtiOn
The purpose of this work session is to provide:
· Initial overview of the Six Year Road-Plan process;
the existing projects on the County's
· General review of
priority list of road improvements and potential projects
to be considered for inclusion in this year's revision of
the list; and
· Opportunity for Planning commission to discuss the
county's existing priority list or other potential
projects/issues'
, for
Six Year Plan Process
The Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan is VDOT s Plan
~he allocation of road construction funds for a six year period. It
consists of a priority list of projects and a financial
implementation plan. The Plan is based on local priorities adopted
by the Board of supervisors. The County typically reviews this
priority list of projectS every year. Attactunent A is the current
adopted VDOT Secondary Road Construction plan. Attachment B is the
current adopted county Priority List for Secondary Road
improvement. The focus of this annual review of the Six year Plan
is the County's priority list (Attachment B). The VDOT Six Year.
Road-.Constructi°n Plan is the implementation tool for this list
Since 1986, the commission and Board of supervisors have approved a
priority list of road improvement projects that would cost, in
total, in excess of available fundS over the six-year planning
period, with such a list developed, subsequent VDOT Six Year Plans
can be prepared and revised in response to available annual funds.
The County has used a locally derived criteria-based rating system
to prioritize road improvement projectS in the County. This system,
with some modifications and refinementS, has been used since 1988.
Once the proposed improvement has been prioritized in its
particular category, all of the projects are combined for each
category to make one priority list. These categories include spot
improvements, major reconstruction, unpaved road, railroad
crossing, and bridge improvementS-
I~'COH~AJ~r $~r IT1D4
CODh'TT ~ AL~OJt f,~
~ON~TRDC~Xo)f fROGRAN
u'~?Z)(ATI~D JLLLoc&?ZO#i
................ OTHER
................ TOTAL
~000-0~
2001-02 $138,SS7 $3o1S0,1jS
2002-03 ~445,000
SeS2,SOS
2004-05 $43~,~13 $5,S44,7Je
2005-04 $2,201,030
$~l,;44 $3~04o540
$3,06~,050
T0'TALI $S,36S,454 $2~,713,01~ $4 970,000 ~33,~22,$65
-_
ATTACH.
'NT A
11/09/1999 BOARD &PPROVALt SECONDARY SYSTEM P&go~ 1
DISTRICT~ CULPEPER CON£TRUCTION FRO~2RAM
COUNTY, ALBEMARLE 2000-01 ~hru
ROUT]E ~ DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ~ PREVIOUS ~ADDXTIONAL [ PROJECTED PISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS J BAI~A~CE
I ~EOUZRED I 2000-0I J 200~-02 I 2002-0~ I 2003-0~ I 200~-05 I 2005-0S I CO~L~'n~
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
RO~m~. oooolcou,'r~ NZ~E ~.~. 01 01 0l 01 01 0J 01 01 01 0i2000-0Z $~00,000 SZO~ ·
TC. 010000-002-5 R/, 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01S.~rrOtS/tZWRnE~ · SS0.000
ID. [~m~tXtE X,STALL.. CON ~,050,000] 0l 1,050.000l 300.000[ ~25.000[ ~25.000[ ~00.000[ ~00.000l ~00.000i 01RTL RT.
STATE ~ORC~Isz~B, SEEDXN~ TOT 1,0S0,000~ 0J 1.0S0.000[ ~00o000[ 225.000[ ~25.0001 200.000[ 300o000[ ~00.000l 0[2004-0S $~50.000 £Zo~ ·
STATE IHE~ ~LANT ~X r. AD 07 2000 I I I I I I I I I JRT
........................................... + ................................................................
no~n~. Sootlco~'T~VZ~E It.E. 01 01 01 ol 01 01 ol
?c. 01O002-002-5. IR/, 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
zn. IT~rrZC C.~ZNO ICO, 300.000[ 0l 300.0001 50.000[ 50.000J 50.0001 50.000[ 50.000
co~rr~CT IYZRXOU£ LOC. I?oT 300.0001 0l 300.000l 50.000~ so.oool S0.000[ 50.0001 50.o00
s?~ I' Ir.~ 07 2000 I I I I I I
~) I I~c~ OS 2008 I I I I I I I
~ouTE. 0~251HATTO, ~ I~.~- 0l 01 01 01 0 01 01 0
TC~ ~20 0625-002- IR/V 01 0J 01 01 0 01 0[ 0
XD. O~E~ n~ON ICOH 120,0001 01 ~20,000l 20,000 20,000 20.000J 20,0001 20,000
STATE fox~ ~y IT~ 120,000l oJ 120,000[ 20,000 20,000 20,000l 20,000] 20,000
HTA~ (B~ l~) I~ 07 2000 I J I I
2 ) IE~ 0( 200S J I I I
............................... ; .............. ;; ........... ; ..........................................................................
Rom. s,s ~ST LZX~ DR. ~.1.20,00 0 20,0001 20,000 0 ol ol 0
TC. 0 oooo*o02* ,c IR/w 20,0001 ol 20,0001 20,000 ol ol ol of
IDs FRtRO~ 25O I~H 4S0,0001 0J 4S0,000l 2X0,000 250,0001 01 01 0l
CO~ TOt0.4 ~.M.RT. 250 IT~ S00,000l 0l 500,0001 250,000 250,0001 ol ol ol
8TA~ LEN~s0.4 ~. I~ 10 2001 I I I I
3 ) lUlL ~DITIO8 IE~ 0S 2002 I I J ~ I I J I
RO~* 0S3XI~KEK ~KWAY iF.E. 1,20S,0001 1,205,000 01 01 0J 0l 0l 0l 01 01RE~E S~IH~ SX,000,O00
TC. 0 0S3X-002-~2e,C502 IR/W 2,403,0031 2,403,003 01 0J 0l 01 01 0J 0~ 0IISOS*~
ZD* 2530 FRtNCL ~'VZLLE I~H ~,0Z6,S001 2,SSS,IOS S,460,4251 3,000,000i 2,060,495J 400,0001 ol 0J 0i 2,000,000l
Co~ TOtCSX ~l~X~ IT~ 12,S24,6031 6,IS4,10B 6,4S0,405~ 3,000.000] 2,0S0,495J 400,0001 01 01 0J 1,000,000l
nS ~.2.~7~. I~ 07 200~ I I I I I I I I t
4 ) IE~ 22 2002 ~ I ~ I I I I I I
Tee 0 0631-002-120,B612 IR/N 01 0J 01 0 01 01 01 01 01 01
ID. 2530 BRX~E O~R ICOH 2,05d,500] 2,05~,50~1 01 01 01 01 01 01 0l 01
CO~ ~EEE JT~ 2,20~,S001 2,204,S00l 01 0] 01 01 01 0t 0l
BRSO, I~ 07 200~ I I I I I I : I I I I
~ ) IE~ ~2 2002 I I I I I I ' I I I I
........... ; .................... ; ............... ; ........... ; ............................................
~o~ 0~21 ~CR~ ~EWAY ~.E. 50,000 50,000 0J 0~ 01 0~ 0J 0l 0~
Tc. 010622-002-~2e. BS57 IR/ff 0J 0~ 0l ol 0J ol ol oJ 0J 0l
IDt 2530 IBRX~E O~R CSX iR iCON 1,830,500l 650,0001 Z,X00,S00I 200,000l oeo,500J ol ol Ol o] ol
co~ JffzogN TO 4-L~8 ITOT 1,eeo,500l ?oo,oool 1.1lo,sool 2oo,o0ol 900,500 si si ol ol
BRSOS ~ IE~ 07 200~ I I I I I ; I I I I
4 ) I IE~ 12 2002 I I J I I ] I I
si si
si
5o,oool
5o,oool
I
I I
si si
si si
2o,oool si
2o,oool si
I
I
o[ 0IRUJ~A.L ADDITION
Of
Of OJ
~Datef 11/09/19~0 SOARD APPROVAL* 8ECOI%'DARy S~STE)4 P&get
t~)X STRI CT J CULPEPER CONSTRUCTION p ROORAM
(In DollARS)
2000-01 thr'd 2005-06
COUNTY., ALe r. MARI, E
It OU'I~ DESCRIPTION [ EBTIMATUPD [ PREVIOUS ~ ADDITIONAL ~'ROJECT~D FISCAl. YEAR AI, LOCATI08S I BALANC~
LEN~I'H ~ COOT ~ FID~I~ - ~ PUI~DIN~2 ............ + ............+ ............,, ............ * ............+ ............ + TO *
I I I Xte0UI~E~ 200o-0~ I 200~-0~ I ~002-0~ I ~000-0~ I ~00,-05 I 2005-00 I co)~r,~
ROUT~, 0640 AIRPORT lOin II~.E. 75o,oooj 75o,oool o oJ 0] 01 01 0] 01 0[REYENUE SILILRINO $1,000,000
TC, Il)ill 064~-002-158oC501 IR/N 1,~00,oooi Z,9oo,oool o oJ o[ o[ ol o{ o] o11990-Po
ID8 2405 PRsROUTK :19 ICON 2,070,000[ 3SO,000[ 1,720,000 179,8761 500,000[ ,Io,1221 si o1- o[ 1,ooo,ooo[
C0HTRACI' TO, ROUT'~ 60~ ITOT 4,7~0t, 000 ~ 3,000~0001 1,720,000 17g, 0TOI S00,0001 40,1221 01 01 01 1,000,000l
es LEHO'm,0.0e )~. IE~ 07 200Z I I I I I I I
s IEc~ 12 2oo~ I I I I I J I
Roo~rt. XOOOI).'-U)OMC~EEE rEX. I~-r- ' ?SO,O00 ?.SO,O001 OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI~EVg~E "~"~ SeO0,O00
ID, ~'ZI~,~ZO ROLO [CO~ ~,,00,000 0l 2~,eoo,oool ol o[ ol ol 1~2,5~1 1,000,000l 25,~87,4~51
COh-~ACl* I'.TO,RTE. 2~ ITO~ 31,300,000 .X,402,055 29,S,7,5051 01 400,000l ?oo,000l 050,0001 ~,000,000l ~,000,0001 2~,X~7,OSSI
Rs LEN~,~.O .~ Ir~ 0Z 20ZS I I I I I I I
S IE~ 0Z 20Z7 I I I I I I I I
Rou'rzo o6s6 ,EOiaFrOWN ROAD IL'.t. ~00,0001 100,000 01 0J 0l 0J 01 0l 01 01n~'E~E S~t~.O $2O0,000
TCt l~SO0 065~-002-25~!, C50~. I~/N 225,0001 225,000 O[ OI OI OI 01 OI OI ol~00?-~'e
ID, 12tS2 Fit, ROOTE 654 ICON 1,675,000[ 375,000 1,300,000[ 01 01 I, 100,0001 0~ 0{ 01 200,000]
co~-r~cr TO.ROU~ 742 I?OT 2,000,0001 700,000 1,300,000J si si ~,~oo,oool o[ si si 2oo,oool
Rs LENCrrd,0.8 ~a. Ir~ ~2 2002 I I I I I I I I
? !s~o'r Ii~lto3ro~HTS IECD 0! ~003 [ I J J [ [ [ [ [
Ro~'rE, 0~01 ~M OAS ROAD [~.E. 175,000l 175,000 0[ oJ o[ ol o[ o[ o[
?Ct 211810591-002. oC JR/# 350o000[ 33,209 316o791i 0[ 0[ 200,0001 116,791[ 0[ ol 'o119oo-2o0o
IDs IlIIJ!I~RJROU?E 240 Icon ' 2,4s3,tlel si 2,453,410 0{ 0{ 01 1,453,418{ 0[ 0l 1,000,0001
CONTRACT 'TOsROUT~ SSi [TOT 2,978,410l 208,200 2,770,209 o[ oB 200,000 z,s?o,2ool o[ si z,ooo,oool
RS LEN(TI~tl.S NI. [EAD 10-2003 I [ [ [ [ [ I
iH~rN & svP~Iasv~N IE~ 22 2004 I [ I [ I i I
ROUTE. 065] iFRKE STATE/RIO RD. IV.uP. 150,0001 55,000 95,000! 01 01 95,000 si si si 0IFRKK STATE/RIO RD. COlleCTOR
?Ct 420[0651-002-189,B645 IR/# 100,000[ 45,000 55,000 0l 0l 55,000 0[ 0l 0t 0SIN LIEU OF JtAILItOAD
lDt 2504 IXN LIEU OF R.R. ICON x,2oo,oooJ 2,641 1,197,359~ o[ 01 650,000 547,359; ol ol 0JR~PLACE)OKIt~ ON FREE STATE RD.
COb'TRACT leRIDOE RE~L, ACf3~NT ITOT 1,450,000[ ~02,64! 1,347,350 01 0l O00,O00 547,35~ 01 0l 0l
RS IOTA. HO. 6124 lEAD 12 2003 I ] ] [ I I
0 10ulrr. ~TINO 6.0 IEC~ 12 2004 I I ~ [ I I
~ou-r~, o?81[su#srr AV~. [~.E. 100,000J 0l 100,000 0l 0[ o[ loo,o00 0l 01 01R~Z~Ut S~JU~O $100,000
TCt 2~001078~*002- ,C IR/~ 200,000l 0l ~00,000' 0l ol 0J 50,000 50,000l 0J 0[2005-06
IDI !7ITIIFR*BCL CH 'VILLE Josh 300,000[ 0[ 300,000 0l 0[ 0l 0 200,0001 01 100,000[
cowrv, lcr ITO,OLD IT~. ~ ~?OT 500,000J '0J 500,000 0l 0l 01 ~50,000 250,0001 01 ~00,0001
ST~T' Il.EX(mi,0.5 ~a. lEAD ~0 2004 I I I I I : I I I
lo Ipso? iM~ov~mwr I,,c~ 07 2005 I J ~ I J ~ I I I
ROUTEr 0631SOLD L~'NCHBURGH RD. I~.E. 2oo,oool si 200,000 0[ 0[ 200,000[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[REVENUE SHARINg 2001-02
TCt IS00 J 0631-002- ,c IR/N 250,0001 01 250,000 01 01 01 250,OS0] oj si o{$soo,ooo
ID, 153201FR.1.35 MZ.S. T-64 ]CON 1,550,000[ 0[ 1,550,0001 01 0[ 0[ 0[ 20O,OOO[ 050,000] 500,000[
co~ ITO.S?E. 70e ITOT 2,000,0001 01 2,000,000J 01 0J 200,0001 250,0001 200o0001 eso.oool 500, ss0[
RS Ir. El~rH,$.0 It,Z. [[JO 12 2004 [ J I I [ '~ r I I I I
11 J0POT IMYROVEHENTS JECD 12 2005 I J I I I I I J I
D&t®t 11/09/1999 BOARD APPROVALt SECONDARY 9YSTKM page~ 3
DI fITRICT*CU l, J~tf L~ZB CON4TRUCTXON I)RCX]RAM
{In Doll~s]
COU~Y ~ AL~Lg 2000-01 ~ 200~-0~
RO~ D~gCRX~TXON [ ESTI~ ~R~VXOOS ~DITXO~L [ PRO~K~ED
LEN~ [ CO~T ~ZN~ [ FU~I N~ . ............ , ............ * ............* ............* ............ * ............* TO * COM~9
[ I ezoux~o I ~ooo-o~ I ~ool-o~ I ~oo~-oe I ~oo~-ol
Ko~. o~ol 0~ x~ Ro~ I~-~. ~50,000 ~50.000l o] ol ol ol o[ ol ol ol~. s~x,o $ 1.000.o0o
To. 435~ 060:-00~-~37.c50x IR/~ ~.000,000 ~so.oool ~to.oool ol ol ~to.oool o[ ol ol 011000-0~
XD~ 8807 ~R0~ 250 Icon 3,750,000 01 3,750,000[ 0[ ot 494,440[ 1,200,000 l,ooo, oool si,stol 1,ooo,ooo1
CO~ TO.RTE. 2~ BTP~II IT~ 5,000,000 9X0,0001. 4,ogo,oooE ol o~ ~34,440~ X,200,000 Z,000,0001 SS,SS01 ~,000,0001
Z2) ~XD~TO4 ~S I~ 04 mOOS I I' I I I I I 1
ROV~, 0726 ~l RX~R XO~ I~.E. 40,0001 01 40,000 01 ol o[ 4o,ooo ol ol 01RE~E s~x~a $200,000
Tee 1400 072~-002- ,~ iR/M 50,0001 0J S0,000 0l 0J 0[ S0,000 0[ 0j 012002-03
zD, ~7~70 ~x,Ro~ 7~S Icon 4io,000l ol 410.000 0 ol ol 22,~2 ~eT,0oel ol 200,0001
co~ i~OtRO~ 1302 [T~ S00,000l 01 S00,000 0 0J 0j 112,~2 loT,oeo[ oJ 200,000J
sT&~ LEN~.Z.O m. I~ o2 2005 I I I I I I
Ro~, o~7~ ~ZLRO~ ~ossx~ i~,L ~,ooo[ ~,ooo ol , o ol ol ol ol of ol
TC, 270 0STJ-002-S . In/" ~.000[ t.000 0l 0
z~. 17172 0,25 ~ s. aT. ?~O lC0, 9~,000l 9~,000 0l 0 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l
CO~ (~lo~s & OA~I) IT~ 100,0001 ~00,000 0l 0 01
STA~ LEN~t0,0S ~, I~ 02 2000 [ I
~4 ) IE~ oe 2ooo I I ~ I I I I I
~o~, o~25ILxG~o & ~s It.~. ~,000 ol 2,0001 ~.000t ol ol ol ol ol ol
Tc. 220i0~25-002.s . IR/u ~.000 ol 1.000l ~.oooJ ol ol ol ol ol ol
IDt 17173 [ ~I~RO~ ~OSSXNO CON ~, 000 0[ 9~, 0001 9~,000] 0[ 0] 0[ 01 0J 0l
co~ I~ ~o~ ~E~ T~ ~oo,ooo ol ~oo,oool ~oo,oool o ol ol ol ol ol
ar~. I~. O.OS ~. ~ Z~ ~000 I I I I I I I
~5 ) I E~ o~ 2ooi I I I I I I I
Ro~8 0744JUu~ CLUB RD. P.E. 1,00~ 01 1,000 1,000 0 0J 0[ 0 0J 0]10~ OF
To. ~4010744-002- n/u ol o[ 0 0 0 ol ol 0 ol ol
z~. I~ z~. t~. 22 con o,oool o[ ~,000 0,000 0 ol ol 0 ol ol
co~ ILIG~s & ~s T~ lo,0001 o[ 10,000 ~0,000 0 ol ol 0 o[ 0l
~ [LKH~- 0.05 ~. ~ ~2 2000 [ j [
Is ) ~1 E~ o4 2ool I I I I I I
RO~K. 99991KBT LEIOH DRI~ It.E, . z,oool ol ~,ooo t,ooo o ol ol o ol ol
To. ol~so-oo2-s , Ix/, ol ol .ol ol o ol ol o ol ol
ID. ILlo~s · ~s 1co~ S~,000 0l 00,00o Og,o00l 0[ ol o[ o 0l 0[
CO~~ [CSX ~ILRO~ J~ 100,000 0[ 100,000 100,000[ 0[ 0[ 0[
RS ILRN~80.0S J~ 12 2000 J
17 ) [ IE~ 04 2001 [ I I [ ~[ [ [
XO~, 0010IBR~S GA~ nO~ J~.E. 100,000 0[ 100,000 0[ 0[ 0] 0J ~00.000 0[ 0IRE~ S~ZND $~00.00o
TC. 2000J 0e~0-002- ,C ]X/V 75,000 01 75,000 0J 0[ 01 0] 7~,000 0l 0[200~-04
IDs S4413[AT l~. ROWE 789 [CON 375,000 0[ 375,000 0[ 0{ 0[ 0[ 25,000 250,000[ loo,oool
C0~ iHPOT X~RO~ JT~ 550,000 0j SS0,000 01 01 0~ 0~ 200,000 250,000~ 100,000l
Rs ' ILEXes.0.25 ~. I~ ~0 2005 I.
( ~O ) I IE~ 0O 200S I I I I J 'l I
-OI STRICT8 CULPEPER CONSTRUCTION PRO~R. AJ4
(In DollARS)
COUNTer ALBEMARLE 2000-01 thru 2005-0~
ROUTE DESCRIPTION ESTIHATED PREVIOUS IADDITIOI~LL PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
LEN(3TH COST ~JJ4~lM~ J FU~IN~ ............ * ............ * ............ · ............ * .........................
I ~Ouz~z~ 2000-0~ I 200~-02 I 2002-0~ I 2003.04 I 2004-05 2005-0~
RO~. 0676 0~NSVlLLE ROt ;.E. t0,000 01 t0,000 0l 0l 0~ 0~ 40,000 0l 01R~; f~INO $10o,000
TC8 ~70 0;?S-002- ,c n/u 25,000 0l 25,000 0l oJ 01 o~ 2s,000 01
lDz 54414 ~te X~. R~. 250 COX 135,000 01 135,000 0 0J 0l 0J 35,000 0J 100,000l
co~ sP~ X~Ro~ T~ 200,000 01 200,000 0 oJ ol oJ 100,000 oJ Xoo,oool
BT&~ LE~o0.20 ~ 10 2005 I J J I
ROV~. 0~8 ~,OVI~L~ ~0~ J~.~. 100,000J ,~ 0J 100,000 0 01 0J 0J ~00,000 01 0J
TC. 2000 0S~O-002-223,CS0Z JR/M 100,000J 0i Z00,000 0 0J 01 01 100,000 0~
ID. 4104 lit I~. i0U~ 250 ICON tS0,000J 01 450,000 0 0J 0l 01 50,000 400,0001 01
co~ ~ Z~R0~ IT~ 650,000l .' 01 SS0,000 0 01 0J 01 25o,000 4oo,0o01 0
Rs LEN~.0.25 I~ 12 2005 I I I I I ,I
2o IE~ os 20o6 I J I I I I
.............................. ~ ..........................................................................................................
