HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-04
1 . Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Board Presentation.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7. Introduce Visitors' Assistance Associate.
8. 9: 15 a.m. - Transportation Matters.
a) Six Year Secondary Road Priority List.
b) Route 22/231 Truck Traffic Restriction.
c) Free State Road Connector Alternative.
d) SELC Report on Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection, Presentation by Bruce
Appleyard.
e) Other Transportation Matters.
9. 10: 15 a.m. - Presentation of Easement Maps - Conservation Work in Albemarle County,
Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council.
10. 10:30 a.m. - School Board Presentation.
11. 10:45 a.m. - SP-2000-64 David Weber (Triton PCS) (deferred from March 21,2001).
12. 11:00 a.m. - Appeal: SDP-00-154. Seminole Plaza Site Plan Amendment, Critical Slope
Waiver Request. To amend Carden Patch site plan alh;,ing 8,205 sq ft bldg dedicated to
retail sales on 1.017 aes, znd He. TM 15Bl, Sec 5, Block C, P 1}.1. Located on Rt 29N,
frontage approx 1/8 rei S of Rivanna River bridge. Rio Dist. (Applicant requests
withdrawal.)
13. II: 15 a.m. - Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed Community Development Block
Grant application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development on the Whitewood Village Apartments Community Improvement Project.
14. 11:30 a.m. - Status of Lighting Ordinance Provisions.
15. 11:45 a.m. - Update on Status of Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
16. Oosed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
1 7. C~rtify Closed Session:
18. 1:45 p.m. - Work Session: 2001 Redistricting Plan.
19. 2:15 p.m. - Work Session: Proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
20. Appointments.
21. Approval of Minutes: December 6 (A) , 2000; February 7, February 14 and February 21, 2001.
22. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
23. Adjourn.
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Proclamation recognizing April, 2001 as Fair Housing Month.
6.2 Local Workforce Investment Board Virginia Area VI - Draft Strategic Plan for July 1,2001 to
June 30, 2003.
6.3 Resolution to Memoralize Cancellation of VDOT Agreement for Airport Road (Route 649)
Project.
6.4 CP A-2000-04, Historic Preservation Plan: Priority Recommendations.
6.5 Resolution to accept Lewis & Clark Drive in the University of Virginia Research Park at North
Fork into the State Secondary System of Highways.
6.6 Set public hearing for April 25, 2001 on budget amendments.
6.7 Appropriation: Simpson Park, $220,000 (Form #20058).
6.8 Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance s4.1 0.3.1 (height limitation-exceptions-
excluded from application) and s30.6.8 (appeals).
FOR INFORMATION:
6.9 Overview of Visitors Assistance Center.
6.10 Memorandum dated March 19,2001, fromArthUf D. Petrini, Executive Director, Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority, re: Review of Water and Wastewater Matrix.
6.11 Copy of letter dated March 5, 2001 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration,
to Spencer F. Young, re: Revised Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map
35; Parcels 26, 26B, 26C and 43 (property of Spencer F. Young) Section 10.3.1.
6.12 Copy of public notice, in accordance with Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, re:
Issuance ofVPA permit No. VPAOI570, ConAgra Frozen Foods-Crozet.
6.13 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 27,2001.
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Board Presentation.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7. Introduce Visitors' Assistance Associ~te.
8. 9:15 a.m. . Transportation Matters.
a) Six Year Secondary Road Priority List.
b) Route 221231 Truck Traffic Restriction.
e) Free State Road Connector Alternative.
d) Other Transportation Matters.
9; 10:15 a.m. - Presentation of Easement Maps - Conservation Work in Albemarle County,
Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council.
10. 10:30 a.m. - School Board Presentation.
11. 10:45 a.m. - SP-2{)()()"64 David Weber (Triton PCS) (deferred from March 21,2001).
12. 11 :00 a.m. - Appeal: SDP-00-154. Seminole Plaza Site Plan Amendment, Critical Slope
Waiver Request. To amend Garden Patch site plan allowing 8,205 sq ft bldg dedicated to retail
sales on 1.017 acs, znd He. TM 45Bl, See 5, Block C, P 4A Located on Rt 29N, frontage
approx 1/8 mi S of Rivanna River bridge. Rio Dist.
13. 11:15 a.m. - Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed Community Development Block
Grant application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Comn.mnity
Development on the Whitewood Village Apartments . Community Improvement Project.
14. II :30 a.m. - Status of Lighting OrdinanCe Provisions.
15. 11:45 a.m. - Update on Status of Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
16. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
17. Certify Closed Session:
18. 1:45 p.m. . Work Session: 2001 Redistricting Plan.
19. 2:15 p.m. . Work Session: Proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
20. Appointments.
21. Approval of Minutes: December 6(A), 2000; February 7, February 14 and February 21,2001.
22. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
23. Adjourn.
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Proclamation recognizing April, 2001 as Fair Housing Month.
6.2 Local Workforce Investment Board Virginia Area VI - Draft Strategic Plan for July 1, 2001 to
June 30, 2003.
6.3 Resolution to Memoralize eancellation of VDOT Agreement for Airport Road (Route 649)
Project.
6.4 CPA-2000-04, Historic Preservation Plan: Priority Recommendations.
J
6.5 Resolution to accept Lewis & Oark Drive in the University of Virginia Research Park ~t North
Fork into the State Secondary System of Highways.
6.6 Set public hearing for April 25, 2001 on budget amendments.
6.7 Appropriation: Simpson Park, $220,000 (Form #20058).
6.8 Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance H.1O.3.1 (height limitation-exceptions-
excluded from application) and s30.6.8 (appeals).
FOR INFORMATION:
6.9 Overview of Visitors Assistance Center.
6.10 Memorandum dated March 19,2001, from Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director, Rivartna
Water & Sewer Authority, re: Review of Water and Wastewater Matrix.
6.11 Copy of letter dated March 5, 200 1 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to
Spencer F. Young, re: Revised Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 35,
Parcels 26, 26B, 26C and 43 (property ojSpencer F. Young) Section 10.3.1.
6.12 Copy of public notice, in accordance with Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, re: Issuance
ofVPA permit No. VPA01570, ConAgra Frozen Foods-Crozet.
6.13 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 27, 2001.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 4, 2001
\ April 6, 2001
1. Call to order.
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
4. others Matters- Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
. A citizen, John Martin, said he objects to the gag order
agreed to by citizens who sued the County over the Ivy
Landfill.
5. Board Presentation. PRESENTATION made.
6.1. Proclamation recognizing April, 2001 as Fair Housing Month.
ADOPTED.
6.2. Local Workforce Investment Board Virginia Area VI - Draft
Strategic Plan for July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2003. CONSENSUS
to pull fOr redrafting, using language from the ComP Plan.
6.3. R~ution to Memoralize Cancellation of VOOT Agreement for
Airport Road (Route 649) Proiect.ADOPTED.
6.4.CPA-2000..Q4, Historic Preservation Plan: Priority
Recommendations. ACCEPTED. CONSENSUS to advertise 3
vacancies on the HistOric Preservation Committee.
6.5. R~ution to accept Lewis & Clark Drive in the University of
Virginia Research Park at. North Fork into the State Secondary
System of Highways. ADOPTED.
6.6. Set public heating for April 25, 2001 on budget amendments.
SET PUBLIC HEARlNQ.
6.7. Appropriation: Simpson Park. $220,000 (Fonn #20058).
APPROVED. (Note: Mr. Perkins expressed concern that
projects are coming in above predicted costs.)
6.8. Resolution of. Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance ~.10.3.1
(height Iimitation-exceptions-excluded from application) and
~~.6.8.(appeals). ADOPTED.
6.10. Memorandum dated March 19, 2001, from Arthur D. Petrini,
Rivanna Water &.Sewer Authority, re: Review.ofWater and
wastewater Matrix. ACCEPTED.
6.12.. Copy of public notice, in accordance with Code of Virginia,
Section f)2.1-44.15:01, re:lssuance of VPA permit No.
VPA01570, ConAgra Frozen Foods-Crozet.
6.13. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 27, 2001.
(Note: Ms. Humphris advised Mr. Olimberg that "Capital Road"
should have read Catterton Road.)
7. Introduce Visitors' Assistance Associate. Loretha Dixon's
INTRODUCTION MADE, and an overview of the Visitors'
Assistance Genter conducted.
8.a. Six Year Secondary Roqd Priority List ADOPTED.
. Mr. Jim Bryan, from VDOT, noted the following
corrections/changes:
)> Item#17-advertisernent date s/b August 2001.
)> Item #18~advertisement dated sib october 2001.
)> The Catterton Road paving project has been removed from
the list. By Auaust he wilt know whether the road will be
Meeting was called to order at 9:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members
present. Clerk: Laurie BentleY.
None.
None.
~ None-proclamation (Attachment A) given to
Housina Director duriner meetina.
County Executive staff & Director of Social
Services: Redraft.
Clerk: Place on 4/11/01 agenda
Clerk: Forward signed resolution (Attachment B) to
James Bryan, at VOOT.
Clerk: Advertise vacanCies.
Cleric Forward signed re~ution (Attachment C)
and VOOT fonn to Glen BroOks.
Budget staff: Advertise public hearing.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation fonn to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate parties.
~ Forward signed resolution (Attachment 0)
to Larry Davis, W~ne Cilimberg,and
Amelia McCulley.
Water Resources Manager & Watershed Manager:
Review matrix and make recommendations to the
Board.
Watersh~ Manager: Follow uP.on pathogens and
ask DEQ to request larger stream.buffersand
contact adjourning property owners to provide
information.
None.
None.
Clerk: Include comments in letter to VOOT and
prepare extract from minutes, forwarding them to
Juan Wade.
Juan Wade: Forward signed plan and extract from
minutes to VDOT.
surfaced, and whether calcium chloride will be applied.
~ (Note: Ms. Thomas abstained from voting on project #3, I
although she had no official conflict of interest.)
. Ms. Thomas noted that item #19 should read Dick Woods
Road.
. Mr. Dorrier asked about the Avon/5th Street (Southern Pkwy).
Mr. Bryan saidVOOT is still evaluating that project..
Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT is evaluating the project to determine
its eligioility under the secondary road plan Ms. Thomas said to
include Fire! Rescue's opinion.
8.b. Route 22/231 Truck Traffic Restriction. Clerk: Indude comments in letter to veOT.
. Mr. Bryan said signs are in place. Enforcement Will be the key
to its success. MOTION to ask VDOT to move forward with
origin- destination. study and to recommend law enforcement.
(Note: Ms. Thomas <;ibstained from voting on item #3, although
she has no official conflict ofinterest.) \
8.c. Free State Road Connector Alternative. ENDORSED Clerk: Include comments in letter to VDOT.
Alternative B.
8.d. SElC Report on Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Interseotion, None.
Presentation by Bruce Applevarct PRESENTATION MADE.
8.e. Other Transportation Matters. " Clerk: Include comments in letter to VDOr.
. Mr. Bryan said:
~ Triton poles may work at the Ivy interchange (no details);
voor is still looking into the matter.
~ voor continues to work with residents in the Earlysville
Road. area.
. Mr. Dorrier asked when improvements to Route 20 will begin.
Mr. Bryan said the work has been included in VOOT's primary
road plan, but some critical. improvements are afready ,
proceeding.
. Mr. Perkins asked about Rt. 605.near Greene County.
Juan Wade indicated that improvements are underway at this
time.
. Mr. Bowerman asked about lights on Hillsdale Road. Mr. Bryan
said veOT is workil"lQ .on this.
9. Presentation pf Easement Maps - Conservation Work in None.
Albemarle County, Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmentaf
Council. PRESENTATION MADE.
10. .School Board Presentation. PRESENTATION MADE. None.
11.SP-200o.-64 David Weber (Triton PCS) (deferred from March Clerk: Place on 4/18/01 consent agenda.
21, 2001). DEFERRED to 4118 consent agenda,. allowill9 staff Planning staff: Reviseconditions, reference a
time torevise conditions, reference a revised sketch, etc. revised sketch,etc., as suggested bv BOS.
12. Appeal: . SOP-oO-154. Seminole. Plaza Site Plan Amendment, None.
Critical Slope Waiver Request.. To amend Garden Patch site
plan3llovAng8,205 sq ft blctg dedicated to retail ooleson 1..017
tlGS,znd He.. 1M 4581, See 5, Block C, P 4A. Located on Rt
29N, frontageapprox 1 J8 mi S of Ri'.>anna Rr.<er bridge. Rio
t>ist,. (Applicant requests wiUldrawal.) WITHDRAWN.
13. Public Hearing to soHal input on the proposed Community Clerk: Forward signed resolution (A~ent E)to
Development Block Grant application to be submitted to the Director of Housing.
VirginiaD~t;tment of. Housing and Community Development
on the VVhit~ "itI. Apartments. Community Improvement
Projecl..ADOPTet:J.R~SOlUTION. '
14. .Status ofI;.igt),ng Ordinance Provisions. ADOPTED Clerk: Forward signed copy of resolution
RESOUJtfON OF INTENT. CAttachmE*}t F) to Planning.
15. Update on status of Acquisition of Conservation Easement~
(ACE) Program. APPROVED APPLICANT RANKING
PRIORITY LIST, USE ,OF T~N$IENT ~ODGING TAX
FUNDS, PROCEEDING W1APPRAlSfNG TOP 6
RECOMMEND APPLICATIONS, & CARRYING FORWARD
ANY FUNDS WHICH REMAIN AFTER THE PURCHASE OF
EASEMENTS, as presented.
18. Work Session: 2001 Redistricting Plan. HELD
WORKSESSION, DRAFTED i&APPROVED "PLAN C".
19. Work Session: Proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive
Plan Amendment HELD WORKSESSION, but did not
compJeteit.
20. Appointments.
. Appointed:
>>- Kurt B. Goodwin to fill out the balance of
Michael R. Matthews. Jr. 's term on the CIA Joint Airport
Commission, with said term to run from 414101 to 12/1/03.
> Ann H. Mallek, Shirley Midyette, Milton B. Moore. and
Nickolas). Sojka to the CHART AcMSOry Committee, with
terms to begin on 4/4/01. Term expiration dates to be
established.
. Reappointed:
>>-Richard L ~nnings to the Jail Authority, with term to run
from 7/1/01 to 6130/04.
>>- Donald R Crosby and Martha R. Tarrant to the Regional
Disability Services Board, with terms to run from 711101 to
6130/04.
22. From the Board: Matters not Usted on the Agenda.
. Ms. Thomas presented two resolutions to be presented by local
high school students who will travel to Charlottesville's Italian
sister city. ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS.
23. Adiourn at 5:08p.m.
None.
Planning: Proceed as directed.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing for 5/9/01.
Registrar & Countv Attornev: Present a plan to.. the
Board for approval of precinct lines and polling
places.
Lee Catlin & Planning staff: When directed,
continue the work session.
Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions records.
Send appointment letters, copying appropriate
persons.
None.
Attachment A
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
April, 2001, marks the thirty-third anniversary of the passage of ~he Fair
Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing
opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the
exclusive province of the Federal government; and
vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so,
than Federal efforts; and
illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish
the rights of all;
NOW, lliEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing
equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national
celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2001
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and Sealed this 4th day of April, 2001.
Attachment B
RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE
CANELLATION OF AIRPORT.ROAD PROJECT AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle ("County") and the Virginia Department of
Transportation ("VDOT") entered into,an agreement titled "Agreement to Fund and Improve
Route 649 (Project 0649-002-158,C501)" ("Airport Road Project") dated November 20, 1997 to
provide for the County to administer the Airport Road Project so that the County could pass-
through the project management to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority ("Airport
Authority"); and
WHEREAS, the County and the Airport Authority entered into an agreement titled
"Agreement for the Development and Administration of Route 649 By the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Authority" [VDOT (0649-002-158,C501)] dated December 15, 1997 to
provide that the Airport Authority would administer and manage the Airport Road Project on
behalf of the ,County; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Airport Authority later determined that the Airport
Road Project could more efficiently be administered and managed by VDOT; and
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors by action at its meeting on April 5, 2000,
can~elled the Airport Road Project agreements with both VDOT and the Airport Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Authority by Resolution on April 12, 2000 agreed to the
termination of its Agreement with the County; and
WHEREAS, VDOT has requested that the County adopt a Resolution to memorialize its
cancellation of the VDOT agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby confirms that on April 5, 2000 it acted to cancel its agreement with VDOT
titled "Agreement to Fund and Improve Route 649 (Project 0649-002-158,C50 I)" dated
November 20, 1997 and its agreement with the Airport Authority titled "Agreement for the
Development and Administration of Route 649 By the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Authority" [VDOT (0649-002-158,C501)] dated December 15, 1997.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is requested that the Airport Road Project
proceed as a VDOT administered project.
Attachment 0
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance ~ 4.10.3.1 provides in part that certain structures, including
telecommunications facilities, may not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance ~ 30.6.8 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to consider appeals
from clecisions of the Architectural Review Board arising from applications for certificates of
appropriateness, and its scope of review is limited to determining whether a proposed project is consistent
with the design guidelines adopted for projects within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
WHEREAS, certain public projects located on publicly owned property may be of such
paramount public importance that the restrictions of Zoning Ordinance ~ 4..10.3.1 and the limited scope of
review implied in Zoning Ordinance ~ 30.6.8, both identified above, should not apply.
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 Zoning Ordinance ~ 4.10.3.1
to allow public safety telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in
a residential district to have a height exceeding one hundred (100) feet;
BE IT FURTHER 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 Zoning Ordinance ~ 30.6.8 to authorize the Board of Supervisors, on an appeal from a
decision of the Architectural Review Board, to issue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a
public safety facility is a public necessity.
\
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Attachment E
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and
"\
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and )
WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all
existing affordable housing stock; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held March 21, 2001 and April 4, 2001 the County of
Albemarle wishes to apply for $1,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant
funds fora Comprehensive Community Improvement Project for the Whitewood Village
Apartments; and
WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess Of $6,000,000 including, but not limited to,
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia
Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged
by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and
WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village
Apartments is very-low and extremely-low income, all receiving rental assistance
through project-based vouchers; and
WHEREAS, the project-based contract expires beginning in early spring 2002; and
WHEREAS, the current owners have indicated a desire to sell the property and have executed an
option with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as purchaser; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include
).- Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third
of whom are children;
).- Construction of a community center;
).- Provision of services including daycare and afterschool.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is
hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this
Virginia Community Development Block Grant application.
David P. Bowerman
Rio
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Undsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Sco!IsviIle
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White HaD
SaUy H. Thomas
Samuel MUler
April 11, 2001
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOTWay
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Dear Mr. Bryan:
At the April 4, 2001 meeting ofthe Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following action
regarding transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 6.3. Resolution to Memoralize Cancellation of VDOT Agreement for Airport Road
(Route 649) Project. (Note: Ms. Thomas abstained from voting on item #3, although she has no official
confli'ct of interest.)
The Board adopted the Resolution, and I forwarded it to you under separate cover.
Agenda Item No. 8.a. Six Year Secondary Road Priority List.
You noted the following corrections/changes to the list:
· Item #17 - the advertisement date should be August 2001.
· Item #18 ~ the advertisement date should be October 2001.
· The Catterton Road paving project has been removed from the list. By August, you will
know whether the road will be surfaced, and whether calcium chloride will be applied.
Ms. Thomas noted that item #19 should read Dick Woods Road.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Avon/5th Street (Southern Parkway) project. Mr. Cilimberg said
VDOT is evaluating the project to determine its eligibility under the secondary road plan Ms. Thomas said
to be sure to include Fire/ Rescue's opinion.
Agenda Item No. 8.b. Route 22/231 Truck Traffic Restriction.
You said signs are in place, and enforcement will be the key to their success. The Board asked
that VDOT move forward with an origin-destination study and to recommend law enforcement.
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April, 2001, marks the thirty-third anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, whit:h sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively
further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunityfor all is not the exclusive province
of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal
efforts; and
WHEREAS( illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights
of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming 'l
APRIL, 2001
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourage all agencies, institutions and indi'Viduals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and Sealed this 4th day of April, 2001.