Ro~, 0~5 BLE~. ~ I~-~. 2~,000 01 25,000l 0 oJ 0J ol 25,000 01 0
ID, 17174 X~. aO~ 7~0 iCON 245.000 0l 245.000l 0J 0l 0l 0J ,5.000 :00.000J 0
cO~ ~(~ 8C~SYILLE) ITK 300,000 01 2oo.oooJ si si o1 oJ 2os.soo 2os.soot o
~o~, OS4OI~Ro~FzT ~. I~.s. IS0,000 OI 150,000 0J 01 01 01 150,000 ol oIR~E S~IN~ $500,000
TC, 3000J0649-002- ,C JR/W 300,000 0 300,000 0l 0l 0l 01 55,560 244,440l
ZD~ 54415JFRsRO~K 2~ icon 2,050,000[ 0 2,050,000 oj ol ol ol 01 755,5601 1,294,4401
co~ ITO.RO~ 81t tT~ 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 0J 0J 01 01 ~05,5~0 ~,000,0001 1,294,440J
Rs JLEH~,2.S0 ~, I~ 012006 J I I I I
22 I IE~ 06 2007 I I J J
xo~. 060SIDI~ERSOH XO~ I~.E. ~50,000 0 150,0001 01 01 0i Gl 150,000 01 0JRE~E 8~lNO $300,000
TCt 580010606'002- ,C IR/H 200,000 0 200,000] 0J 0l 01 0l 200,000 01 012002'03
lDt 5441SIF~tRO~E 649 ICOH 050,000 0 e50,000l 0 ol ol oE aso,ooo 200,000i 200,0001
co~ ITO*RO~ 743 IT~ ~,200,000 0 2,200,000J 0 0 01 01 700,000 200,0001 ~00,000l
ST&~ ILE~*0.O7 m. I~ 02 200S J I ~ I I J
........................................ . ...................................................... + +
ROUX'Et 079SIJAM~S xoNRoE I~ET. J]L'.E. 75,000J 01 75,000 0 0 01 01 75,000
TC. 200010795-002- ,C Ia/~ loo,oool ol loo,ooo 0 0 ol si 10o,000
ID~ 54417 J X~ERSE~XOH OF iCON 175,0001 0J l?S, 000 0 0 0J 0[ 25,000
co~ IRo~E 53 IT~ 35o,oool si ~so,ooo o o si .si 200,000
STATE ILEN~H.0.3 J~ 07 2007 ] I I ~ J
24 I IE~ 12 2007 I I I % I
RO~. 0S43JPOLO OROU~O RO~ J~.E. 150,0001 0J ~5o,oool si si si si zoo,soo
TO, 90010~3-002- .c IR/H 200.0001 ol 200.0001 ol 0l or or ol
xD. 5442eI~sRouTE 2~ Ico~ 2.050.0001 ol 2.050.0001 ol ol ol si si
co~ JTO,RO~E 6t9 [TOT 2.5oo. oool si ].50o.oool si si si si ~oo.oool
STATE ILEN~.2.70 ~Z. I~ 07 2007 I I' I I I '~ I I I
25 IS~ BAbY I~ROV. [KCD 09 2ooe I I I I I ~. I I'
OI 01REYEN~E SHARXNO $15o, ooo
ol 012005-0~
si 15o,oool
si 15o,oool
I
I
........................ . .............................
SO,000 0JREVKNUE S~XN~ 2004-05
300,000 0[S500,000
150,000 900,O00J
500,000 900,000[
D~e~ 11/0~/1~ BOARD
DxB'rR~i ~EB CON~TRUCTION
COU#~Y~ ~%I,~EMAR~ 2000-01 t~ru 2005-06
~O~ DgI~XfTXOH EBTX~ ~VIOUE I~DXTXO~
I ~oux~u I ]ooo-ol I 3oox-o~ noo~-o~ I noo~-o~ I ~oo4-os I ~oos-os I c~L~ I
RO~, 0~4X ~S mLL ~O~ ~.Z. 75,000 0l ?S,000[ 0[ o o1 oJ 7s,oool ol ol~z s~xN~ 2oo~-o~
TC* 410 0641-003- ,C R/M X00,000 0
ID. 5441o B~ ~L~RT O~X COX 205,000 0l 265,000l 0J 0 01 01
co~ JACOBS RUN T~ 440,000 01 440,0001 01 0 01 01 100,O50J 30,050[ 300,000J
8TA~ LE~*0.3 ~ ~ X0 2007 [
26 ) x~ os 2ooe I I 1
aom, os4xlmvs mLL tO~ ~.Z. S,000
TC, 41010641-003- ,O ~/W Ol O[ O[ O[ OI O[ OI O[ O[ O[
lDe $4419JBOX ~JLVERT · CON 55,000] 0l 55,000
COHTRAC*r la&C0BS RUH TOT 60,000[ 01 40,000
STATE ILE#~TM* r. AD I0 2007 [ " I
20) I s~ oo 2000 I I
io~, 0~]IlRIO aO~ I.E. 100,O00[ 0J 100,000
TCI 2500010~31-002, C ~R/N 250,0001 01 250,000
CO~ J IT~ 1,000,000l 0J 1,000,000
RI iLEXes0.4 ~LEI ~ 12 2007 [ [
27 ) J~D~S r~ 0e 200e I
ol ol ol ol ol 55,oool ol
of ol ol ol ol so,oool ol
I I I. I I I I
I I I I I I I
oJ ol ol ol ol xoo,oool 0IREvEt~E SHAXXSO $700,000
ol ol ol ol ol 50,0001 200,00012003-04
ol ol ol ol ol ol sso,oool
ol ol el ol ol xso,oool 05o,oool
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
ROUTB. 0743 r. ARLYSVZLLE ROAD t*.S. 100,000 0[ 100,000 01 0[ 0[ 0 0[ 100,000J 0JREVENUE SHARINO $400,000
TCt 8600 0743-002- ,~ a/W 200,000 0l 200,000 01 0[ 0l 0 0J X88,9001 1~,012J2004-05
1Do 54421 FRoRO~ 670 CON 700,000 0 700,000 0] 0J 0[ 0 0J 0] 700,000J
CO~ TO. aO~ 743 T~ ~, 000,000 0 X, 000,000 01 01 01 0 01 2OS, 0e0J ~X~, 0X2I
RI LSN~s2.04 ~ 12 2007 I
20 ) S~ X~aO~S E~ 10 2000 I I I I I I
~o~* 0~37 DX~ MOOD R~ J~.E. 25,000 25,000 0 01 0[ 0J 01 01 0J 0IUN~A~D RO~
TCt Il0 0037-002-~52,S501 [i/U 30,000 30,000 0[ 0[ 0[ 01 0J 0[ 0J 0IRXO~ OF MAY AVAX~LK
xn, lll2S ~,~o~ S35 Icom 1,045,o00 1,o45,oo0 oJ oI o1 oJ oJ oj ol
CO~ TO.RT. 682 JT~ 1,100,000 l, 100,000 0J
ST&~ [LEX~t2.O m. I~ 02 2000 [ [ I
2J ) I Ig~ o4 2OOl [ I [
RO~s 0791JMX~AY RO~ ~.g. 10,000j 10,000 0J O[ 0[ 01 0l 0I 0J 0JU~FA~D RO~
TC* 240107~X-002,~ ,N IR/N 15,000] 15,000 0l 0J 0J 01 0[ 0J 0[ 0jalO~ OF WAY AVAX~E
zD, XlX2Oj~,io~ S3S CON 235,000j 235,000 '0l 01
s~ ITo,n~ ~ R~. 7~ T~ 260,0001 200,000 01 01 0l 01 ol 01 ol 01
ST~ ILEH~,O.73 m. ~ 02 2000 I I I I I :1 I I I
~0) I ~ 082000 I I I
io~, 0~05lnuxx~ XZ~z xo~ :~.E. . . 5,000l 5,0001 0l 0l 0l
To. 1~olo6o5-oo2-~ ,S R/N Z5,0001 XS,0001 0l 01 0[ 0[ 0[ 0J 0J 0[RIO~ O~ ffA~ AYAI~LE
ldo 171751FRiGREE~ CO. LZ~ COH 2e0,000l 2eo,oool of ol ol ol ol ol ol ol
s~ ITo. o.e3 ~ OREZ~ e~lT~ 300,0001 300,0001 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
ST~ IL~*0.0~ ~X. I~ 02 2000 I I I I I ., I I I I I
21 ) I IZ~ 00 2000 I I' I
~ Dm~®l 11/09/199. - BOARD APPROVA~I SECONDARY 8YSTE~ ~mge:
· DISTRICT~ CULPEPER CONBTRUCTI0~ PROGRAH
(In DollARS)
COUITI'Y~ ALBE~L~RLE 2000-01 tbrv 2005-0~
I ~QOX~D I 2000-01 I 200]-0~ I 9002-03 I 200~-04 I 2004-05 I 2005-0~ I C~ I
Xo~, 0079 O~lS~X~ RO~ ~.Z. 10,000 10,000 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0~UN~A~D R~
TC~ 180 0~79-002.f ,N IX/M 10,000 10,000 0 0 0l si si o[ si oIRxa~ o~ ~AY AYAX~E
ID. 11127 FR*RO~ 738 CON 405,000 280,000 125,000 125,000 0l 0l 0J 01 01 0I
g~ TOsE~ ~l~. T~ 425,000 300,000~ 125,000 125,000 01 0[ 0[ 01 01 0[
( ~2 E~ so 2soo I I I I I I
aO~8 0;ISILINSD&T XO~ ~.g. 10,000j 0
vc. 2~0106~5.002-~ ,H k/N 10,000[ 0J 10,000 10,000 0[ 0l 0[ 0] 0[ 0[XX~ oP MAY AV~X~LE
ID. 544221ri~i0~ S. CO. 200,0001 0l 200,000 lO0,000 20,000l 0l 01 0l 0l 0l
ST&~ FOR~I~ooLOUXn C0, LZ~ T~ 220,000l · 01 220,000~ 200,000 20,000l 01 01
ITA~ f~*0.50 ~. ~ X2 2000
( 3~ I ~ o5 2oox
Rom. 0S(7I~xTON X~ J~.E. 10,000j
TOt S0[0(JT-0OI-f ,N [R/M 10,000[ 0l 10,000J 10,000J 0[ 01 01 0[ 0[ 0[RXO~ OF WAY AVAX~LE
XDt 54424JFR,I.0 ~.SS ST 776 ICON 280,000l 0l 280,000l 47,gill
s~ TO.RO~ 7~s IT~ 300,0001 0l 300,0001 S7,~11] 232,300J 01 01 01 o[ 0I
BTA~ LK~tl.0 ~. I~ 08 2001
( 5. Irc~ 04 9009 I I I
................................ + ............... + ...........+ ........................
~OUTE( 0?3? MOUNT&IN VISTA RD. It.E. 20,0001 01 20,000 20,000
TC. S00727-O02-~ ,N Jx/v 2o,oool si 20.000 20,000
ID. 5442S FRtROUTK $ ICON 610,0001 01 ~0,000 351,975
CO~ACT ?Oil.X9 ~.E. RT. S JT~ SS0,0001 0[ 650,000 391,975
ST&~ Ln~.x.X* J~ 08 2002 I
( '35 JE~ 0~ 2003
I I I I I I I
si si si si si 0Im~.AVED ROAD
01 0l 01 01 01 01RXO~ Or MAY AYAXT-IWLE
258,025 01 01 01 01 01
258,025 ol ol ol ol ol
iOUT~, 0?08IPEcn~FI~TS ROAD IP.L ~0,000[ 30,000~ 0[ 0l 0 0l ol 0l 01 0IOHFAVED ROAn
TC. 24010708-002-F ,M IX/ff 50,0001 30,0001 20,0001 01 0 0l 20,0001 0[ 0J 0J~ARTIAL RIGHT OF WAY
XDt 11120[FR,0.? X.W. s~z. 795[c0N 745,0001 46,045 --o,--5l ol 250,290 209,702l xse,so~l ol ol
CONTRA~T [TOa0.2e N.M. RT. 620JTOT 025,000l 206,045 710,5501 ol 250,900 2.,702l l?e,so31 ol of
STATK ILEN(3THt2.00 Ir, AD 03 2003 I I I
( 30 I IEcz) o5 2004 I I I I I
ROtatE. 0702[RESERVOZR ROAD [~.E. 20,0001 0[ 20,000[ 0[ 90,000 0J
TC, 47olo7o2-oo2-~ ,s Ii/v 4o,oooI 0[ 4o,o~ol si 80,ooo 0[
XD~ 5442~J~RsROUTE 2~ KAMP IC0M 2,540,0001 0J 1,340,0001 0l 18,253 325,000I
COHTRA~T JTOtDEAD END ITOT 1,400,0001 0l 1,400,0001 0l 78,2s$ 325,000l
STATE ILEHaTH.2.4 HI. lEAD I0 2004 I I I I [
( 3~ I IECl) 12 2005 J I
Rou~r~. 0840[OILBERT STATION RD. [t.E. .~20,000l 01 20,000l 0[ 0l 20,000l
TC, 240[0640-002-F ,g Ji/U 30,000[ 0l 30,000[ 0l 0[ 20,000[
ID· 54427JFRtROUTE 441 Icon 300,000] 01 300,000j 0[ 0J 70,010[
CONTRACT ]TOsROUTE 747 ~TOT 350,000~ 0J 350,000] 0J OI 120,010l
STA'r~ JLEM~flf,0.?0 ~Z. lEAD 12 2004
( 38 ) I IE~ o~ 2oo5 I I I f I I
o I o I o I 0 J UNPAVED ROAD
01 01 01 01NO RZOHT O~' .Ar
4ss,s001 596,';471 01 01
4os,soo1 5,6,7471 oJ si
r I I I I
o I ~ I ~ I o I ~o ~ o~ ~
I I I I
I I I I
D, tet IX/09/1909 BOA.qD A~PROVALt OKCOIqDARY SYBTI~4 P&go~
DXSTRXCTI CULOK~IC~ CONSTRUCTION PR0~RAM
'(Xn DollARS)
COUNT1t's ALBEMARLE 2000-01 thru 2005-05'
ROU*r~ DEICRZ~TIOM EITIJGLTED · 9REVIOUf JA~)DZ?IOJ~AL I fRO~KCTL'D FISCAL YEAR &LLOCATION6
LII~3TH ~OIT fUNDDfG J FUHDZNO , ............, ............ , .........................
I REQUInZ~ 2ooo-ol I 2001-02 J 2002-03 2003-04 I 2004-0s ~ 2005-05 J CO)4~LFFE J
RO~I'~, 0633 HE&RD6 MT.Un. ~.go 20,000 01 20,000 0J 0] 20,000 0J 0J 0J 0JVNfAVED ROAD
?C, 60 0633-002ot ,# R/# 30,000 0t 30,000 0J 01 30,000 0 0J 0J 0l~o
XO, $6420 FRtt~LBON CO. LX~E~ CON 300,000 0j 300,000 0j 01 67,713 57,900 174,397J 0J 0J
CONTRACTr TO*ROUTg 634 TC~ 350,000 0t 350,000 0J 01 117,713 57,000 174,307
,T&TIE LEh'GT~*0.S0 m. r. AD lO 2oos I I I I I I
(st) ZeD o6 2006 I I I I I I
ROUTB8 0606 DXCEER$OH ROAD I~.B. 20,000 0J 20,000
Tee $60 0606-002of ,# IR/# $0,000 01 $o,o00
Xp, 54420 FA*ROUTE OSb ICON 1,190,000 0J 1,100,000
CONTRACT TOiRODTIE 1030 J?0T 1,260,000 0J 1,260,000
STATE ~ENGTH*I.99 m. lEAD 10 2006
( 60 ) Igc~ 12 200?
ol ol ol 2OOOOO
ol ol ol so,ooo
ol ol ol
ol ol ol 129,366
ol ol OIUNVAYgD ROAD
ol ol olxo Rxo~ oF ~Y
1~7,~0~ 908.$44 4,301J
127,689 090,g44 4,301l
I
D~.e~ 11/0~/19~! BOARD AI~I~tOVALz
~ISTRICT~ CULE*EI)~u
¢ON~TRUCTIO~ pROGR.~M
(In DollARS)
2000-01 t~hz'-4 20Q$-0(
P&ges 8
ROUTE
I I I I uouz~'D I 2000-0z I 200~-02 I 20o2-o5 I 2005-04 I 2004*00 I 2005-00 I CO~,LL"~ I
o-o ....... · IE~ORT TOT~.O o ~EI 5,2Z2,000 J 3,500o000J Z,SS0,000l Ss,oo0j 2Oo0O0J 355,000J I~0,o001 015o0o0J 255,00ol 0j
-R/NJ 12,~o.oo3 I ~,o2s,e,?l s,~2o,15sl s~.oool 4,J,9ool ~,355,000l 1,116,?Ol] 1,540,9751 703,4201 ?~5,o621
-coNI
TOTAL ALLOC&TXONJ I J I 4,094,4041 s,254,252J 5,522,057i 5,040,700J 6,002,2421 s,042,2421 ]
xxo~n' lnuzxtx~l I I I ol ol ol ol ol ol I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SE(~ONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
2000-01 Through 2005-06
APPROVED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF: SUPERVISORS FEBRUARY 16, 2000
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments
Priority Proposed From - To Completion Cost
List Ranking Date
N/A N/A 606 Dickerson Road Intersection of Rt. 743 June 2001 $50,880
N/A N/A 743 Eadysville Road Intersection of Rt. 606 ? $50,880
Month-Year
· 1 1 County wide County wide Jun-06 $1,050,000
1 1 County wide Traffic tngmt. Program Jun-06 $300,000
2 2 625 Ha[ton Ferry Hatton Ferry Jun-06 $120,000
· 3 3 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Jura02 $500,000
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 250 to Rio Road Dec-02 $14,829,103
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over CSX RR Dec-02 $1,880,500
5 5 649 Airport Road Route 29 to Route 606 Dec-02 $4,720,000
6 6 651 Free State Road Free State Road Oct. 03 $2,700,000
7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 631 to Route 29 Jan-17 $31,300,000
8 8 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 Sep-03 $2,000,000
9 9 6~1 Jarmans Gap Road Route 240 to Route 684 Dec-04 $2,978,418
10 10 781 Sunset Avenue Rt. 780 to Rt. 708 Jul-05 $500,000
11 11 631 Old Lynchburg Road Route 780 to Route 708 Dec-05 $2,000,000
12 12 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250129 Byp Apr-06 $5,000,000
13 13 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 Aug-05 $500,0C0
14 14 ' 679 Grassmere Road ,25 miles south of Rt 738 Aug-00 $100,000
15 15 625 Ha[ton Ferry Road . .75 miles south of to RR Apr-01 $100,000
16 16 744 Hunt Club Road near intersection with Rt. 22 Apr-01 $10,000
Projects in bold are in Ihe Oevelopmenl Area·
relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/Fed, funds
relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded wi Fed. funds
signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding
VDOT traffic management initiative pilot program throughout County
operation of ferry [220]
rural addition
plans being dev. with citizen adv. cmt., includes bridge over Meadow Creek
widen to four lanes (associated with project above)
widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [14,800]
improve substandard bridge in Developed Area [420]
new road, County also petitioning for eligib, for prim fund. RS 97/98
spot improv, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [14,000]
serve increased traf w/mtn widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 [2,100]
spot improvements at various locations. RS 2005/06
spot improvements at various Iocations,RS0110;~ [2,500~
widen, improve align, bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000101 [5,400]
spot improve, improve sight distance,RS02/03 [720]
Railroad crossing wilh no lights or gate ]370]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. [220l
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. 10% haz. elimin~ safety funds
· 'VI"I'A('II~I I.;NT II
voo'r's County's' Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated
.Priority Proposed From - To Completion Cost
List Ranking Date
Month-Year
Description/Comments
17 17 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to ,4 mi nor. Rt~ 250 Apr-01
18 18 810 Browns Gap Road Intersection of Route 789 Aug-06
19 19 676 Owensville Road Intersection of Route 601 May-06
20 20 678 Owensville Road Intersection of Route 250 Jun-06
21 21 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Route 790 Jun-06
22 22 649 Proffit Road Route 29 to Route 819 Jun-07
23 23 606 Dickerson Road Route 649 to Route 743 Aug-06
24 24 795 James Monroe Pky Interse~:tion of Route 53 Dec-07
** 25 Southern Parkway Avon Str. to Fifth Str. ?
°° 26 NIA R~ute 240 to Route 250 ?
25 27 643 Polo Grounds Road Route 29 to Route 649 Sap~08
26 N/A 641 Frays Mill Road Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Aug-08
26 N/A 641 Frays Mill Road Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Aug-08
27 28 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Aug-08
28 29 743 Eadysville Road Rivanna River'to Rt 643 Oct-08
30 684 Half Mile Branch Road Rt. 691 to Ri. 797
31 641 Bumley Station Road Norfolk Southern RR
32 708 Dry Bridge Road Railroad overpass
33 602 Howardsville Tnpk .01 miles south Route 626
34 640 Gilbert Station Road Norfolk Southern RR
35 642 Red Hill Depot Road .28 miles northeast Rt.708
36 671 Millington Road Intersection of Route 665
37 692 Plank Road Route 29 to Route 712
38 708 Red Hill Road Route 20 to Route 29
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
$100,000
$550,oo0
$200,0oo
$650,000
$300,000
$2,500,000
$1,200,0o0
$350.000
$4,000,000
NIA
$1,500,000
$440,000
$60,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate.
Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[2,000]
intersection improvement,RS 2003~04 [4,800J
intersection improvement [2,800]
intersection improvement. [570]
CATS recom.,improve sight dist and alig.,bike/sidewalk, RS2 002/03 [3,000]
improve to handle projected traffic, CATS recommm., RS 2002/03 [5,800]
recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005~06 J2,800]
will be constructed to serve development as it occurs
interconnect of future neighborhood streets as needed
public req. to impmv align, spot improv, safety related, RS2 004/05 [750]
install box culvert,RS 2005-06, no County Priority,a VDOT racom, project
install box culvert, no County Priority.a VDOT racom, project
Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [25,000]
public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related. RS 2004/05 [8,300]
spot/safety improvement to 'serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680I
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [3401
school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate {390J
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [170J
Railroad crossing with no gate I100~
intersection improvement [370}
spot improvements, safety related I1,500]
improve alignment [1,200]
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments
Priority Proposed From - To Completion Cost
List Ranking Date
Month-Year
= = = == = = = == == ====== ==-_ = = ==_-=== ===================== = = === == == == = _-_-= = == = = = = = = = ===_-= = == = = = = = == = = = === = = = = = === == == == = ===~ = _-_-= _-==
39 601 Gadh Road Intersection of Route 658
40 676 Ownesville Road Route 614 to Route 1050
41 691 Park Road Park Road to Route 250
42 678 Decca Lane Intersection of Route 676
43 616 Union Mill Road FCL to Route 759
44 743 Advance Mills Road At Jacobs Run
45 732 Milton Road Intersection of 762
46 795 Hardware Street Near inter, with Rt. 20
47 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Interse~tion of Route 795
48 622 Albevanna Spdngs Rd Intersection of Route 773
49 611~rmans Gap Road Off"Route 691
50 1310 Ferry Street .05 miles south of Rt. 6
51 682 Broadaxe Road Off Dick Woods Road
52 813 Starlight Road Off Route 712
29 53 637 Dick Wood Road Route 635 to Route 692 Apr-01 $1,100,000
30 54 791 Wyant lane Route 635 to Dead end Aug-00 $280,000
31 55 605 Durrett Ridge Road .83 from Greene County Aug-00 $300,000
32 56 679 Grassmere Road Route 738 to Dead end Aug-00 $425,000
33 57 615 Lindsay Road Route 639 to Louisa CL May-01 $220,000
34 58 667 Catteron Road 1 MI SE Rt 776 to Rt 776 April 2002 $300,000
35 59 737 Mountain Vista Road Route 6 to Route 726 Jun-03 $650.000
36 60 708 Secretar~ Road Route 795 to Route 620 May-04 $825,000
37 61 702 Reservoir Road Ramp to Dead end Dec-05 $1,400,000
38 62 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 641 to Route 747 May-05 $350,000
Projects in bold are in Ihe Developmen! Area.
add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm. [6,400]
spot improvements at several points, CATS recomm. [2,300]
extend to eastern 240/250 street system [600]
improve intersection, located near school, CATS recomm[1,900]
improve alignment [4,100]
improve approach to bridge [1,000]
spot improvement, requested by public [1,000]
spot imrovement, requested by Scottsville (570]
intersection improvement [710]
intersection improvement (7
Railroad crossing with no gate [230]
Railroad crossing with no gate ~80]
spot improvements, public request [120]
school request,needs turn-around space [60]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [132]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [2401
unpaved road, R-O-W available [1
unpaved road, full R-O-W available [370]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [230[
unpaved road, R-O-W available [90]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [60]
unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [260}
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [240J
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated
Priority Proposed From - To Completion Cost
List Ranking Date
Month-Year
Description/Comments
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, R-O-W not available [360]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [780]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [420]
unpaved road, R-O~W not available , [360]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [250]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [220]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [180]
unpaved road, R-O-W not available 1170]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [150]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [140]
unpaved road, R-O-W not available [140~
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [130~
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
road, R-O-W not available [120]
road, R-O-W not available [120]
road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [120]
road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [100]
road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [80]
road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [70]
road. R-O-W undetermined [70]
road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [45]
39 63 633 Heards Mtn Road Nelson CL to Route 634 Jun-06 $350,000
40 64 606 Dickerson road Route 850 to Route 1030 Dec-07 $1,260,000
65 769 Beam Road Off Route 20 north
66 623 Woods Edge Rd Route 616 to dead end
67 784 Doctors Crossing Route 600 to Route 640
68 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 711 to Rt. 692
69 666 Allen Road Route 664 to Dead end
70 734 Bishop Hill Road Route 795 to Rt. 1807
71 640 Gilbert Station Road Route '~84 to Route 20
72 685 Bunker Hill Road Route 616 to Dead end
73 645 Wildon Grove Rd Rt. 608 to Orange CL
74 712 North Garden Road Route 29 to Route 760
75 668 Walnut Level Road Rt. 810 to dead end
76 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 713 to Rt. 795
77 682 Broad Axe Road Rt. 637 to 1-64
78 678 Owensville Road Route 676 to Route 614
79 760 Red Hill School Road Route 29 to RHES
80 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646
81 674 Sugar Ridge Road Route 614 to Route 673
82 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626
83 707 Blair Park Road Rt. 691 to Dead end
84 769 Rocky Holl(~w Road Rt. 1484 to Dead end
TOTAL $91,878,021
"Currently not eligible not for VDOT funding
**' List includes projects from Scottsville not reviewed by the Planning Commission
[ ] Most Current Average Daily Trips
RS - Revenue Sharing
Fiscal Year
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005.06
2006~7
Totals
Page t Of 8
Secondary System
County: Albemarle
Construction Program
Estimated Allocations
New Surface Federal
Treatments
Other Total
$735,923 $3,814,811
$864,395 $4.1 t 1,478
$944,443 $4,830,936
$981,305 $4,919.786
1,026,419 , $4,742.481
$1,026.419 $4,900,000
$5.578,904 $27,319,492
$t 95.000 $4,745,734
$445,000 $5,420,873
$70.000 $5,845.379
$170.000 $6,071,091
$565,656 $6,334,556
$408.137 $6,334.556'
$1,853,793 $34,752,189
Board Approval Date::
VDOT Resident Engineer
Date
Chairman. Clerk. Co. Administrator
Date
ATTACIIM ENT ('
::::::::.:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i~i}}~i~i}~{i~:}~i::li~'iiil!:{!ililllli~i~ ii~ili~!>~{~?~illlllill!!ilg!i!ill!!i~ili?il ii}}~!i~!~:'""":-~si!i iisil!iiiilli! 5111!i!illli{i~!~i!{!!!!~}i{~}~il!i :ill!illlili{!ii?i!!illlli~ii~!?!{!?i ~is?illlll!~!il!~}!!}~i!~!~i}!il! i!!ilillllll!i}iSi!i i:illl!!~!!!~illllli~ i:i:i}~!!!!{!!il!g~illll ii~ii~i!illl
............~"~:~>'::' '~{}~i}~j'}~ }~{{ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~ ~':'""~ ..... ::':::::;: ::: '~::::::::::: ........ :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ~: ~:s: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::': :::~: i::~::~:::::: :::.:':':.~.~ o::::: .......... >.' :. · ~. S-: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............ ::~::::
~{~{}i~::~:ili:{~{{if:~}?7~{ ~{i! ~ia~:i~:i~ illli~ii~ii~iii~i!!~}'i~:q~2~j};s~}'i'{i'iii}il!i~}i~iill }';:i~'{i':~:'~'{ii{iilllii::{i::i::!ii~ii~!!~ili~ii~Sil!i~ill !is!ii~iillli?~ii~iiii!isTiTiTi'~'~'~'!'~' ?'5'~5'i?!}'i}'i~}~i'i~il}i(~i !ilis!!ii~i!:!ii:ii~'i~{i'~'i'i~iSi'i'i'~i'i';'? !'~'{i'~'!'~'~'~i~!i{iiiililili!iiiiili{illili!!i :ill!;ililllii'!'ii!'i'~!'~}il}~il
RI. 8~ Tolal CounyWIde ~l~n I~E $O PE $O BUDGET ITEM
ID: CWlI O
Slate Forces CWI RW $0 RW $0 2003-04 $150,000 SIG~L ~ RT
STATE NEW PIPE INST~L., CON ~50,~ CON $0 Rev. Sh 2003-4 ~300000
CounyWide Incidenlal SIGNS, SEEDING
IT~a~ 5860,000 Total $0 $850,000 5125,000 5125.000 $0 $100,0~ $100,0~ $100,000 $300.0~
Pd
0
07/01~1
I
Rt. 8~1 Tolal CounyWide Nl~al~n IPE $0 ;PE
0
ID: CWl
Contract CWl RW $0 ;W $0 Prelim Eng/n~dng 2001-02
~lly~a~ Dr.
STATE TR~FIC C~NG CON $3~,~ ~ON
Count-Wide Incidenlal VARIOUS LOC.
ITotal 5300,000 ' Fotal $0 $300,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $60,0~ $50,000 $0
PH
0
07/01~1
I
Rt. ~25 ~ON FERRY IPE $0 ~ $0
ID: -
Stale Forcee ~25-~2- RW $0 ~W $0
STATE OPE~TE ~TTON CON $120,~ CON
R~ula; FERRY
lTotal $120.000 Total $0 5120,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,O00 $20.000 $20,000 $20,000
2
07/01/2~1
/
RI. 9~9 WEST LEIGH DRNE IPE $20.~ PE
0
ID; 5~85
Contract ~9-~2.269,C501 RW $20,~ RW $20,~0 RURAL ADDITION
STATE Route 250 CON $460,~ CON $210,0~
R~ula; 0.4 N. RTE. 250
IT~al $6~,000 Total 5250,000 5260,000 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pti
3
0~01~2
/
RL ~31 ~INTIRE RD. EXT. IPE $~,~0 PE $50,0~
ID: 2530/ 0
Centra~t ~31-~2-128,B657 RW $0 RW $0 ~NE BRIDGE
BR BRI~E O~R CSX RR CON $1,830,5~ CON
Regular NEW ALIG~ENT
ITotal $1,8~,600 Tolal $890,000 $990,500 5990,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pril:
R1.~31 ~INTIRE RD. EXTENDED]PE 51,205,000PE $1,205,0~ NEW ALIGNMENT-2 lanes
ID: 2530
Contracl ~3~.002-128.C~2 RW $2.403,0~ RW $2,403,0~
STp NCL CH~LOTTESVILLE CON $9.0~6,600 CON $6.556,105
ReGular CSX RAILROAD
4
07/01/2002
C)
Page 2 of 8
Date 11/t 3/2000
:;,;:~ ~ ~$:~j,~}$,,:~,.,;,:~-.,.,.-.:.,m.,.::.,,***,: ;;,~**~;M~**,,,**¢, :, ,,, .a]~* ~:*' * ~'¢~$$~;I~~4;~***** ** **:*: ~**~*~*~*~*~*$~*~:~***}~*~:**~*************************************************************** *~*$~*[~;*~**~[*;;~*;~;**;~*********************************************************** *;*;*~*i~i~i**:*?******[* **:**"*"*:*:*~*~*;~¢~ :*:*******~}~4~*;) **:**:***:~:*::*;;*~:*}; **:**~a~::*******'** **[***?***::~¢~**:~?**: '*:****** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ID: 2530 0
~31.~2.128,~12 ~W $0 RW $0
Conlracl
2-lane
Bd~e
BR BRI~E O~R CON $2,~,~ CON $2.054,5~
R~ular ~ADOWCREEK
Pti ~: 4 07~1~2 ~otal$2,2~,500 Total $2,2~,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RL ~49 AIRPORT ROAD ~E $1,237,4~ PE $1.237.4~ 4-~NE D~DED
ID: 24~ 13411
Contract ~49-~2-1~,C501 ~W $4,8~,550 RW $3,092.477 RE~NUE SHARING $ t000.000
STP ROUTE 29 ~ON $4,8~,1~ CON $0 ~-99
Regular ROUTE 6~
Pti~: 5 07101~3 F~al $10,~.050. Total ~.329,877 $6,614,173 $650,732 $1,700,000 $2,920,122 $1,M3,319 $0 $0 $0 ~NEsURBANDESIGNW/S~ &BIKE
RI. R~ FREE STATE ROAD ~ $~,~0 PE $600.0~ 2-~NE DESIGN
ID: 52393 CONNECTOR 0
Conlmcl R~2-2~,C~1 IiW $7~,~ RW $502.641 RE~NUE SHARING $1.000.000
199~96
STP RIO ROAD ON $2.~,~ CON $0 Paid
Regular ROUTE 651
P~i ~: 6 07~112~5 ~Total~,3~,~0 Total $t,102,~ $2,247,359 $0 $0 $36.882 $t.600,000 $610,477 $0 $0
I
RL R~ M~WCREEK P~. ~1~ ~,2~,~ PE $1.402,365 NEW ALIGNMENT
ID; 12981 ~1c 0
Conlmcl R~-~2-253,PE101 RW ~,~.~ RW $0 RE~NUE SHARING $800.000 1997-
98
STP RIO ROAD ON $26,8~,~ CON $0 PaM
Regular RTE. 29
Pri~: 7 01~1~0;5 ~Tot~~7,E~,0~ T~al $1,402.365 $~6,097,635 $100,000 $109,900 $160,456 ~32,681 $687,465 $300,000 $~,317,133
RL 0691 J~ GAP RO~ ~; $6~,~ PE $208.209
I0:11129 ~lC 2118
Contmcl ~91-~2-2~,C~1 RW $1,3~,0~ RW $0 REVENUE SHARING 199~2000
$ t 000.000
STP ROUTE 240 ON $3,2~,~ CON $0 2-LANE URBAN WIS W
Regular ROUTE 684
iTotal$E,1~,000 Total $208,209 ~,941,791 $100,000 $700.000 $1,500,000 $~1.791 $1.000,000 $0 $1,000,0~ ~NES
Pd
8
0810112~5
/
ID: 54415 2~73
Conlracl ~49-~2- ,C RW $~,~.~ RW $0 REVENUE SHARING ~ [000.000
STP ROUTE 29 ON $5,~,0~ CON $0 2006-07
Regular 1.6 MI. E.. RTE. 29 2.~NES RURAL W~I~E LANE5
ITotal SS,Soe,oooTotel $0 $9.500.000 $1,000.000 $114.662 $223.476 $901.S95 $1.685.226 ~.100.000 $1,474,~ 1
/
Page 3 of 8'
Dale 11/1312000
RI. 0~ OLD ~ ROAD PE $950,0~ =ff $910,000
ID: 8807 ~58
Conl~cl ~0~2-237,C~ RW $2,5~.0~ ~W $0 RE~ SHARING ~ ~,000,000 2~O-
STP ROUTE 2~ ~ON $3,750,0~ ~ON $0 3-~NES W/S. ~ ~ BtKE
Regular RTE. 29 BYPAS~
Pti ~; 10 0~01~8 Total $7.200,000Total $910,000 $6,290,0~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $~,539 $200,000 $5,~5,46t
RI. ~56 GEORGETOWN ROAD PE $~.000 mE $6~,~ SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
135~
Conlracl 0656~02-254,C501 RW $~,0~ RW $100,0~ REVENUE SHARING $200,000 1997-
98
STP ROUTE 654 CON $2,~,0~ CON $0
Regula~ ROUTE 743
P;i ~: 11 12/01~8 Total $3,200,000 - Total $700,~0 $2,500,~0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~00,000 $200,000 $1,9~,0002'~NgS W~ S W. A ~IKE ~NES,.
Rt. 0781 SUNSET A~. PE $250.0~ ~E $0 INTERSECTION IMPROV.
RW $3~,0~ ~W $0 RE~NUE SHARING $~0,000
Contracl 0781-~2- ,G 06
STATE NCL CH~LLE CON $~,0~ CON $0 SAFff~ IMPROVEMENT
Regular OLD RTE. 631
P~i~: 12 ID/01~8 To;al $1,0~,000 Total $0 $1,050,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $395,656 $143,596 $510,746 ATINF OLD STAGECOACHRD,
RL 0631 OLD LYNCHBURGH RD. PE $250.0~ PE $0
ID; 15329 1500
Conlra=t 0631-~2- ,C RW $250,0~ RW $0 REVENUE SHARING 2001-02
~500.000
STP 1.35 MLS. 1-64 CON $1,5~,000 CON $0
Regula~ RTE. 708
Pdt: 13 12~1~008 ~Total $2.0~,000Tolal $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,674 $100,000 $1,785,326 SPOFSAF~IMPRO~MENFS
Rt. 0726 J~ES R~ER ROAD =E $150.000 PE $0
ID: 17170 1200
Contracl 0726~2- .C ~W $200,~0 RW $0 R~V~NUE SHARING ~200.000 2~2.
03
.STATE ROUTE 795 ~ON $450.000 CON $0
Regular ROUTE 1302 SPO F SAFE TY IMPROVEMENTS
P;i ~: 14 1210112~8 ~otal $800,000 Total $0 $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $~,539 $705,461
RI. 0679 ~ILROAD CROSSING =E $3,000 PE $3.000 LIGHT~ ~ GATES -
Conlmcl 0679.002-260.FS713 RW $1.000RW $1 ,O00
RRP 0.25 MI S. RT. 738 CON $~.000 ;ON $96.000
Regular (LIGH[S & GATES)
Pdt: 15 ~ 1/0~/2~ Total $100,000 Fetal $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Page 4 of $
Date 1111312000
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ===============================================================
?':: :~::;::' :;"...<: =:.::,:,:~::' .,- ,, ,,:,:,: ,',,-:::,, .......................................... ,.,,:~::,~,..::,,,~:: ',:,:--:,::,:,;'~:*:,, ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::~:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:,~:~ :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::~::::::~:::~}:: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::~:::~::::::: :~:::::~:::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~(<.:~ ......... ~:.;; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================
RI. 0625 HATTON FERRY ROAD ~E $3,0~ PE $3,0~ 21
ID: 17173
Contract ~25.~2.262,FS714 ~W $I.~ RW $1,~
RRP ~LROAD CROSSING ;ON $96.0~ CON $96.~
Regular NE~ ~ON FERRY
T~al $100.000 Total $100,0~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pri~: 16 12~1~ GATES&LIGHTS
- RI. 0744 HUNT CLUB ROAO PE $1.0~ =E $1.0~
ID: 54460
Railroad 0744~2-S63.FS715 RW $0 RW $0
RRP NE~ INT, RTE. 22 CON $9.~ CON $9.~
Regular ~LROAD CROSSING $0 $0 $0
Fofal $10,0~Total $10,0~ $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 ,,.
Pti~: 17 1~0t~ GATES&LIGHTS
RI. 9~9 WEST LEIGH DRIVE PE $1 .~PE $1
ID: 5~86
Raihoad ~-~2-270,FS716 RW $0 RW $0,
STATE N. OF ROUTE 2~ CON $~.~ CON $~.~
Regular ~LROAD CROSSING T~I $1~,~ Total $t00,~0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pti ~: la 12~112~ ~OER CONSTRUCTION
RI. ~37 D~K W~DS RO~ =E $25.~ PE $25.0~ ~ 10
ID: 11125
Contract ~37~2-P52.N~ ~W $30.~ RW $30,~ UNPA ~D ROAD
STATE ROUTE 635 3ON $1.~5,~0 CON $1.045,~ CONST STARTED OCT 2~0
Unpaved RT. 682 $0 $0
F~al $1.100,0~ Total $1,~,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pti ~: 19 10~1~
RI. 0791 ~DWAY ROAD =E $10,~ =E $10.0~ 307
ID: 11128
RW $15.~ ~W $15.~ UNPAID ROAD
S~P 0791-~2,P~,N~l : ~V. NOV 2000
STATE ROUTE 635 CON $235.~ CON $235,0~
Unpaved DEAD END RTE. 791 $0 $0
T~al $260,000 Total $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pti ~: 20 11115~
Rt. 0605 DURRETT RI~E ROAD ~ $5,~ =E $5.~ 93
ID: 17175
S~P ~05.~2-PST.N~1 RW $15,~ RW $15,0~ ADvUNPA~DNOV ROAD2000
STATE GREENE CO. LINE CON $280.0~ CON $280.~
Unpaved 0.83 ME.GREENE CL $0 $0
Total $300,000 Total $300,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Date' 11113/2000
Page 5 of 8 :
Rt. 0679 G~SSMERE ROAD ~E Sl0.O~ PE $10,~0
ID: 11127
S~P ~79-~2-P61,N501 ~W $10,0~ RW $I0,000 216
GRAVEL ROAD
STATE ROUTE 7~ CON $280,~ CON $280,0~ AD~RTISED OCT. 2000
Unpaved END ~INT.
P;i ~: 22 11/Oll2~ r~al $300.000 Total $300,0~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RI. O615 LINSDAY RO~ =E $10,0~ PE $I0,~
ID: 54422
S~P 0615-~2-P64,N~l ~W $10.~ RW $10,~ 237
UNPAVED ROA
STATE ROUTE 639 ~CON $2~,~ CON $200.~ RIGHT OF WAY AVAI~BLE
Unpaved LOUISA CO, LINE
Pd ~: 23 O2~1~001 T~al $220.0~ ' Total $220,000
RI. ~7 CATTERTON ROAD PE $10,0~ ~E $0
ID: 54424
S~P O~7-~2.P ,N RW $10,~ ~W $0 124
UNPAVED ROAD
STATE 1.0 MI.SE RT 776 CON $280.0~ 3ON $0 RIGHT OF WAY AVAI~BLE
Unpav~ ROUTE 776
Pd ~: 24 08/01~1 Total $300.OOO ~otal $0 $300.000 $225,000 $76,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RL 0737 ~UNTAIN ~STA RD. PE $20.~0 IPE $20,0~
ID: 54425
Conlracl 0737-002-P ,N RW $20,~ RW $20,O~ 75
UNPAVED ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
STATE ROUTE 6 CON $610,O~ CON $347,365 AVAI~BLE
Unpaved 1.19 MI.E. RT. 6
Pti ~: 25 0~01~2 Total $660,000 Total $387,365 $262,635 $262,635 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0708 SECRETARYS ROAD =E $30,~ PE $30.0~
ID: 11130
Conlmct OT08-~2-P77,NS01 ~W $50,0~ RW $50,000 151
UNPAVED ROAD PARTIAL RIGHT
STATE 0.7 MW. RTE. 795 ~ON $745,0~ CON $69.067 OF WA Y
Unpaved 0.28 M.W. RT. 620
Pti ~: 26 01~112~3 Total $825,000 Total $149,067 $675,933 $248,288 $222,171 $205.474 $o $0 $0 $0
RL 0702 RESERVOIR ROAD ;PE $20,O~ PE
ID: 54426
Conlracl O702.OO2.P ,N RW $40,~0 RW
UNPAVED ROAD
STATE ROUTE 29 R~P CON $1,340,0~ CON $0 NO RIGHT OF WAY
Unpaved DEAD END
Pdt: 27 12/0112004 Total $1,400,000 Tutal $0 $1,400,000 $0 $329.501 $578,512 $491,9~7 $0 $O $0
Page 6 o~ 8 Date 11/13/2000
~¥~,....,-....--..-...~I-~ iiiiiii?=!~iiiiii~iiiiii;i]!i?=i ........... ?'??'"'~ ........... ~ ............... :':' :?:??:?:?,'::'.','. .......... '.-' .......................................... ~ .......... ~ ............ ~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~::~:~:~::~:::: :~::.?:
RI. ~40 GILBERT STATION RD. P~ $~0,~ p~
ID: ~4427 230
STATE ROUTE ~41 CO~ $~,~ ~O~ $0 '
U~p~v~ ROUTE 147
P;I J: 28 10~112~3 T~ $360,000 Total $0 $360,000 $0 $120,010 $140,000 $99,990 $0 $0 $0
RI. ~33 HEARDS MT.RD. PE $20,~ PE
ID: 54428 59
Conl;act ~33-~2-P ,N RW $40.000RW $0 ~NPA~D ROAD NO RIGHT OF
STATE NELSON CO. LINE CON $3~,~ CON
Unpav~ ROUTE 634
Prti: 29 1~112~4 T~aI $~60,000 - Total $0 $360,000 $0 $1t7,713 $20,457 $221,830 $0 $0 $0
RI. ~ DICKERSON RO~ PE $20,~ PE $0
ID: ~429 170
Conlmcl ~-~2.P .N RW $60,~ RW $0 UNPAID ROAD NO R;GHT
WAY
STATE ROUTE 8~ CON $I,2~,~ CON $0
Unpaved ROUTE 1030
Pti J: 30 ~112~ T~al Sl,280,000 Total $0 $1,280,000 $0 $0 $0 $72,031 $727,775 ~80,1~ $0
RI. 0169 B~ ROAD PE $10.~ PE $0 G~DE & PAVE G~VEL
ID: 50
Conffam 0~69~2-P ,N RW $15.0~ RW $0
STATE RTE. i484 CON $t75,~ CON $0
Unpaved END STATE ~NT.
Pti J: 31 01~112~ T~al $200,0~ Total $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $95.467 $1~,533 $0 $0
RI. 0623 W~DS E~E RO~ PE $15.~ PE $0 GR~E & PAVE GRAVEL
ID:
S~ ~23-~2-P ,N RW $30.~ RW $0
STATE 0.5 MI. S. RT. 6~6 CON $3~.~ CON
Unpaved END STATE ~NT.
P~iJ: 32 ~/01~ T~ $~6,0~ Total $0 $~5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $~4,11~ $150,889 $0
RI. 0784 ~TORS CROSSING RD. PE $25,~ mE $0 GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD
ID: 360
Conlracl 0784-~2-P ,N RW $~.~ ~W
STATE ROUTE 6~ CON $1.1~.000 ~ON $0
gnpave~ ROUTE 640
Pti ~: 33 10101/2~08 Total $1,176,000~otal $0 $1,175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $395,338 $779,6~
Page 7 of 8
Date t 1113/2000
~,l!,trK. t Culpepur ~"':~" SECONDARY SYSTEM COl' UCTION PROGRAM
(;ounly Albemarle ' (in doll~i~}
2001-02 through 2006-07
Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to
Funding Complete
Required
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 2006~07
County Totals Total Allocated: $108,558,650 $25.188,129 $83.370,521 $4,745,734 $5.42o,873 $5,845.379 $6.071.091 $6,334,556 $6,334,556 $48,618,332
Report Totals PE $12,070,400 $6,500,974 $5,569,426 $1.210.0o0 $626,353 $373.932 $624,543 $1.107,139 $519,539 $1,107,920
RW $23,116,550 $6,270,118 $16.846,432 $660,732 $1.591,550 $978,673 $1,o17,641 $2,473.49o $1,o68,139 $9,056,207
CON $73,371,700 $12,417,037 $60,954,663 $2,875.002 $3.202.970 $4,492,774 $4.428.907 $2,753,927 $4.746.878 $38,454,205
Original Allocation: $4,745.734 $5,420,873 $5,845,379 $6,071,o91 $6,334,556 $6.334,556
Balance $o $o $o $o $o $o
Page 8 o! 8 Date 11/1312000
CHARLES NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911
October 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT D
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Mr. Juandiego Wade
Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22092
Dear Mr. Wade:
Due to changes in the environmental requirements, a more extensive review of our projects will
require additional time and cost in the preliminary engineering phase of the project development.