Sally H. Thomas, Chairman
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Local Workforce Investment Board, Virginia Area VI - Draft
Strategic Plan for July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2003
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Workforce Investment Board's requests public comment on
draft plan
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACnS):
Tucker, White, Spencer, Ralston
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Local Workforce Investment Board, Virginia Area VI, Workforce Today, in accordance with the Title I Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 and the Wagner-Peyser Act, has prepared a Draft Strategic Plan forthe Program Year July 1, 2001
to June 30, 2003 (PY 2001-02). Workforce Today 's vision is to have and promote a well-trained, well-educated highly skilled
and qualified workforce that is actively engaged in lifelong learning for the geographic area which includes Planning District
9 and 1 O.
The Draft plan has been endorsed by the Local Workforce Investment Board of Local Workforce Investment Area VI and
has been submitted to the state. The final approval of the plan is subject to public review and comment, including review
by the Boards of Supervisors and City Council of the local jurisdictions in Local Workforce Investment Area VI. The Local
Workforce Investment Board requests public comments by April 10th. The entire draft plan is available on the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission's web site at http://monticello . avenue. orq / t-j pdc /wia/wiahome. html
DISCUSSION:
Staff members have reviewed the plan and make the following comments:
. Strategic Plan would be strengthened by the inclusion of a measurement strategy for level of customer
service.
. The six job "sectors" listed on page 16 should be more closely aligned with the high demand jobs previously
listed on page 8. Specifically, "construction" is listed on page 16, but not listed on page 8. Also, "sales
(retail)" is not listed on page 16, yet is listed on page 8 and is in high demand.
. Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families should be included as a coordinating entity
on page 24.
. Definition of self sufficiency would be strengthened with the addition of the following statement:
. "A self-sufficient person has the means and motivation to secure economic and social necessities through
a combination of public and private resources while participating to the fullest extent possible in their
community."
The Board of Supervisors should review and approve the reference to Albemarle County included in the plan. (see
attached).
RECOMMENDATION:
A paper copy of the Workforce Investment Board Workforce Today's Draft Strategic Plan is available in the Clerk's Office
for your review, comments or suggestions. County Executive staff will forward staff comments and any additional Board
comments to the Local Workforce Investment Board of Local Workforce Investment Area VI prior to April 1 O.
01.066
PLANNING DISTRICT 10
The City of Charlottesville: Charlottesville remains the area's largest employment location
with about 36,000 jobs (April, 1993) as compared to about 29,000 in Albemarle County.
Together, the City and County are Planning District 10's employment center, employing 88%
of the work force. Government, services and trade are the sectors with the highest
employment. These three sectors alone employ over 80% of those working in the City.
Tourism is becoming increasingly important. In 1998 alone this industry generated $117.3
million total revenue; over the last 8 years total travel expenditures have increased 81.6%. .
The City plans to implement a citywide "Technology Zone" which would assist start-up
technology businesses and encourage existing technology companies to remain in the city.
The City has implemented the Laboratory Specialist Training Program at the Grove Street
"Connected Community Center" to prepare workers in the area of research and development.
The City has established an Electronic Technology Development Program known as the
Connected Community, which has been coordinated with the University of Virginia,
Piedmont Virginia Community College and local businesses that need employees in the area
of computers and electronic technology. The program works with businesses and educators
to train future employees in the technology area, primarily in the downtown and West Main
Street areas.
Albemarle County: Albemarle County enjoys a stable economic base due to tourism and the
University of Virginia. The occupation of County workers, reflecting the presence of the
University as well as other higher technology/professional service employers, is fairly
concentrated in managerial and specialty occupations and technician, sales and support
occupations. Close to 70% of labor force occupations are executive, administrative,
managerial and professional specialty (36%) or technicians, sales and administrative support
(33%). The county is strongly committed to protection of the natural resources and beauty of
the area. The county may need to become more pro-active than it has been in the past in
attracting new businesses due to plant closings and layoffs, but will not abandon its
commitment to preserve agriculture, forestry and tourism
Fluvanna County: Fluvanna County has experienced rapid residential growth in the last
decade, creating a demand on services. Many new residents are retirees. About two-thirds of
all workers commute out of the county to Charlottesville or Albemarle County. Most
residents also shop outside the county. Only 15% ofthe county's revenue comes from
business taxes, with the top four being public utilities. Future anticipated development
includes a $350 million power plant, a $3.5 million bowling alley at Zion Crossroads, and a
100,000 square foot retail center near Lake Monticello.
Greene County: Greene County is the smallest county in the state, even without discounting
the national park. Almost 80% ofthe workforce commutes out ofthe county. The economy is
primarily agriculturally based, but there has been growth in the area of manufacturing. The
testing site for llHS is located in Greene County and Technicolor is planning to expand up to
1500 workers from the current 500. Labor is the biggest need. The county recognizes that it
needs to diversify and provide infrastructure. With one of only four access points to the
national park, tourism is underutilized in the county.
Draft Local Strategic Plan for July], 2001-June30, 2003
Local Workforce Investment Area VL Workforce Today
March 1, 2001
Page 7
Workforce Today!
Local Workforce Investment Board, Virginia Area VI
300 East Main Street, 1st Floor Mall Entrance
PO Box 1505, Charlottesville VA 22902~ 1505
(804) 979~ 7310';' FAX (804) 979~ 1597
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: March 2, 2001
To:
Gary Christie, RRRC
Gary O'Connell, Charlottesville
vRObert W. Tucker Jr., Albemarle
Macon C. Sammons Jr., Fluvanna
Julius Morris, Greene
C. Lee Lintecum, Louisa
Steve Carter, Nelson
Frank Bossio, Culpeper,
G. Robert Lee, Fauquier
Steve Utz, Madison
Brenda Bailey, Orange
John McCarthy, Rappahannock
From: Billie Campbell
WIA Program Manager
COMMENTS:
The month of March is a period of public comment on the Draft Strategic Plan for PY2001-02
(July 1,2001 to June 30, 2003). Please place the draft plan on the BOS or City Council agenda
during March. Comments are welcome on any section of the plan, but localities are particularly
requested to review:
· the summary of the local economic development plans on pages 6-8;
· the strategies on pages 12-26;
· and the priority of service policy and definition of self-sufficiency on page 43.
Please feel free to call this office if you have any questions or need additional information.
ITEMS:
Local Strategic Plan for PY2001-02
Sent by:
COPIES
1 unbound
o First class mail
~ Hand carried
o
Cc:
E~Mail: tjpd@state.va.us .;. Virginia Relay Center 711
Web Site: http://monticello.avenue.org/tjpdc/wia/wiahome.html
LOCAL WORKFORCE AREA VI
WORKFORCE TODAY
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR
TITLE I OF THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998 AND
THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT
This item was scanned under "Strategic Plans" under "Reports"
RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT OF PY2001-2002
LOCAL STRATEGIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the first draft of the local strategic plan for Plan Years 2001 and 2002 (July
1,2001 to June 30,2003) was presented at a public hearing and the Local Workforce Investment
Board for review and comment on February 20, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the information on local economic development plans included in the first
draft of the local strategic plan for Plan Years 2001 and 2002 (July 1,2001 to June 30, 2003) was
provided by the jurisdictions in Local Workforce Investment Area VI; and
WHEREAS, the strategies in the first draft of the local strategic plan for Plan Years 2001
and 2002 (July 1,2001 to June 30, 2003) were generated at a planning session held January 30,
2001 attended by the Strategic Planning Committee consisting of the Executive Committee of
the Local Workforce Investment Board, Committee Chairs of the Local Workforce Investment
Board, members of the L WIB Draft Plan Committee for PY2000 and a representative of the
VIEW Coordinating Council; and
WHEREAS, the youth portions ofthe plan were generated at a strategic planning session
held February 13,2001; and
WHEREAS, the draft plan to be submitted to the state by March 1 will be subject to
public review and comment throughout the month of March, including review by the Boards of
Supervisors and City Council of the local jurisdictions in Local Workforce Investment Area VI;
and
WHEREAS, the Executive Committee of the Local Workforce Investment Board and the
Executive Committee of the Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials will meet in March to
review the March 1 draft and any comments received,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Local Workforce Investment Board of Local
Workforce Investment Area VI endorses the draft plan and authorizes the staff, under the
guidance of the Youth Council, the Strategic Planning Committee and the Executive Committee
ofthe LWIB and the Consortitim of Chief Local Elected Officials, to submit the final Local
Strategic Plan for PY200 I & 2002 (July I, 2001 to June 30, 2003) to the state by April I, 2001.
Adopted this 20th day of February 2001 by the Local Workforce Investment Board, Local
Workforce Investment Area VI.
Art~~,/!4 ~
an Carlson, Chair.. F ~
Local Workforce Investment Board, Local Workforce Investment Area VI, Workforce
Today
."
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) AGREEMENT
Between
The Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEOs)
And
The Local Workforce Investment Board (tWIB),
Local Workforce InvestmentArea VI, Workforce Today
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement to implement the Workforce Investment Act has
been adopted by the localities of Local Workforce Investment Area VI, including the City of
Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa,
Madison, Nelson, Orange, and Rappahannock to create a Consortium of Chief Local Elected
Officials (CLEOs); and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement sets forth the process, procedures, and
responsibilities for implementing the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), identifies the
responsibilities ofthe Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEOs) and the Local Workforce
Investment Board (L WIB), and forms a working relationship between the CLEOs and the L WIB;
and
'VHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement is incorporated into this agreement as an
attachment;
NOW THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, the Consortium of Chief Local
Elected Officials and the Local Workforce Investment Board agree as follows:
1. Provisions of the Interlocal Agreement
The CLEOs. and the L WIB. shall abide by the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement.
2. Oversight and Evaluation
The L WIB will conduct oversight and evaluation of services and activities conducted
through funds granted under Title I oithe Workforce Investment Act, including Youth
Activities, and the One Stop Centers sufficient to judge their effectiveness in achieving
required performance standards, affect continuous improvement activities including
customer satisfaction, and their alignment with the LWIB's strategic objectives.
3. Settling of Disputes Among the CLEOs
In the eventthat the Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials is unable to reach a
majority vote on any matter which could result in delay or discontinuance of services to
clients in the local area,the disagreement shall be resolved by majority vote ofthe full
L WIB membership at a public meeting, the determination of which shall be binding upon
the Chief Local Elected Officials.
4. Settling of Disputes Between the CLEOs and the L WIB
The L WIB, in conjunction with the CLEOs, will be responsible for developing the
strategic plan and other related items for Workforce Investment Act services. This will be
done in concert, collaboration and cooperation. Any differences of opinion between the
WIA Agreement Between CLEOs and L WlB
Page 1 of2
L WIB and theCLEOs, whether on development of the plan or any required agreements
or the oversight of activities, will be resolved through consultation between the parties of
the first instance, or if that is unsuccessful, through the assistance of an impartial
conciliator agree5ble to both parties, oris such agreement is not possible, or in
conciliation does not occur in a timely manner, or in conciliation fails, by submitting the
dispute to the Chair of the Virginia Workforce Council.
5. Sunshine Act
The L WIB will conduct all business in an open manner as required by Section 117( e) of
theAct and wiUmakeavaila.ble to the public ona regular basis information aboutthe
activities of the L WIB, including information about the local plan before it is submitted
(to the extent possible), and about members, designation of One Stop Operators and
award of grants and contracts to eligible providers of youth activities, as well as minutes
of meetings.
6. Terms of Agreement
This agreement inclUdes in its entirety the Interlocal Agr~ement to implement the
Workforce Investment Act, effective December 21,2000.
If any terms of this agreement or theapplica.tion thereof to any person or circumstance
shall, by any extent, be held invalid and unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement
or the application of such terms and provisions to persons or circumstances other than
those to which it isheld invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and every
other term and provision of this agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
7. Modification
The Agreement may be amend~d by a written amendment signed by both parties hereto;
however, any amendment shall be presented in writing to the other party at least sixty
(60) days prior to a vote on said amendment by either party.
8. Termination
This,agreement shall remain inforce in p~rpetuity or until either party provides the other
with sixty (60) . days written notice of intent to terminate.
Approved:
Consoritium of Chief Local Elected Officials
z11~...~
Charles Martin, Chair. .
County of A bemarle
WIA Agreement Between CLEOs and L WIB
Page 2 of2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
to implement the
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
The purpose of this agreement is to create a Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials
(CLEOs) to set forth the process, procedures, and responsibilities for implementing the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle,
Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson, Orange, and Rappahannock.
The WIA requires Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEOs) to take certain responsibilities and
actions which are enumerated in this document and toform a working relationship with the
'Workforce Investment Board.
Area covered: The localities named above have been grouped together and approved as a WIA
area by the Governor of Virginia.
Consortium of CLEOsformed: By this agreement, the Chief Local Elected Officials form a
consortium for the purpose of implementing the tasks and performing the continuous oversight
responsibilities set forth in the \VIA.
Administration: The local governments have named the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC) as the administrator, working with the Rappahannock Rapidan Regional
Commission (RRRC).
Grant recipient: The City of Charlottesville will be the grant recipient.
Fiscal Agent: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District will be the Fiscal Agent for WID funds.
The TJPDC will make monthly financial reports to the Consortium, in writing. The audit will be
conducted with the TJPDC audit, according the requirements of all OMBand federal regulations.
Responsibility for use of funds and implementation of the WIA: Under the WIA the final
responsibility for use of the federal WIA funds and for carrying out the tasks set forth in the WIA
rests with the CLEOs. The CLEOs, as a Consortium, shall enter into a contract with the TJPDC
to perform certain tasks on behalf of the Consortium. Liability insurance for the CLEOs will be
provided out of the administrative funds. Prior to distribution of any funds underthe WIA, the
TJPDC will obtain such liability insurance naming each of the local governments and CLEOs
forming the Consortium as additional insured. Coverage shall be no less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage
shall be distributed to each of the named CLEGs at the inception of this Agreement.
Task One: The first task of the Consortium of CLEOs is to create the\V orkforce
Investment Board.
Workforce InvestmentBoard (WID): The activities of the \VIA are carried out by a WID
appointed by the CLEOs. The composition of the WID is mandated in the Act. The WIA requires
51 % of the appointees be from private sector business and industry. The remaining 49% are
mandated categories in the Act.
Inter-Local Agreement
Workforce Investment Act (Q:\WIA\Agreements\Interlocal-revised.doc)
Page lof6
WIB Membership: The total board membership is to be shared by the two planning districts on
the basis of population. The population distribution in the two planning district areas is 59%
Thomas J effersonPlanning District and 41 % Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Commission. The
attached chart illustrates the distribution of the membership. Ifa planning district does not make
allof its allocated appointments, those board positions will revert to the other planning district
for,appointment.
WIB Appointment Process: The appointments to the WIB are to be made by the CLEOs using
the following process:
Business and Industry
1. Letters will be sent to business and industry organizations soliciting nominations
to the Board. In TJPDC, this will be done by Piedmont Virginia Community
College; in RRRC, by the planning district. In the future other business/industry
organizations may be requested to assist in generating nominationsJor the private
for-profit sector. '
2. An advertisement will be placed in a paper of general circulation in each planning
district by TJPDC. The notice will inc1udea nomination form. Persons may
nominate themselves.
3. Nomination forms will be sent to TJPDC for distribution to the CLEOs. By law,
CLEOs must select from those nominated.
4. Each CLEO will select the number of business and industry appointments based
on the percentage of population in the respecti ve planning district. This results in
the following distribution of business/industry appointments by locality:
PD-l0 1997 Population % % x 16 Proposed
Charlottesville 38,100 20.4% 3.27 3
Albemarle 79,200 42.4% 6.79 7
Fluvanna 17,700 9.5% 1.52 2.
Greene 13,600 7.3% 1.17 1
Louisa 24,100 12.9% 2.07 2
Nelson 13,900 7.4% 1.19 1
59% 186,600 100.0% 16
PD-9
Culpeper
Fauquier
Madison
Orange
Rappahannock
1997Population
32,100
52,000
12,500
24,500
7,000
41% 128,100
%
25.1%
40.6%
9.8%
19.1%
5.5%
100.0%
% x 11 Proposed
2.76 3
4.47 4
1.07 1
2.10 2
0.60 1
11
PD-9 andPD-10 Total
314,700
27
Inter-Local Agreement
Workforce Investment Act
Page 2 of6
If a locality does not fill all its allocated business positions, the Consortium will
assign those positions to one or more other localities.
One-Stop Partners: The Act sets forth certain categories of representation, the One-Stop
Partners. To insure the correct distribution of categories and voting consistent with the
population distribution, the attached chart mentioned above also sets forth the planning
district origin for those categorical appointments. The following process will be used to
appoint persons who meet these requirements:
1. Nominations will be sought from categorical organizations, setforth in the Act, by
each planning district office.
2. Nomination forms will be received at the TJPDC office.
3. A committee of four CLEOs, two from each planning district, will meet to prepare
a slate of categorically mandated WIB members, distributed as set forth in the
Chart.
Full Board Appointments:
1. The full group of CLEOs will meet to affirm the categorical nominees and the
business and industry nominees.
2. The TJPDC will prepare the Certification Form and submit to the State for the
Governor's certification.
Vacancies: Vacancies will be filled using the same procedure in order to maintain the correct
geographic and categorical distribution of WIB members.
Organization of the Will: It is the intent of the CLEOs to create the full Will to cover all the
localities. It is the desire of the CLEOs that PDC-level regional committees be formed by the
WIB which will conduct planning and other' activities to advise the Will in order that the distinct
characteristics. of each planning district area have an avenue fot in-depth focus.
Organization of the Consortium: The purpose of the Consortium is to maintain
communication with the '\VIB and perform oversight of certain WIB activities.
1. The Consortium shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from its members. One officer
shall be from each planning district. The Consortium may elect to elect two Co-
Chairs.
2. Two additional members, one from each planning district, will be chosen by the
Consortium to serve on an Executive Committee of the Consortium
3. The Consortium will meet, as a body, at least quarterly, beginning in March,
2000; a quorum of >50% will be required for any action to be taken.
4. The Executive Committee will meet monthly or more frequently, as needed.
Inter-Local Agreement
Workforce Investment Act
Page 3 of6
5. Minutes of the Executive Committee will be distributed to the full Consortium
membership and to the Chief Administrative Officers of each jurisdiction.
6. It willQe the responsibility of the Chief Local Elected Official, acting with the
Chief Aciministrative Qfficer, to communicate the activities of the Consortium
and the WIB to their respective governing bodies.
7. Two members of the Consortium may, according to the By Laws oft~e WIB, sit
as non-voting members of the WIB.
Collaboration. with the \YIB
1.
The Plan:
The WIB will submit the Plan to the Consortium for theirconcurrence.
Concurrence will be a simple majority of the Consortium present and voting.
2. Budget:
The WIB budget will be submitted to the Consortium for approval. Approval will
be a simple majority of the members of the Consortium present and voting.
3. Quarterly meetings:
The officers or Executive Committee of the WIB will meet with the CLEOs at the
quarterly meeting for the purpose of updating the.CLEOs on the activities and to
seek advice from the CLEOs regarding the activities of the WIB.
4. One Stop Operator or System:
The WIB is charged with designating the One Stop operator or system, in
cooperation with the CLEOs.
A. The WIB shan submit the criteria for the One Stop to theCLEOs for
comment prior to selection of the One Stop operator.
B. The selection of the One Stop operator will be ratified by the CLEOs bya
simple majority of theCLEOs present and voting.
C. The Memorandum of Understanding establishing the One Stop will be
presented to the CLEOs for their concurrence.
D. Reports on the One Stop operation will be presented to the CLEOsona
quarterly basis.
5. Youth Council:
The WIB is charged with appointing the Youth Council in cooperation with the
CLEOs.
A. The WIB shall present the names of the Youth Council membership to the
CLEOS for their concurrence prior to their actual appointment to the
Council. The Youth Council membership will reflect.the population
distribution 59/41, PDC 10/9.
B. The Chair or designated alternate will meet with the CLEO Consortium on
a quarterly basis.
Inter-Local Agreement
Workforce Investment Act
Page 4 of 6
Local Workforce Investment Board
Proposed Composition
Organization NOTES
,-... .-..