In addition, legislative changes implemented on July 1, 2000, require a full right of way appraisal
with "before and after" values and an extensive title examination of each affected parcel on all
projects. The before and after values refers to the actual appraisal of the parcel before VDOT's
take and after the take, reflecting the actual loss of land and any damages. This has extended the
time necessary for right of way negotiations and resulted in additional cost to each project as it
advances to the advertisement stage.
.~dso, we have developed updated costs (Preliminary Engineering, Right of Way and
Construction) on each project in our Six-Year Plan, resulting in a considerable increase in overall
project costs. This will result in the removal of a number of projects in the latter part of the Plan
due to lack of funding. We feel that the revised costs and revisions will result in a more workable
and realistic Plan.
Sincerely,
Gerald G. Utz
Contract Administrator
RECEIVED
27
TRANSPORTATICN FOR "rile 21 ST CENTURY
ATTP 'MENT E
PR(~..CT PREVIOUS PREVIOUS COST ~,~..RENT COST CHANGE PURPOSE/COMP '-
PRIORITY In Current PRIORITY AND AND FOR CHANGES IN
approved Plan ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT COST AND AD DATE
DATE DATE
1. New pipe install, signs, 1 $1,050,000 $850,000 $200,000 The previous cost had an
speeding additional $200,000 for
traffic signal installation
1. Traffic calming 1 $300,000 $300,000 Same Preliminary engineering
work to begin in the
Hollymead subdivison
2. Hatton Ferry 2 $120,000 $120,000 Same
3. West Leigh Drive 3 $500,000 Same Same
October, 2001 August, 2002
4. Meadow Creek Parkway 4 $16,709,600 $16,709,600 N/A
Phase 1 July, 2002 Same
5. Airport Road 5 $4,720,000 $10,944,050 $6,224,050 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 649 July, 2001 July, 2003 environmental requirements.
New requirement for full
r-o-wappraisal "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each parcel.
VDOT location and design
section has updated the
cost.
6. Free State Road Connect 6 $2,700,000 $3,350,000 $650,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 651 October, 2002 July, 2005 environmental requirements.
New requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each parcel.
VDOT location and design
section has updated the
cost.
f'~ · ATTP~ ~MENT E
-- PR(~,CT PREVIOUS PREVIOUS COST C~, .RENT COST CHANGE PURPOSE/COM~
PRIORITY In Current PRIORITY AND AND FOR CHANGES IN
approved Plan ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT COST AND AD DATE
DATE DATE
-~. New pipe install, signs, 1 $1,050,000 $850,000 $200,000 The previous cost had an
speeding additional $200,000 for
traffic signal installation
1. Traffic calming 1 $300,000 $300,000 Same Preliminary engineering
work to begin in the
Hollymead subdivison
2. Hatton Ferry 2 $120,000 $120,000 Same
3. West Leigh Drive 3 $500,000 Same ~: Same
October, 2001 August, 2002
4. Meadow Creek Parkway 4 $16,709,600 $16,709,600 N/A
Phase 1 July, 2002 Same
·
5. Airport Road 5 $4,720,000 $10,944,050 $6,224,050 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 649 July, 2001 July, 2003 environmental requirements.
New requirement for full
r-o-w appraisal "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each parcel.
VDOT location and design
section has updated the
cost.
6. Free State Road Connect 6 $2,700,000 $3,350,000 $650,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 651 October, 2002 July, 2005 environmental requirements.
New requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each parcel.
VDOT location and design
section has updated the
cost.
-- PROJECT PREVIOUS PREVIOUS COST CURRENT COST CHANGE PURPOSE/COMMENTS
PRIORITY PRIORITY AND AND
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT
DATE DATE
7. Meadow Creek Parkway 7 $31,300,000 $37,500,000 $6,200,000 Inflation
Phase II January, 2015 January, 2015
8. Jarman's Gap Road 9 $2,978,418 $5,150,000 $2,171,582 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 691 October, 2003 August, 2005 environmental
requirements: New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
9. Proffit Road. 22 $2,500,000 $9,500,000 $7,000,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 649 January, 2006 August, 2006 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost. Construction of
r~ew elementary school.
10. Old Ivy Road 12 $5,000,000 $7,200,000 $2,200,000 See staff report
Rt. 601 February, 2005 August, 2008
11. Georgetown Road 8 $2,000,000 $3,200,000 $1,200,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 656 December, 2002 December, 2008 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
~ parcel. VDOT location and
'. design section has updated
the cost.
12. Sunset Av~.... '.a 10 $500,000 $1,6 J00 $550,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 781 October, 2004 October, 2008 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
13. Old Lynchburg Road 11 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Same Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 631 December, 2004 December, 2008 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
14. James River Road 13 $500,000 $800,000 $300,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 726 February, 2005 December, 2008 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
· parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
15. Grassmere Road 14 $100,000 $100,000 Same Currently being advertised
Rt. 679 October, 2000 November, 2000
16. Hatton Ferry' Road 15 $100,000 $100,000 Same
Rt. 625 December, 2000 December, 2000
17. Hunt club Road 16 $10,000 $10,000 : Same
Rt. 744 December, 2000 December, 2000
18. West Leigh Road 17 $100,000 $100,000 Same
December, 2000 December, 2000
19. Browns Gap Road 18 $550,000 No longer in the Six Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 810 October, 2005 Year Plan Construction environmental
Plan due to cost requirements. New
increase to projects requirement full r-o-w
higher on priority list. appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
20. Tilman Road 19 $200,000 No longer in the Six Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 676 October, 2005 Year Plan Construction environmental
Plan due to cost requirements. New
increase to projects requirement full r-o-w
higher on priority list. appraisal with "before and
December, 2008 after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
21. Owensville Road 20 $650,000 No longer in the Six Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 678 December, 2005 Year Plan Construction environmental
Plan due to cost requirements. New
increase to projects requirement full r-o-w
higher on priority list. appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
22. Dick Woods Road 29 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Same Construction underway
Rt. 637 February, 2000 October, 2000
23. Midway Road 30 $260,000 $260,000 Same Scheduled for
Rt. 791 February, 2000 October, 2000 advertisement in late
October 2000
24. Durret Ridge Road 31 $300,000 $300,000 ~ Same Scheduled for
Rt. 6 February, 2000 December, 2000 ' advertisement in
' December 2000
PROJECT PREVIOUS PREVIOUS COST CURRENT COST CHANGE PURPOSE/COMMENTS
PRIORITY PRIORITY AND AND
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT
DATE DATE
25. Grassmere Road 32 $425,000 $300,000 $125,000 Currently being advertised
Rt. 679 February, 2000 November, 2000 (less)
26. Lindsay Road 33 $220,000 220,000 Two months Two months delay in
Rt. 615 December, 2000 February, 2001 advedisement due to
additional environmental
work
27. Catterton Road 34 $300,000 $300,000 Same
Rt. 667 August, 2001 August, 2001
28. Mountain Vista Road 35 $650,000 $650,000 Same
Rt. 737 August, 2002 August, 2002
29. Secretary's Road 36 $825,000 $825,000 Same
Rt. 708 March, 2003 January, 2003
30. Reservoir Road 37 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Rt. 702 October, 2004 December, 2004
31. Gilbert Station Road 38 $350,000 $360,000 10,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 640 December, 2004 October, 2003 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
32. Heards Mountain Road 39 $350,000 $360,000 10,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 633 October, 2005 October, 2004 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
: appraisal with "before and
~ after values" and a title
~ examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost. ,
~333. Dickerson Road 40 $1,260,000 $1,280,000 20,000 Changes in VDOT's
Rt. 606 October, 2006 October, 2006 environmental
requirements. New
requirement full r-o-w
appraisal with "before and
after values" and a title
examination on each
parcel. VDOT location and
design section has updated
the cost.
34. Beam Road N/A N/A $200,000 N/A New project to six year list
Rt. 769 January, 2006
35. Woods Edge Road N/A N/A $345,000 N/A New project to six year list
Rt. 623 September, 2006
36. Doctor Crossing Road N/A N/A $1,175,000 N/A New project to six year list
Rt, 784 October, 2008
i:\DEPT~Planning\share\pRoJECTs - juan.doc
PROPOSED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
2001-02 Through 2006-07
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments
Priority Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost
List Ranking Date
=== = ======== == === === = =================== ======== = ======== === = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == == == == = = == === = = == = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = == = =
N/A N/A 606 Dickerson Road Intersection of Rt. 743 June 2001 $50,880
N/A N/A 743 Earlysville Road intersection of Rt. 606 ? $50,880
Month-Year
I I County wide Coup. fy wide Jun-07 $1,050,000
I 1 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program Jun-07 $300,000
2 2 625 Hutton Ferry Hutton Ferry Jun-07 $120,000
3 3 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Aug-02 $500,000
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 250 to Rio Road Jul-02 $14,829,103
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over CSX RR JulL02 $1,880,500
5 5 649 Airport Road Route 29 to Route 606 Jul-03 $10,944,050
6 6 651 Free State Road Free State Road Jul-05 $3,350,000
7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 631 to Route 29 Jan-15 $37,500,000
8 8 691 Jarmans Gap Road Route 240 to Route 684 Aug-05 $5,150,000
9 Ro.te 29 to,auto 819 $9.500.000
10 10 60t Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250129 Byp Aug-08 $7,200,000
11 11 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 Dec-08 $3,200,000
· 12 12 781 Sunset Avenue Rt. 780 to Rt. 708 Jul-05 $500,000
13 13 631 Old Lynchburg Road Route 780 to Route 708 Dec-08 $2,000,000
14 14 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 Dec-08 $800,000
15 15 679 Grassmere Road .25 miles south of Rt 738 Nov-00 $100,000
16 16 625 Hatton Ferry Road .75 miles south of to RR Dec-00 $100,000
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/Fed, funds
relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/Fed, funds
signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding
Staff working with VDTO for traffic calming in the Hollymead area
operation of ferry [220]
rural addition
plans being dev. with citizen adv. cml., includes bridge over Meadow Creek
~ (associated with project above)
widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [t4,800]
improve substandard bridge in Developed Area [420]
new road, County also petitioning for eligib, for prim fundRS 97/98
serve increased traf wi mia widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 [2,100]
CATS recom.,improve sight dist and alig.,bike/sidewalk, RS2 002~03 [3,000]
widen, improve align, bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01 [5,400]
spot improv, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97198 [14,000]
spot improvements at various locations. RS 2005~06
spot improvements at various locations,RS01/02 J2,500J
spot improve, improve sight distance,RS02/03 [720]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gale J370]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. J220]
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments
Priority Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost
List Ranking Date
Monlh-Year '.
17
18
17 744 Hunt Club Road near intersection with Rt. 22 Dec-00
18 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Dec-00
19 810 Browns Gap Road Intersection of Route 789 Aug-06
20 676 Tilman Road Road Intersection of Route 250 May-06
21 678 Owensville Road Intersection of Route 250 Jura06
22 795Blenheim Road Intersection of Route 790 Jun-06
23 606 Dickerson Road Route 649 to Route 743 Aug-06
24 795 James Monroe Pky Intersection of Route 53 Dec-07
25 Southern Parkway Avon Str. to Fifth Str. ?
26 NIA Route 240 to Route 250 ?
27 643 Polo Grounds Road Route 29 to Route 649 Sep-08
N/A 641 Frays Mill Road Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Aug'08
NIA 641 Frays Mill Road Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Aug-08
28 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Aug-08
29 743 Earlysville Road Rivanna River Io Rt 643 Oct-08
30 684 Half Mile Branch Road Rt. 691 to Rt. 797
31 641 Bumley Station Road Norfolk Southern RR
32 708 D~/Bddge Road Railroad overpass
33 602 Howardsville Tnpk .01 miles south Route 626
34 640 Gilbert Station Road Norfolk Southern RR
35 642 Red Hill Depot Road .28 miles nodheast Rt.708
36 671 Millington Road Intersection of Route 665
37 692 Plank Road Route 29 to Route 712
38 708 Red Hill Road Route 20 to Route 29
$10,000
$100,000
$550,00O
$200,000
$650,000
$300,00O
$1,200,000
$350,000
$4,000,000
NIA
$1,500,000
$440,000
$60,000
$1,000,000
$1,00o,000
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate.10% haz. elimin, safety funds
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate.
Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.(2,000]
intersection improvement,RS 2003~04 [4,800]
intersection improvement [2,800]
intersection improvement. [570[
improve to handle proiected traffic, CATS recommm., RS 2002103 [5,800[
recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005~06 [2,800]
will be constructed to serve development as it occurs
interconnect of future neighborhood streets as needed
public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS2 004/05 {750]
install box culvert,RS 2005-06, no County Priority,a VDOT recom, project
install box culvert, no County Priority,a VDOT recom, project
Inter, improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [25,000]
public request to improv align, spot impmv, safety related.RS 2004/05 {8,300]
spot/safety improvement to 'serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [6801
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [340]
school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [390]
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [1701
Railroad crossing with no gate [100]
intersection improvement [370]
spot improvements, safety related [1,500]
improve alignment [1,200]
Projecls in bold are in the Development Area.
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated
Priority Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost
List Ranking Date
Month-Year
39 601 Garth Road intersection of Route 658
40 676 Ownesville Road Route 614 to Route 1050
41 691 Park Road Park Road to Route 250
42 678 Decca Lane Intersection of Route 676
43 616 Union Mill Road ' FCL to Route 759
44 743 Advance Mills Road At Jacobs Run
45 732 Milton Road Intersection of 762
46 795 Hardware Street Near inter, with Rt, 20
47 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 795
48 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 773
49 611 Garmans Gap Road Off Route 691
50 1310 Ferry Street .05 miles south of Rt. 6
51 682 Broadaxe Road Off Dick Woods Road
52 813 Starlight Road Off Route 712
53 676 Owensville Road Intersection of Route 601
19 54 637 Dick Wood Road Route 635 1o Route 692 Oct-00 $1,100,000
20 55 791 Wyant lane Route 635 to Dead end Nov-00 $260,000
21 56 605 Durrett Ridge Road .83 from Greene County Nov-00 $300,000
22 57 679 Grassmere Road Route 738 to Dead end Nov-00 $300,000
23 58 615 Lindsay Road Route 639 to Louisa CL Feb-01 $220,000
. 24 59 667 Catteron Road 1 MI SE Rt 776 to Rt 776 Aug-01 $300,000
25 60 737 Mountain Vista Road Route 6 to Route 726 Aug-02 $650,000
26 61 708 Secretarys Road Route 795 to Route 620 Jan-03 $825,000
27 62 702 Reservoir Road Ramp to Dead end Dec-04 $t,400,000
Pfojecls in bold are in tho Development Area.
Description/Comments
add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm. [6,400l
spot improvements at several points, CATS recomm. ]2,300]
extend to eastern 240~250 slreet system [600]
improve intersection, located near school, CATS recomm[1,900]
improve alignment [4,100]
improve approach to bridge ]1,000[
spot improvement, requested by public [1,000]
spot imrovement, requested by Scottsville [570]
intersection improvement [710J
intersection improvement J710]
Railroad crossing with no gate [230]
Railroad crossing with no gate [80]
spot improvements, public request [120]
school request,needs turn-around space [60]
intersection improvement 14800]
unpaved road, R-O~W available [132]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [240]
unpaved mad, R~O-W available [1101
unpaved mad, full R-O-W available 1370]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [230]
unpaved road, R-O-W available [901
unpaved road, R-O-W available [60]
unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [260]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks
VDOT's County's ROute Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments
Priority Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost
List Ranking Date
Month-Year
28 63 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 641 to Route 747 Oct-03 $360,000
29 64 633 Heards Mtn Road Nelson CL to Route 634 Jun-06 $360,000
30 65 606 Dickerson road Route 850 to Route 1030 Dec-07 $1,260,000
31 66 769 Beam Road Off Route 20 north Jan-06 $200,000
32 67 623 Woods Edge Rd Route 616 to dead end Sap-06 $345,000
33 68 784 Doctors Crossing Route 600 to Route 640 Oct-08 $1,175,000
69 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 711 to Rt. 692
70 647 Maxfield Road Rt.22 to Dead end
71 666 Allen Road Route 664 to Dead end
72 734 Bishop Hill Road Route 795 to Rt. 1807
73 . 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 784 to R6ute 20
74 685 Bunker Hill Road Route 616 to Dead end
75 645 Wildon Grove Rd Rt. 608 to Orange CL
76 712 North Garden Road Route 29 to Route 760
77 668 Walnut Level Road Rt. 810 to dead end
78 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 713 to Rt. 795
79 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt. 732 to Deand End
80 682 Broad Axe Road Rt. 637 to 1-64
81 678 Owensville Road Route 676 to Route 614
82 760 Red Hill School Road Route 29 to RHES
83 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646
84 674 Sugar Ridge Road Route 614 to Route 673
85 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626
86 707 Blair Park Road Rt, 691 to Dead end
87 769 Rocky Hollow Road Rt. 1484 to Dead end
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [240]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [60]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [780]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [420]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [250]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [470[
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [220[
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined |180]
unpaved road, R-O-W not available ( 170]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined 1150]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined1140]
unpaved road, R-O-W nol available 1140]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined ti30]
unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [130J
unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined J130]
unpaved road, R-O-W not available J120J
unpaved road, R-O-W not available [120]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undelermined (120]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [100]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undelerm~ned 180]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [70]
unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined [70]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [45]
19,438,653
'* Currenlly not eligible nol for VDOT lunding
STAFF PERSON:
PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT:
JUANDIEGO WADE, DAVID BEENISH
FEBRUARY 21, 2001
Hillsdale Connector Road:
The Hillldale Connector Road is proposed to connect Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic
Road. The majority of this project is in the City of Charlottesville. The City has
expressed interest in making this connection. It is currently being discussed at the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
The Board of Supervisors wanted to insure that this project would be eligible for funding
if the MPO and city decided to construct it. This project has been in the County's CIP,
but has not been on the County's Six Year Secondary Road Priority List. Staff has
prioritized this project as priority # 39 on the County's revised Priority List (Attachment
II) using the adopted' criteria based rating system.
Proffit Road -Route 649
Staff made a diligent effort to move this spot improvement up on the priority list once it
was determined that the new Baker-Butler Elementary school would located on the road.
Staff has recommended this project as Priority #9. It will begin at Route 29 and end just
past the location of the elementary school site. Even with this effort, the earliest this
project could start is 2006.
The Planning Commission requested that spot/safety improvements for Proffit Road be
undertaken in the interim. Staff met with VDOT officials on site to determine what
improvements could be done with maintenance funds as quickly as possible. Based on
this meeting, VDOT will be able to complete the following improvements with
maintenance funds within the next six months:
· Repair all low shoulders along entire length.
· Lengthen 3 cross pipes in this section to make for ample shoulder over pipe.
· Remove the stump near the dance school.
Widen two sharp curves by two feet. One curve is at the dance school and the other
the sharp curve is just before the school property. The one near school property will
require contact with the property owner for right of entry.
Catterton Road-Route 667
Catterton Road is an unpaved road project that is scheduled to be advertised for paving in
AugUst 2001. The distance is approximately 1 mile and costs $300,000 to pave. VDOT
has obtained all of necessary right of way and easements for the proposed improvement
project. All of the necessary signatures were gathered approximately 10 years ago.
Catterton Road has six property owners adjacent to the proposed section of road to be
paved. All but two of the property owners own two or more parcels. Three of the six
property owners that had originally donated right of way for the paving project now do
not support the project due to the magnitude of the proposed paving. Two other property
owners that originally agreed to donate right of way for the paving continue to support
the project. The remaining property owner did not sign to donate right of way, but the
previous owners did. The present property owner does not want the road paved. In
summary, four of the six current property owners do not want to have the road paved.
(Attachment III)
Staffhas met with VDOT on numerous occasions to discuss this project. VDOT has
offered five options for Catterton Road:
1. No Build
· Transfer funds to another unpaved road
· Perform maintenance to sustain current design capacity
· Does not achieve sight-line and dust control purposes
2. Build to Standard · Pave
· 18' width, 2' shoulders, existing ROW (40' with easements)
· Achieves sight-line and dust control purposes
3. Phase Project
Spot Improvements on curves only - built to standard (paved, 18' width)
· Widen to standard and pave remainder at a later date with remaining funds
· Achieves sight-line but dust control not remedied until later
4. No build/Spot improvements
· Improve curves only - no paving or widening
· Transfer funds to another unpaved road
· Requires approval by Central Office as an exception to policy
· Funded by taking funds from another approved secondary road project
(not "unpaved road" funds)
· Does not achieve sight-line and dust control purposes
5. No build/treat with "RoadBind"
· Funded with Maintenance funds
· Project funds would be transferred to another unpaved project
· No new construction
· Achieves dust control only
· Experimental product; future after one year is uncertain
"Roadbind" is made from lignin naturally found in trees as bonding agent. The natural
adhesive binds the dirt, reducing dust and slowing the time it takes for the road to wash
away. An article on "roadbind" can be found in Attachment IV.
Option//2 is the typical paving improvement option. This option would likely require the
removal of the first row of trees adjacent to the current road. Attachment V indicates the
paving status of adjacent sections of Catterton Road. Staff could not identify any
significant source of cut-through traffic. The most current daily traffic count for the
project section is 137. Catterton Road is not eligible for traffic calming.
2
Catterton Road -Conclusion:
The County Sch°°l ~3anSP0~ati0n Dep~ment indicated that "this route posses no real
problem for the school buses operating over it." The School would welcome any
improvements to road their buses travel over, but Catterton Road is one of the better
roads they use (Attachment VI).
Typically, if a road improvement project has been on the Priority List for many years, the
Board of Supervisors has indicated that there must be compelling information to remove
it from the List. This road does not serve as a major transportation corridor in the
County's Comprehensive Plan. The County has numerous other unpaved road projects on
the Priority List where no conflict exists. Staff has included photos of the road for your
review. (Attachment VII)
Staff opinion is that there are several options available, which reduce the impact of the
full paving project, and would recommend that options 4 and 5 be pursued in lieu of the
standard paving improvement project (Option #2).
Old Ivy Road -Route 601
Staff has recommended that Old Ivy Road be kept in the Six Year Secondary Road
Priority List. The Planning Commission requested at their work session that an estimate
for a railroad bridge improvement project (only) be provided to compare with the cost for
the proposed road improvement project for the Old Ivy Road. Staff met with CSX and
VDOT officials on January 25, 2001 to discuss improvements to the railroad structure. A
summary of the meeting's discussion can be found in Attachment VIII.
The improvements to the existing bridge would require the construction of a temporary
bridge and construction of the permanent bridge with improvements to the approaches
that would extend up to a mile in each direction. The benefits identified at the meeting
associated with improving the bridge were an increased horizontal and vertical clearance
and better roadway typical section (i.e.-sidewalks on both sides). The cost for these
benefits would cost be estimated $4.5 million. The cost for the road improvement as
currently recommended by VDOT is estimated at $7.2 million which includes no bridge
improvements. However, this cost does not include improvements to Old Ivy Road
beyond the bridge underpass.