C'l N Required One-Stop Partners not applicable
-' ~
'" .-.. .-.. '" ... for this region:
c:l C'l N o::l a.l
~ ~ -' ~ ~ 5
<:i '" '" ~ ... a.l
0 c:l c:l c:l o::l C<;
""l '-" ~ ~ '-" 0.. a IndianlNative American Programs
c -' C<; .- c.. ...
'" .2 c:l a.l 0
'" '-" '-" Ci S Demonstration projects
a.l <:i ... '" cii 0
c ...
.~ u 0 0 c .;; ~ 0\ "0 - National.Emergency Grant
::l ..0 0 I I1l I
::l "0 c:l co u C 0 Ci ~ Ci
co tI.J ...J U tI.J 0 0.. .c 0..
CIl
VEC X 1 1 Employment Service, Trade Adjustment
. Assistance, Vetterans
EmploymentfTraining, Unemployment
Insurance, Migrant/Seasonal Farmworkers,
NAFTA
ob Corps X 1
iAAA Agency X 1 Title V
CRHA X 1 HUD Training
CAA X X 1 Youth, Youth Opportunity Grants
lReg'1 Econ.Dev. X 1 1
Iv oc. Rehab .. .
X 2 DRS and DVH
~Velfare to Work . X I 1 DSS, VIEW
--:-
Labor X 1 I
Community College X , X 2 1
School Board or X , X 1 Adult Education & Superintendents
Superintendent
Education I 1 Local educational entities, including post-
secondary institutions
Community Based X 1 2
Organizations
Other X 3 At the discretion of CLEOs
Total-Non-business 8 3 15
tBusiness X 11 16 Must be majority of board
rrotals 19 3 31
53
Inter-Local Agreement
Workforce Investment Act
PageS of6
Shared Liability Among Consortium Members
While the City of Charlottesville is the Grant Recipientunder this WIA Program (the
"Program") for Planning DistriCts 9 and 10 as evidenced by the signatures below of their
respective CLEOs all of the local governments named in this Agreement:hereby agree to
share equally any and all liability resulting from implementation of the Program..
Effective Dates of this Agreement:
This agreement shall take effect on the date of the last signature and shall remain in effect
until the \VIAisno longer in effect.
Amendment of the Agreement:
A majority vote of CLEOs is required to amend this agreement.
PlanningD~t:iCt.9
~ :~ SL
Planning District 10
&~V0~
Charles S. Martin .
Co~ty of Albemarle..-.
,/ /'. /1
· . . ~. . -5- :~
~ L':)., .-:_ , ',. .
. Blake Caravati
. City of Charlottesville
.../-
--'.;' /
~~~
Charles Estes
Rappanahannock County
(' I ~-\ ,/1 I _..-".
~'. \ " \. . /. .J.r.;.C.::....,
/'-\-<:..... 1.1,../ i '......... / f \,...,- Cl..
Gary Christie!Rappahannock-RapidanRegional
Commission r
David C. Jones
County of Madison
/ /-/'/ . /'7' /
D?C/~/;4t:,~-:/,-
Clement L. "Sonny" Dodson Jr.
County of Orange
I Z~. '0 ( .;.. 0 (:)
Effective Date (date of last signature)
~. - ~ )(' .!.\)~
Nancy K. O'Bri.h1, Thomas efferson PDC
Inter-Local Agreement
Workforce Investment Act
Page 6 01'6
Planning District 10
Combined Business PlanlMemorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Forthe One Stop Service Delivery System
The following Business PlanlMemorandum of Understanding (the Agreement) sets forth the
terms of agreement for the creation of a consortium to serve as the operator of the One Stop
Service Delivery System in Planning District Ten (pD-l 0).
The Consortium shall consist of:
. The Charlottesville office of the Virginia Employment Commission
. Piedmont Virginia Community College
. Monticello Area Community Action Agency
1. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT
A. It is the purpose of this Agreement to establish a Consortium of the partners listed
above (hereinafter referred to as the Consortium)to serve as the Operator of the One
Stop Service Delivery System in Planning District 10 under the auspices of the Local
Workforce Investment Board, Workforce Today (LWIB). All parties to this agreement
are also parties to the WIA One Stop Partner Memorandum of Understanding, Virginia
Local Workforce Investment Area VI, Thomas Jefferson dated June 29, 2000 and are
subject to the provisions of that agreement. This agreement supersedes the "Proposal:
Consortium of Partners in PD-IO to serve as the Virginia Workforce System Operator"
dated August 1,2000 and the "Interim One-Stop Agreement" dated September 7,2000.
B. Duties
C. The Consortium will serve as the Operator of the One Stop Service Delivery System
and will:
1. Provide facilities and Inanage the electronic infrastructure needed to deliver WIA-
authorized services to customers through the one stop career center network located
within Planning District 10, including the City of Charlottesville and the Counties
of Albemarle, Fluvanna; Greene, Louisa, and Nelson. The One Stop
Comprehensive Center will be located at 400 Preston Avenue in Charlottesville.
The Consortium will work with local jurisdictions to inventory existing services
and to identify possible satellite and information sites to serve clients throughout
the planniIlgdistrict.
2. Coordinate participation of the several one stop partners to jointly serve customers
within the Planning District 10
3 . Work closely with the L WIB and other entities to develop a comprehensive service
system for the entire planning district; and
4. Be accountable to theLWIB for the performance of the one stop service delivery
system within Planning District 10.
1
II. VISION:
The System will help residents of Planning District 10 access the tools they need to manage
their careers through information and high quality service, and to help companies find
skilled workers. It will complement Planning District 10's overall education and economic
strategy by guiding federal, state a.nd local resources in a customer focused and user friendly
mannerto promote a high quality, competitive workforce. This System will serve Planning
District 10, a sub-region of Local Workforce Investment Area VI.
III. MISSION:
To continually improve the quality of the region's workforce through an integrated
education, employment, and training system for the benefit of the individuals and employers
it serves.
IV. SYSTEM GOALS
It is agreed by the agencies listed in this agreement to conduct the following, when feasible:
A. To jointly promote the further integration of programs and services through joint
plannjng to address local workforce needs;
B. To align planning and budgeting processes and to conduct these functionsjointly;
C. To jointly identify and support workforce competencies and industry performance
measures to drive comm.on outcomes
D. To coordinate resources and programs and to promote a more streamlined and efficient
workforce development system;
E. To promote information sharing and the coordjnation of activities to improve
perfonnance of local partners;
F. To use common release of information processes subject to confidentiality provisions
and to preserve records for the period required by law.
G. To identify and adclressbarriers to coordination;
H. To promote the development and implementation of a more unified system of
measuring performance and accountability under theW orkforce Investment Act;
I. To promote the development of common data systems to track progress and measure
performance; and
1. To commit to customer service by using performance data to continuously improve
servIces.
2
V. DURATION
The Agreement will commence on the 5th day of December 2000, and shall remain in full
force and effect until the.30th day of June 2001 or until the Agreement is canceled by the
Agencies in accordance with the terms set forth herein. .
VI. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:
The Consortium will provide the following services, divided into "Core" (divided into two
categories: A) Self-service and Informational and B) Staff-assisted) and "Intensive"
categories, as prescribed by the Workforce Investment Act (the Act). Core services will be
available to all customers seeking services of the One-Stop System, assuring universal
access to all.
A. Self-service and Informational Core Services
The services listed below have no requirements for participant registration, qualification
or prioritization of service.
1. Outreach, intake, and orientation to the information and other services available
through the One-Stop delivery system;
2. Initial assessment of skill levels, aptitudes, abilities, and supportive service needs.
3. Provision of employment statistics information, including information relating to
local, regional, and national labor market areas, including:
a} job vacancy listings in such labor market areas;
b) information onjob skills necessary to obtain the listed jobs; and
c) information relating to local occupations in demand and the earnings and skill
requirements for such occupations.
4. Provision of performance information and program cost information on:
a) eligible providers ofWIA training services;
b) eligible providers of WI A youth activities;
c) providers of adult education described in Title II;
d) providers of post-secondary vocational education activities and vocational
education activities available to school dropouts underthe Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act; and
e) providers of vocational rehabilitation program activities described in
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
5. Provision of information regarding filing claims for unemployment benefits.
6. Provision of accurate informatioIl on the availability of supportive services,
including childcare and transportation available in the local area, and referral to
such services, as appropriate
7. Provision of information regarding how the local area is performing on the local
perforniance measures and any additional performance information with respect to
the One,..Stop delivery system in the local area.
8. Self-help job search and placement assistance.
9. Information and assistance ih applying for welfare-to-work activities.
10. Access to core services and information about all programs of required partner
3
agencIes.
B. Staff.assisted Core Services
The services listed below shall be accessible by all individuals through the One Stop
Center, without regard to qualification and priority of service requirements. In Virginia,
WIA partners shall provide these staff assisted core services and.WIA
enrollment/registration is not required.
1. Staff assisted job search, job referral and placement assistance, including career
counseling.
2. Detenninatioriofan individual's qualification for assistanceforWIAIntensive
Services
3. Information and assistance in applying for financial aid programs for education and
training not funqed llllder this Act.
C. Intensive Services
The following "Intensive" services will be provided to all eligible individuals who are
unemployed and unable to obtain employment through "core" services or have been
determined by a One.,Stop partner tqbe in need of more intensive services beyond
"core". (The Act allows for service to individuals thatare employed, but determined by
the One-Stop opeI'ator to be in need of "Intensive" services to retain their current
employment, or to upgrade their skills to that necessary toeam a living wage. Whether
these individuals will be served under "Intensive" services will be determined by the
Local Workforce Investment Board (LWIB)).
1. Specialized assessment that may include diagnostic testing,in-depth interviewing
and evaluation, and dev~lopment of an employment plan.
2. Individual and group cOllllseling, career planning.
3. Prevocational workplace behavior skills; internships
4. Case management to include follow-up.
5. Issuance of Individual Training Account (IT As) through which customers purchase
skills training. These IT As will be issued to those customers who are eligible to
receive services under the Dislocated Worker or Disadvantaged Adult Programs
and are assessed as needing to upgrade their work skil:ls. Also, as directed by the
LWIB, support for child-care, transportation, and other needs, as appropriate, will
be provided. IT As will be issued as a result of a planning process that produces a
course.ofaction agreed upon by a career counselor and the customer. ITAs will be
issued with specific goals and subject to the written policies enumerated by the
L WIB and the Virginia Workforce Council covering acceptable uses of WIA funds.
These goals will be stated in an Individual Employment Plan that will become the
basis for all activities between the job seeking customer and the Consortium. The
Consortium has a comprehensive cost accounting system in place that records
budgets, grants, allotments, receipts, expenditures, and obligations. This accounting
system is routinely used t6 prepare financial statements and reports acceptable to
the D.S Department of Labor and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4
VII. CONSORTIUM PARTNER COMMITMENTS
A, System-wide Commitments
Each of the consortium partners party to this agreement commit:
1. Tothe use and continued evolution of the Partnerships products and processes, and
the following:
2. To provide agency-related CORE SERVICES through the One Stop Service
Delivery System.
To participate in a COMMON REFERRAL SYSTEM.
Participate in a COMMON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SYSTEM.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
To use Workplace Competencies.
To participate in CROSS AGENCY TRAINING.
To ensure CUSTOMER groups are served
To participate in the use of COMMON TECHNOLOGY
B. Each of the consortium partners party to this agreement have specified individual
commitments through the one-stop delivery system as found in Appendix A, PVCC will
be responsible for providing intensive services to eligible clients and meeting the
associated performance measures.
VIII. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
A, Governing Board
Decision-making authority will rest with a Governing. Board, consisting of a
representative of each of the consortium partners, a business member of the Local
Workforce Investment Board, and a representative of the Chief Local Elected Officials
in Planning District 10. Each member of the Governing Board will have an equal vote.
The Governing Board shall:
1. Adopt the Business PlanlMemorandum of Understanding
2. Adopt the Marketing Plan for One Stop Services
3. Adopt agreements for operating facilities and sharing data
4. Adopt policies and procedures
5. Consider adding partners to the Consortium
6. In cooperation with the L WIB, recognize the Consortium named py the L WIB as
the One Stop System Management Team.
7. Define the duties of the One Stop Center Management Team
8. Approve the membership ofthe One Stop Center Management Team
B. One Stop Center Management Team
The Governing Board shall define the duties of the One Stop Center Management
Team. In general, the management team will be responsible for the operation oftheOne
5
Stop Comprehensive Center, including, but not limited to managing the resources
coming into the center, the activities taking place at the Center, and tlwoutcomes of the
center. The management team is bound by the decisions of the Governing Board. The
management team shall:
I. Develop a detailed budget for the One Stop Center.
2. Develop performance goals for the One Stop Center.
3. Design the integration of systems and coordination of services for the sitees) and
the partners
4. Evaluate performance and implement required actions to meet standards
5. Evaluate customer needs and satisfaction data for continual improvement
6. Monitor adherence to the provisions ofthe Memoranda of Understanding
7. Define and provide means to meet common operational needs.
8. Facilitate the sharing and maintenance of data
9. Assess cllstomer needs and recommend satellite and information sites
10. Facilitate.groups/teams on common issues
11. Recruit additional partners
12. Make regular reports to the Governing Board.
IX. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Local Workforce Investment Board negotiated local performance measures with the
Virginia Employment Commission for the Program Year ending June 30, 2001. These
measures are defined in the Department of Labor's Training and Employment Guidance
Letter No. 7-99 dated March 3, 2000, available at http://usworkforce.org/tegl-7-99.htm. The
applicable local performance measures for WIA funded programs are:
A. Adult
Entered Employment Rate:
Retention Rate at 6 month
Average Earnings Change in 6 months
Employment and Credential Rate
B. Dislocated Worker
Entered Employment Rate:
Retention Rate at 6 month
Earnings Replacement Rate in 6 months
Employment and Credential Rate
C. Older Youth
Entered Employment Rate:
Employment Retention Rate
Average Earnings Change in 6 months
Credential Rate
72
82
$2,600
60
77
90
92
60
65
80
$2,300
50
6
D. Customer Satisfaction
Employer
}>articipant
X. BUDGET
66
68
A. Overall Operating Budget for the One Stop System
The overall operating budget for the One Stop System in Planning District 10 will be
developed in concert with the negotiations of contributions between the L WID and all
partners in Planning District 10. The budget will identify all in-kind contributions to the
center and/or system from all partners or donors.
B. Budget for Funds Under L WIB Control
The budget attached to this Agreement reflects only those funds available through the
funding streams under L WIB control. The budget reflects funds already obligated or
paid by Offender Aid and Restoration and Piedmont Virginia Community College in
serving clients between July 1, 2000 and the effective date of this agreement.
XI. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS TO BUSINESS PLAN/MOU
Each consortium partner that is a party to this Agreement understands and agrees that all of
the terms and conditions contained within are binding upon subsequent Supplemental
Agreement between consortium partners. The Supplemental Agreements are not binding on
consortium partners not parties to the Supplemental Agreements. The consortium partners
further agree that such Supplementary Agreements shall be in furtherance of and
complementary to this Agreement. Each corisortiumpartner that is a party to a Supplemental
Agreement shall provide all other consortium partners with copies of any Supplemental
Agreement they may enter into within thirty days from the date of execution ofthe
Agreement.
A. The Governing Board may amend this Agreement at any time. The Governing Board
must have a quorum consisting of a majority of the members present and voting.
Amendments will be subject to a majority vote. Proposed changes shall be submitted to
the Governing Board in writing at least ten days prior to the meeting at which the
changes will be considered. An intent to amend this agreement shall be communicated
to the L WIB at the outset of the process to amend.
7
B. Each consortium partner may cancel its participation in the Agreement upon sixty (60)
days written notice to the other partners. Each partner will make agood faith effort to
remain in the Agreement by bringing issues to the partners and seeking resolution of
issues before withdrawing. When the cancellation is for cause, i.e., a material and
significant breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement, it may be canceled upon
delivery of written notice to the other partners.
XIV. APPROVED:
. The undersigned Agencies bind themselves to the faithful performance ofthis Agreement. It
is mutually understood that this Agreement shall not become effective until executed by all
Parties involved.
XV.~W~RD
Grim CarTs;,n, Chair
/#;/~
Date
XVI. PLANNING DISTRICT 10 - ONE STOP SYSTEM GOVERNING BOARD
Forrest McKay
Piedmont Virginia Community College
Date
Donald Martin, Manager
VEC
Date
Rudolph A. Beverly
:Jt'fffilm 1 ~"l\lf,_
RoJ{anne ~CLEO Repre""ntative
/
,.. .... / ... ~-
~a emita, LWIBBnsmess Represenmtiye
Date
..ld-.1Q.\100
Date
J.7~...tb
Dat
8
APPENDIX A - SPECIFIC PARTNER COMMITMENTS
XVII. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION (VEC)
A. Background Information:
The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) has 60 years experience in administering
Employment and Training programs in Virginia. Currently, the VEC provides Job
Search and Placement, Unemployment Insurance, and Labor Market Infonnation
services. The VECengages in a variety of activities including: oljtreach and intake,
initial assessment, counseling, automated and staff assisted access to job openings,
employability workshops (resume writing, interviewing), matching of job listings and
job seekers, administering the Trade ActlNAFTA Program, the Veteran's Employment
and Training Services Program, and taking and processing claims for Unemployment
Insurance benefits. The VEC has, in the past, operated The Dislocated Worker Program,
various Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) Programs, Welfare
Incentive, and other Employment and Training Programs.
B. On-Site Services at the Comprehensive One Stop Center
The VEC will provide staff in the One Stop CenterJor 40 hours per week. Staffwill be
supervised by the VEC Operations Manager. Staff will provide core services through
the One Stop Center, as coordinated with other partners co-located on site. Core
services as defined by the WIA are part of the normal operations of the VECand will be
funded through Wagner-Peyser funds.
C. One Stop System
The VEC will work with other partners to establish common intake.instruments and
procedures for utilizing the electronic backbone for data sharing now being developed
by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Mid-Atlantic Career Consortium
(MACC).
9
XVIII. PIEDMONT VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (PVCC) - PIEDMONT WORKS DIVISION
A. Background Information:
Through the Piedmont Works Division, PVCC administers a variety of education and
training programs for disadvantaged populations in PlanningDistrict 10. Grant
programs serve welfare-to-work, .low income adults, single parents, dislocated workers
a.nd individuals from economically depressed zones. These clients receive a variety of
services includingbutnot limited to: tuition payment; purchase of books, supplies, and
learning materials; transportation cost reimbursement; child care cost reimbursement;
GED training; paid internships; purchase of business attire; substance abuse counseling;
anger management counseling; and on-the-job training experience with local business
partners. Universally accessible services are available through two career centers
located in Charlottesville and Louisa County. These centers provide free services such
as eligibility determination, initial and in-depth assessment, career counseling, internet
access, resume software programs, assessments and business softWare tutorials, as well
as copiers, faxes, scanners, and phone lines for job search.. In addition, the
Charlottesville center offers free beginning computer classes and monthly seminars on
topics.ranging from interviewing techniques to networking to financial planning.
B. On-Site Services at the Comprehensive One Stop Center
The Charlottesville Career Center will be co.;.located at the One Stop Center. All
equipment earmarked for consumer use will be available for 'use in the One Stop Center.
Seven staff members will provide services through the One Stop Center. In general,
these services will consist of staff-assisted core services, as coordinated with other
partners, and intensive services for eligible clients through programs funded under the
control ofthe L WID.
C. One Stop System
PVCC will work with other partners to establish common intake instruments and
procedures for utilizing the electronic backbone for data sharing now being developed
by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Mid-Atlantic Career Consortium
(MACC).
10
XIX. MONTICELLO AREA COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY (MACAA)
A. Background Information:
MACAA's mission is to enhance the quality oflife for the poor, the working poor and
any persons in need of help. MACAA has satellite offices in Charlottesville, Fluvanna,
Louisa and Nelson. MACAA provides services at all locations. MACAA provides
fmancial assistance, and assistance in the areas of transportation, child care, housing,
and counseling. MACAA has recently been licensed as a clinic for Region 10 at its
Charlottesville site, providing services in the area of mental health, not including
substance abuse. MACAA is a mandatory partner under the WIA based on its funding
through the Community Services Block Grant Act for employment and training
programs.
B. On-Site Services at the Comprehensive One Stop. Center
MACAA will co-locate one staff member at the One Stop Center one day per week.
MACAA staff will receive referrals and requests for support services, including
housing, child care, financial assistance, mental health services and personal and family
counseling and offer these services through the One Stop System as part of their agency
mISSIOn.
C. One Stop System
MACAA will work with other partners to establish common intake instruments and
procedures for utilizing the electronic backbone for data sharing now being developed
by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Mid-Atlantic Career Consortium
(MACC). Activities related to workforce development and funded through the
Community Services Block Grant Act will be accessible through the One Stop System.
MACAA will employ links for the under~employed and unemployed populations in
Planning District 10 for employment counseling, assessments, and training.
11
APPENDIX B ~ PD-IOWIA Title I DW and AduIt Funds Budget
PD.10 WIA Title I DW and Adult Funds Budget
Administrative Funds
Monitoring Funds (3% of program funds)
Program funds Dislocated Workers
Estimated Carryover - Dislocated Workers
Program Funds Adult Workers
Total Income
(Does not include funds from:
Reprogrammed Hurricane Floyd funds for ConAgra clients
Rapid Response Funds from State
Verified Carryover funds)
Funds Expended to November 25, 2000
Dislocated Worker Training
OW Intensive Services (includes Overhead)
Adult Training (includes OAR clients)
Adult Intensive Services (includes Overhead)
Total Expended to Date
Budget for balance Qf yearto June 30, 2001
Administration - Fiscal Management
Monitoring Funds (3% of program funds)
OW Training
OW Intensive Services (includes Overhead)
Adult Training
Adult Intensive Services (includes Overhead)
Total funds remaining to June 30, 2001
Clients served up to November 25,2000 include 147 clients carried
over from JTPA and 52 new clients enrolled after July 1,2000.49
of the new clients are from ConAgra and services for these clients
have been included in the proposed budget for reprogrammed
Hurricane Floyd funds as pre-award costs.
$5,400
$8,651
$114,690
$22,842
$121,998
$273,581
$11,302
$52,714
$1,786
$10,489
$76,291
$5,400
$8,651
$30,000
$43,517
$44,775
$64,947
$197,290
12
Northern PiedmontW orkfo'rce Development Coalition
Business Plan
.-----------------------
OVERVIEW
The business, education and governmental communities see the development of our
workforce, both those entering the workforce and those already employed, as a strategic asset to
our region's marketability and competitiveness. We believe that we can improve the quality of
our workforce by improving training opportunities, coordinating among education and training
providers, and streamlining access to employment opportunities.
To achieve this improvement in our workforce, we have developed the Northern
Piedmont Workforce Development Coalition. The Coalition will serve as the umbrella
organization for regional workforce development initiatives.
Consisting of business
representatives appointed by local governments of the region along with special population
service providers and education officials, the Coalition is created to serve the employment needs
of our business community, expand communications related to workforce development, and
coordinate efforts and take steps to identify and fill gaps in workforce development efforts.
VISION
We, live in a rural area without a sophisticated transportation network among the five
counties of Culpeper, Madison,. Fauquier, Orange and Rappahannock. We seek to provide
reasonable access to core services, intensive services and training in the customer's home
locality. We believe that our residents and potential workforce should not have to leave their
locality to obtain workforce development services.
I
Ourvisionincorpofates serving two customer groups with equal emphasis. We seek to
encourage existing employees to receive more training and education to improve their job status
and standard of living. Our current workforce has a strong work ethic, solid job skills and sound
education foundation. Our vision is to encourage those workers to continue their development
by increasing skills and educational opportunities that specifically meet the needs of our business
community.
We also believe that those on the fringes of the workforce should be encouraged to enter
the workforce through increased access and educational opportunities~ We strongly support
welfare to work programs, programs which remove disabilities barriers, training for senior
workers and other programs which help to bring people into the workforce. . Our vision is that
people throughout our region have access to employment opportunities, skills and education
advancement appropriate. to a successful entire-life employment. We see education, training
opportunities, transportation, and housing as important components of the workforce
development. program.
OBJECTIVES
Regional Approaches:
The Coalition seeks to develop regional.policies and approaches to
improve workforce development.
Coordination of Services: Improved communications among service providers, educators and
the business community is critical to good coordination of services. We see regular meetings,
newsletters, and communications as an important. part oEour workforce development program.
Serve as theOne-Stop Consortium for PD 9: The Coalition will serve as a Board of
Directors providing a forum for the career centers to develop integrated policies and advisory
2
policy development for the activities funded under the Workforce Investment Act Local
Workforce Area VI.
DeveloD a Re2ional Workforce DeveloDment Plan
COALITION MEMBERSHIP
The Coalition will consist of
a) Membership of the Workforce Today! Board from Region 9, including the Virginia
Employment Commission
b) Career Center operators from each county in the region
c) Public School Superintendents
BASIC, OR CORE. SERVICE DELIVERY NETWORK
We believe that a person seeking basic information and basic services about training,
education and employment options should not have to leave. their home jurisdiction to receive
these services. Therefore we see the establishment of career centers in each of the jurisdictions
and the Virginia Employment Commission as important local access points for our customers.
These local access points include:
. Culpeper Career Center,. Culpeper
. TheW orkPlace, Warrenton
. A Career Center, Orange
. Madison Social Services Office, Madison
. Rappahannock County Service Center, Rappahannock County Library, Washington
. Virginia Employment Commission, Culpeper
Basic, or Core, Services offered at the local access points include:
. Outreach to Customers
3
· Basiclntake and Orientation on available services
· Initial Assessment of skill levels, aptitudes and customer needs
· Job Search, placement assistance and career counseling
· Labor Market Information
· Support Services Information
· Preliminary WIA Title I "eligibility:' analysis
· Access to Welfare To Work and education/training financial aid information
· Information on One-Stop program performance and cost data will be available at each local
access point and will be provided by the One-Stop Management Team
INTENSIVE SERVICES AND ASSESSMENTS
The five career centers and the VEC will conduct preliminary interviews/assessments,
serve customers with informational .and referral needs and determine whether training is
appropriate. Preliminary interviews/assessments will consist of a process that brings out basic
information to identifY a customer's training needs and match those needs to labor market needs.
Intensive services and assessments will be provided as seamlessly as possible by case managers.
Case managers, funded by combined revenue sources, will be available in each career center to
broker services for clients. We recognize that locally we will be unable to fully.coordinate
diverse program requirements of entities governing employment services. To the extent
possible, the career centers, working together, will coordinate documentation and procedural
requirement of the diverse programs. The case manager, in collaboration with the career centers,
will be authorized to distribute training vouchers to individuals who need training services as
part of the intensive services.
4
OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT
A Management Team consisting of designees from each of. the social servIces
departments, the Virginia Employment Commission, and a representative appointed by the
Chairperson of the Coalition shall manage the operations of theOne-Stop System. Undyr the
direction of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the Culpeper Department of
Social Services shall be the fiscal agent responsible for processing checks and necessary funds
and develop and administer the budget once approved by the Coalition. Once this initial plan is
approved the effective date will be July 1, 2000. The management team will meet on a regular
basis to insure good communications and coordinate the One-Stop System.
FY 01 BUDGET (includes dislocated worker funds and adult worker funds)
Assessment/Intensive Services
$89,564
Training Vouchers
$85,956
Monitoring
$ 5,767
Bookkeeping and Fiscal Administration
$ 3,600
Carryover funds originally earmarked for specific localities will be forwarded directly to that
locality's one-stop center. Carry over funds not earmarked for a specific loca,litywill be
managed and spent by the Coalition's One Stop Management Team.
FY 01 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND STANDARDS
As requested by the Workforce Investment Act, the following standards are incorporated into
this plan.
80% 80%
Year 1 Level Year 2 Level
72 58 73 58
82 68 83 66
$2,600 $2,080 $2,700 $2,160
60 48 61 49
80%
Year 3 Level
74 59
84 67
Performance Standard
Adult entered. employment
Adult retention rate at 6 mos.
Adult average earnings change
in 6 months
Adult employment and
credential rate
$2,800' $2,240
62 50
5
Dislocated Worker entered
employment rate 77 62 78 62 79 63
DislocatedW orker employment
retention rate at 6 months 90 72 91 73 92 74
Dislocated Worker earnings
replacement rate in 6 months 92 74 93 74 94 75
Dislocated Worker Employment
and Credential rate 60 48 61 49 62 50
Customer. satisfaction
employer 66 53 67 54 68 54
Customer satisfaction
participant 68 54 69 55 70 56
MARKETING
The Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission will develop an annual marketing
plan to reach potential employees and employers for presentation to the Management Team and
the Coalition. A regional brochure will be developed by the Regional Commission and the
Management Team explaining the One-Stop System and identifying the access points for
customers to access basic services. The brochure will be placed throughout the region in
libraries, colleges, social services departments, career centers and other appropriate locations.
Career centers will supplement the marketing and outreach matetiallocally. Each career center
will encourage its customers to use their services through public service announcements and
distribution of the brochure. This. marketing plan may include news articles in Chamber of
Commerce publications and encouraging participation in local job fairs.
TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF EACH LOCAL ACCESS POINT
The Management Team will undertake an inventory of each eareer Service Center to
evaluate technology needs. A plan will be developed to assure that state":of-the-art technology is
available for both customers and staff The Management Team will encourage the development
of a web page for each local access point within the one-stop system.
6
PLAN AMENDMENTS
The business plan may be amended by the One-Stop System Management Team and
amendments will be effective upon approval of the Coalition.
7
SIGNATURE PAGE
WORKFORCE COALITION
BUSINESS PLAN
~ a~CCU\~
Nancy C n
Vice-Chair, orkforce Today!
~..~ \L~L
Peter Mocarski ~
Virginia Employment Commission
~~,i;J;(tL~ Iuc
COnnIe Marchese
The W7r . lace (Fauq~;~ areer Center)
'/ ./
.~
~~~ 11
~ran Smith
Rappahannock County
Nt!~!~
Madison County
8
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Undsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
ScoltsviUe
Charlotte Y. Humphrls
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40 1 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Mr. James L. Bryan, Resident Engineer
Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Bryan:
April 1 0, 2001
On April 4, 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution memorializing the April
5, 2000 decision to cancel the Airport Road Project agreements with both VDOT and the Airport
Authority. I have attached the resolution for your records.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Enclosure
*
Printed on recycled paper
Sincerely,
of~o"~
Laurel A. Bentley, CMC
Senior Deputy Clerk
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sal\y H. Thomas
Samuel MiU..
RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE
CANELLATION OF AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle ("County") and the Virginia Department of
Transportation ("VDOT") entered into an agreement titled "Agreement to Fund and Improve Route
649~(Project 0649-002-158,C501)" ("Airport Road Project") dated November 20, 1997 to provide for
the County to administer the Airport Road Project so that the County could pass-through the project
management to the CharI6ttesville-Albemarle Airport Authority ("Airport Authority"); and
WHEREAS, the County and the Airport Authority entered into an agreement titled
"Agreement for the Development and Administration of Route 649 By the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport Authority" [VDOT (0649-002-158,C501)] dated December 15, 1997 to provide that the
Airport Authority would administer and manage the Airport Road Project on behalf of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Airport Authority later determined that the Airport Road
Projectcould more efficiently be administered and managed by VDOT; and
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors by action at its meeting on April 5, 2000,
cancelled the Airport Road Project agreements with both VDOT and the Airport Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Authority by Resolution on April 12, 2000 agreed to the termination
of its Agreement with the County; and
WHEREAS, VDOT has requested that the County adopt a Resolution to memorialize its
cancellation of the VDOT agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby confirms that on April 5, 2000 it acted to cancel its agreement with VDOT titled
"Agreement to Fund and Improve Route 649 (Project 0649-002-1 58,C50 I)" dated November 20, 1997
and its agreement with the Airport Authority titled "Agreement for the Development and
Administration of Route 649 By the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority" [VDOT (0649-002-
158,C501)] dated December 15, 1997.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is requested that the Airport Road Project proceed as
a VDOT administered project.
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 by vote of 6 to 0, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on April 4, 2001
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nav
---L-
~
---L-
---L-
---L-
---L-
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Memorialize the Cancellation of the VDOT
Agreement for Airport Road Project
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Airport Road (Route 649) Project Agreement
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF. CONT ACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In an attempt to expedite the Airport Road (Route 649) Project in 1997, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
agreed to administer the Project. This required the County to enter into an agreement with VDOT to assume VDOT's
responsibilities and then enter into a pass-through agreement with the Airport Authority to provide. that those
responsibilities would be performed by the Airport Authority on behalf of the County. On November 20, 1997, the
County entered into an Agreement with VDOT that provided that the County would administer the Airport Road
Project. On December 15, 1997, the County entered into an Agreement with the Airport Authority that provided that
the Airport Authority would administer the Project on behalf of the County.
On April 5, 2000, the Board of Supervisors determined, with the concurrence of the Airport Authority, that the
proposed administration of this Project by the Airport Authority was not working as planned and cancelled the
Agreement with VDOT and the Airport Authority. This resulted in the Project going forward as a VDOT managed
Project.
DISCUSSION:
VDOT has now requested that the Board of Supervisors confirm its action of April 5, 2000, by adopting a Resolution
memorializing the cancellation of the November 20, 1997 Agreement with VDOT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution memorializing the April 5, 2000 decision to cancel
the Airport Road Project agreements with both VDOT and the Airport Authority.
01.065
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CHARLES NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22911
March 20,2001
JAMES L. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Route 649- Airport Rd.
Albemarle County
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Tucker:
This letter's purpose is to update the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors on the status of the Route 649 (Airport Road) project, and to seek the
Board's concurrence on several issues.
VDOT entered an agreement with the County on November 20, 1997, that
gave the County the authority to administer all aspects of The Airport Road
project. A subsequent agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Authority, dated December 15, 1997, designated the Airport
Authority to administer this project. However, as pre-construction activities
progressed, the Airport Authority decided to ask VDOT to aSSUme administration
of this project and passed a resolution requesting such on April 12, 2000. VDOT
agrees to assume administration of the project provided that Albemarle County
also concurs; we would like that concurrence in the form of a resolution.
It is our understanding that all parties now agree to have VDOT administer
this project. Specific tasks included in administration are: development planning,
right-of-way and easements acquisition, utilities relocation and construction
contract administration. Once we get the County's resolution, we will amend the
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Robert W. Tucker, Ir.
Page 2
March 20,2001
original County-State agreement and get on with the tasks involved in
administration of this project.
A recap of the important issues involved in this project are as follows:
· VDOT determined that the plans that were developed by the Airport
Authority were incomplete and required significant rework prior to
proceeding with right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation.
· This project is currently ineligible for federal funds, including enhancement
funds, because the Airport Authority did not seek an environmental
document.
· VDOT plans to include the sidewalks and bike paths with this project.
Because this roadway meets the requirements of Section IlI.A of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board's policy on Bicycle Facilities adopted
December 20, 1990, and is functionally classified as a Collector, VDOT may
provide 100% funding for the bicycle lanes. However, in accordance with
existing guidelines, the County will be responsible for 50% of the actual.
construction cost of the sidewalks. (Current estimate for sidewalks is
$112,410; County's estimated cost is $56,205.)
· The scope of the project has changed significantly, and the project estimate
has been updated as follows:
PE = $900,000
RW = $3,252,648
Construction = $4,850,100
Total = $9,002,748
Robert W. Tucker, JI.
Page 3
March 20, 2001
· The current estimates are based on the best information available. The right-
of-way estimate could escalate if the fair market value of the required
property increases. To date $5,470,523 has been allocated and an additional
$3,532,225 is needed based on current estimates. As of January 26,2001
$580,204.16 has been spent on preliminary engineering.
· The current proposed advertisement date for this project is July 2003.
· The project termini will be adjusted to include only the portion of Route 649
from relocated Route 606 to Route 29. The Route 606 relocation project is a
separate project administered by the Airport Authority.
There may be other issues that we need to discuss in the future, but this
addresses the most important aspects of this project. We would like to have the
County resolution requesting VDOT administration of the project as soon as
possible. Please address any concerns or questions to myself at the Charlottesville
Residency Office at (804) 293-0011.
Sincerely,
JLB/smh
April 11, 2001
Mr. Bruce Appleyard
Southern Environmental Law Center
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0565
Dear Mr. Appleyard:
Your recent presentation to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors showing a
conceptual design for the intersection at Route 29 and Hydraulic Road highlights our common
objective of improving transportation throughout the county. It also suggests an opportunity for
professionals with different perspectives to collaborate in trying to solve the problems this
intersection presents.
By;now,I?11l'sure that Bob Tucker, the County Executive, has relayed our desire to
review YOuT;C911cept.;lwould like to invite you to the Charlottesville Residency so that we can
all analyze;andjdisc.UssyourplansjIT'greater detail. I'm hopeful that with our District
A.tlministrator, Don Askew, and key members of his staff, we can achieve a synergy of effort.
Members ofthe County Staff will also attend. I would like to ask you to include your consultant
who created the plan, along with all his drawings and plans. The exact date of our meeting
depends on your schedule; however, I propose a date within the period of April 23 - May 4,
2001.
Thank you in advance for your consideration; I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
James L. Bryan
Resident Engineer
,.Ct--,
hf~;rRIB8J-Eb!o .<;,
,. '.., ..Co ,. '''l..' . ,f.lOA.I>ll:!, i.1! ~19MS. Ef.!S
ON '., ,. " If) Z..O'Z.. Q..."".
~--_.J". . ~"Q.,... J.'~~~..rn_
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA 2000-04, Historic Preservation Plan: Priority
Recommendations
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Proposal to accept the Historic Preservation Committee's
recommendation on priority measures for implementing the
recently adopted Historic Preservation Plan
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACTCSl:
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Maliszewski
REVIEWED BY:
~
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Plan, as presented, on
November 1, 2000. At that time, the Board directed the Historic Preservation Committee to return with a set of priority
measures, based on incentives and voluntary actions, to be pursued to implement the plan.
DISCUSSION:
The Historic Preservation Committee has formulated its priority recommendations. They are included as Attachment A to
this Executive Summary.
The activities associated with the priority recommendations are anticipated to be primarily staff intensive, with some
publication/copy costs and some potential costs associated with the coordination of historic resource information with the
County's GIS and CAMA computer systems. It is anticipated that the expenditures for publication/copy needs would be
accomplished within the existing budget. It is further anticipated that recent re-organization and hiring of additional staff in
the Planning and Community Development Department will free 20% of the Design Planner's time (@ 8 hours/week) for
Historic Preservation activities. During that time, the Design Planner would work with the Committee to address the priority
activities in turn, as presented in the list. The GIS and CAMA related costs are unknown at this time.
Staff recommends that this method of implementing the priority recommendations be pursued for one year and, at the end
of the first year, an evaluation should be made to determine if the existing budget and staff time are allowing for sufficient
completion of Historic Preservation tasks in a timely manner.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the Committee's "Priority
Recommendations for Historic Preservation In Albemarle County (March 1 , 2001)" as the action agenda to be used for the
implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan. It is further recommended that the Board of Supervisors
approve recommendation #1 for implementation. (See Attachment B, a letter from the Historic Preservation Committee to
the Board of Supervisors regarding Committee membership).
01.064
ATTACHMENT A
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS for HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Draft 3/1/01
1. Create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning
the County's historic preservation program.
2. Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base for Albemarle County's
historic resources. This database should include, but is not limited to, the following: Identification
of all historic sites by tax map and parcel number; maintenance of a map of potential prehistoric
archaeological sites, and ready accessibility to all Virginia Department of Historic Resources
historic survey inventory data on Albemarle County resources. This information base should be
consulted so that historic resources may be fully considered in the County's development review
process, and should be made easily available to interested citizens for educational and
informational purposes. This information base should also be coordinated with the County's GIS
system.
3. Institute a program whereby new owners of historic properties are notified of the significance of
their property and are given instructions for obtaining additional preservation-related information
concerning their historic resource.
4. Establ.ish a formal definition of the term "significant historic resource" to be used in the
implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan.