Staff concurs with VDOT's final recommendation to only improve the roadway. The
proposed roadway would make a perpendicular alignment approach under the bridge to
facilitate a wider typical section. The typical section would have 3 lanes with bike lanes
on both sides and sidewalks on both sides. The cost estimates in the current 6-Year Plan
is based on this concept.
3
Barracks/Garth Road-Routes 654 and 614
The planning Commission also diScussed at their worksession inclusion of a spot
improvement/paved shoulder project for Barracks/Garth Road from Georgetown Road to
Whitehall. Staff conducted numerous field visits and met with VDOT officials and
determined that any improvements would have a significant impact on the roadway cross
section, including cleating of existing trees along the road at various locations.
Staff will review this project in more detail and provide additional information during
next year's review.
4
PROPOSED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
2001-02 Through 2006-07
ATTACHMENT II
VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated
Priority Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost
List Ranking Date
Description/Comments
N/A N/A 606 Dickerson Road Intersection of Rt. 743 June 2001 $50,880
N/A N/A 743 Earlysville Road Intersection of Rt. 606 ? $50,880
Month-Year
1 1 County wide County wide Jun-07 $1,050,000
1 1 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program Jun-07 $300,000
2 2 625 Hatton Ferry Hatton Ferry Jun-07 $120,000
3 3 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Aug-02 $500,000
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 250 to Rio Road Jul-02 $14,829,103
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over CSX RR Jul-02 $1,880,500
5 5 649 Airport Road Route 29 to Route 606 Jul-03 $10,944,050
6 6 651 Free State Road Free State Road Jul-05 $3,350,000
7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 631 to Route 29 Jan-15 $37,500,000
8 8 691 Jarmans Gap Road Route 240 to Route 684 Aug-05 $5,150,000
9 9 649 Proffit Road Route 29 to Route 819 Aug-06 $9,500,000
10 10 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250~29 Byp Aug-08 $7,200,000
11 11 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 Dec-08 $3,200,000
12 12 781 Sunset Avenue Rt. 780 to Rt. 708 Jul-05 $500,000
13 13 631 Old Lynchburg Road Route 780 to Route 708 Dec-08 $2,000,000
14 14 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 Dec-08 $800,000
15 15 679 Grassmere Road .25 miles south of Rt 738 Nov-00 $100,000
16 16 625 Hatton Ferry Road .75 miles south of to RR Dec-00 $t00,000
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/Fed, funds
relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded w/Fed, funds
signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding
Staff working with VDTO for traffic calming in the Hollymead area
operation of ferry [220]
rural addition
plans being dev. with citizen adv. cmt., includes bridge over Meadow Creek
widen to four lanes (associated with project above)
widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [14,800]
improve substandard bridge in Developed Area [420]
new road, County also petitioning for eligib, for prim fund. RS 97/98
serve increased traf wi min widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 [2,100]
CATS recom.,improve sight dist and alig.,bike/sidewalk, RS2 002/03 [3,000]
widen, improve align, bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01 [5,400]
spot improv, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [14,000]
spot improvements at various locations. RS 2005/06
spot improvements at various locations,RS01/02 [2,500]
spot improve, improve sight distance,RS02/03 [720]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [370]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. [220]
VDOT's
Priority
List
County's
Proposed
Ranking
Route Number and Name
Location Estimated
From - To Advertisement
Date
Month-Year
Estimated
Cost
Description/Comments
17
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
N/A
N/A
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
744 Hunt Club Road
West Leigh Drive
810 Browns Gap Road
676 Tilman Road Road
678 Owensville Road
795 Blenheim Road
606 Dickerson Road
795 James Monroe Pky
Southern Parkway
N/A
643 Polo Grounds Road
641 Frays Mill Road
641 Frays Mill Road
631 Rio Road
743 Earlysville Road
684 Half Mile Branch Road
641 Burnley Station Road
708 Dry Bridge Road
602 Howardsville Tnpk
640 Gilbert Station Road
642 Red Hill Depot Road
67t Millington Road
692 Plank Road
708 Red Hill Road
Hillsdale Drive
near intersection with Rt. 22 Dec-00
Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Dec-00
Intersection of Route 789 Aug-06
Intersection of Route 250 May-06
Intersection of Route 250 Jun-06
Intersection of Route 790 Jun-06
Route 649 to Route 743 Aug-06
Intersection of Route 53 Dec-07
Avon Str. to Fifth Str. ?
Route 240 to Route 250 ?
Route 29 to Route 649 Sep-08
Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Aug-08
Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Aug-08
Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Aug-08
Rivanna River to Rt 643 Oct-08
Rt. 691 to Rt. 797
Norfolk Southern RR
Railroad overpass
.01 miles south Route 626
Norfolk Southern RR
.28 miles northeast Rt.708
Intersection of Route 665
Route 29 to Route 712
Route 20 to Route 29
Greenbreir Dr. to Seminole Sq.
$10,000
$100,000
$55O,O0O
$2O0,000
$65O,0OO
$300,000
$1,200,000
$350,000
$4,000,000
N/A
$1,500,000
$440,000
$60,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate.10% haz. elimin, safety funds
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate.
Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[2,000]
intersection improvement,RS 2003/04 [4,800]
intersection improvement [2,800]
intersection improvement. [570]
improve to handle projected traffic, CATS recommm., RS 2002/03 [5,800]
recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/06 [2,800]
will be constructed to serve development as it occurs
interconnect of future neighborhood streets as needed
public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS2 004/05 [750]
install box culvert,RS 2005-06, no County Priority,a VDOT recom, project
install box culvert, no County Priority,a VDOT recom, project
Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [25,000]
public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related. RS 2004/05 [8,300]
spot/safety improvement to 'serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680]
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [340]
school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [390]
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [170]
Railroad crossing with no gate [100]
intersection improvement [370]
spot improvements, safety related [1,500]
improve alignment [1,200]
new road between
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
VDOT's
Priority
List
County's
Proposed
Ranking
Route Number and Name
Location
From - To
Esti mated
Advertisement
Date
Month-Year
Estimated
Cost
Description/Comments
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Projects in bold are in the
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
601 Garth Road
676 Ownesville Road
691 Park Road
678 Decca Lane
616 Union Mill Road
743 Advance Mills Road
732 Milton Road
795 Hardware Street
622 AIbevanna Springs Rd
622 Albevanna Springs Rd
611 Garmans Gap Road
1310 Ferry Street
682 Broadaxe Road
813 Starlight Road
676 Owensville Road
637 Dick Wood Road
791 Wyant lane
605 Durrett Ridge Road
679 Grassmere Road
615 Lindsay Road
667 Catteron Road
737 Mountain Vista Road
708 Secretarys Road
702 Reservoir Road
Development Area.
Intersection of Route 658
Route' 614 to Route 1050
Park Road to Route 250
Intersection of Route 676
FCL to Route 759
At Jacobs Run
Intersection of 762
Near inter, with Rt. 20
Intersection of Route 795
Intersection of Route 773
Off Route 691
.05 miles south of Rt. 6
Off Dick Woods Road
Off Route 712
Intersection of Route 601
Route 635 to Route 692
Route 635 to Dead end
.83 from Greene County
Route 738 to Dead end
Route 639 to Louisa CL
1 MI SE Rt 776 to Rt 776
Route 6 to Route 726
Route 795 to Route 620
Ramp to Dead end
Oct-00
Nov-00
Nov-00
Nov-00
Feb-01
Aug-01
Aug-02
Jan-03
Dec-04
$1,100,000
$260,000
$3OO,OOO
$3OO,OOO
$220,OOO
$300,000
$650,OOO
$825,000
$t,400,000
add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS rocomm. [6,400]
spot improvements at several points, CATS recomm. [2,300]
extend to eastern 240/250 street system [600]
improve intersection, located near school, CATS recomm[1,900]
improve alignment
improve approach to bridge
spot improvement, requested by public
spot imrevement, requested by Scottsville
intersection improvement
intersection improvement
Railroad crossing with no gate
Railroad crossing with no gate
spot improvements, public request
school request,needs turn-around space
intersection improvement
unpaved road R-O-W available
unpaved road R-O-W available
unpaved road R-O-W available
unpaved road full R-O-W available
unpaved road R-O-W available
unpaved road R-O-W available
unpaved road R-O-W available
unpaved read full R-O-W not available
unpaved road
[4,100]
[1,000]
[1,000]
[570]
[710]
[710]
[230]
[801
[120]
[60]
[4800]
[132]
[240]
[110]
[370]
[230]
[90]
[60]
[260]
public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks
VDOT's
Priority
List
County's
Proposed
Ranking
Route Number and Name
Location
From - To
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
Month-Year
Estimated
Cost
Description/Comments
28
29
30
31
32
33
64
65
66
67
68
69
7O
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
:81
82
83
84
85
8~
87
88
640 Gilbert Station Road
633 Heards Mtn Road
606 Dickerson road
769 Beam Road
623 Woods Edge Rd
784 Doctors Crossing
712 Coles Crossing Rd
647 Maxfield Road
666 Allen Road
734 Bishop Hill Road
640 Gilbert Station Road
685 Bunker Hill Road
645 Wildon Grove Rd
712 North Garden Road
668 Walnut Level Road
712 Coles Crossing Rd
762 Rose Hill Church Ln
682 Broad Axe Road
678 Owensville Road
760 Red Hill School Road
608 Happy Creek Road
674 Sugar Ridge Road
723 Sharon Road
707 Blair Park Road
769 Rocky Hollow Road
Route 641 to Route 747
Nelson CL to Route 634
Route 850 to Route 1030
Off Route 20 north
Route 616 to dead end
Route 600 to Route 640
Rt. 711 to Rt. 692
Rt.22 to Dead end
Route 664 to Dead end
Route 795 to Rt. 1807
Route 784 to Route 20
Route 616 to Dead end
Rt. 608 to Orange CL
Route 29 to Route 760
Rt. 810 to dead end
Rt. 713 to Rt. 795
Rt. 732 to Deand End
Rt. 637 to 1-64
Route 676 to Route 614
Route 29 to RHES
Route 645 to Route 646
Route 614 to Route 673
Route 6 to Route 626
Rt. 691 to Dead end
Rt. 1484 to Dead end
Oct-03
Jun-06
Dec-07
Jan-06
Sep-06
Oct-08
$360,000
$360,000
$1,260,000
$200,000
$345,000
$1,175,000
un
un
un
un
un
un
$119,438,653
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpavedroad
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road,
unpaved road,
public :request,
public request,
public request,
public request,
public request,
public request,
public request,
public request,
unpaved road, public request,
unpaved road, public request,
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
un )aved road
un )aved road
un )aved road
un )aved road
un ~aved road
un ~aved road
)aved:road
3aved road
~aved road
~aved road
3aved road
3aved:road
R-O-W undetermined [240]
R-O-W undetermined [60]
R-O-W undetermined [360]
R-O-W undetermined [780]
R-O-W undetermined [420]
R-O-W undetermined [360]
R-O-W undetermined [250]
R-O-W undetermined [470]
R-O-W undetermined [220]
R-O-W undetermined [180]
R-O-W not available [170]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [150]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [140]
R-O-W not available [140]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
R-O-W not available [120]
R-O-W not available [120]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [120]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [100]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [80]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [70]
R-O-W undetermined [70]
public request, R-O-W undetermined [45]
** Currently not eligible not for VDOT funding
*** List includes projects from Scottsville not reviewed by the Planning Commission
[ ] Most Current Average Daily Tdps
RS - Revenue Sharing
ATTACH~NT III
Segment of
Proposed
Catterton Road
to be Paved
~0 LN
ALLEN
~LN
Rt. 776 to 1 mile SE
Doily Traffic Count = 137
~i~lIil~iI = do not support pov
~ = support paving
2A = Parcel ~ on Tax Mop 17
(~) = Route Number
i = segment o¥ Cotterton Rd.
proposed to be paved
N
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ FEET
$
All
project have been obtained by. VDOT.
r~
Z
rr
of the Ricjhts-o¥-Woy for' this
ATTACHMENT IV
$t~te ~ apply d binding agent to Tw/iorsto~m lloyd that officials hope m~l make paving
Rural Roads, Without the Dust
Test Product May
Cut Need to Pave
Washi~o~ ~o~
Tom Thornburg stin enjoys
the crunch of gravel under his
~ and the shade from oak and
.catalpa trees during his regular
jogs, but now he has the added
benefit of being able to avoid
sucking in dust/rom Old Wheat-
land Road.
The dirt road along his Water-
ford area home is one of seven
Loudoun County stretchds that
have been treated with a dust-
contn'ol and mad-stabilization
agent designed to decrease wear
and tear. Officials hope the sub-
stance can help save the county's
treasured rural roads; w_h_~c5 are
in danger of being paved cnrar as
traffic grows.
Transportation offidals said it
will take months for them to eval-
uate the product, known as
Roadbind, and decide whether
See ROADS, Page 8
Monthly Column on Civil War Starts Today
Sheriff Appeals for More Deputies
A motor'iz~:l 9'r-acl~r smoq],~s '~a]florsCo~n~ I~o~ ~ ~,.,.~,.....,--,-. --'-----.
Substance Could :Cut
Need to .Pave Roads '
ROADS,
ready' say they are happy ~ the
results.
'Now we're not hav/ng a~y
washboard-s, and the dt~t is pret-
'Loudoun has a lot of d/rt roads,
which evev3'oc~ says they waut to
Loudoun offichh sa/d they hope
quent .nd h,~,_~ sparring over
Wt/ether mor~ of the ~0 miles' of
/ravel roadwar in Loudoun should
r .oads,' said Loudou~ Supervisor
EIeanore C~ Towe (D-Blue R/dge).
acter, but the road w~l be much bet.
ter. If we rr~h~ it through ~ pilot
pr~gram,'I want to sign up for
Roa~rind on every rural road/n my
~ Loudo~n roa~ i~clud-
/rig Old Wheathnd, have been the
subject of fierce battles over pay-
Some reddents say puttin~
emUntry atmosph~e that brought
to Loudoun in the first place.
Plus, they argue that paving would
invlt~ more traffic and eventually
more housea But others contend
that gravel roads are simply too
dangerous and become hnpassable
in heavy r~in~ and deep snow.
Those debates prompted ~tate
t~.nspomtion officials to launch
the l~ot program, said $oan Mor-
ris, a ~rn-g~ Depar~ent of Trans-
County loves ~npaved roads, and
.s~fonate produc/, is trade from lig-
nm naturally found in u'ee~ as a
bonding ag~t. The naunal ad-
hed~,e bind~ the d/rt, reducing dust '
and s~ow/ngthe t~m~ it takes for the '
road to w'~sh away. SimMo~ prod-
ucts have been used on a/rstrips,
racetrac.l~, parking areas and
hn-e tra/h.
VDOT e~eer G~gor~
Hm~ s~d the depa~m~t
treatments. He sa~d o~c~ a~e
and application costs. Engineers al-
VDOT crews first began applY-
hg Roadb/nd in August and expect
to fin/sh treating about 10 m/les of
road~ tMs month, Morris said. The
treatment h~s been applied on
parts of Tarlorstown, Hampton,
Fry Farm, Unison and .Shelburne
Glebe roads and 9th Street in Put:
H~,,~, said that Roadb/nd ~
environmentally safe and that any
residue can ~ be washed off
On Tuesday, crews applied
Roadb/nd to a section of Tay/ors-
town Road/n northeastern-Lou.
doun. The crews graded the road,
poured Roadb/nd and water over
to spread the solution into the gray.
el. Fina~¥, the crews used a roller to
pack down the d/rt.
· Devero Mott, who lives on Fry
Farm Road, said the rural road was
a s~llln~po'int for her f~rmqy when
they moved to Loudoun 20 years
ago. She said she wonders whether
the road has been. less dusty
because of the wet summer and is
spr/ng.
'I do wish they'd leave my road
we want to help them keep that · alone because I ~ it the way it
feeling and stfl] control the dast,' was,' Mort said. "B~t they were go-
Morrissa/d:. ..... · ·ing to'pave it,'and tiffs, is better ·
ATTACHMENT IV
~ Segment of Catterton Road Pro osed
\ To be Paved with Paving Status
j~ of Adjacent Sections
/ ~_______~np/~ed Section ~LL~ L~
ATTACHMENT V
%%%%%¥
r~
Z
<~
Paved
Sect i on~
Rt. 776 to 1 mi l e SE
Doily traf{ic count = 137
= Do not support poving
__~ = Support paving
2A = Parcel # on Tax Map 17
I~ = Route Number
iii = Segment of Catterton Rd. proposed to be paved
~ = Poved Section of Catterton Rd.
Unpaved Section of Cotterton
~~-~ +IiXAll o{thet/ Ribghts-°{-WOYeen obtoined
................ ~ .... , ........ ,c..~, ....... ,0.~.0..c..,00.0.,., ,~ projec~have by
this
VDOT.
ATTACHMENT VI
(804) 973-5716
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Department of Transportation
110 Lambs Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-8979
FAX (804) 973-2903
TO:
FF, OM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
duandiego Wade, ?lanning Department
Willie Smith, Director of Transportation
Route ~ Paving Project
January 18, 2001
Regarding your inquiry on the proposal to pave state route 677, as I indicated earlier,
this particular route poses no real problem for the school buses operating over it. In terms
of unpaved roads in Albemarle County, route 677 is one of the better roads that we travel.
Obviously, we welcome any opportunity to improve the roads that we travel. Whenever winter
weather produces hazardous road conditions, it is the unpaved roads that present the
greatest challenges.
I hope this information proves useful. Please contact me at 973-5716 if I can provide
further information regarding this matter.
/W9
"We Expect Success"
ATTACHMENT VII
BEGINNING OF PAVING PROJECT- 1 MILE FROM BUCK MOUNTAIN FORD LANE (FAC~ .......
CATTERON ROAD - APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET FROM BUCK NTN FORD LN ~FACING SOUTH)
· ATTACH~NT VII
CATTETON ROAD AT INTERSECTION OF BUCK MOUNTAIN FORD LANE ~FACING SOUTH)
CATTERTON ROAD- APPROX. 1/4 HILE FROH BUCK HOUNTAIN FORD LANE (FACING SOUTH)
CHARLES NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
ATTACHMENT VIII
PAGE 1
~L~NNtNG ANO
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINI ': ,~:~ :LOP~ENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 JA~E8 L BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Ja~ua~ 2~, 2000
Mr. Juandiego Wade
Department of Planning & Community Devel.
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Route 601 (Old Ivy Road)
Project 0601-002-237,C501
Dear Mr. Wade:
A meeting with CSX, VDOT and County officials was held on January 25, 2001 to discuss the
proposed improvements to Route 601 (Old Ivy Road). Listed on the attachment are the items
discussed at this meeting and our recommendations on the development of this project.
Please review this information and advise of how we should proceed with this project.
Mr. John Giometti
Mr. Ralph Barret
Yours Truly,
Gerald G. Utz
Engineering Technician III
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
PAGE 2
Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) Meeting
With CSX, Albemarle County and VDOT
January 25, 2001
Purpose:
ROad improvements to Old Ivy ROad (Rte. 601) have been programmed in the
6YP, and funding has been allocated previously. A question was posed by the
Planning Commission as to the cost/benefit of improving the railroad bridge
concurrent with the road improvements in order to improve the alignment of the
roadway underneath the bridge. The bridge is currently sub-standard with regard
to height restrictions, and the roadway passes underneath at a heavily skewed
angle. The scope of the project is to widen the roadway to two travel lanes with a
third shared center-turning lane and add sidewalks and bike Ianes On both sides.
CSX Facts:
6-8 trains per day, plus Amtrak 3 days per week
Number of trains per day could increase if coal exports increase
Costs: $120/ft of newly laid track
$6/ft in each direction for moving track to/from old track, temporary track
and new track
Bridge is over 100 years old
Bridge roadway opening measures 46 feet
Area Facts:
Pedestrian and bike traffic, per aerial photograph, heading away from Route 601
towards UVA. Also, need for turn lanes ceases before bridge (heading east on
601) therefore, we recommend terminating the center turn lane at intersection
preceding bridge.
Discussion:
;FO'-c~onstruCt new"~ bridge while maintaining RR traffiC: Close Rte. 601
Put RR on false work (temporary structure)
Build new bridge
· Limited construction time frame (6-8 hrs per day)
· Runoff (track adjustment) required for one mile in both directions
· Would require additional r/w
· Estimated cost of $2 million to design/construct RR false work
· Estimate does not include utility relocation, r/w acquisition, or
railroad bridge
· Estimated cost of bridge replacement is $500,000
· Best option: to build bridge first, then shift railroad alignment to
new bridge
PAGE3
To raise RR structure approximately 4-5 feet to yield proper legal height: · Requires increased ballast (stone bed) that will create the need for
larger footprint (wider) roadway fill for the railroad
· Ballast dependent on RR traffic type and speed
· Runoff (track adjustment for horizontal & vertical adjustments)
required for one mile in both directions
· Adjustments to RR bridges within the 1 mile runoff each direction
· RR suggests the use of screenings (fine stone) for the ballast
Benefits of modifying RR Bridge: · Increased horizontal and vertical clearance
· Better roadway typical section - (ie.- sidewalks on both sides)
Cost Issues:
·
Roadway improvements cost estimate with no bridge work = $7.2
million
Temporary RR Bridge modification cost estimate = $2 million
New bridge construction $500,000
Retaining walls, and constructability issues will probably add $1
million each to the project
Considerable cost for utility relocations with bridge replacement
(up to $1 million)
Options:
·
·
·
No Build
Road improvements only
Road and RR bridge improvements
Final Recommendation:
Due to the substantial costs_0£m~ffying or replacing
the railroad bridge, we suggest that we leave the bridge
as is and improve existing Route 601 along its present
alignment. We suggest building 3 lanes with bike lanes
on both sides and sidewalk on both sides. Just west of
the bridge, we recommend that the center turn lane
terminate, the sidewalk be reduced to one side and the
bike lanes transition to a shared facility with traffic.
We recommend that the alignment be modified to a
perpendicular approach under the bridge to facilitate a
wider typical section. The cost estimate in the current
6-Year plan is based on this concept.
Secondary SYstem
County: Albemarle
ConstructiOn PrOgram
Estimated Allocations
ATTACHMENT IX
Fiscal Year
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
200405
2005-06
2006-07
Totals
New Surface
Treatments
Federal
Other
Total
$735,923
$864,395
$944,443
$981,305
$1,026,419
$1,026,419
$3,814,811
$4,111,478
$4,830,936
$4,919,786
$4,742,481
$4,9O0,000
$195,000
$445,000
$70,000
$170,000
$565,656
$408,137
$4,745,734
$5,420,873
$5,845,379
$6,071,091
$6,334,556
$6,334,556
$5,578,904
$27,319,492
$1,8531793
$34,752,189
Board Approval Date::
VDOT Resident Engineer
Date
Chairman, Clerk, Co. Administrator Date
Rt. 8000
ID: CWI
State Forces
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Pri #: 0
Rt. 8001
ID: CWI
Contract
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Total County-Wide Allocation
CWl
NEW PIPE INSTALL.,
SIGNS, SEEDING
07/01/2001
Total County-Wide Allocation
OWl
TRAFFIC CALMING
VARIOUS LOC.