5. In the event that demolition of a significant historic resource must occur, thoroughly document the
resource prior to demolition. Also encourage documentation prior to major adaptive reuse or
renovation whenever possible.
6. Promote and encourage preservation by making available information regarding state and national
register designation procedures, tax incentives, historic and conservation easements, and other
voluntary preservation measures.
7. Foster community pride, good citizenship, and stewardship of the County's historic resources
through heritage education programs, beginning with the creation of educational/informational
brochures on various County historic preservation issues, including state and national register
listing, tax incentives, County policy, etc.
8. The Historic Preservation Committee should work with other organizations to initiate and
implement community events for Albemarle County that recognize our historic resources. These
events should be coordinated with other statewide heritage tourism activities and National
Preservation Week.
9. To help protect the Monticello viewshed, adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in
the planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation and developers of property within the viewshed.
10. Be prepared to take advantage of resources, as they become available, to assist in
implementation of the County's historic preservation plan.
11. Continue to pursue the implementation of financial incentives for historic preservation, including
the establishment of a revolving loan fund and the requisite enabling legislation.
12. Two years after the adoption of these recommendations, evaluate the County's progress on these
preservation priorities, and evaluate the need for a historic overlay district ordinance.
-"
ATTACHMENT B
./
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
March 15,2001
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Membership of the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee
Dear Supervisors:
The Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee would like to inform the Board of Supervisors that the positions of
Jeff Hantmann, Cindy Conte, and Bob Self have become vacant. As you know, the first recommendation in our "Priority
Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County" is the creation of a permanent Historic Preservation
Committee. We have three requests in this regard.
First, the Committee requests that the Board immediately begin advertisement for filling these positions.
Second, the Committee requests that the Board take into consideration the tasks defined by the "Priority Recommendations"
and appoint new members whose expertise matches these tasks. The Committee believes the following areas of expertise
should be represente~:
1. Archaeology
2. Architectural history
3. Database technology
4. Education
5. Heritage tourism
6. Historic preservation
7. Historic property owner
8. Local County history
9. Monticello/Monticello viewshed
10. Preservation architect
11. Preservation craftsman
12. Preservation-related business owner
13. Public relations
Third, the Committee requests that the Board consider Jillian Galle and Ben Ford for membership. These individuals have
been recorn1llended by outgoing members, and pertinent information on their background and experience is enclosed. The
Historic Preservation Committee believes that these individuals are strong candidates for positions on the Committee and
that their background and experience, which together cover areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 12 listed above, will serve the
Committee and the County well.
Thank you for your assistance in filling these positions on the Historic Preservation Committee. We look forward to
continuing our efforts to preserve the unique history of Albemarle County.
;;~m;::i1~
The Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee
ATTACHMENT B t.
JUlian E. Galle
702A Graves Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: 804-977-9089
EmaiI: jgalle@monticello.org
Education
Expected May
2002
1998
1994
1990-1992
Ph.D. Candidate. Anthropology. University of Virginia. Charlottesville.
M.A.. Anthropology. University of Virginia. Charlottesville. ... .
Thesis Title: Designing Women: Social Networks and the Ocp9pationof
Seamstress atthe Hermitage Plantation, Hermitage Tennessee,. .
B.A.. Archaeology. University of Virginia. Charlottesville.
Thesis Title: Haute Couture: Cotton, Class, and Culture Change in the
Protohistoric Southwest.
History and Anthropology. Bates College. Lewiston. Maine.
Completed course requirements for an American History major' May
1992. '
Employment and Research Experience
8 May 2000-
Present
20 Nov. 1999-
20 April 2000
25 May 1998-
19 Nov. 1999
25 May - 25 Aug.
1998 and 1999
25 May- 25 Aug.
1997
Proiect Manager. Digital Archaeological Archive of Chesapeai<e Slavery.
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Monticello, Charlottesvill~,rVA.;
Acting Director of Archaeology. The Hermitage. Home of
Andrew Jackson, Hermitage, TN.
Research Archaeologist. The Hermitage. Home of Andrew Jadkison.
Hermitage, TN. Responsibilities included supervising excava~ibi1s~full
", . ... ... '.'
the job include research, exhibit design, archaeological illustra~~Qn~ ahc.l
collections management. !>,
Archaeology Co-Director and Co-Principal Investigator, Earth~atdh.
Expedition at The Hermitage. Served as the Co-Principal Inve$#gator for
two-week Earthwatch expeditions. Responsibilities included C9prdinating
archaeology volunteer program, teaching volunteers, and writil(1grciports
and press releases for Earthwatch.
Archaeology Co-Director. The Hermitage. Home of Andrew Jackson,
Hermitage, TN. Designed, directed, and supervised the excavationofai
A IT ACHMENT B
g
duplex dwelling for enslaved families. Responsibilities included the full
recording ofthe site, teaching students and volunteers, and public
interpretation.
25 May- 25 Aug.
1996
Archaeological Field Supervisor, The Hermitage, Home of Andrew
Jackson, Hermitage, TN. Supervised the excavation ofa dwelling for
enslaved families. Responsibilities included teaching field techniques and
archaeological research methods to undergraduate and 10wer- level
graduate students.
Jun.-Aug. Assistant Director, Archaeology at Venable Lane: The Foster Homesite,
1995 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Developed curriculum for
an undergraduate college course that included archaeological field
methods and the theoretical issues of race, class, and gender in ninet
visitors, conducting lab work and excavations.
Jan.-May
1995
Long Term Substitute Teacher, M.S.A.D. # 75, Topsham, Maine. Taught
English and American History to upper-level high school students. .
Aug.-Nov.
1994
Archaeological Survey, Aidone, Sicily. Archaeological surveyor on a
University of Virginia project focused on the Greeksite ofMorgantirra.
Jun.-Aug.
1994
Lab Director, Archaeology at Venable Lane: The Foster Homesite,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Responsibilities included
field school that offered children's programs as well as instruGtionatth~
college level.
Sept. 1993-
May 1994
Lab Assistant. Monticello Archaeology Department. Charlottesville,
VA. Responsibilities included artifact processing and researchirigand .
cataloging artifacts in the Monticello Archaeology Study Colledion.
Jun.-Jul.
1993
Intern in Historical Archaeology at The Hermitage, Horne of Andrew,
Jackson, Hermitage, TN.
Jan.-May
1993
Research Intern, Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. Lynchburg! VA. . i
Researched and wrote a resource manual on the design and plallting ..!
practices oflate eighteenth/early nineteenth century kitchen gardens..:
Sept.- Dec.
1992
Lab mtern, Monticello Archaeology Department. Charlottesville, VA.!
Conserved and labeled artifacts; researched and cataloged artifacts int~
June-July
1991
Seventh Annual Monticello-University of Virginia Archaeological Fi~1d
School. Charlottesville, VA. ". .. ..,
Jul.-Aug.
Contract Archaeologist for the Maine Historic Preservation Commissibn,
;1
ATTACHMENT B
4-
1989, 1990
1991, 1993
Augusta, ME.
Fellowships and Awards
2000
Recipient of The Society for Historical Archaeology's Student Paper Prize
Awarded for paper entitled: "Building Tensions: Architecture and Slavery at
The Hermitage."
1995-1998
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. Three year
graduate fellowship for the study of anthropology/archaeology.
1994
University of Virginia's Dean's Award: Outstanding Achievelllentin
Archaeological Studies.
1994
Graduated with Highest Distinction from The University of Virginia.
Publications
Books
Young, Amy L. and Jillian E. Galle, editors
in prep. Engendering African-American Archaeology. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, TN.
Published Papers
McKee, Larry and Jillian E. Galle
2000 Scientific Creativity and Creative Science: Looking at the Future of
Archaeological Storytelling. In Historical Archaeology, 34(2): 14-16.
Galle, Jillian E.
1999 Haute Couture: Cotton, Class, and Culture Change in the Protohistoric SQuthwest.
In Beyond Gender Theory in Archaeology: From the Ground Up, Proceedi-flgsof
the 5th Annual Gender and Archaeology Conference, edited by NancyL.Wi~t<:er
and Bettina Arnold, pp. 125-131. Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports;
International Series), Oxford.
in prep. Designing Women: Social Networks and the Occupation of Seamstress a.t Th~
Hermitage Plantation, Hermitage Tennessee. In Engendering African-American
Archaeology, edited by Amy L. Young and Jillian E. Galle. University of.
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
ATTACHMENT B".
Book Reviews
Galle, Jillian E.
2001 Constructing Townscapes: Space and Society in Antebellum Tennessee. Lisa
Tolbert. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1999. Reviewed for
Vernacular Architecture Newsletter, 86(1): 23-25.
2000 Learningfrom Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies. W. David
Kingery, editor. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1998. Reviewed
for Historical Archaeology, 34(2): 120-121.
Presentations
2000
2000
1999
1998
1998
1997
"The 1999 Excavation Season at the First Hermitage Site, The
Hermitage." Paper presented at the Current Research in Tennessee
Archaeology Meeting, January 21-22,2000, Nashville, TN.
"Building Tensions: Architecture and Slavery at The Hermita,ge."
Presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Confertj'lJ'4e,
January 8, 2000, Quebec City, Canada. Recipient of The Society foti
Historical Archaeology's Student Paper Prize. .
Recent Excavations at the First Hermitage, Davidson County, TelIDM$see"
by Jillian Galle and Larry McKee. Paper presented at the Current
Research in Tennessee Archaeology Meeting, January 22-23,1999,
Nashville, TN.
The Fabric of the Southwest: Cotton Cultivation and Gender InteraG#<i>ns
in the Protohistoric Southwest." Presented at The Fifth AnnualConfetence
on Gender and Archaeology, October 10-12 1998, Milwaukee,WI.!
"Designing Women: Social Networks and the Occupation ofSeamstr~ss at
The Hermitage Plantation, Hermitage Tennessee." Invited pa~icipa~t'.in
the symposium titled: Engendering African-American Archay()logy;:
Presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Confer~npe,
January 8, 1998, Atlanta, GA.
"Current Archaeological Research at The Hermitage Plantation, Hefl1litage
Tennessee." Invited lecturer. Hereford College, University ofVirginia,~
April 21, 1997.
ATTACHMENT B
o
1996
"Each a Mighty Voice" panelist, Albemarle County Historical Society
Charlottesville, VA.
1995
"Haute Couture: Cotton, Class, and Culture Change in the Protohistoric
Southwest." Presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual
Conference, May 1995, Minneapolis, MN.
1995
"An Archaeological Analysis of Gentrification: Turn of the Century
Charlottesville, Virginia." by Benjamin Ford, Jillian Galle, and M. Drake
Patten. Presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Annual
Conference, January 4-8, 1995, Washington D.C.
Professional Memberships
Society for Historical Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology, The Vernacular
Architecture Forum.
Research Specialties
Historical archaeology, African-American culture, seventeenth-, eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century American material culture and architecture, public archaeology, and gender I
theory and the archaeology of gender. Interests also include the rise of social and political
complexity, craft production, cultural contact, and cotton growth and textile use in the Amedca:t;l
Southwest during the Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1450-1700).
References
Dr. Fraser Neiman, Department of Archaeology, Monticello, Box 316, Charlottesville, VA..
22902,804-984-9812.
Dr. Adria LaViolette, Department of Anthropology, Brooks Hall, The University ofVirgima,
Charlottesville, VA 22903, 804-982-2631.
Dr. Larry McKee (former Director of Archaeology, The Hermitage), TRC Garrow and
Associates, 1865 Air Lane Drive, Suite 9, Nashville, TN 37210-3814,615-884-4430.
Dr. Stephen Plog, Department of Anthropology, Brooks Hall, The University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA 22903, 804-924-9044.
.[1
ATTACHMENT 87
----------------------~--,
BENJAMIN P. FORD, PhD., RPA
Principal Investigator, Rivanna Archaeological Consulting
EDUCATION
University of Virginia, Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology, 1998
Charlottesville, VA
University of Virginia, Masters of Arts in Anthropology, 1997
Charlottesville, VA
Connecticut College, Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, 1984
New London, CT
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
Society for American Archaeology (SAA)
Register of Professional Archaeologist (RP A)
Archaeological Society of Virginia (ASV)
Preservation Piedmont
1991 to Present
1991 to Present
1998 to Present
1999 to Present
2000 to Present
ADVISORY POSITIONS
Historical Resources Task Force, City of Charlottesville.
Preservation Piedmont, Board Member
1998 - Present
2001 - Present
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL
Rivanna Archaeological Consulting, Charlottesville, VA PrincipalInvestigator
Rivanna Archaeology provides historical and archaeological consulting services for clients including archaeological
identification, assessment, evaluation and mitigation work. All archaeological work complies with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and all relevant federal and state regulations. Current and previous clients
include the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
the University of Virginia.
VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE
Museum and Archaeological Regional Storage Facility, Lanham, MD 1985 - 1989
Volunteered weekends with the National Park Service Regional Archaeological Program. Activities included
excavation of regional sites, washing, labeling and cataloging of artifacts at the Regional Storage Facility in
Lanham, Maryland.
609 E. Market Street, Suite 110, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Ph: (804) 220-3108, Fax: (804) 979-3645, Email: rivanna.arch@mindspring.com
v
ATTACHMENT B '8
BENJAMIN P. FORD, PhD., RPA
Principal Investigator, Rivanna Archaeological Consulting
PUBLICATIONS
1994 The Health and Sanitation of Post bellum Harpers Ferry. Historical Archaeology,
Vol. 28, No.4, pp: 49-61.
1993 Health and Sanitation In Nineteenth-Century Harpers Ferry. In Interdisciplinary
Investigations of Domestic Life in Government Block B: Perspectives on Harpers Ferry's
Armory and Commercial District, Paul A. ShackeI, ed. Occasional Report No.6.
Regional Archaeology Program, National Capital Region, National Park Service.
Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior.
UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS
1998 A Profitable and Creditable Establishment: Industrial Textile Manufacturing and
Capitalist Relations of Production in the Antebellum Central Virginia Piedmont.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology Department, University of Virginia.
609 E. Market Street, Suite 110, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Ph: (804) 220-3108, Fax: (804) 979-3645, Email: rivanna.arch@mindspring.com
REPORTS AUTHORED
1999 Phase II Archaeological Evaluations of Six Historic Colliers Pits for the proposed EDA
Land Exchange. United States Forest Service, George Washington & Jefferson National
Forests, James River Ranger District, Alleghany County, Virginia. Report on file with
the Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. DHR File No. 99-1728.
1999 Archaeological Investigations at the Riggory, Albemarle County, Virginia. Report on file with
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development.
1999 Archaeological Investigations at the North Rotunda Terrace, University of Virginia, Charlottesvtlle, VA.
Report on file with the Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. DHR File No. 98-0647-P.
1998 Archaeological Excavations on Historic East Street, East Range, Central Grounds.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Manuscript on file with the Office of the Architect,
University of Virginia.
1998 Patten, M. Drake, and . Archaeological Research at Pavilion VII Yard and
Poe Alley, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. DHR File No. 98-0404-P.
..
BENJAMIN P. FORD, PhD., RP A
Principal Investigator, Rivanna Archaeological Consulting
PROFESSIONAL PAPERS
ATTACHMENT B 'I
1998 Landscapes of Consumption: Railroads and the Production of Shadwell Mills. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Philadelphia, P A. December 2 - 6,
1998.
1996 Producing Historical Landscapes: The Creation of Late Nineteenth Century Shadwell
Mills. Paper submitted to the Albemarle County Historical Society in consideration of
the 1996 Mary Rawlings prize.
1995a Antebellum Industrialization at Shadwell Mills: Producing an Agrarian Past. Paper
presented at symposium: After the Backcountry: Rural Life and Society in the Nineteenth
Century Valley of Virginia. Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia, March
23-25, 1995.
1995b Productive Landscapes: Social Change and Transformation in Antebellum Virginia.
Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting in Washington,
DC., January 4-8, 1995.
1995c An Archaeological Analysis of Gentrification: Turn of the Century Charlottesville,
Virginia. Coauthored paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual
meeting in Washington, DC., January 4-8, 1995.
1994a Engaging Landscapes: Tradition and Change in Antebellum Virginia. Paper presented
atthe Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology annual meeting in Williamsburg,
Virginia, October 21-23, 1994.
1994b An Archaeology of Gentrification: Transformations of Communities and Landscapes in
Turn of the Century Charlottesville. Coauthored paper presented at the Council for
Northeast Historical Archaeology annual meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia, October
21-23, 1994.
1994c The Appropriation of Jefferson: Material Culture and the Construction of an Industrial
Past. Paper presented at the University of Virginia Graduate History Conference:
'Telling About the South: Construction, Deconstruction, and Reconstruction of the
SouthemPast.' Charlottesville, Virginia, March 19-20,1994.
1991a Urban Archaeology and Community Outreach. Coauthored paper presented at the
Society for Applied Anthropology annual meeting in Charleston, South Carolina,
March 13-17,1991.
1991b Health Reform in Late Nineteenth Century Harpers Ferry. Paper presented at the Society
Archaeology annual meeting in Richmond, Virginia, January 1991.
609 E. Market Street, Suite 110, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Ph: (804) 220-3108, Fax: (804) 979-3645, Email: rivanna.arch@mindspring.com
ATTACHMENT B 10
RIVANNA ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Statement of Qualifications
Rivanna Archaeology is a consulting ftnn located in Charlottesville, Virginia that offers professional historical and
archaeological research and cultural resource management services. Since 1998, Rivanna Archaeology has served
greater Virginia and participated in a number of projects throughout the United States. Current and previous clients
include the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the
University of Virginia, and private property owners.
Rivanna Archaeology stafffully meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards.. All
archaeological work performed by Rivanna Archaeology complies with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Preservation.
Rivanna Archaeology staff have undertaken several archaeological investigations within and outside of central
Virginia. These projects have involved both research agenda and mitigation work and include investigations in
Albemarle County, Alleghany County, Louisa County, Prince William County and historic Central Grounds atthl::
University of Virginia.
Selected Project Experience
Louisa County Mining and Early Industry Survey, Louisa County, Virginia.
An archaeological survey is presently being conducted by Rivanna Archaeology to locate and identify i
approximately 25 nineteenth and twentieth century mining and early industry sites around Mineral, Vitginia. Louisa
County is proposing to interpret several known historic sites and link them with an abandoned railroad ib~dthat will
be used as a recreational, pedestrian, and bicycle path. Preliminary historical research was conducted ililocal
repositories and inthe Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. All visible features have been identifiedan.~eadh
site was photographically recorded. Several sites have been chosen for detailed mapping. The final report win i
summarize the fmdings and rec;ommend the archaeological, interpretive and educational potential of eaph site.
Mayfield Historic Site, Manassas Museum System, Manassas, Virginia
Rivanna Archaeology is presently conducting archaeological mitigation work at Mayfteld, a Civil War ~arthen
fortification and mid-eighteenth and nineteenth century domestic site. Work will include the excavatioriqfapartQf
the fort and shovel testing of pedestrian paths prior to development as a park. Archaeological testing w~ll:also~qcate
a 30 x 40 foot stone. foundation of a domestic residence on site. A synthesis of previous archaeological
investigations and artifacts recovered at Mayfteld will coincide with a fmal report summarizing the project's
archaeological fmdings and educational potential.
Malvern Hill Unit, Richmond National Battlefield, Henrico County, Virginia. Cultural Landscape Rep(pr~
Rivanna Archaeology is presently conducting landscape history research on the Malvern Hill and Glendalepriits of
the Richmond National Battlefield. This research encompasses the site's early settlement and Civil Wat~istOliY
through to its present day occupation and will augment existing documentation and inform the directi0~0.t:future
planning and management processes.
EDA Land Exchange, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, Alleghany County, Virginia...! :
Rivanna Archaeology conducted Phase II archaeological evaluation on six colliers pits in Alleghany COJm:t}', .
Virginia. Evaluation concluded that while the colliers pits were signiftcantly important to the history otjthe re~ion
and state tojustify systematic recordation, the relatively extensive amount of archaeological recording. ab. d.. ~a. t:,1.
!
gathered suggested that continued analysis and preservation of the six sites would not likely yield a gre~te.t; .. .
understanding of these historic resources. ;
609 E. Market Street, Suite 110, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Ph: 804-220-3108 Fax: 804-979-3645 Email: rivanna.arch@mindspring.com
ATTACHMENT B
/I
RIVANNA ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Shenandoah ValleySattlefields National Historic District, Policy and Implementation Plan
Rivanna Archaeology contributed research and writing on the pre-European settlement landscape of the lower
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. The [mal product will be a contribution to a larger historic landscape document
prepared for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District.
The Riggory, Albemarle County, Virginia.
Rivanna Archaeologyconducted archaeological mitigation work on the Riggory, a mid-eighteenth century property
located within the. Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, a National Register Historic District. Property
owners wanted to tear down two aging early twentieth century farm outbuildings in order to construct a new garage.
Easement restrictions required that subsurface investigations be conducted prior to construction of the new garage.
Nicodemus National Historic Site, Nicodemus, Kansas. Cultural Landscape Report.
Rivanna Archaeology is presently conducting historical research on the landscape history of Nicodemus, an African
American town in northwest Kansas founded in 1877. A chapter on the site's physical history will be' cop.tributed to
a final Cultural Landscape Report. Work will also include contributions towards the development of historic period
plan maps which describe the physical evolution of the site, and providing direction for oral interviews to.be
conducted with former town residents.
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, Republic, Missouri, Cultural Landscape Report.
Rivanna Archaeology is presently conducting historical research on the landscape history ofWilson'sCreek
National Battlefield, a 1,750 acre National Park Service property where the largest Civil War battle west pfthe
Mississippi was fought. A chapter on the site physical history will be contributed to a final Cultural Land~9ape
Report. Work will also include 'Pontributions towards the development of historic period plan maps which despribe
the physical evolution of the site, and a summary of previous archaeological work conducted at the b<ittlefield.
Hampton National Historic Site,. Towson, Maryland. Site Physical History and Contextual Documentatiof,l<
Rivanna Archaeology is presently researching and writing a volume documenting the physical, social and.con*xt1la~
history of the landscape for the Farm property at Hampton National Historic Site. Hampton is currently a'Nati~)llaI.'
Park Service property that was occupied by the Ridgely family since the mid-eighteenth century as anagr~w~tUra~,
industrial and commercial estate. The document will provide background information to formally evaluat~ ,the!
significance and integrity of the landscape according to National Register Criteria and to develop a treatn1~nt plan
for the long-term management of the historic landscape.
609 E. Market Street, Suite 110, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Ph: 804-220-3108 Fax: 804-979-3645 Email: rivanna.arch@mindspring.com
.-~
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
4th day of April 2001, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork de-
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 28, 2001, fully incorporated
herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE;, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in the University of Virginia
Research Park at North Fork as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
February 28, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE ITFURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Charles S. Martin
Yeas:
Nays:
Thomas, Bowerman, Humphris, Dorrier, Martin, Perkins
None
A Copy Teste:
fJ
[(j' /
Ella . Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Superviso
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1} Lewis & Clark Drive from the intersection of Route 29 (Station 0+28 meters) to the
intersection of Quail Run Road, Route 1666, (Station 1+666.42 meters) as shown
on plat recorded 11/24/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1875, pages 642-650, with a 30 meter (98.4) foot right-of-way
width. for a length of 1.02 mile.
Total Mileage -1.02 mile.
ADDITIONS FORM SR-5(A PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
Attachment to (check one only) . Board of Supervisors Resolution o Surety Instrument Dated 23 Apr 2001
Attachment -L- of -L-
Name of Subdivision: Universit inia Research Park at North Fork Albemarle Count
(2/1/93)
~IIIIT
SECONDARY ROADS DIV.
Form S~!5(A)
Addition Length
Centerline Miles
-
1.02
-
-
-
-
-
1.02
Ref Name of Street Street Addition Termini R-Q-W Miscellaneous Notes
No. Width(ft.)
- -
1 From: Intersection of Rt.29 (station 0+28 meters)
To: intersection of Quail Run Road Rt. 1666 (station 1+666.42 :30 m) 98.4 ft.
meters)
Lewis &; Clark Dr! ve
Plat Recorded Date:11-24-99 Deed Book: 1875 Pages:642-650
-
2 From:
'1'0:
Plat Recorded Date; Deed Book; Pages:
-
3 From:
To:
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: page:
-
4 From:
To:
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: page:
-
5 From:
To:
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: page:
-
Total Mileage
Notes Guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage.
-
CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT
-
This attachment is certified as a part of the document indicated above:
'\
(Name and Title)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY01 Budget Amendments
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECTlPROPOSAUREQUEST:
Request a Public Hearing on Proposed FY01 Budget
Amendments in the amount of $2,544,096.43, and
Approval of Appropriation #20047, 20054, 20055,
20056,20057,20059,20060,20061 and 20062 for
various school and local government programs and
grants.
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia 915.2-2507 stipulates that the County must hold a public hearing to amend its current FY01
budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed 1 % of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the
lesser. The Code section applied to all funds, Le., Capital, E-911, School Self-sustaining, etc., not just the
County's adopted operating budget. .
DISCUSSION:
This proposed FY01 Budget Amendment totals $2,544,096.43. The chart below breaks out the estimated
revenues and expenditures for the amendment in both the General and School Funds.
ESTIMATED REVENUE
General Fund/Other Funds
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenue
General Fund-Fund Balance
Other Funds-Fund Balances
General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue
$ 43,253.75
45,250.25
137,402.68
20,835.55
202.859.52
$ 449,601.75
Education Funds
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Fund Balances
Education Funds Estimated Revenue
$ 392,401.06
496,462.47
610.584.02
$1,499,447.55
,
Emergency Communications Center Fund
State Revenues
Fund Balance
ECC Estimated Revenue
$ 130,000.00
465.047.13
$ 595,047.13
$2.544.096.43
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE
AGENDA TITLE:
FY01 Budget Amendments
April 4, 2001
Page 2
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Judicial
Public Safety
Engineering/Public Works
Community Development
$ 25,408.30
242,740.63
25,180.00
156.272.82
$ 449,601.75
$1,499,447.55
$ 595,047.13
$2.544.096.43
General Operating Expenditures
Education Operating Fund
Emergency Comm. Ctr. Operating Fund
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
This budget amendment includes 17 appropriations totaling $591,766.22, which have already been approved by
the Board at various meetings since December 1, 2000. These appropriations and the dates of approval are
shown on Attachment A.
Eight appropriations, totaling $1,952,330.21, are also included in the budget amendment and will need approval
subsequent to the public hearing. The pending appropriations are:
Approp #
20047
20054
20055
20056
20057
20059
20060
20061
20062
Fund
ECC
Education
Education
Education
Education
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Purpose of Appropriation Appropriation Total
Phone system and consultant for radio sys. $ 595,047.13
Various School Programs 544,015.94
Various School Programs 117,315.39
Various School Programs 126,041.54
Various School Programs 256,543.76
Reapprop. Of Section 8 Housing Grant 156,272.82
Reapprop. Of Public Safety Grants 27,817.16
Federal and State Drug Seized Assets 124,126.47
Fire/Rescue Advertising Grant 5.150.00
$ 1.952.330.21
A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board set a public hearing on April 25, 2001 to amend the FY01 Budget in the amount of
$2,544,096.43 and to approve the eight pending appropriations subsequent to the public hearing as detailed on
the. attached appropriation forms.
01.067
Attachment A
Appropriations Previous Approved
o
;.' .:. _.X.
/:";'7,:..~"""' 'i.:. <'G.~rJ,.......;.'..'/...:.. .31 Xi
.:.;"o'-'v::. ..::.>'>X >::.
:.:.,c. ;.::.":.:/:
....
20030 Education Various Contributions and Grants $ 7,84~};00 12/06/00
Funding for analysis of criminal history record
20031 Gra.nt information system $ 16,000.00 11/08/00
20033 General Suoolemental fundinQ for Sheriff PT WaQes $ 20,000.00 10/08/00
Funding for 2000 Local Law Enforcement Grant
20034 Grant $ 32,757.00 12/06/00
20035 General FundinQ for Jail Construction Insoector $ 25,180.00 01/03/01
Insurance recovery for damage to Sheriff's
20036 General vehicle $ 835.55 12/06/00
Funding for SPCA from DMV Animal Friendly
20037 General License Plates $ 990.00 12/06/00
20039 Grant Fire/Rescue Grant $ 7,900.00 01/03/01
20041 Grant DMV Grant $ 6,700.00 02/21/01
20042 Grant DMV Grant $ 7,800.00 01/03/01
,r\
201.-,.:5 General Town of Scottsville Police Expense for 7/2000 $ 4,572.75 01/10/01
20044 Education Contributions and SOL Award $194,676.92 01/10/01
20045 Education Contributions. and Grants $ 62,955.00 01/10/01
20050 Grant FundinQ for Holiday Traffic Safety Grant $ 1,500.00 03/07/01
20051 Grant Fundina for Criminal History Records Grant $ 12,000.00 03/07/01
Purchase of Football Equip and English as 2nd
20052. Education lanquaae class $ 3,000.00 03/07/01
20053 Education Various School Proqrams $187,050.00 03/07/01
TOTAL $591,766.22
(\
Attachment B
Pending Appropriations
(~\I
'\ j
$595.047.13~
APPROPRIATION #20047
Background:
In 1995 the City pf Charlottesville, University of Virginia and Albemarle County through the Emergency
Communications Center (ECC) Management Board, decided to built a new Communications Genterfacility.
Several components of that project was the purchase of a newernergency 911 telephone system, a
community notification system (sometimes called Reverse 911), audio visuakequipmentforthe employee
training rooms, and furnishings for the communications center. In addition, the ECC Management Board
approved the hiring of RCC Consultants to assist with the aoo MHz Radio System Project, and Harris
Microwave Consultants to provide microwave path studies concerning this radio project.
Discussion:
A competitive negotiation process (RFP) was initiated in December of 2000 and two telephone system
providers responded to the process. After careful review the project was awarded to Sprint at a system cost
of $409,259.63 which included a one (1) year warranty and a four (4) year maintenance agreement. This
system will interface with the new Computer Aided Dispatch System and is compliant with the new Phase I
and Phase II wireless requirements. These requirements allow the ECGto receive Wireless caller information
such as the phone number and the street address and specific sector of the cell site.
Harris Microwave Consultants conducted an extensive microwave path study for the 800 MHz Radio Project
at a cost of $28,000.00.
In March of 2001 the ECC initiated a competitive negotiation process (RFP) for consulting services for the
800 MHz radio project. Three consulting firms responded to the RFP and after careful review the contract wan
awarded to RCC Consultants of Richmond Virginia. The ECC Management Board has approved $117,287.50~
to cover these professional services.
The new Emergency Communications Center has two training classrooms to assist with the training of staff.
The ECG Management Board approved $4,500 for the purchase of audio visual equipment for the two
classrooms.
The ECC Management Board approved $20,000 for the purchase of new 24 hour chairs and other furnishings
for the new Emergency Communications Center.
The City of Charlottesville presently operates an emergency community notification.systemcalled "city watch"
which allows them to send pre-recorded messages to it's citizens when needed. The ECC has agreed to take
over this system and expand it's use to the citizens of Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. The
ECC Management Board has approved $16,000 to upgrade and relocate this emergency notification system
to the new ECG facility where staff will be trained to operate the equipment.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation totaling $595,047.13 as detailed
on Appropriation #20047.
APPROPRIATION #20054
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School - Donation
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received donations from the ParenUTeacher Organization of Meriwether
Lewis School in the amount of $1 ,070.00. These donations will help to fund projects that were partly funded
by the Shannon Foundation Grant and the Virginia Commission for the Arts in Residency Grant.
$544.015.94~
',,-j
Monticello.High School-Donation
Monticello High School received a donation in the arnountof$279.00 from Donna and Michael Klepper. This
~donation is to be used for the gifted program at the school.
Miscellaneous Grants
The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education Grant fund was not fully expended in the 1999-00
fiscal year. The grant has a fund balance of $4,694.82. These funds need to be re-appropriated in the2001 ~01
fiscaL year.
Henley Middle School received a grant award from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of
$6,500.00 and a matching donation from Douglas and Sarah DuPont in the amount of $1,000.00. These funds
will support Henley'S Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists in.residences: Sculptor,Storyteller,
and Educational Drama. The project will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience
for students with performing, visual, and musical arts.
The Albemarle County Regional Program, Part C Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
received a grant in the amount of $20,000.00. This is a federally funded program designed to locate all eligible
migrant students residing in its district (the regional district includes Albemarle, Augusta, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, Orange, Madison, Culpeper County, Waynesboro and Charlottesville City) toevaluatetheir individual
educational needs, and offer services to meet those needs. All students are enrolled in school or, if of legal
age to drop out or of pre-school age, are offered alternative educational services. The program provides extra
in-school instruction, guidance, home-school coordination and coordination with and utilization of all available
community resources. It also provides after school and evening tutoring sessions in migrant camps and
learning activities in the summer. The program supports part-time teaching. and administrative staff positions
which serve approximately 240 students.
Individualized Student Alternative Education Program
~The Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) will implement an . Individualized Student Alternative Education
Program (ISAEP) according to Virginia Department of Education requirements. This program will provide
counseling, academic, and occupational services to address a growing population of students at risk of
dropping out of school, not meeting. attendance requirements, and/or academically not meeting the
requirements for a standard high school diploma. This program will supplement existing GED services by
developing specialized services to address this target population. The ISAEP will provide GED, career
guidance, employability skills, and occupational training and employment necessary for students to become
productive and contributing citizens. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center (CA TEC) will
administer the .ISAEP program.
Adult Basic Education
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the
clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes.
Revenues in the amount of $600.00 from Virginia Literacy Foundation, $2,500.00 from Saudi Arabian Cultural
Mission, $3,417.60 from Farmington Country Club, and $4,187.90 from students in tuition fees for English as
a Second Language class have been received.
AIMR Rental
Since July, the School Board has committed to expanding a portion of its reserve funds to support various
projects. Current Board reserves total $139,187.00, prior to appropriation of funds for committed projects. The
School Board's reserve could increase following action on the AIMR Rental Re-appropriation agenda item. The
School Board approved one-time expenses of $63,176.00 related to the Cale redistricting and one-time
expenses of $10,000.00 for a part-time staff member to assist with disciplinary hearing.
{\At the October 12, 2000 School Board Meeting, staff was directed to bring back an agenda item re-
. appropriating $285,000.00 in excess funds from the Association for Investment Management and Research
(AIMR) rental. The Superintendent proposed that revenues from this fund be allocated as follows: $30,000.00
to Monticello High School for School. Improvement related projects; $7,500 to Albemarle High School for School
Improvement related projects; $1,000 to Murray High School for School Improvement related projects;
$15,000.00 to Building Services and $15,000.00 to School Technology for one-time capital purchases that
cannot be. supported within the normal operating budget; $1,000.00 for the Northern Elementary School
redistricting process to address printing and mailing costs; $9,000.00 for additional teacher recruitment
initiatives; and $7,500.00 for upgrade of instructional software for the Return II Program. (~)
~/
APPROPRIATION #20055
$117.315.39
Crozet Elementary Schaal- .Danatian
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Crozet School PTO. This
donation will be used to help pay for the Literacy Coordinator.
Stane Robinsan Elementary Schaal - Danatian
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation from Gary Taylor in the amount of $250.00. This
donation will be. used to help pay the cost of the Volunteer Coordinator for the school.
Western Albemarle High Schaal - Danatian
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation.in the amount
of $1,000.00. This is to match a donation made by Sarah and Douglas DuPont. This donation will be used to
defray the cost of a speaker for a school-wide assembly.
Scattsville Elementary Schaal - Grant
The Patricia M. Kluge Foundation made a grant award to Scottsville Elementary School in the amount of
$10,000.90. These funds will be used for the continuation of the Volunteer/Book Buddies Program.
Henley Middle. School - Danatian .0
Henley Middle School received a donation from the.Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $1 ,000.00. .....
These funds will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists in residences: Sculptor,
Storyteller, and Educational Drama Consultant. The project will involve .interactive activities to include hands
on learning experiences for students with performing, visual, and musical arts.
Va. Department of Education - Office .of the Virginia Business-Educatian Partnership - Grant
Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Virginia Department of Education, Office of
-the Virginia Business-Education Partnerships in the amount of $80,570.31. The partnership will provide
academic tutoring and mentoring to provide targeted students with adequate academic skills and career
planning knowledge to graduate from high school and become productive citizens. Career planning activities
include field trips, job shadowing experiences and an entrepreneurial project. The CareerNocational
coordinator will coordinate this program.
Jeffersan Regian Destinatian Imaginatian
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (01) is responsible for providing a regional level 01 competition
for county students and surrounding school districts. Our regional tournament will be on March 31, 2001 at
Western Albemarle High School. About 70 teams of students participate annually. About 25 of these teams
will be. from Albemarle County. Team registration fees, T-shirt sales, and contributions from corporate sponsors
will help to cover the expenses. In addition, the. Jefferson Region 01 has a fund balance of $1,230.08.
Jefferson Region DI requests that Albemarle County continue as fiscal agent for our region.
Virginia Cammissian far the Arts Grant Awards
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to four Albemarle County Public Schools.
Teacher Incentive Art Grants were made to Murray Elementary in the amount of $900.00, Stony Point~
Elementary in the amount of $5,400.00, Woodbrook Elementary in the amount of $2,980.00, and Jack Jouet~)
Middle in the .amount of $300.00. In addition to the Teacher Incentive grants, Jack Jouett was awarded a
Touring Assistance Grant in the amount of $1,485.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to
include hands on learning experience for students with performing, visual, and musical arts.
~PROPRIATION #20056
$126.041.54
Monticello High School - Donation
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $150.00 from John and Kristine Bean and a
donation in th~ amount of $2,682.50 from the Monticello High School Athletic Boosters Club. The $150.00
donationwill be us~dfor the gifted program at the. school. The $2,682.50 donation wiUbe used to pay for a
Radar Gun that was purchased for use by the baseball team and half of a sound system that was purchased
for the school.
Murray Elementary School - Donation
Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $300.00, and a donation from
the Target School Fund-Raising in the amount of $10.07. The $300.00 donation is to be used to help finance
the Virginia Marine Science Museum "Ocean in Motion" program scheduled for April 4, 2001 at the school.
Target has designated favorite schools to receive donations equal to 1 % of purchases made when shopping
atTarget or on-line. Throughthe School Fund Raising Program, Target has donated more than $27.million
to eligible K-12 schools across the country. The $10.07 donation will be used to purchase educational materials
for the school. .
Western Albemarle High School - Donation
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from Sarah & Douglas DuPont in theamountof $2,000.00
and an anonymous donation in the amount of $2,000.00. The donation from Sarah & Douglas Dupont will be
used to defray the cost ofa speaker for a school-wide assembly. The anonymous donation will be used to pay
for new weight room equipment.
~Adult Education Program
!The AdultEducation Program, which provides educational opportunities to adults and helps them in preparing
for the General Equivalency Diploma exam has received revenue in the amount of $682.50 from book sales
to their students. There is also a fund balance from FY99-00 in the amount of $3,557.94. These funds will help
to cover instructional materials.
Project Return II Grant
The Project Return II Grant has a fund balance of $4,291.23 from FY99-00. It is requested thatthe fund
balance be re-appropriated for FYOO-01 to cover teacher salaries.
Goals 2000 Grant
The Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Goals 2000: Educate America Grant
in the amount of $48,179.72. This grant award was not fully expended in FY99-00. There is also a fund
balance of $1,512.57. It is requ~sted that the grant balance of $48,179.72 and the fund balance of $1 ,512.57
be re-appropriated for use in FYOO-01.
Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded two grant awards under funding for the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act. One grant was in the amount of $981.05 and will be used to support staff
developmentltrainingactivities for instructional personnel in the integration of technology in all curricular areas.
The second grant was in the amount of$47, 123.46 and will be used to purchase classroom computers and
related technologies to. help upgrade elementary schools as they are most directly impacted .by the new
requirements of state hardware funding.