PE $0
RW $o
CON $850,000
Total $880,000
PE $0
RW $0
CON $300,000
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
'oral $0
PE $0
Rw $o
CON $0
$850,000
$125,000
$125,000
BUDGETITEM
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$300,000
2003-04 $~50,000 SIGNAL ~ RT
631/164
Rev. Sh. 2003.4 $300000
Prelim. Engineering 2001-02
Hollymeade Dr.
Pd #: 0
Rt. 0625
ID:
State Forces
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 2
Rt. 9999
ID: 56085
Contract
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 3
Rt. 0531
ID: 2530
Contract
BR
Regular
PH #: 4
Rt. 0631
ID: 2530
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri #: 4
07/01/2001
HATTON FERRY
0625-002-
OPERATE HATTON
FERRY
07/01~001
WEST LEIGH DRIVE
9999-002-269,C501
Route 250
0.4 N. RTE. 250
08/01/2002
McINTIRE RD. EXT.
0631-002-128,B657
BRIDGE OVER CSX RR
NEW ALIGNMENT
07/01/2002
MclNTIRE RD. EXTENDED
0631-002-128,0502
NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE
CSX RAILROAD
07/01/2002
To~l $300,000
PE $0
RW $0
CON $120,000
Total $120,000
PE $20,000
RW $20,000
CON $460,OOO
Total $900,000
PE $50,000
RW $0
CON $1,830,500
To~l $1,880,600
PE $1,205,000
RW $2,403,000
CON $9,016,600
To~l $12,624,600
$o
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
PE $20,000
RW $20,000
CON $210,000
To~l $260,000
PE $50,000
Rw $o
CON $840,000
To~l $890,000
PE $1,205,000
RW $2,403,000
CON $6,556,105
To~I $10,164,106
$300,000
$120,000
$280,000
$990,600
$2,460,495
$80,000
$20,000
$990,600
$973,579
$60,000
$20,000
$260,000
$0
$1,486,916
$90,000
$20,000
$0
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$o
$0
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RURAL ADDITION
$0
$0
4-LANE BRIDGE
$0
NEW ALIGNMENT-2 lanes
22O
~ ....................... ~.:~ ............ ~.-..: ...................................................................... . ................................................................................................................................................. ~ ........... ~-.-'i.:,..,.~ .. ~ .............. .~:.~,,
Rt. 0~1 MclNTIRE RD. EXT. I~E $150,000 PE $150,000
ID: 2530
Contract 0631-002-128,5612 RW $0 RW $0 0
2-lane Bddge
BR BRIDGE OVER CON $2,054,500 CON $2,054,500
Regular MEADOWCREEK
Pri #: 4 07/01/2002 Total $2,204,600 Total $2,204,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0649 AIRPORT ROAD DE $1,237.400 PE $1,237,400 4-LANE DIVIDED
ID: 2456
Contract 0649-002-158,C501 ~W $4,856,550 RW $3,092,477 13411
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000
STP ROUTE 29 CON $4,850,100 CON $0 1998-99
Regular ROUTE 606 Paid
URBAN DESIGN W/ S.W. & BIKE
Pri#: 5 07/01/2003 ;Total $10,944,050 Total $4,329,877 $6,614,173 $650,732 $1,700,000 $2,920,122 $1,343,319 $0 $0 $0 LANES
Rt. R000 FREE STATE ROAD PE $600,000 PE $600,000 2-LANE DESIGN
ID: 52393 CONNECTOR
Contract R000-002-259,C501 RW $750,000 RW $502,641 0
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000
STP RIO ROAD CON $2,000,000 CON $0 , 1995-96
Regular ROUTE 651 Paid
Pri#: 6 07101/2005 Total $3,350,000 Total $1,102,641 $2,247,359 $0 $0 $36,882 $1,600,000 $610,477 $0 $0
Rt. R000 MEADOWCREEK PKY. PE $4,200,000 PE $1,402,365 NEW ALIGNMENT
ID: 12981
Contract R000-002-253,PE101 RW $6,500,000 ~W $0 0
REVENUE SHARING $800,000 1997-
STP RIO ROAD CON $26,800,000 CON $0 98
Regular RTE. 29 Paid
Pri#: 7 01/01/2015 Total $37,600,000 Total $'1,402,366 $36,097,635 $100,000 $109,900 $160,466 $432,681 $687,466 $300,000 $34,317,'133
Rt. 0691 JARMAN GAP ROAD PE $650,000 IPE $208,209 ..
ID: 11129
2118
Contract 0691-002-258,C501 RW $1,300,000 RW $0 REVENUE SHARING 1999-2000
STP ROUTE 240 CON $3,200,000 CON $0 $1,000,000
Regular ROUTE 684 2-LANE URBAN W/S. W. & BIKE
Pri#: 8 08/01/2005 Total $5,160,000 Total $208,209 $4,941,791 $100,000 $700,000 $1,500,000 $641,791 $'1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 LANES
Rt. 0649 PROFFtT RD. PE $1,500,000 PE $0
ID: 54415
Contract 0649-002- ,C r~W $3,000,000 RW $0 2273
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000
STP ROUTE 29 CON $5,000.000 CON $0 2006-07
Regular 1.6 MI. E. RTE. 29
Pri#: 9 08/01/2006 Total $9,600,000 Total $0 $9,600,000 $1,000,000 $114,662 $223,476 $901,996 $1,685,326 $4,100,000 $1,474,641 2-LANESRURAL W/BIKEI..ANES
Rt. 0601 OLD IVY ROAD PE $950,000 PE $910,000
ID: 8807
Contract 0601-002-237,C501 RW $2,500,000 RW $0 4358
REV. SHARING $1,000,000 2000-
STP ROUTE 250 CON $3,750,000 CON $0 01
Regular RTE. 29 BYPASS 3-LANES W/S. W. & BIKE LANES
Pri #: 10 08/01/2008 Total $7,200,000 Total $910,000 $6,290,000 $0 $0 $0 $8 $244,539 $200,000 $5,845,461
Rt. 0656 GEORGETOWN ROAD r=E $600,000 PE $600,000 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
ID: 12982
13500
Contract 0656-002-254,C501 RW $600,000 RW $100,000
REVENUE SHARING $200,000 1997-
STP ROUTE 654 CON $2,000,000 CON $0 98
Regular ROUTE 743
Pri #: 11 12/01/2008 Total $3 200,000 Total $700,000 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $200,000 $1,900,000 2-LANES W/S.W. & BIKE LANES
Rt. 0781 SUNSET AVE. PE $250,000 PE $0 INTERSECTION IMPROV.
ID: 17171
Contract 0781-002- ,C RW $300,000 RW $0 275
REVENUE SHARING ~00,000 2005-
STATE NCL CH'VlLLE CON $500,000 CON $0 06
Regular OLD RTE. 631 SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
AT INT. OLD STAGECOACH RD.
Pri#: 12 10/01/2008 Total $1,050,000 Total $0 $1,050,000 $0 $0 $0 $8 $395,556 $143,598 $510,746
Rt. 0631 OLD LYNCHBURGH RD. PE $250,000 PE $0
ID: 15329
Contract 0631-002- ,C RW $250,000 RW $0 1500
REVENUE SHARING 2001-02
STP 1.35 MI.S. 1-64 CON $1,500,000 CON $0 $500,000
Regular RTE. 708
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Pri#: 13 12101/2008 Total $2,000,000 Total $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,674 $100,000 $1,785,326
Rt. 0726 JAMES RIVER ROAD PE $150,000 =E $0
ID: 17170
Contract 0726-002- ,C RW $200,000 RW $0 1200
REVENUE SHARING $200,000 2002-
STATE ROUTE 795 CON $450,000 CON $0 03
Regular ROUTE 1302
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Pri #: 14 12/01/2008 Total $800,000 Total $0 $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,639 $705,461
Rt. 0679 RAILROAD CROSSING PE $3,000 PE $3,000 LIGHTS & GATES -
ID: 17172
Contract 0679-002-260,FS713 RW $1,000 RW $1,000 485
RRP 0.25 MI S. RT. 738 CON $96,000 CON $96,000 ~
Regular (LIGHTS & GATES)
Pri#: 15 11/01/2000 Total $100,000 Total $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0625
ID: 17173
Contract
RRP
Regular
Pri #: 16
Rt. 0744
ID: 54460
Railroad
RRP
Regular
Pd#: 17
Rt. 9999
ID: 56086
Railroad
STATE
Regular
Pal#: 18
Rt. 0637
ID: 11;125
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 19
Rt. 0791
ID: 11128
SAAP
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 20
Rt. O6O5
ID: 17175
SAAP
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 21
HATTON FERRY ROAD
0625-002,262,FS714
RAILROAD CROSSING
NEAR HATTON FERRY
12/01/2000
HUNT CLUB ROAD
0744-002-S63,FS715
NEAR INT. RTE. 22
RAILROAD CROSSING
12/01/2000
WEST LEIGH DRIVE
9999-002-270,FS716
N. OF ROUTE 250
RAILROAD CROSSING
12/01/2000
DICKWOODSROAD
0637-002-P52,N501
ROUTE 635
RT. 682
10/01/2000
MIDWAY ROAD
0791-002,P56,N501
ROUTE 635
DEAD END RTE. 791
11/15/2000
DURRETTRIDGE ROAD
0605-002-P57,NS01
GREENE CO. LINE
0.83 ME GREENE CL
11/15/2000
PE $3,000
RE $1,000
CON $96,000
Total $100,000
PE $1,000
RW $0
CON $9,000
Total $10,000
PE $1,000
RW $0
CON $99,000
Total $100,000
PE $25,000
RW $30,000
CON $1,045,000
Total $1,100,000
=E $10,000
RW $15,000
CON $235,000
Total $260,000
PE $5,000
RW $15,000
CON $280,000
Total $300,000
PE $3,000
RW $1,000
CON $96,000
Total $100,000
=E $1,000
RW $0
CON $9,000
Total $10,000
PE $1,000
RW $0
CON $99,000
Total $100,000
PE $25,000
RW $30,000
CON $1,045,000
Total $1,100,000
PE $10,000
RW $15,000
CON $235,000
Total $260,000
PE $5,000
RW $15,000
CON $280,000
Total $300,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$o $o
$0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$o
~::~%.:~¥::~.::::¥~:::~¥:::~:~:::~:~:::~:::::::::::::~>~>~::~ii~
GATES & LIGHTS
211
GATES & LIGHTS
GATES & LIGHTS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
UNPAVED ROAD
CONST. STARTED OCT. 2000
110
UNPAVED ROAD
ADV. NOV2000
307
UNPAVED ROAD
ADV. NOtL 2000
93
...,.;~l~t~J~,~!!...................,..........,............... ..¢:.,.,..×.>,..:.,..:...:..~:..~=..,. .~:-.'-'?p:%':,~.:-:':.:.:.:.:.:.~-.'-:.=-=:,~.~ S.~,~::¢;:;:S:::S:::::¢::::~-.':?.?.?.?.~:.<.~.<.::.::?.~:!:i ~:::::=¥:,'..'..'.:(.'.'::'~S~:]:~:~:~::;:::::;:,':??.]: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::;-'..;.4 :::¥;.'.;:~=:S~.,'..'i:i~'.~.'.'~ :..':~ ~:~:~:~(::4:]::::::::¥;.]-'.'::=:S(;~:-'.~.~:~ :-:-:-:~.;:~:.::;::;~:!:!:~]:..', ~ ,"-iS::::: ::.'..:::::::=:::::::.':::.'..~:~.~.-..-;S(;]~: :~::S?-.:.%'i~ ?-~ ,~;:.'.'.'.'~( .~¢¢.¥.<S:;::', ::!: -".~!.".?. ]:;:::~ :-'::::-'::::¥:=::::= ::~.~::;:.~::.~ .'.'S]-'.":~:]-'; -~ -:~-':',~-' :.<.~.,~.%,.~:~;::;?=4;;::..¥:.¥x,:..,..4:.'.~.-;.'.:; MIS."..".."..".
Rt. 0679 ~RASSMERE ROAD PE $10,000 PE $10,000 ...................................
SAAP 0679-OO2-P61,NS01 RW $10,000 RW $10,000 216
GRAVEL ROAD
STATE ROUTE 738 CON $280,000 CON $280,000 ADVERTISED OCT. 2000
Unpaued END MAINT.
,. Pri #: 22 11/01/2000 Total · $300,000 Total $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0615 LINSDAY ROAD iPE $10,000 ~E $10,000
ID: 54422
SAAP 0615-002-P64,NS01 RW $10,000 ~W $10,000 237
UNPAVED ROAD
STATE ROUTE 639 CON $200,000 CON $200,000 RIGHT OF WAY AVAILASLE
Unpaved LOUISA CO, LINE
Pri #: 23 02/01/2001 Total $220,000 Total $220,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0667 CA ~ ~ ~-RTON ROAD PE $10,000 PE $0
ID: 54424
SA,AP 0667-002-P ,N RW $10,000 RW $0 124
UNPAVED ROAD
STATE 1.0 MI.SE RT 7?6 CON $280,000 CON $0 RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE
Unpaved ROUTE 776
Pri #: 24 08/01/2001 Total $~00,000 Total $0 $~00,000 $225,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0737 MOUNTAIN VISTA RD. ~E $20,000 I~E $20,000
ID: 54425
Contract 0737-002-P ,N RW $20,000 ~W $20,000 75
UNPAVED ROAD RIGHT OI= WAY
STATE ROUTE 6 CON $610,000 ICON $347,365 AVAILABLE
Unpaved 1.19 MI.E. RT. 6
Pti #: 25 08/01/2002 Total $650,000 Total $387,365 $262,635
Rt. 0708 SECRETARYS ROAD PE $30,000 PE $30,000
ID: 11130
Contract 0708-002-P77,N$01 RW $50,000 RW $50,000 151
UNPAVED ROAD PARTIAL RIGHT
STATE 0.7 M.W. RTE. 795 CON $745,000 CON $69,067 OF WAY
Unpaved 0.28 M.W. RT. 620
~Pd #: 26 01/01/2003 Total $825,000 Total $149,067 $675,9~3 $248,288 $222,171 $205,474 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0702 RESERVOIR ROAD PE $20,000 I~E $0
ID: 54426
Contract 0702-002-P ,N RW $40,000 RW $0 406
UNPAVED ROAD
STATE ROUTE 29 RAMP CON $1,340,000 ¢ON $0 NO RIGHT OF WAY
Unpaved DEAD END ,,,
Pti#: 27 12/01/2004 Total $1,400,000 Total $0 $1,400,000 $0 $329,601 $578,612 $491,987 $0 $0 $0
Page 6 of 8
Rt. 0640
ID: 54427
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 28
Rt. 0633
ID: 54428
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 29
Rt. 0606
ID: 54429
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 30
Rt. 0769
ID:
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pd #: 31
Rt. 0623
ID:
SAAp
STATE
Unpaved
PTi #: 32
Rt. O784
ID:
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 33
GILBERT STATION RD.
0640-OO2-P ,N
ROUTE 641
ROUTE 747
10/01/2003
HEARDS MT.RD.
0633-OO2-P ,N
NELSON CO. LINE
ROUTE 634
10/01/2004
DICKERSON ROAD
0606-002-P ,N
ROUTE 850
ROUTE 1030
10/01/2006
BEAM ROAD
0769-002-P ,N
RTE. 1484
END STATE MAINT.
01/01/2006
WOODS EDGE ROAD
0623-OO2-P ,N
0.5 MI. S. RT. 616
END STATE MAINT.
09/01/2006
DOCTORS CROSSING RD.
0784-002-P ,N
ROUTE 600
ROUTE 640
10/01/2008
~:~!i~::~:~:!:".:~:~..;.:.".:~.!i!:~..~!:~i~i~ii i~:'~::~::~.~:~:~:.~'.<~8~:;~.~:~8F:::~!::::::::~.':: :~.::~:~:.:::!:.';<:i~::::!:!;!.~:~i.~.~:.~.~::~::::~
~::::,:~::::::::~,<.::'~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::¥.'::::::[:.>.:'::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
RW $40,000
CON $300,000
Total $360,000
=E $20,000
~W $40,000
CON $300,000
Total $360,000
PE $20,000
RW $6O,000
CON $1,200,000
Total $1,280,000
PE $10,000
RW $15,000
CON $175,000
Total $200,000
PE $15,000
RW $30,000
CON $300,000
Total $345,000
PE $25,000
RW $50,0OO
CON $1,100,000
Total $1,175,000
PE $20,000 PE
RW
CON
Total
~E
~W
CON
Total
PE
RW
CON
Total
PE
RW
CON
Total
~E
RW
CON
Total
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $360,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $360,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,280,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $345,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,176,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$120,010
$117,713
$0
$0
$0
$140,000
$20,457
$0
$0
$0
$99,990
$221,830
$72,031
$95,467
$0
$0
$0
$727,775
$104,633
$194,111
$0
$0
$0
$480,194
$0
$150,889
$0
$0
$395,336
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$779,694
....................................................... ~
~:::~:. .~,.,.',~ ~'~'.,.'.%~::.,.':.',.:':.:~.~.%,::.~:.:. .,,, '¥~..'.~..:.:::
~ ~::~ ~ ~:.~%'.,' ,, ,,.-.~:~:~:~::~:::.,.~,.¥..-.':~¢,.'.-.'::::::.-.'.,.'.,.'.~.,:.:u., s::s, ~ ,'.~.: :ss::<....,':".::
........................ 1 ...... ~"1 ~'"'""¢~'¢~"'"'¢~'~ ¢"~'~'"¢~' ¢~'~""~[:.'
230
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF
WAY
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF
WAY
59
170
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF
WAY
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
50
140
360
Page 7 of 8
District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
county: Albemarle {in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to
Funding Complete
Required
I
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
County Totals Total Allocated: $108,558,650 $25,188,129 $83,370,521 $4,745,734 $5,420,873 $5,845,379 $6,071,091 $6,334,556 $6,334,556 $48,618,332
Report Totals PE $12,070,400 $6,500,974 $5,569,426 $1,210,000 $626,353 $373,932 $624,543 $1,107,139 $519,539 $1,1 07,920-
RW $23,116,550 $6,270,118 $16,848,432 $660,732 $1,591,550 $978,673 $1,017,641 $2,473,490 $1,068,139 $9,056,207
CON $73,371,700 $t 2,417,037 $60,954,663 $2,875,002 $3,202,970 $4,492,774 $4,428,907 $2,753,927 $4,746,878 $38,454,205
Original Allocation: $4,745,734 $5,420,873 $5,845,379 $6,071,091 $6,334,556 $6,334,556
Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PanP R nf R
Hans and Sandy Natterer
5083 Catterton Rd
Free Union, VA 22940
February 15. 2001
The Honorable Sally H. Thomas
Chairwoman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Thomas,
We have signed a petition in favor of proceeding with the improvement of Rt.667,
Catterton Rd. as previously approved by the Board. We understand that there is
opposition to the improvement, which puzzles those of us who have to travel this portion
of 667 on a daily basis,
This road is not safe. We have had dose calls with larger vehicles(i.e; county school
bus) at the sharp curve near Mrs. Gibson's home. There have been 2 major accidents in
the past few years at that same spot. How anyone can be opposed to improving this
situation is a mystery.
There is no question in our minds that anyone who travels this road on a daily basis
would be in favor of this improvement. The majority of the signatorieS on the OppoSing
side do not use the portion of the road in question on a regular basis. In fact, most of them
either live on the paved portion of Catterton or live closer to 601 and hardly ever travel the
part of the road slated for improvement. If anything, there is a greater need for the
-improvement now because four additional homes have been built on Catterton since the
Board approved the improvement.
The wishes of some to keep this a Semi private road are underStandable, bUt the safety
aspect should override personal interests. We urge you to consider the public interest of
folks traveling this portion of the road rather than the narrow intereSts of some folks who
rarely, if at all, use it.
CC:
The Honorable Lindsey Dorrier
The HonOrable charlotte Y. Humphries
The Honorable David P. Bowerman
The Honorable Charles S. Martin
The Honorable Walter F. Perkins
rely~
a~Natter~er~'~-~-~
PETITION TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WE THE UNDERS!G~ED, ALL OF WHOM OWN REAL PROPERTY ON
VSH 667, CATTERTON ROAD, RESPECTIVELY REQUEST THAT THE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS ROAD LISTED IN THE SECONDARY SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PAGE 6, ID: 54424, AS APPROVED BY
THE BOARD ON 11/09/1999 pROCEED AS PROJECTED IN THE
COUNTY'S PROPOSED RANKING LIST (i.e. advertisement date:
August 2001) OUR LETTER TO YOU OF 12/11/2000 REFERS.
NAME PARCEL#
ROW DEDICATED
/
PETITION TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, ALL OF WHOM OWN REAL PROPERTY ON
VSH 66'7, CATTERTON ROAD, RESPECTIVELY REQUEST THAT THE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS ROAD LISTED IN THE SECONDARY SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PAGE 6, ID: 54424, AS APPROVED BY
THE BOARD ON 11/09/1990 pROCEED AS PROJECTED IN THE
COUNTY'S PROPOSED RANKING LIST (i.e. advertisement date:
August 2001) OUR LETTER TO YOU OF 12/11/2000 REFERS.
NAME PARCEL#
ROW DEDICATED
Piedmont Environmental
Council
Promoting c~n(,l prot{~cdng thc Pk?drnont',~ rural (?co[]olny, natural r(~sourcc's, DistorU ol ~d beauty
Proposed Six Year Secondary Road Plan
Catterton Road Upgrade
Statement to the Board of Supervisors, February 21,2001
My name is Jeff Werner and I am hear representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. The PEC was
established in 1972 to promote and protect the rural economy, beauty and character of the Piedmont.
It is a daunting task to generate any appreciable amount of grassroots response to an issue that is isolated
and seemingly impacts an extremely small group of the community. The Catterton Road paving project
has proven an exasperating experience for the group that is opposing its upgrade from a gravel rural lane
to a paved, suburban street cross-section. If this were miles of proposed interstate rmming from Greene
County through Free Union and Batesville, no doubt we could fill this room. But it's not and we hope that
you will listen to those of us here tonight that chose to speak.
The issue of paving and upgrading' Albemarle's rural roads is not isolated to Catteron's gravelly mile of
our countryside and rite line of fences, and adjacent meadows, fields, pastures and trees that frame it. The
County has miles o~rural roads and a state policy that says, "we'll give you money to pave them."
But what the state policy also says is "that you don't have to pave the roads if you don't want to."
The decision before you is not one of doing something or nothing on Catterton Road or any other of
Albemarle's rural roads. It is an opportunity to make a decision that 4411 serve as a point of departure for
more of what people around the state call "Albemarle's ahead-of-the-curve way of conducting its
business." In fact, the County Staff Report offers a list of solutions that will allow you to do just that.
Do we need more non-permeable surfaces in the rural area? Do we need a suburban road section in a truly
rural, pastoral section of Albemarle County's countryside? Do we need to grade, excavate, chop, cut and
pave a section of road in a way that few seem to want and to resolve a line of sight issue that has
apparently been resolved by some conscientious pruning?
Your decision tonight can both meet the needs of the residents of this area and not require the wholesale
transformation of a bucolic country lane into a roadway better suited for the County's growth area.
I ask you to set the wheels in motion tonight by asking staff to take advantage of the flexibility that the
state code allows and to explore options for improving our rural roads--if warranted--that does not
require creating suburban avenues nor even require miles of asphalt paving. I suggest this option for here
on Catterton Road and for every other rural road in the County where a suburban street is an inappropriate
option for a rural lane.