Tree Planting for Virginia's Communities Grant
~ The Virginia Department of Forestry has made a Tree Planting for Virginia's Communities Grant award to
., 'Srownsville Elementary School in the amount of $2,969.50. This grant will fund the creation of a native Virginia
arboretum on the Brownsville School grounds. Students, teachers and parentswill participate in planting 30
additional native species trees. They will develop an inventory of new and existing trees and publication of an
instructional brochure and arboretum map. The instructional brochure will give students easy access to
scientific and historical information about trees native to the Commonwealth.
\
Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation Grant
The Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Charlottesville~Albemarle Community
Foundation in the Amount of $3,500.00 in FY99-00 and donations in the amount of $4,905.00. (~
These funds were not expended in FY99-00. It is requested that the fund balance in the total of $8,405.00 b~~j
re-appropriated for use in.FYOO-01.
Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to three Albemarle County Public Schools.
Teacher Incentive Art Grant Awards were made to Wood brook Elementary in the amount of $300.00,
Hollymead Elementary in the amount of $296.00, and to Sutherland Middle in the amount of $600.00. These
grants will fund programs that will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for the
students with performing, visual and musical arts.
APPROPRIATION #20057
$256.543.76
Murray Elementary School - Donation "
Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $250. This donation will assist
in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff.
Western Albemarle High School - Donation
Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Bessemer Trust
Company. This donation will be used to pay for new weight room equipment.
Reappropriation of School Carry-Over and Building Rental Funds
Re-appropriation of $223,773~30 of school carryover and $27,520.46 of building rental funds. Policy DB-r,
allows schools to carry forward up to 10% of their operational budgets from year to year. Policy KG-R return~J
40% of the base fees collected for building rental to be returned to each school.
APPROPRIATION #20059
$.156.272.82
The Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program operates on the federal October 1
through September 30 fiscal year.
The County of Albemarle.'s financial audit has been completed. A $156,272.82 carryover fund balance
remains that should be appropriated for current year operations.
APPROPRIATION #20060
$27.817.16
Several Department of Criminal Justice Services and Department of Justice Law Enforcement Block
Grants are on-going. The following grants have fund balances that should be appropriated to fund current
year operations. The audit has been completed.
Grant: Increasing Crime Prevention
Grant: Criminal Records Systems
Grant: Public Safety
Grant: Traffic Safety
Grant: 99 Law Enforcement Block Grant
Total
$ 429.94
628.08
797.00
1,269.83
24.692.31
$ 27,817.16
APPROPRIATION #20061 $124.126.47
f
Periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement
actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities.
This appropriation requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for federal and state drug seized
assets for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 and fund balance from prior years.
APPROPRIATION #20062
$5.150.00
The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant to
provide advertising funds to recruit and retain fire and rescue volunteers.
The mini-grantis funded by a $2,575.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a 50%
local match that will be funded from current operations.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20047
TYPE OFAPPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
x
FUND:
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
PURPOSE OFAPPROPRIATION:
PHONE SYSTEM AND CONSULTANTS FOR RADIO SYSTEM.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************************************
1 4100 31042 800301 PHONE SYSTEM $409,259.63
1 4100 31041 312210 CONTRACTED SERVICES 28,000.00
1 4100 31041 312700 CONSUL TING-800 MHZ 117,287.50
1 4100 31041 800100 AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT 4,500.00
1 4100 31041 800200 FURNITURE 20,000.00
1 4100 31041 800712 REVERSE 911 16,000.00
TOTAL
$595,047.13
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ******************************************** *************************************************************
2 4100 24000 240424 WIRELESS E911 BOARD
2 4100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
$130,000.00
$465,047.13
TOTAL
$595,047.13
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************************************
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EMERGENCY COMM. CENTER
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
//P~/9~1 ;1--
MAR 28, 2001
.. BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: ~
00/01
NUMBER
TY~OFAPPROPRIATION:
i
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
FUND:
SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
20054
X
X
X
*** ******* ****************** ********************************** ***************************************** ******************
AMOUNT
1 2206 61101 312500 Prof. Svc. Consultants $700.00
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 370.00
1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 279.00
1 3.502 60606 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 4,694.82
1 .5104 60252 312500 Prof.Svc. Consultants 6,000.00
1 3104 60252 550400 Travel~Education 1,500.00
1 3103 61101 112100 Salaries~Teacher 6,955.00
1 3103 61101 132100 PTWages- Teacher 7,000.00
1 3103 61101 210000 FICA 1,067.56
1 3103 61101 221000 Retirement 897.36
1 3103 61101 231000 Health Ins 439.60
1 3103 61101 232000 Dental Ins 16.00
1 3103 61101 241000 Group Life Ins 55.90
1 3103 61101 312000 Tuition Fees 465.00
1 3103 61101 520100 Postal Services 100.00
1 3103 61101 520302 Telephone~LD 200.00
1 3103 61101 550100 Mileage 200.00
1 3103 61101 580500 Staff Dev 200.00
1 3103 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 720.00
1 3103 61311 115000 Salaries-Office Clerical 1,085.00
1 3103 61311 210000 FICA 82.44
1 3103 61311 221000 Retirement 142.64
1 3103 61311 231000 Health Ins 110.40
1('103 61311 232000 Dental Ins 4.00
1 .:S103 61311 241000 Group Life Ins 9.10
1 3103 61311 601700 Copy Supplies 250.00
$1,070.00
279.00
4,694.82
7,500.00
20,000.00
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** ***************************************** ******************
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation
~OO 18100 181109 Donation
:2 ..;502 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance
2 3104 18000 189900 Donation
2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant
2 3103 24000 240257 Migrant Ed Grant
2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEP Grant
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed
2 3145 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance
2 3122 51000 510100 Transfer AIMR Rental
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMR Summer Food Svs
2 2000 51000 510100 Transfer AIMR Rental
$1,070.00
279.00
4,694.82
1,000.00
6,500.00
20,000.00
24,168.00
10,705.50
155,598.62
7,500.00
35,000.00
277,500.00
TOTAL
$544,015.94
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** *************************************************************************** ******************
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** ***************************************** ******************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
~\
(
Dlkr:CTOR OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
~~/? ~----.J----
MARCH 13,200
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
SCHOOL
20055
X
X
X
*** ******* ******** ********** *************************************************************************** ******************
AMOUNT
1 2203 61101 132100 Salares-PT Teacher 4,617.50
1 2203 61101 210000 FICA 382.50
1 2210 61101 135000 PT -Wages 230.87
1 2210 61101 210000 FICA 19.13
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc. Expenses 1,000.00
1 3104 60209' 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,000.00
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof. Serv-Inst 1,000.00
1 3209 61101 1121 00 Wages-Teacher 42,695.44
1 3209 61101 210000 FICA 3,700.00
1 3209 61101 221000 VRS 6,700.00
1 3209 61101 231000 Health Ins 3,000.00
1 3209 61101 232000 Dental Ins 500.00
1 3209 61101 241000 Life Ins. 563.32
1 3209 61101 420100 Field Trip Mileage 500.00
1 3209 61101 520100 Postal 4,025.54
1 3209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 14,637.45
1 3209 61101 601700 Copy Expenses 3,748.56
1 3209 61101 800100 Mach/Equip-Add'l 500.00
1 3129 61104 113000 Prof-Other 3,000.00
1 3129 61104 120310 Overtime-Sp. Events 600.00
1 3129 61104 210000 FICA 276.00
1 3129 61104 520100 Postal 150.00
1 3129 61104 580000 Misc. Expenses 1,500.00
1 3129 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,904.08
1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,400.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 900.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,980.00
1 3104 60253 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,785.00
TOTAL
$6,250.00
$11,000.00
$80,570.31
$8,430.08
$11,065.00
$117,315.39
********** ******** ********** *************************************************************************** ******************
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2 2000
2~...... 104
2: .04
2 3209
2 3129
2 3129
2 3129
2 3129
2 3104
2 3104
2 3104
2 3104
18100 181109 Donation
18000 181254 Kluge Found. Grant
18000 189900 Donation
24000 240299 Business Ed. Partnership
16000 161260 01 Reg. Fees
18100 181109 Contributions
18000 189918 Proceeds-Sales
51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance
24000 240355. Grant-Stony Point
24000 240344 Grant-Woodbrook
24000 240328 Grant-Murray Elem
24000 240356 Grant-Jack Jouett
$6,250.00
10,000.00
1,000.00
80,570.31
2,500.00
200.00
4,500.00
1,230.08
5,400.00
2,980.00
900.00
1,785.00
TOTAL
$117,315.39
*** *************** ********** ********************************** ***************************************** ******************
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** ***************************************** ******************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
DI~TOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROVALS:
('
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
~eL/jJ~
DATE
MARCH 15, 200 I
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
FUND:
SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
20056
X
X
X
*** ******* ******** ********** ************************************************************************* *********************
AMOUNT
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 150.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 310.07
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc. Expenses 2,000.00
1 2302 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,000.00
1 2304 61105 580000 Misc. Expenses 2,682.50
1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 4,240.44
1 3122 63349 112100 Wages-Teacher 3,986.28
1 3122 63349 210000 FICA 304.95
1 3135 60605 580500 Staff Dev 3,475.42
1 3135 60605 800100 Mach/Equip 94,321.38
1 3104 60202 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,969.50
1 3143 61101 540410 Rental-I nstruments 8,405.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 300.00
60205 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 296.00
60255 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 600.00
TOTAL
$7,142.57
f\
4,240.4\J
4,291.23
97,796.80
2,969.50
8,405.00
1,196.00
$126,041.54
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation
2(~15 16000 161233 Misc. Revenue
2 .J115 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance
2 3122 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance
2 3135 24000 240324 Goals 2000 Award
2 3135 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance
2 3104 24000 240232 Forestry Grant
2 3143 51000 500000 Approp Fund Balance
2 3104 24000 240344 Grant-Woodbrook
2 3104 24000 240367 Grant-Hollymead
2 3104 24000 240368 Grant-Sutherland
$7,142.57
682.50
3,557.94
4,291.23
96,284.23
1,512.57
2,969.50
8,405.00
300.00
296.00
600.00
TOTAL
$126,041.54
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
f".
DlkcCTOR OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
~L~~.,,_4~
MARCH 15, 2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
~
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER 20057
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW X
YES
NO X
SCHOOL
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment $250.00
1 2302 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,000.00
1 2201 61411 601300 Misc. Expenses 9,613.05
1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 6,571.29
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 8,374.43
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,948.23
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,726.62
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,233.98
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,749.60
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 762.02
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,703.50
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,051.01
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 9,395.54
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,583.81
1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 12,287.96
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 9,849.67
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 15,034.53
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 13,756.28
1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 7,612.62
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 13,138.91
,
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 42,084.73
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,525.61
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 51,290.37
TOTAL $256,543.76
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation
2 2000 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance
$5,250.00
251,293.76
TOTAL
$256,543.76
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
~~~/2__
DATE
MARCH 15, 2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00101
NUMBER
20059
~PE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
x
FUND:
GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF SECTION 8 HOUSING GRANT.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
1 1227 81920 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT
1 1227 81921 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT
$105,305.00
50,967.82
TOTAL
$156,272.82
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
2 1227 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
$156,272.82
TOTAL
$156,272.82
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** ************************************************************************* *********************
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
~.
r\PPROVALS:
HOUSING
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
~~--A-:/J~~--
MARCH 16,2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20060
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
x
FUND:
GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
1 1525 31013 600100 SUPPLIES $429.94
1 1526 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 628.08
1 1530 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 797.00
1 1533 31013 120000 OVERTIME 1,269.83
1 1538 31013 120000 OVERTIME 24,692.31
TOTAL
$27,817.16
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
2 '1525 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
2 1526 51000 510100 FUNDBALANCE
2 1530 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
2 1533 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
2 1538 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
$429.94
628.08
797.00
1,269.83
24,692.31
TOTAL
$27,817.16
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
POLICE
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
~~A-~~~-
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
MARCH 16, 2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
FISCAL YEAR:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
00101
~PE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
20061
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
X
YES
NO
X
GRANT
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
AMOUNT
1
1
1
1234 39000
1235 39000
1236 39000
r'\.
I
CODE
580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS
580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS
580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
$792.52
118,742.42
4.591.53
TOTAL
$124,126.47
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
AMOUNT
2
2
2
2
2
1234 51000
1235 33000
1235 51000
1236 24000
1236 51000
510100 FUND BALANCE
330205 FEDERAL REVENUE
510100 FUND BALANCE
240403 STATE REVENUE
510100 FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS
$792.52
107.921.68
10.820.74
1,435.25
3,156.28
TOTAL
$124.126.47
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
*** ******* ********* ********** *************************************************************************** **********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
(".
,....PPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
POLICE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
~~-:-A?~~~.._
MARCH 16,2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20062
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
x
FUND:
GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FIRE/RESCUE ADVERTISING GRANT.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ****************************************************** ************************~*************** **********************
1 1555 32020 360000 ADVERTISING
$5,150.00
TOTAL
$5,150.00
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ********* ********** *********************************** **************************************** **********************
2
2
1555 24000
1555 51000
240000 STATE GRANT
512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F
$2,575.00
2,575.00
TOTAL
$5,150.00
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ****************************************************** **************************************** **********************
*** ******* ********* ********************************************* **************************************** **********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
FIRE/RESCUE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
../:p~~~
DATE
MARCH 20, 2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Simpson Park
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #20058, to provide
additional funding in the amount of $220,000 for the first
phase construction of Simpson Park.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, and Mr. Mullaney
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Simpson Park construction bids were opened January 23, 2001 with the low bid of $1,084,743 submitted by Parham
Construction Company. Current available funding for construction is $640,000, which includes the $592,000 contribution from
the Dave Mathews Band and an anonymous donor through the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation. Therefore,
initial projected funding for Phase I is $444,743 below the lowest project bid.
To address the funding shortfall, Parks and Recreation staff met with the project architect and John Redick, Director of the
Foundation to reduce the initial scope of the project. The goal of the meeting was to develop a plan, which would result in a
fully functional multi-facility park in the first phase with completion of the ultimate master plan as incremental county funding
is appropriated. A subsequent meeting was held with Parham Construction to explain the reductions and to request adjusted
bid prices.
The funding necessary to proceed with the reduced Phase 1 is $860,000, which is $220,000 more than available funds. The
Parks and Recreation Director is recommending that $102,000 be diverted from five other Parks and Recreationprojects so
this project can proceed. The Assistant County Executive is recommending that the additional $118,000 be funded from the
$2,000,000 FY 2000 carryover funds that were placed in the Capital Reserve Fund.
Specific details of the first phase reductions and plan for proceeding are outlined in the attached letters dated February 8th and
26th.. The donors are satisfied with the plan and Parham Construction has agreed to extend the acceptance period for their
bid prices to allow the Board of Supervisors time to consider this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $220,000 to the Simpson Park project with $118,000 coming from the Capital
Reserve Fund and $102,000 transferred from the five Parks and Recreation projects as detailed on Appropriation #20058.
01.055
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00101
NUMBER
20058
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
C.I.P.-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SIMPSON PARK.
CODE
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** *************** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
1 9010 71000 950121 SIMPSON PARK $220,000.00
1 9010 71000 800665 ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES -10,000.00
1 9010 71000 950028 RED HILL RECREATION -7,000.00
1 9010 71000 950033 WALNUT CREEK RECREATION -35,000.00
1 9010 71000 950064 IVY LANDFILL DEV'L -10,000.00
1 9010 71000 950118 SCOTTSVILLLE ROOF -40,000.00
1 9010 11010 999979 CAPITAL RESERVE -118,000.00
TOTAL
$0.00
CODE
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
TOTAL
$0.00
TRANSFERS
*** ******* ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
********** ******** ********** ********************************** *************************************** *********************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
PARKS & RECREATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
~//7!f= d~~
.u~L~ ' . ,-
.' /
DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
MARCH 15, 2001
+9-1//
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks & Recreation Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Telephone (804) 296-5844
FAJ< (804) 293-0299
February 8, 2001
Mr. John R. Redick
Executive Director
Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation
Post Office Box 1767
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Simpson Park Status
Dear John:
This letter is in summary and follow up to our meeting of February 1. The low
base bid with the 5 alternatives added was from Parham Construction Company and
totaled $1,084,743. The breakdown of that bid is as follows:
Base bid
$939,643
Add. Alt # 1
Add. Alt # 2
Add. Alt # 3
Add. Alt # 4
Add. Alt # 5
$42,600 Playground
$10,500 Nature Study Platform
$43,000 Fences and Gates
$23,000 Athletic Equipment
$26,000 Stone on Shelter
Our current une~cumbered funding available is $641,000. This includes
$592,000 from the donor and $49,000 from the County. To date the County has
expended $90,000 for property acquisition and A&E costs. We have an additional
$11,000 encumbered for future A&E costs. On July 1, 2001 we are anticipating an
additional appropriation of $50,000 in our CIP budget for construction and $17,200 in
our operating budget for nonrecurring expenses such as bleachers, picnic tables, soccer
goals, tennis windscreens etc.
As we discussed in our meeting, it is our intent to come up with a phased
development schedule that will result in a fully functional multi facility park in the first
phase and then a logical plan to complete the development as incremental County
,
'--
funding is appropriated each year. This past Tuesday we met with representatives of
Parham Construction and asked them to adjust their base bid asfollows:
1. Change parking lot surface from asphalt to prime and seal.
2. Flip..flop the location of the tennis courts and basketba.ll courts and eliminate one
basketball court, thereby eliminating a very expensive retaining wall.
3. Eliminate the nature trail/walking path. (to be completed by Parks and Rec.and/or
with community volunteers at a later date)
4. Eliminate all but rough grading of the baseball field. (To be finished by Parks and
Rec.)
5. Reduce spray ground fountains from 4 heads to the originally discussed 3heads.
6. Eliminate the designed entrance gate. (entrance to be gated by Parks and Rec. in a
manner consistent with other parks)
7. Reduce landscaping by 25%.
8, Eliminate sidewalks, except as required by ADA.
As for the alternative bid items. Only.the fencing and athletic equipment are critical to
opening the park. We are proposing to bid those items out separately after July 1 using
our 2001 CIP and operating budget appropriations as our funding source.
We are expecting that Parham's revised base bid will still be well in excess of our
funding available. We are reviewing the status of other Parks and Recreation. CIP
projects to see if reductions can be made to redirect funds to. Simpson Park. We have
alerted the County Executive's Office anticipating that other County CIP money will
need to be diverted to fund the reduced Phase I development.
That's where we stand at this time. I will be back in touch as soon as we have
firmed up our costs and funding ability. In the meantime if you. have any suggestions,
questions, or concerns, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
;1d% IJJhIL;
Patrick K. Mullaney .
Director
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks & Recreation Department
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Telephone (804) 296-5844
FAX (804) 293-0299
February 26, 2001
Mr. John R. Redick
Executive. Director
Charlottesville-Albemarle Co~unity Foundation
Post Office Box 1767
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Simpson Park Status
Dear John:
Parham Constru,ction has responded to our request for adjustedpricesbased on the
project changes detailed in my letter to you dated February 8, 2001. The project revisions reduce
the base bid from $939,000 to $800,000. A reasonable construction contingency for a project of
this type is 7.5%, which would bring the required funds necessary to proceed with the reduced
Phase I to $860,000. We currently have $640,000 available for construction giving us aJunding
deficit of $220,000.
We have reviewed our Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program arid have
found $102,000 we will be recommending to be diverted to Simpson Park by deferring or
eliminating portions of five other funded projects. Roxanne White in the County Executive's
Office will be recommending thatthe remaining $118,000 be diverted from other County capital
projects for this purpose. As I mentioned in my previous letter, some of the items that were bid
as alternatives, which are critical to opening the park, we anticipate funding with our July 1,
2001 capital and operating budget appropriations..
The current bid prices are good until March 24. We will be asking Parham construction
to agree to an extension so we can request Board approval of our recommendations at the April 4
day meeting. Please advise the donors of the situation and our recommendations for proceeding.