I stand here tonight hoping to make the case for protecting the character of our Rural Area and also to
make a case for not unnecessarily increasing non-permeable surfaces in the Rural Area. While there are
certainly environmental aspects to minimizing non-permeable surfaces, I hope that I may also suggest that
we have all matured over the past few decades to the point that we recognize that a good environmental
decision can also be a good fiscal decision.
Thank you. /
2~*:~40-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003
,72-0141 · Fax 540-672-6265
Date: Feb. 21, 2001
To: Board of Supervisors
From: League of Women Voters Charlottesville/Albemarle County
Re: 6-Year Road Plan
The League of Women Voters finds it difficult to understand Why there
continues to be a long list in the 6-year road plan of unpaved roads in the
rural areas - with a projected cost of millions of dollars. The
Comprehensive Plan states that those who live in rural areas should
expect lower levels of service - this includes longer response time for fire,
rescue, and police; wells and septic systems - and unpaved roads!
It seems reasonable that citizens who buy property in the rural areas need
to have a road that is maintained in appropriate condition - relatively free
of large potholes, washboarding, and with some attention given to blind
curves, unsafe bridges, etc.
But, it is unreasonable for citizens to buy property in rural areas and then
later expect the board to approve paving of their road - at great expense
to all the citizens.
It is hard to understand why the board approved funding for the ACE
program, to preserve land in the rural area, and now is deciding whether
to approve funding to pave roads in the rural area, which encourages
growth. Even though the ACE program is funded with Albemarle County
and the Six-Year-Road-Plan is funded with state tax money - it is all
money from Virginia citizens that must be spent wisely.
One of the major ways to preserve land in the rural areas would be to
strengthen our septic system laws and our well regulations, both of which
the League has long advocated, and to stop the paving of roads in the
rural area unless they are a part of a major transportation corridor. This
would certainly follow the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and limit the
publics' expenditure of millions of dollars on the paving of rural roads.
Route 656 - Georgetown Road
Cost Creep History
Type of Work 1994-95 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99' 1999-00
· Spot Improvements
· Turn Lanes Tot= 500,000 Tot=500,000i Tot=500,000 Tot=900,000 Tot=900,000
· Walking/Bike Path
· 2-Lane Facility
*Cost adjusted for inflation for PE, RW and Construction.
Type of Work 2000-01 2001-02 **
· Scope Change PE= 100,000 PE= 600,000
· Spot Improvements RW=225,000 RW=600,000
· Bike Lanes Con=1,675,000 Con=2,000,000
· Sidewalk Tot=2,000,000 Tot=3,200,000
· 3-Lane Design
** Cost adjusted- More accurate Const. Est., Increased Environmental Costs, RW Cost adjusted for
inflation
SIX YEAR ROAD PLAN
CATTERTON ROAD
FEBRUARY 21, 2001
Residents who support preserving Catterton Road as a rural country lane wish to make the
following points in urging the Board of Supervisors to remove the Catterton Road project from
the Six-Year Road Plan.
The proposed project threatens the rural character of the Free Union Road/Buck
Mountain area.
The residents who oppose this project desire to preserve the unique character and quality of
Catterton Road as an unpaved, country lane. J
VDOT paving specifications require clear cutting ofa~0 to 50 foot 1-mile swath and
extensive grading, along what is now a gentle bucolic country lane. This will destroy the
beauty of Catterton Road.
Many Countywide residents, as well as residents along Catterton Road use this stretch for
recreational walking, jogging and horseback riding. Once paved and widened, the
uniquely bucolic setting fo.r these activities will be lost.
Catterton Road lies in the center of the Buck Mountain Creek/Piney Creek watershed that
will feed the Buck Mountain Reservoir when constructed. Adding impervious surfaces (in
the form of a paved road) in such a sensitive area is inconsistent with watershed
management and protection.
A widened and paved Catterton Road will more likely lead to development in this rural
area. This conflicts with the goals and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Residents, pedestrians and riders enjoy Catterton Road for its natural and scenic beauty.
Destroying the beauty of a country r0a. d simply because it is gravel is a step to transform
the rural areas into suburban areas.
With no demonstraXed objective reasons that would require paving to serve a broader
public interest, the proposal to permanently alter the character of Cattenon Road is
inconsistent with all principles applied by the County toward the preservations of rural
areas.
Many residents use Catterton Road to support rural uses such as transporting cattle, horses,
and farm equipment with little trouble and no complaints
Commitment from County residents in the Buck Mountain/Free Union area to preserving
the rural character is further supported by the success of completed conservation easements
through the Piedmont Environmental Council.
Once a road such as Catterton Road is paved, it will be lost as a country road forever.
There is no demonstrated County transportation need to pave the segment of
Cattert(m Ro~d described in the Six-Year Plan.
Catterton Road extends from Free Union Road (Route 601) at the foot of Buck Mountain
to Buck Mountain Road (Route 665). The area is entirely rural in Character. Catterton
Road primarily serves those who live on the road. There are alternative paved routes both
North and South of Catterton Road that connect Free Union Road and Buck Mountain
Road.
VDOT Resident Engineer, Mr. Jim Bryan has informed residents that the objectives of the
project will be to reduce dust and to improve line of sight distance on a particular segment.
Mr. Bryan also said that VDOT would not use State resources to pave this Road unless the
County directs it to through the Six-Year Plan.
The project described in the Six-Year'Plan is to pave only a 1 miles segment (the middle
segment) of Catterton Road. The Southeastern one third of the road was paved many years
ago when VDOT paving standards allowed for narrower paved surfaces. The
Northwestern one third of Catterton Road has never been scheduled for paving since
VDOT does not possess all of the necessary right-of-way and construction easements for
this section of the road. Accordingly, even if the middle section of Catterton is paved, the
road will not serve as a totally paved connector between Free Union Road and Buck
Mountain Road..
The Catterton Road project finds its way to the top of~e six-year plan more as a result of
seniority rather than as a matter of priority. A number of residents who supported the
paving or dedicated right of way have either moved away or changed their minds, realizing
the value of this important rural resource. Surely, there are other roads in the County that
warrant attention ahead of this one---roads where there is not such demonstrated
opposition.
HI. The vast majority of Catterton Road property owners (62%) are strenuously opposed to
paving any additional portions of Catterton Road.
An overwhelming majority of property owners whose land fronts on Catterton Road
oppose this project. Their signatures to a petition that was first filed With the Board of
Supervisors by letters dated October 16 and 21 record many of those who wish to preserve
Catterton Road as a gravel country road, 1998. '
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas A. Saunders, Iii'own approximately one mile of frontage, or nearly
all of the property.gn the South side of Catterton Road along the segment to be paved. Mr.
Saunders Wishes to preserve Catterton Road as a gravel road along the nearly 1 mile that
constitutes his road frontage.
While it is true that property owners previously dedicated land for this project, in the
intervening time, ownership has changed and residents have changed their views as the
importance of preserving the rural character of the area is increasing in importance as more
and more rural characteristics are being threatened around the County.
Only 5 Catterton Road property owners presently reside on the 1 mile segment of the road
presently contained in the Six Year Plan for paving, and only two of those property owners
are in favor of road paving. While there may be a small handful of property owners who
live on, or at the terminus of the proposed paving project who favor paving, .considering
the fact that the cost of the project is estimated at $300,000.00, which may be very
conservative, this is an enormous amount of State tax revenues to be expended for the
primary benefit of such a small number of property owners.
IV; Completion of the project as described in the Six-Year Plan will result in a road that
'is unsafe for Catterton Road property owners and for others.
· ..... Property-owners' along the road believe that paving'and widening the road will actually ................
make it less safe for pedestrians, riders and vehicle passengers.
· VDoT proposes to pave the middle section of the Road according to current (suburban)
standards, which required an 18-foot paved surface with shoulders, and with drainage
ditches, and guard rails as required. If completed, therefore, within a distance of
approximately 3 miles, Catterton Road will have 3 different safe speed limits.
· There is no documented evidence that Catterton Road poses any Safety issues for County
residents, including school buses. In fact, Mr. Willie Smith, the Director of Transportation
for Albemarle County Schools stated in a memo to Mr. Juan Wade, dated January 18, 2001
that in terms of unpaved roads, Catierton Road "is one of the better roads that we travel."
· The proposed new paved segment, the middle segment of the road, would allow for the
highest speeds, the Northwestern gravel segment would/allow for the lowest speeds, and
the safe speed on the narrow Southeastern segment paved years ago, would allow for a safe
speed somewhere in between the other two segments of the road. If constructed as
proposed, Catterton Road would be confusing to motorists and present new dangers to
pedestrians, horses, farm machinery and other motorists. The road would constitute a
recipe for disaster.
· The segment of Catterton Road slated for line of sight improvements has recently been
improved by the Ashcom family's removal of scrub and vegetation at the curve where the
line of sight was its poorest.
V. The Board should remove Catterton Road from the Six-Year Plan altogether.
Residents were told by VDOT that an alternative that would correct the line of sight
problems would be tantamount to completing the entire project by the time the grading and
clearing had been accomplished. This is not an acceptable option for those who wish to
retain the rural character. ' ......
Other options, suehas implementing products to reduce dust, like 'Road-Bind' have not
been explored. Before expending $300,000 for this project shouldn't these options be
examined?
$300,000.00 or more of State taxpayers' funds would be better expended by allocating
these funds to some other unpaved secondary road paving project. For example, these
funds could be allocated for paving Mountain Vista Road could be advanced considerably
in the schedule. Certainly there must be other unpaved road in the County where property
owners unanimously need and desire paving. Such roads should, in the public interest, be
given priority for funding over a project of highly dubious need such as Catterton Road.
The County also has the option to allocate funds received from the State Unpaved
Secondary Road Fund to other paving projects such as safety .improvements on paved
secondary roads. The staffreport mentions that the County has this~option, but it does not
explain the fiscal implication of such action in sufficient depth. Before $300,000.00 is
expended for paving a secondary road that does not need to be paved thus leaving safety
improvements on other roads for funding at some future time, all other potential uses for
these funds should be explored.
Positions & Locations of Property & Houses of Catterton Road Property Owners
NAME HOUSE
FRONTAGE PAVE
NO PAVE
1. EXISTING PAVED PORTION
Finley no yes
Morris, M yes yes
Durbin yes(2) yes
Nuesch yes yes
Minor, V yes yes
Minor, R yes no
North(drivehalf/half) yes yes
(position only)
Cowles(position only) yes yes
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
2. GRAVEL ROAD - PORTION IN QUESTION
X
X
2
33%
Morris,R yes yes
Morris, 1 yes no
Mords,2 yes no
Reverend yes no
Natterer yes yes
Finley no yes
Finley, 1 no yes
Waibel no yes
Bailey yes yes
Forren yes yes
Rainsley no yes
Hunter yes yes
Gould yes yes
Bittman yes yes
Allen no no
McClay yes no
Hamlin no yes
Martin yes yes
Mehlman yes no
Bauer yes no
Cowles no no
TOTAL 8
PERCENTAGE 40%
AVERAGE % 38%
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
67%
Saunders yes yes X
Ashcom yes yes X
Cowles no yes X
North no yes X
Gibson yes yes X
Beal yes no X
Wellons no yes X
TOTAL 3 4
PERCENTAGE '~ 43% 57%
3 GRAVEL ROAD TO BE LEFT GRAVEL(601 end &Old Miller'sMill Rd & 776)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
60%
62%
N
601
749~0
D=vis Shop
67i
671
671 601
BUCK
MTN.
Pstterson Store
776
667
671
i668 i
60i
665
663
With¢it--~)
7
\
1543
/
666
/
/
/
,/
.:hart
883
(
817
1540
604 9
664
[15501
683
Northwestern Albemarle
Conservation Easements
as of January, 2001
For presentation purposes only.
While efforts have been made to verify this data, accuracy is not guaranteed.
Please refer to the recorded deed of easement for information on the boundary and terms of a particular conservation easement. Prepared by PEC.
February 6. 2001
Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Paul Hostetler
1496 Minor Ridge Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-00-060 Church of Our Savior, Tax Map 62A1, Parcel A3
Dear Mr. Hostetler:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 23, 2001, unammously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A privacy fence shall be provided between the house located at 2412 Huntington Road and the
residential property located at 2414 Huntington Road.
2. The existing driveway entrance to the home at 2412 Huntington shall be blocked off and the access
between the church and the house shall be improved to allow for emergency vehicle access to the
satisfaction of Fire and Rescue.
3. The parcels containing the existing church and the house at 2412 Huntington Road shall be
combined to satisfy zoning requirements for parking.
4. The items listed above (1, 2 and 3) shall be performed and a zoning clearance must be issued prior to
church use of the building.
5. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
6. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the plan entitled, "Alterations and
additions to the Church of Our Savior," dated 1-13-87, prepared by M Jack Rinehart, Jr., and to the
addition of the residence located at 2412 Huntington Road. The thrift store located at 1147 Rio Road
is not included in the special use permit.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 21, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Planner
MB/Jcl
Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey
Steve Altshouse Bob Ball
STAFF PERSON: MICHAEL BARNES
PLANNING COMMISSION: JANUARY 23, 2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: .FEBRUARY 21, 2001
SP 00-060 Church of Our Saviour (REVISED)
Applicant's Proposal: The Church of Our Saviour, 1165 East Rio Road, proposes to use an
adjacent home for supervised Christian education activities. The Church currently does not have
a special use permit. The inclusion of the house will expand the area of the Church, and thus
constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming use.
The Applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow the house to be used for the associated
church activities and for the Church itself to be brought into a conforming status.
Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit to expand church actiVities to an
adjoining property and bring an existing church into conformity in accordance with Section
14.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for church uses by special use permit. The
properties, described as Tax Map 62A1 Parcel A-3, and 61-144 contain 4.5 acres, and are located
at 2412 Huntington Road and 1165 E. Rio Road, respectively, in the Rio Magisterial District.
The property is zoned R-2, Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood 2 of the Development Areas.
Character of the Area: The uses surrounding the house and the Church of Our Saviour are: the
railroad to the east; a metal fabrication company and a thrift store to the south; the Church of the
Brethren to the west, and a private residence to the north.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance. It recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions.
Planning and Zoning History: The both parcels are zoned R-2. The adjacent house has no
planning or zoning history.
On January 13, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a site plan to construct a new parish
hall and expand its parking. At that time, the expansion of existing churches was not seen as an
expansion ora non-conforming use. Thus, the Church was not required to apply for a special use
permit. However, it did meet all other requirements set forth by the Development Departments.
In 1991, The Church of Our Saviour received Planning Commission approval to share seven (7)
parking spaces with a thrift shop it wanted to start on an adjacent property (SDP 91-021). At that
time, VDOT required the Church to close the entrances off of Rio Road into to the proposed
thrift shop. The Church has complied with this request.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as NeighbOrhood Density
residential. Churches are viewed as supportive to residential uses in the County.
Staff has analYzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
For informational purposes, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff is assessing
development proposals for relationships with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model that
were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles are
were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles are
identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan.
12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows:
· Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
· Parks and Open Space
· Neighborhood Centers
· Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Relegated Parking
· Mixture of Uses
· Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
· Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Clear Edges
The
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20
- 22)
Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain)
The proposal will utilize the existing structures on the site and no additional grading or
impervious cover will be generated except for the access pathway between the Church and
the home. Therefore, impacts to environmental features will be minimal.
Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions.
Staff has recommended that a buffer and privacy fence be installed between the house
under consideration and the residence located at 2414 Huntington Road.
Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
Staff is recommending that the existing driveway to the home should be removed and the
access between the church and the house should be upgraded to allow for emergency
vehicle access
A sense of community should be maximized byproviding connections between developments;
such connections may providefor additional recreational facilities, increased open space area,
bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools,
parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks)
The proposed development provides for an improved pedestrian mobility by providing
paths between the house and the existing church. Footpaths to the thrift shop on the
opposite site from the current proposal also connect the existing church.
Provide for ultimate future transpOrtation improvements and new road locations through the
2
reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks)
The scale of this proposal does not involve road connections or need to accommodate
future transportation networks.
Underground utilities shouM be provided in new developments.
The utilities will be unaffected by this development.
Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided.
Engineering has not required BMP's or stormwater management structures for the house.
However, the Church has an existing BMP, which is in working order.
Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located
exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated Parking)
Again, the ability to meet these goals is limited by the low-impact of the proposal and the
fact that the existing structures will not be externally altered.
Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used
Any exterior lighting will be required to conform to the County's lighting ordinance.
Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than Abandonment)
No hi storic buildings exist on the property in question.
Engineering Analysis:
The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health,
safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department is recommending that the existing
driveway to the home be removed and the access between the church and the house be upgraded
to allow for emergency vehicle access.
Zoning Considerations:
The Zoning Department has noted that the house under consideration and the church are on
separate parcels. If the house parcel is not combined with the church parcel, Zoning will have to
calculate parking separately and a site plan might be needed to determine if additional parking is
required for the new Use. However, if the house parcel were to be combined with the existing
church parcel, a new site plan would not be needed because the parking needs for both buildings
can be met with the existing parking on the church property. A condition of approval is
recommended which requires either a site plan or combining the two parcels.
Zoning has recommended that the Planning Commission set, as a condition of approval, an
expiration date for the special use permit. If the church has not applied for a zoning clearance to
initiate the use by that date, the special use permit would be revoked. This request was made
because Zoning lacks a date for the enforcement of any Planning Commission conditions. In a
"normal project," the Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction would act as this
3
expiration date.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adiacent property,
If a buffer screening and privacy fence are provided between the proposed use and abutting
residential properties. The impact to adjacent properties will be minimal.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Since the Church is proposing no exterior modifications to the structure, the character of the
area will not be affected.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses
permitted by right in the district,
In the County, churches are viewed as supportive to residential uses. By-right uses in the R-1
district are single family dwellings, duplexes, and public uses. Churches are allowed by
special use permit.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations relating to churches.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. Engineering's recommendations for closure of the
current driveway entrance should deal with safety considerations. No additional impact to
the health, safety, and general welfare is expected.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to residential uses in the
County.
2. Potential impacts on the neighboring residential use will be minimal.
Staff has identified the no factors which are unfavorable to this request:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff believes that the impacts from the approval of this special use permit will be minimal.
Furthermore, this use is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan because churches are viewed as
supportive to residential uses in the County. As a result, staff recommends approval of the
request with the following conditions:
1. A landscaped buffer, meeting the screening requirements of section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and privacy fence shall be provided between the house located at 2412
Huntington Road and the residential property located at 2414 Huntington Road.
2. The existing driveway entrance to the home at 2412 Huntington shall be removed or blocked
off and the access between the church and the house shall be improved to allow for
emergency vehicle access to the satisfaction of Fire and Rescue.
3. A separate site plan shall be prepared indicating how parking and access shall be provided for
the house at 2412 Huntington Road or the parcels shall be combined to satisfy zoning
requirements for parking.
4. The items listed above (1, 2 and 3) shall be performed and a zoning clearance must be issued
prior to church use of the building.
5. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
6. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the plan entitled,
"Alterations and additions to the Church of Our Saviour," dated 1-13-87, prepared by M Jack
Rinehart, Jr., and to the addition of the residence located at 2412 Huntington Road. The
thrift store located at 1147 Ri° Road is not included in the special use permit.
Please note that the Applicant, in a letter dated 12/7/00 has agreed to most of the conditions
listed above and has pledged to implement them by early next year (Please see Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Tax Parcel Map.
B. Location Map
C. Letter from Applicant, dated 12/7/00.
~$EG.
~--'-~'- X ~ a
ATTACHMENT A
f
OF
CHARLO~ILLE
/,
167 C
,f
7?
~JACK JOUETT., EIVANNA AND
RI 0 DISTIRICTS
SECTION 6
i /
f /
Church of'~Dur Sm
elaJne4OO.rdl 1ii20/2000 05:59:06 pM
ATTACHMENT B
Ch u rch Our Savior
Vicinity Map
200 400 600
800 1000 FEET
'TM 62A1 P( 3 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~ OFFICE OF MAPPING, GRAPHICS ANDilNFORMATION RESOURCES (OOMGAIR} ~
TM 61 Parcel 144 " .... ' //
/
THIS MAP IS FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY.
N
un
7
ATTACHMENT C '
.
of Our Sav our
ast Rio Roa Charlottesville, VA 2290
(so4) 973- 5 2 Fax 974- 7
December 7, 2000
SUP COMMITTEE
Grace Carpenter, Chair
245-1533
Herb Craddock, Member
973-5740
Paul Hostctler, Member
964-1183
Ann Rooker, Member
9734774
The Rev. Harold H. Hallock, Jr.,
Member Ex Officio
973-6512
Mr. Michael Barnes, Planner
County of Albemarle
Depax~ment of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
Dear Mr. Barnes:
Re: Your letter dated November 2 I, 2000
The reference requested additional information concerning SP 2000-60 (ChurCh of Our SaViour). The
following is offered for your use in completing the staffreport. We understand that the Planning
Commission public hearing is now scheduled for December 19, 2000 instead of December 12, 2000.
It is not anticipated that the utilization the building at 2412 Huntington Road will generate any
more noise than previous use of the house as a private single family dwelling.
A privacy fence shielding the 2412 Huntington Road Building and the immediate neighbor's
house will be constructed before or during spring 2001.
When it was determined that demolition of the fence separating the Huntington Road building and
church property was necessary for convenience purposes, a verbal agreement was made with the owners of
the commercial tot known as the Associated Steel property to reconstruct the fence horizontally along a line
of the existing fence that separates that commercial property fi-om the church' In order to accomplish this a
clearing of some trees, brush, and debris was made in that area. When this prOject is complete, there will
be room for a limited mount of parking that should pick up those spaces lost as a result of providing
additional space for fire department access to the Huntington Road building. No additional parking will be
generated as a result of this clearing, just a rearrangement of existing parking.
The driveway of the Huntington Road building will be blocked by the installation of a permanent
planter, bushes, or excavation and planting in grass. This, too, will be accomplished before or during
spring 2001.
A representative of the Albemarle County Fire Marshall's office is to meet with church officials
during the week of December 4e~ to evaluate fire department access to the Huntington Road building. A
copy of that report will be forwarded to your office upon receipt.
The church plans to construct an accessible ramp at the rear of the Huntington Road building for
access by people with physical disabilities. In conjunction with the ramp, an accessible route between the
building and church will be constructed. These features will comply with the Council of American
Building Officials regulation CABO/ANSI Al 17.1 (Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities) which
is a part of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Appropriate Building permits will be obtained
for this project after the Special Use Permit approval.
8
We trust this will answer all concerns listed in the reference.
hesitate to contact any member of the Committee.
Sincerely,
Paul Hostetler
Committee Member
Cc: SUP Committee
Vestry, Church of Our Saviour
If further information is desired, please do not
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclndre Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-582:3
February I 2001
Grace Episcopal Church
P O Box 26
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: SP-2000-63 Grace Episcopal Church; Tax Map 65, Parcels 52, $2A and 85A
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 30, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval !s subject to the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements as shown on the attached Site P~an
titled Grace Episcopal Church, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., and dated
December 29, 2000.
2. The church shall commence construction, if at all, within five years after the date of approval of
the special use permit by the Board of Supervisors. If construction is not commenced within the
five year period, the special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
hereunder shall terminate. All Health Department requirements at the time of the issuance of
building permits shall be satisfied before the Zoning Administrator will issue a certificate of
occupancy.
3. A landscape conservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape conservation plan shall include a plan to
minimize the clearing of trees to those required for the installation of the improvements, and shall
identify those trees that shall be preserved.
The Commission also took the following action:
Site Plan Waiver Request - Approved the request for waiver of Section 18.32.3· 10 requirements for
a preliminary site plan, as there would be no intensification of the use on the site, subject to the
following condition:
1. The final plan shall show BMP measures, as necessary, that meets the required pollutant
removal, as approved by the Engineering Department.
Page 2
February 1, 2001
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive.
public comment at their meeting on February 2'1,200'1. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Joab' McDowell
Senior Planner
JMD/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
Bob Ball
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SP 00-063 Grace Episcopal Church
SDP 00-139 Site Plan Waiver
Joan D. McDowell
January 23, 2001
February 21, 2001
Applicant's Proposal:
Grace Episcopal Church and its cemetery are currently nonconforming uses
under the Zoning Ordinance in the Rural Area district. The existing church
was constructed in 1847. A church has existed on this site since the mid-18th
Century, according to the applicant. Approval of this Special Use Permit
would bring the use into compliance and provide the church the means to
add new structures and expand services to whatever extent permitted under
the Special Use Permit conditions.
In accordance with Section 10.2.2 (35) of the Zoning Ordinance, the
applicant, Grace Episcopal Church, has requested a special use permit to
construct a 2,457 square foot expansion to an existing parish hall. The
expansion would be used for a fellowship hall and Sunday school
classrooms. The current parish hall is not large enough to hold the current
congregation, according to the applicant. As the proposed expansion would
not increase church membership, no additional parking or changes to the
entrances would be required.
The applicant has also requested that a waiver of Ordinance Section Number
18.32.3.10 requirements for a preliminary site plan, as there would be no
intensification of the use on the site.
Petition:
Grace Episcopal Church has petitioned for approval of a special use permit,
in accordance with provisions of Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance,
to expand an existing church. The expansion would provide enough space
for the entire congregation to meet, as well as provide space for Sunday
school classrooms. A site plan waiver has also been requested, in
accordanCe Section 18.32.3.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Consisting of three
parcels under Tax Map 65 Parcels 52, 52A, and 85A, the 11.19acre site is
SP 00-63
Grace Church
01/24/01
located on the east side of State Route 231, just north of its intersection with
Start Route 600, at 5609 Gordonsville Road in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. The property is zoned RA Rural Area and is within the Rural
Area 2. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is Rural Area. The
property is within both an Entrance Corridor District and the Southwest
Mountains Historic District.
Character of the Area:
The site is within a rural area of mixed residential, agricultural, and forestal
lands. The church is buffered from adjoining properties on the sides and
rear by an existing cemetery.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section
10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends conditional approval.
Planning and Zoning History:
The Architectural Review Board Voted unanimously to support (with
comments) the request for a special use permit and the site plan waiver
(Attachment C).
The following excerpt from the ARB staff report summarizes the importance
of the church to the County:
Grace Church is an important Albemarle~County historic resource. It
was constructed in 1855 according to the design of William
Strickland, one of the nation's leading architects during the first half of
the nineteenth century, and was renovated after a fire in 1895.
(Strickland's drawings are dated 1847.) The parish house was
constructed in 1933 and was expanded in 1970.The church was listed
on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia
Landmarks Register in 1976. In 1991-92, the church, parish hall and
cemetery were included as contributing resources in the Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District, which is listed on both the state and.
national registers.
SP 00-63
Grace Church
01/24/01
Comprehensive Plan:
The property is located within a Farmlands and Forests designation, it is on
an Entrance Corridor, and it is designated as a Registered Historic Property
in the Open Space Plan. It is also adjacent to the Kinloch Agricultural
Forestal (AF) District and within the Southwest Mountains Historic District.
With its considerable list of contributions of architectural, cultural, and
historic importance of to the County of Albemarle, Grace Episcopal Church
would endeavor to ascertain that this expansion would not jeopardize its
standing with the national and state registers. The ARB has recommended
that the applicant consult with the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources to confirm that the addition will not negatively affect the
property's listing (or inclusion as a contributing resource) in the state or
national registers. Architectural elevation exhibits depict an expansion that
would be compatible with the existing parish hall.
The applicant has proposed to remove only the minimum number of trees
necessary for the expansion. Also, the expansion would not require
additional parking, paving for parking areas, and the existing access
driveway would be retained; therefore, no intrusion or conflict with the
adjacent AF District is anticipated.
SITE PLAN WAIVER:
The applicant has also requested that a waiver of Ordinance Section Number
18.32.3.10 requirements for a preliminary site plan, as there would be no
intensification of the use on the site.
The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan, if requiring a site
plan would not forward the purpose of the Ordinance or otherwise serve the
public interest.
The Engineering Department has requested that a condition regarding
drainage requirements be approved with the waiver request.
Staff is able to support the request for a site plan waiver as the information
submitted by the applicant generally meets the requirements for a site plan.
SP 00-63
Grace Church
01/24/01
Therefore, staff recommends approval of a site plan waiver, subject to the
following conditions:
· The final plan shall show a BMP structure that meets the required
pollutant removal rate as approved by the Engineering Department.
STAFF COMMENT:
Provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance are addressed below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue
all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for
uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property_.
The proposed addition to the parish hall would not be a detriment to the
adjacent property, as all activities associated with the new building would be
internal. No outdoor play areas have been requested and no additional
parking is required. No additional parishioners are anticipated as a direct
result of this construction, as it would serve as a meeting hall and Sunday
school classrooms.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Open space, agricultural uses and very low-density residential uses
characterize the rural area district. The church addition is not expected to
change the character of the district.
The church has been in existence on this site since the mid-18th Century.'
The current church was constructed in 1847 and provides an ideal expression
of a rural church that has preserved the rural character of the region.
As mentioned earlier in this report, the church and grounds are important
historic national and state landmarks. Therefore, it is important that this
addition be compatible with the architecture of the existing facility. This
compatibility can be assured, as the church is subject to the Architectural
Review Board standards for approval.
SP 00-63 4
Grace Church
01/24/01
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this ordinance,
The Rural Area zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides
for the preservation and protection of agricultural and forestal resources;
provide for water supply protection; be an area of limited service delivery;
and to conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. The church is viewed
as a use supportive of rural Albemarle County residents
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed church expansion would not restrict the current uses or other
by right uses available on this site or by right uses on any other property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance does not contain provisions governing
churches.
and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare.
No additional parishioners will result from this expansion; therefore, no
additional parking is required. Although the Virginia Department of
Transportation expressed concern regarding site distances for the existing
access, they have been assured by the church that 1) there were no other
viable alternative accesses available; 2) due to the limited use of the building
expansion, other access driveways should not be required; and 3) the
expansion of the VDOT right-of-way would jeopardize the structure of the
old stone wall in front of the church. The correspondence from the church
Senior Warden is attached, for reference.
VDOT, at staff's request, has determined that no accidents have been
reported at this site.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this
request:
SP 00-63
Grace Church
01/24/01
o
The Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to the rural
areas in the County.
No detrimental impact is anticipated as a result of the building
expansion.
The church has been functioning on this site since the mid- 18th
Century. The church and its grounds are an important national and
state historic resource. The proposed addition would be compatible
with the existing parish hall.
The character and integrity of the Rural Area and the adjacent
Agricultural Forestal District would not be compromised.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staffrecommends APPROVAL of SP 00-063, subject to the following
conditions:
o
Church development shall be limited to the improvements as shown
on the attached Site Plan titled Grace Episcopal Church, prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., and dated December 29, 2000.
The church shall commence construction, if at all, within five years
after the date of approval of the special use permit by the Board of
Supervisors. If construction is not commenced within the five year
period, the special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted hereunder shall terminate. All Health Department
requirements at the time of the issuance of building permits shall be
satisfied before the Zoning Administrator will issue a certificate of
occupancy.
A landscape conservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
landscape conservation plan shall include a plan to minimize the
clearing of trees to those required for the installation of the
improvements, and shall identify those trees that shall be preserved.
ATTACHMENTS:
A
B
C
D
SP 00-63
GraCe Church
01/24/01
SP 00-63 Application
SDP 00-39 Site Plan Waiver Application
ARB Comments
VDOT Comments
F
G
ChUrch Responses to VDOT Comments
Topography Exhibit
AF Surrounding Area Exhibit
SP 00-63
Grace Church
01/24/01
7
County of Albemarle g.
IOFFICE I~SE ONLY
sP# 5(05
Sign# ~a ~ Mag. Dist.
ATTACHMENT A
Department of Building Code a~
Application for Special Use Permit
Project Name (how should we refer to this application?)
*Existing Use
*Zoning District ~-
(*staff will assist you with these items)
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (ir, porllon it must be delineated on plat)
IS this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
Proposed Use
IO,~-,
*Zoning Ordinance Section number . . I,,~
requesteo- ~.
ContaCt Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?):
Address 1~ x~ ) '~t-/~l ~ '~ ] State Vdt ZipT--Z'~'/7
Daytime Phone (~Oq') '~d'- "q'l'~ Fax#
Owner of land (As listed in the County's records):
Daytime Phone (~t ) q--~g -"~ ~5'~'~ Fax#
City ~(~bU tr_./g- State
E-mail
Applicant (Who is the comact person representing? Who is requesting the special use?): ~ ~ (.~ t..~ I~ ~./~t.A~ ~-.[ .
Address ?0 bO~ ~_./~ City .~_ tqtl~,~. State V,~ Zip2.2~7
DaytimePhone(~O't") 'Z. cIOt- '/.d'b7 Fax#
Tax map and parcel '1"1"~. L~ ?~'~..,I~Z~ '~ Physical Address (ic~ssig~ed)
Location of property (,andmarks, intersections, or other)
t'¢ of-' ~~~od ~F F-T /~o.
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
thOse tax map and parcel numbers
OFFICE USE ONLY
.~¢~ History: ZI Variances:
401 McTntire Rood
Special Use Permits:
Check # ~Receipt #
ZMAs and Proffers:
l
Concurrent review of Site Development Plat,
.ter of Authorization
, ZINo
Charlotteqvilte. · ~ Voice: 206-5832 o:o Fax: 0'72-4126
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique'features of the use: ~O/~.. ~
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: BM-- r~ ~h[ ~ ~ ~ ~
[2]' 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the Property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page nUmber.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, parmership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
/
Sign~ature '"~/ <~-t.~.to~'
Printed Nme
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also 'certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
October 16, 2000
Re:
Church Construction
Special Use Permit
To Whom it May Concern:
The Grace Episcopal Church in the Walker's Parish in Cismont is governed by an e!ected Vestry.
Our current Senior Warden is Robert A. BIoch. He acts as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Church and is responsible for signin9 any documents for the church.
Sincerely',
11
The Rev. Julie Norton. Rector
Church Office (804) 293-3549
Joseph Associates
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, Virginia 22947
Phone 804-984-4199
Pax 804-984-3098
EMall miosep~ibm.net
Albemarle County
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re:
Grace Episcopal Church
Special Permit Application
October 16, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be aware that this concept has been discussed by various departments within
Albemarle County. VDOT has examined the exiting entrance, Zoning Services has
determined that there is adequate parking for the existing use, and the engineering
department has visited the site. We have also attended a Preliminary Conference
concerning the Special Permit request.
Zoning has identified 60 parking spaces. The area of assembly proposed in the addition
will not exceed 4,550 square feet.
If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
12
Grace Church O C T O B E R 2 0 0 0
I THE SIXTEENTH SUNDA YAFTER
PENTECOST
8 a.m. Holy Communion-Rt. I Grace Church
9 a.m. Choir Practice
11 a.m. Holy Communion-Rt. I .Grace Church'
Outreach Committee Meeting
8 THE SEVENTEENTH SUNDAY
AFTER PENTECOST
9 a.m. Holy Communion-Rt. 1 ~
9 a.m. Choir Rehearsal
11 a.m. Morning Prayer-Rt. 1 Grace Church
Congregational Meeting with architects
1 5 THE EIGHTEENTH SUNDAY
AFTER PENTECOST
8 a.m. Holy Communion-Rt. I .Grace Cht, rcl~
9:00 a.m. Choir Rehea,'sal
t 1 a.A. Holy Communion-Rt. :2 .Grace Church.
17:30p. m. Holy Communion Confirmation
Workshop
2 2 THE NINETEENTH SUNDAY
AFTER PENTECOST
9 a.m. Morniug Prayer-Rt. I All Saints Chape~l
9 a.m. Choir Rehearsal
11 a.A. Hoiy Communion-Rt. 2 Grace Church
Stewardship Sunday
29 TIlE TWENTIETH SUNDAY
AFTER PENTECOST
8 a.m. Holy Communion-Rt. 2 ,Grace Church
9 a.m. Choir Rehearsal
1 a.m. Holy Communion-Rt. 2 Grace Church_
UTO SUNDA ~'---Voices from the Pew
Congregational Meeting with architects
S:O0 p.m. All Hallows' Eve
2 3
4 - 6:30 p.m.
Salvation Army
Dinner
9
16
23
30
7:00 p.m.
Men's Prayer
Group
10
17
10 a.m.
hltercessors
4-6:30 p.m.
Salvation Army
7 p.m. Men's
Prayer Group
24
7:00 p.m.
Men's Prayer
Group
31.
4 Office Closed 5 6
7 a.A. to 7 p.m. I p.m. Bihle Study
RUMMAGE 7:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m.
SALE Cemetery Board Wedding Rehearsal
Meeting White/McKay
7 I0 a.m. clean up
Church grounds
3:30p.m.
Wedding
White/McKay
11
18
25
12
I p.m.
Bible Study
7:00 p.m.
Vestry Meeting
19
1:00 p.m.
Bible Study
26
1:00 p.m.
Bible Study
13
20
27
14
10 a.m.
ECW
28
$£r YOUR CIOC~
BACK
onCE USE ONLY
SD. aa- q
F"~2~pplication for
De e]lopmen
ATTACHMENT B
~]Prelimlnary Site Development Plan
rn Residential = $945 plus $10/dwplling unit
Non-residential = $1260 plus $10/1,000 sq.ft, of dev.
16folded copies of plan required
[~Final Site Development Plan (Adminiftrative) ~Final Site Development Plan (Commission)
[] Residential = $325 [] Prior tO pr~llmlnary approval = $900
r~ Non-residential = $325 [] After preliminary approval = $630
Two (2) mylars and one (1)folded copy of plan required
~ite Plan Waiver (Ordinance Section Number//~ 3 2, 3,
) = $215
7folded copies of sketched plan required
Tax map and parcel TI-/ Eo~5 fl~ZSDZ~ ~. ~
Physical Street Address (ff assigned)
Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other)
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map
and parcel numbers r/~
Contact Person ~ should we call/write concerning thia project?): t~t~r ~e ~ 0 0 ~
Owner of Record ~aaet¢ ow/` Virnt~,.d*t
Address ~,lO F-n~tc.~ %~.
State V',~- Zip ~;~ ge--O
City
/~e ~ t&At'dr~' State V4 Zip 7--Z"/'~:7
. Fee amoUnt $~_Date Paid O~Check # y W'b.O?%. eel
CounW of Albemarle Department of Planning & Commnnlt~ Development
401 McIntire Road -:. Charlottesville, VA 22902 .:. Voice: (804) 296-5823 ' .:. Fa~ (804) 972-4035
~4
9/14/98 Page I of 2
E-marl
Type of Development:
I"1 Residential
Type of unit(s):
# of building(s):
Sq.fi. of building(s):
# of units per building:
Total # of units:
Resulting density:
Acreage of Site:
Acreage in open space:
Acreage in roads:
Commercial
Industrial
Quasi-Public
Sq.f~. of building(s):
ACreage of site:
Acreage in open space:
l~Non-residential
I0~ qq~ ¢F
i0. ~'9 ac..4e~.
Intended use or justification for request:
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
This site pian as submitted contains all of the information required by Section 32.5 (Preliminary PIan) or Section 32.6 (Fin~ Plan) of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. I understand that plans which lack information required by said sections shall be deemed
incomplete and shall be denied by the agent within ten (10) days of submittal as provided in Section 32.4.2.1 or Section 32.4.3.3 as the
case may be.
For Final Plans Only: To the best of my knowledge, I have complied with Section 32.4.3.1 and obtained tentative approvals
for all applicable conditions from the appropriate agencies.
Printed Name
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
15
9114/98 Pa.ee 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT C
December 21, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclnti re Road, Room 218
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (8041 972 - 4012
Marcia Joseph.
384 Clarks Tract
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: ARB-P(SDP)-2000~55: Grace Episcopal Church Parish Hall Addition
Dear Ms. Joseph,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on December 18, 2000, reviewed the
above-noted request for a Special Use Permit to construct a 4,145 square foot addition on the existing
parish hall building at Grace Episcopal Church. The Board unanimously voted to support the request for the
special permit and the site plan waiver for the Grace Episcopal Church Addition.
In addition, the Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submission.
(Please note that comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan.)
1. It is recommended that the applicant consult with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to
confirm that the proposed addition will not negatively affect the property's listing (or inclusion as a
contributing resource) in the state or national registers.
2. It is recommended that tree removal be kept to a minimum, and that new trees be planted to
compensate for removed trees. Provide a landscaping plan.
3. Provide information on proposed topography in the vicinity of the addition. Provide information on
retaining walls, if they are proposed.
4. Provide elevations of the proposed addition. Indicate materials on the drawing(s).
5. Show location(s) of mechanical equipment. Indicate how equipment will be screened.
6. Limit the appearance of blankness in the proposed addition. Screen service areas.
7. Provide complete information on proposed signage and lighting, or indicate that none is proposed.
Your application for f'mal ARB review may be made at your earliest convenience. If you have any
questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Design Planner
¢c:
Joan McDowell
16
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. David Benish
December Public Hearing Submittals
Page 2
November 20, 2000
SP-00-063 Grace Episcopal Church~ Route 231
Sight distance is inadequate to the north (460') and adequate to the south. Our speed study
indicated that 550' sight distance is required to meet commercial entrance standard. It does not
appear that adequate sight distance is available along the developed portion of their site frontage.
Adequate sight distance might be achieved down toward bottom of hill to south, bu~t intersection
sight distance may be lost.
Existing entrance is 30' wide at 25' from centerline, and 16' wide at the stone gate (aboUt 37'
from edge of pavement). We recommend that significant increases in site traffic not be allowed
at this entrance.
We recommend a 25' ROW dedication from roadway centerline alOng Route 231 frontage for
future roadway improvements if such ROW does not already exist.
SP-00-064 David Weber (Triton PCS), Route 708
We recommend the entrance have commercial sight distance. Existing entrance near
communications pole has adequate sight distance with minimal tree trimming.
SP-00-065 Andy Spratt, Route 711
Driveway does not have adequate sight distance to the east. If vegetatiOn remains adequately
trimmed, driveway is wide enough to accommodate two way traffic at entrance.
SP-00-066 Philip Marshall (Charlottesville Cellular), Route 777
No comment at this time.
SP-00-067 Pace (Triton PCS), Route 621
Access should be from Route 621, and should meet commercial sight distance standards.
SP-00-068 Terry Deanne Dance Studio, Route 250W
Full frontage improvements and commercial entrance required along Route 250. All future
development from these two parcels should share one entrance. As other sites develop in these
parcels, 2 outbound lanes may be needed at entrance. The applicant should agree to construct
traffic signal if it is warranted at their entrance in the future.
SP-00-069 Robert Hauser Homes (Avemore), Route 20
See comments below for ZMA-00-010.
ATTACHMENT E
Clover Hill Farm
P.O. Box 26
Keswick. Virginia 22947
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
November 28, 2000
Re: Response to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Comments
Dear Ms. McDowell:
Thank you for providing the comments from VDOT. The concerns they address are the
entrance location and site distance available, the existing entrance size, and a 25'
dedication from the centerline of the road.
Concerning the entrance location, they state that there are no alternate entrance locations
to satisfy VDOT requirements, we agree with this statement.
In addressing the site distance available they request that we do not increase traffic.
Because we are not planning for any significant increase in church members, and
therefore will not increase the site traffic we comply with this concern.
The dedication of 25' from the centerline of the road will place the right-of-way cioser to
the existing rock wall. The wall is old, and the aggregate and the mortar are becoming
more delicate as time passes. Therefore, at this time, we do not feel that the dedication,
which would place the VDOT owned property closer to the wall, would be good for the
health and the life of the wall. Since this is a recommendation and not a requirement
from VDOT, we ask staff to consider our request to maintain the existing property line
and not require us to dedicate 25' from the centerline of the right-of-way.
If you have any questions please contact Marcia Joseph or me.
Sincere!yf
Robert A. Bloch
Senior Warden
RECEIVED
~ 0 V 2., ~
P~ANNING Ai'q.C'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
18
ATTACHMENT E
Joseph Assodates
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, Virginia 22947
Phone 804-984-4199
Fax 804-984-3098
EMail marcia481~,earthlink.net
Joan McDowell
Albemarle County
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Grace Episcopal Church
Special Permit
December 28, 2000
Dear Joan:
This letter is wdtten in response to the issues raised by Albemarle County engineer,
Steve Snell. He was concerned about the vehicle trips per week, and the additional
runoff created by the new addition.
The church seats 225, this requires 57 parking spaces by Albemarle County standards
thereby generating 114 vehicle tdps.
The pastor and secretary generate 20 additional vehicle trips per week.
Groups meeting weekly may generate an additional 40 vehicle tdps per week.
The church averages two weddings per year, the church capacity is 225; using county
standards, this generates 228 vehicle tdps; if it is averaged weekly it would add 5 vehicle
tdps per week.
The total vehicle tdps per week is 179. Using the engineering department standard that
requires paved parking for a use generating 350 vehicle tdps per week it is apparent
that the church generates less than this. Therefore paving is not required.
The Albemarle County code in section 32.2 is not required if there is no additional
parking required, or there is no change to the ingress or egress as required by VDOT
19
based upon intensification of the use proposed. Because the use will not be intensified,
no site plan is required.
Because a site plan is not required, and because the runoff from the addition is minimal,
we are requesting relief from the storm water management and best management
practices. We are not disturbing more than 10,000 square feet, therefore an erosion and
sediment control plan will not be required. However we do plan to plant a rain garden to
capture the runoff from the roof drains of the proposed addition and place silt fencing
around the disturbed area during construction.
The calculations for runoff and BMP are attached.
Please note that the building footprint has been reduced from 4,145 square feet to 1,500
square feet.
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Grace Episcopal Church
December 29, 2000
20
A u. DK...N~A~ ~ GOUNTY
K,l t,,l L O(.,FI
ATTACHMENT G
/
:13,
',~ISMONT
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 65
21
°°0
~492 ' ·
] ATTACItMENTF\X~
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Li~dsay G. Dorder, Jr.
~ Charlotte Y. Huraphris
COUNTY OF At REMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntim Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(8041 29~-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
ChaHes S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
February 23, 2001
Mr. Richard C. Collins
108 Wilson Ct.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr.~o~llins: '
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 21, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, with said terms to run from
January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002. I have enclosed rosters for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your'willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally Iq. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc:
James Camblos
Art Petrini
Printed on recycled paper
C'ITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3113
February23,2001
Mr. Richard C. Collins
108 Wilson Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Rich:
I am pleased to inform you that at its February 20th meeting, City Council appointed
you to serve a two-year term as the joint City/County representative on the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. This term will expire on December
31, 2002.
We appreciate your willingness to offer your services to the community and look
forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
B~e ~'~v~
Mayor
cc: Art Petrini
Ella Carey