Unless we receive other direction from you, we will continue on in this manner. As always, if
you have any suggestions,. questions, or concerns, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
.;2tJf!lJ7d /
Patrick K. Mullaney ~'
Director
.ft:
(5~-~(5~g-~
Post Office Box 1767
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(804) 296-1024
March 7, 2001
RECEIVED
MAR 0 ti 2001
Parks & Bee. Oept
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
County of Albemarle
410 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Pat:
Thank you for your lettenof February 8th and 26th regarding the Simpson Park status. I
have provided a written report to the donors, followed by a discussion. Both are satisfied with
the planned initiatives and appreciate the County's willingness to contribute additional funds to
the project as outlined in your letters. We, believe the project should move forward as you have
recommended.
As you are aware, the Foundation and the County have completed the agreement, and the
donor funds are now in a~special account for this project. After reviewing the contract, we can
discuss a pay-out schedule as the project moves forward.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of this project.
Sincerely,
jif;ediCk
Executive Director
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance
~.4.10.3.1 (Height Iimitation-exceptions-excluded from
application) and 9 30.6.8 (Appeals)
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider resolution of intent to amend Zoning
Ordinance 94.10.3.1 to allow telecommunications
facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the
County in a residential district to have a height
exceeding 100 feet; and to amend Zoning Ordinance 9
30.6.8 to clarify that the Board of Supervisors may
issue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding
that a public safety facility is a public necessity.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Intent
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Davis, Kamptner, McCulley
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Zoning Ordinance 9 4.10.3.1 prohibits structures, including telecommunications facilities, from exceeding one hundred
(100) feet in height in a residential district. Zoning Ordinance ~ 30.6 requires that projects within the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District obtain certificates of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board ("ARB"). Zoning Ordinance 9
30.6.8 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to consider appeals from decisions of the ARB.
DISCl:ISSION:
The 800 MHz emergency communications system will include two facilities on University properties that are in residential
zoning districts. The heights of the proposed facilities are 105 feet (Klockner Stadium) and 110 feet (ECC site).and are
therefore prohibited by Zoning Ordinance 9 4.10.3.1. Although taller facilities could be allowed by variances granted by
the Board of Zoning Appeals if a legal hardship is demonstrated, staff recommends that a zoning text amendment is the
more appropriate means to address this issue. The proposed amendment would allow telecommunications facilities owned
or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding 100 feet. Such facilities
would continue to require a special use permit.
The ECC site is also within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and the proposed 800 MHz facility must obtain a
certificate of appropriateness from the ARB under Zoning Ordinance 9 30.6. The ARB issues certificates of
appropriateness after it determines that a proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the Board
of Supervisors. The ARB's decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors under Zoning Ordinance 9 30.6.8.
Although section 30.6.8 does not expressly so state, it is implied that the scope of the Board's review on appeal is similar
to that of the ARB - whether the proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines. It may not be possible for a
telecommunications facility such asa tower to clearly meet these guidelines. Given that the proposed 800 MHz facility
is an essential element of a vital public safety telecommunications network, the Board of Supervisors should consider
expanding its scope of review on appeal to clarify that it may issue certificates of appropriateness when it finds that a public
safety faCility is a public necessity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the proposed resolution of intent.
01.072
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance ~ 4.10.3.1 provides in part that certain structures,
including telecommunications facilities, may not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a
residential district; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance ~ 30.6.8 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to consider
appeals from decisions of the Architectural Review Board arising from applications for
certificates of appropriateness, and its scope of review is limited to determining whether a
proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted for projects within the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District.
WHEREAS, certain public projects located on publicly owned property may be of such
paramount public importance that the restrictions of Zoning Ordinance S 4.10.3.1 and the limited
scope of review implied in Zoning Ordinance S 30.6.8, both identified above, should not apply.
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 Zoning Ordinance S 4.10.3.1
to allow public safety telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the
County in a residential district to have a height exceeding one hundred (100) feet;
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED 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 Zoning Ordinance S 30.6.8 to authorize the Board of
Supervisors, on an appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board, to issue a
certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to 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 is a true correct copy of a resolution
adopted ~y the County Board of Supervisors o~ Al~emarl,..e County ~inia at a regular meeting
held Apnl4, 2001. <F/c'../fa //
//--. tvL
. / - -
~"..... "
'- ~/ t: - .;;:r/<_~
Clerk, County Board of supervJ
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Visitors Assistance Center
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Overview of the Visitors Assistance Center which
became operational April 2, 2001.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
INFORMATION: X
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Tucker, Catlin
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
As early as 1994 county staff began discussing the possibility of creating some sort of visitors
assistance/welcoming center for the County Office Building to provide basic customer service functions such as
answering questions and directing building users to appropriate departments, meeting rooms, etc. In October,
1999, the county's Customer Service Team established a subcommittee to study this issue and make specific
recommendations as to the need for and viability of such a center. After interviewing staff and other building users
as well as visiting several municipalities to research different types of customer assistance efforts, staff developed
a proposal for a Visitors Assistance Center which was proposed to and approved by the Board of Supervisors last
October. The Visitors Assistance Center opens for service on April 2, 2001.
DISCUSSION:
The Visitors Assistance Center is located inside the Visitors Entrance on the first floor of the County Office
Building. The Center is staffed by a full-time employee who has undergone extensive training to be able to offer
the following services to building users:
. Greeting visitors to the building with a welcoming and professional presence
. Directing visitors to departments and meeting rooms within the County Office Building
. Directing visitors to other county government sites
. Responding to inquiries from the public via telephone and in person
. Answering the county's Information Line
. Distributing pamphlets, handouts and maps
. Alerting police or proper emergency service workers in the event of an emergency situation
The Center is intended to work in concert with recent parking and building access location changes to provide
enhanced customer service and security functions for the benefit of all building users.
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is required by the Board.
01.068
>
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
P. O. BOX 18 · CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902-0018 . (804) 977-2970
MEMORANDUM
To:
City of Charlottesville City Council
City of Charlottesville Planning Commission
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Arthur D.Petrinl, Executive Director ~ Q ~
From:
Date:
March 19,2001
Subject:
Review of Water and Wastewater Matrix
The enclosed matrix is being forwarded to you for review and comment. RWSA's
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) created the matrix to help them determine which
water and wastewater responsibilities belong to RWSA. As the matrix evolved, it
developed into a community wide information document that has had some review and
comment by citizens, citizen organizations and some regulatory agencies. At this point,
the matrix is a generalplanninglinformation document as opposed to exclusive
responsibility. The matrix mainly describes the entities that have primary responsibility.
Also enclosed are two memoranda further explaining the process to date of the matrix
development and offering some suggestions for future use of the matrix.
The RWSABoard of Directors is asking the question of how might the matrix best be
used and what group or entity might be charged with the task of carrying the process
forward. The Board would like your comments and input before they make any final
recommendation.
Please send any comments you have, collectively or individually, to Carol Wiles, the
RWSA Executive Secretary, who will compile all comments for a future RWSA Board
agenda.
ADP/csw
DISrRlBUTjl~) r,~\ ~,.., !".
~,'-,'ZJ .',t ..'n """-','~"'''"''
. . . . ,'.... ;rh,:~ ":!."r'J~":l
ON -"..~"., "..,,~4- 0 1 "'.. .
'". ,,. - "~",'l-".'il" "'<""..,,.,"'..,"T.."...,"'.........'"
S:\BoardIRWAICitizensAdvisory Committee\Matrixlmatrlx to CC and BOS March 19, 200l.doc
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE Be ALBEMARLE COUNTY
3/20/01
Charlottesville and Albemarle Water and Wastewater Matrix
Major Ci3tegoties with Defined Areas of Primary L.ocal Responsibility
Federal and State Agencies Are L.isted Only Where Their Local Role Is Primary
Information.
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
Managementlll'!'plementa.tlon
City, TJSWCD, OCR
County, T JSWCD
County
County
County,
Local Policy/Decision Making
VDH
DEQ
80S, City Counci
OCR, 80S, City Counci
BOS, City Counci
DEQ
80S, City Caunci
BOS,DEQ
80S
DEQ,
f:II!lnning
County
County
DEQ
County, OCR, DEQ, T JSWCD
FEMA, County, City
Major Category
Quality.
Quality -
Quantity. High Flow/Flooding/Stormwater
Quantity - L.ow Flow/MIF
Point Source
Non Point Source
Resources
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater Quantity
Stream/Surface Water
Stream/Surface Water
Stream/Surface Water
Stream/Surface Water
Wetlands
Water
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
I.
Army Corps of Engineers, County, DEQ
TJSWCD
RWSA
RWSA
~ounty, TJSWCD
RWSA
RWSA
RWSA
ACSA, City Finance
ACSA, City PW
System Owner
Homeowner
RWSA
ACSA, City Finance
BOS, CUy Council, RWSA Board
BOS, City CounCil, .RWSA Board
RWSA Board, VDH, DEQ
BOS, City Council, VDH, DEQ
BOS, VDH
VDH
RWSA Board
ACSA Board, City Counci
EPA (CWA)
g.
W!lter Supp.!y and Production
a. Reservoir Quality
b. Meeting Public System Raw Water
I.
RWSA
County, City,
RWSA
RWSA
Demand
Wholesale (Raw Water) Storage, T~
Retail (Treated Water) Storage, Distribution,
County, City
RWSA
ACSA, City Finance, Private
& Transmission
& Testing
Privl'lte Community Water System Quality & Quantity
Private Household Well Water Quality & Quantity
Wholesale Rate Setting
Retail Rate Setting
c.
d.
g.
h.
e.
f.
Uses of Water
a. Ecosystem
b. Community Consumption
1. Number & Types of Users, Land Use Patterns, Density
T JSWCD
T JSWCD
US Fish &Wildlife
BOS, City Counci
T JSWCD
Count~
ACSA, City PW
City
BOS, City Co unci
County, City
County, City
ACSA, City PW,
T JSWCD
ACSA, City PW,
TJSWCD
ACSA Board, City Co unci
ACSA, City PW
Normal Conditions (Water Conservation)
---
Drought Conditions
2. Under
County, City, VDGIF
ACSA Board ACSA, City PW, City & County Police
~---1-
County, City Parks Depts, VDGIF
County, City, RWSA, VDGIF
VDGIF
VDGIF, RWSA
BOS, City Counci
S!OS,-Cltt..Coun,E.!
BOS, City Counci
ACSA, City PW, County
County,~City, VDGIF~ DC~
County, City, VDGIF, RWSA Board
County, City
3. Under
c. Recreation
1. Streams/Surface Water
2. Reservoirs
RWSA
'::CSA, C.!!r PW _
VDH
VDH
RWSA
ACSA. City Finance
RWSA
__,.~g,,~~!_9lty~vy___....._
VDH, System Owner, Developer
VDH, $ystemOwner, Developer
RWSA
ACSA, City Finance
BOS, City_CoUnci
--,~~.~.
RWSA BOi3rd, DEQ
ACSA BOi3rd
....-.-.- .. ""'~'--
VDH
--,
City Counci --
80S, City Counci
,1...,.-........ ,...", ,
BOS, VDH
BOS, City COllnci
f'{WSA Board
ACSA Board,
_..
RWSA
ACSA, City Finance, Private
RWSA
!,:P$A. ..Fity.. F:"w.....
VDH, County
VDH. County, City
d. Aesthetic & Cultural
-.,.-.---.............
v. IWastewater
a. Wholesale Collection and TreaiiTient----
b. Retail Collection
-'-;'-"private.'communiiy'sepiic SYStems .... ..... .... ... ......
d. Private HousehOld Septic Systems
--e:-Whi:jJeSaiiiR8iesetiiri9-~---
f. Retail Rate Setting
.Educational programs availabl.e.
RIVANNA WATER Be SEWER AUTHORITY
P. O. BOX lB . CHARLOTTESVILI..E. VIRGINIA 22902-0018 . (804) 977-2970
DRAFT
TO:
Board of Directors
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA)
FROM:
RWSA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
SUBJ:
Charlottesville and Albemarle Water and Wastewater Matrix
ENCL:
Matrix and Related Documents
Enclosed, you will find a revised Charlottesville and Albemarle Water and Wastewater Matrix
alld supporting information which incorporate comments provided by members of the Board, the
CAC, and select members ofthe community.
The matrix could be used to accomplish several goals with respect. to water and wastewater
issues:
1. To clarify areas of responsibility on major categories;
2. Toprovide a tool that local individuals and groups can use for dealing with gaps and overlaps
of efforts;
3. To support community planning efforts linked to water and wastewater management such as
community growth, planning and development; quality oflife; and other issues.
4. To facilitate public input and participation.
Assuming that there is a desire to move forward with these goals, then several "next steps" are
suggested:
1. Matrix Validation
a. Validation by the Entities: The matrix needs to be validated to ensure that proper
assignment has been made for each category and heading. To accomplish this, the matrix
needs to be sent to each entity listed on the matrix for input. The CAC, with staff support
from RWSA, could take on the role of reviewing and incorporating changes resulting
from the input. Use of the CAC would ensure that the community views the matrix as
being "of the citizenry" rather than a proprietary document.
b. Validation by the Community: This step would occur after the responsible entities have
validated the matrix. To maximize community input, several venues are suggested:
(1) First Level:
1. Send the matrix and corresponding documents to the League of Women
V otersand the Rivanna River Roundtable to obtain their comments and
input.
2. Send the matrix and corresponding documents to the City Council, Board
of Supervisors, and Planning Commissions for their information and/or
reVISIon.
3. Public MeetingIWorkshop: Host a public forum for information and
discussion of water and wastewater in our community. RWSA, the
League of Women Voters, and/or any of the other groups working on
these issues in our community could facilitate this workshop.
575 Alderman Road. Charlottesville, VA 22903-2476 TEL 804-982-5414 FAX 804-982-5894 TOO 804-982-HEAR
SERVING CHARI..OTTESVILLE Be ALBEMARLE COUNTY
(2) Second Level: Include the matrix as an "infprmation" flyer in City and
County water usage invoices.
2. Implementation of Goals
Any process for implementing the four goals listed above should include a mechanism
for identifying strategies for meeting the. goals. and measuring progress. As can be seen
from the matrix, several headings lack a responsible entity while some have several. To
enhance the cohesiveness of the various headings - planning through. decision making,
management, and education - it is recommended that an umbrella organization or
"champion" be responsible for overseeing this process for all the major categories of
water and wastewater for our community. The champion could be responsible for the
following:
(1) Coordinating and/or collating efforts of the responsible entities for each of
the major categories;
(2) Identifying strategies for meeting the goals;
(3) Providing annual metrics and follow,.up on progress towards accomplishing
the strategies and meeting the goals;
(4) Updating the goals as they are achieved; and/or
(5) Identifying new goals to meet evolving needs of the community.
2
DRAFT
Charlottesville and Albemarle Water and Wastewater
Prepared by
Rivanna Water and seWlr Authority Citizens Advisory Committee
March 20, 2001
Purpose of the Matrix
In. 1998, the Citizens Advisory comm~ttee (CAC) to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(RWSA) was formed as a vehicle fi r obtaining some level of citizen input .On water and
wastewater issues. To determine how b. st to serve as an advisory committee to RWSA, the CAC
realized that it was frrst necessary to determine what aspects of the community' s water and
wastewater management responsibiliti s belonged to RWSA and which ones belonged to other
entities. To that end, the Charlottes ille and Albemarle Water and Wastewater .Matrix. was
public to clarify where local responsibi ities lie in regard to water and wastewater.
IuteutofMaiorCatef!ories .. .
The CAe's objective for the matrix w sto present information in a.succinct, single page format
th..at..le..n.d.si.t..se...lf to r e. ady.. un...de r.s.tand...ti.g, Ye.tl's.inc.lusi.ve rather then..exclu. siveo. fis.suesand..
determination of responsibilities. T. that end, the CAC subdivided water into three major
categories:
1. . Water Resources: All water. and atershedsavailable to the community,. including rainfall,
headwaters, surface water such a streams and rivers, ground water, ponds, and wetlands.
. Thi~ category is . all inclusive of. ater as a "resource" to. our community up to the point it. is
diverted for community water nee s.
2. Water Supplv and Production: Y water that is diverted, captured, treated, stored, and/or
distributed to meet community. ater needs, including community storage reservoirs, water
treatnlent facilities, community w 11 systems such as Peacock Hill andGlenmore, and private
well systems.
3. Uses of Water: W. ate! that is consl med by'people, animals,. phmts, and other livill~"""'''''es.
This category includes:
a. Water which sustains ecosystrms in the community;
b. . Wate:rc that is consumed lily the community for drinking, landscaping, cooling,
manufacturing and commerci~1 1 enterprises, and related uses;
c. Water that is used forrecreaf onal purposes such as swimming, fishing, and boating; and
d. Water that adds aesthetic an cultural value to the community by enhancing the natural
beauty of the area, provid~ng a haven to those seeking spiritual experience, and
contributing to important cultural and historic features of a community. Adapted from Ray
and McCormick-Ray (1981) J
4. Wastewater: Wastewater was left as a single major category and includes all
sewage/wastewater collection a d treatment. The category was subdivided to differentiate
those wastewater systems which are managed and administered by R WSA versus Albemarle
County, the City of Charlottesvil e, or private or community septic systems.
Note: Issues associated with hazardous spill , water contamination, terrorist attacks, and similar emergency situations
were ex.cluded as being outside the scope of his effort.
1
Intent of Column Hea.din2s
In attempting to identify which entities have current~ apparent primary local responsibility for
water and wastewater "management". it is useful to divide areas of responsibility into four major
categories:
1. Planner: That entity which is responsible for evaluating each category and sub-category
interms of community needs and values.
2. PolicylDecision Maker: That entity which is responsible for making decisions and
developing policies which reflect planning and which establish guidelines for
management.
3. ManagerlImplementer: That entity which is responsible for general management and for
implementing policies.
4. Educator: That entity which is responsible for educating the community concerning the
specific water and wastewater categories.
In working to identify responsible entities, the CAC focused on those entities in the local
community which are. charged with taking, have taken, or appear to have taken the primary lead.
These responsible entities and their areas of responsibility are not static in that they frequently
change with time. They. also tend to be difficult to define and assess;. in some cases, are
unknown. For clarity, names of state and federal agencies are implied and not listed, except in
specific cases where there is no apparent "local" lead, and/or where the state or federal agency
has a direct local impact. The impact of the Riparian Doctrineis inferred throughout. The role of
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), which provides regional. data
collection, evaluation, studies, and planning for the community, is also implied rather than listed.
In all categories and headings, individual and organizational public input and responsibility are
assumed.
Definitions
Ground Water: A supply of fresh water found beneath the earth's surface which supplies wells or
springs. (CW A)
Surface Water: All water naturally open to the atmosphere including rivers, streams, lakes~
reservoirs, and seas. (CW A)
Point Source: A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or
emitted. Also, any identifiable source, such asa pipe, a ditch, or a smokestack. (CW A)
Non-Point Source: A diffuse pollution source without a single point of origin, or not introduced
into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. (CW A)
High Flow: Surface water flow that is significantly higher than normal such that it creates a threat
of flooding, property damage, stream channel erosion, and contamination.
Low Flow: Surface water flow that is significantly lower than normal such that it impacts on uses
such as water supply, recreation, and ecological communities.
Land Use Patterns: The number, type, and distribution of water users that a locality designs or
allows for its landscape and/or watersheds. This determines the level of water consumption and
the nature of both point and non-point pollution.
2
-,,",
Minimum In-Stream Flow: The amount of flow required to sustain stream values, such as fish,
wildlife, and recreation. (CW A)
Ecosystem: A particular area in which a variety of living organisms exist and interact.
Community Consumption: The total amount of water used by public water users.
Density: The number of residential building units per acre.
Wholesale: The cost per unit of potable water based on the cost of collecting, treating, and
distributing water, and includes debt service for capital costs.
Retail: The cost per unit of potable water to the final consumer based on wholesale costs plus
retailers' expenditures for debt service, maintenance, and distribution.
Riparian Doctrine: A judicially created body of law based on English Common Law for resolving
conflicts among surface water users.
Acronyms
NPS
PS
DCR
DEQ
TJSWCD
FEMA
MIF
CWA
EPA
VDGIF
BOS
VDH
TJPDC
Non Point Source
Point Source
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Department of Environmental Quality
Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District
Federal Emergency management Agency
Minimum In-Stream Flow
Clean Water Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Board of Supervisors
Virginia Department of Health
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
3
Appendices
k Abbreviated Resource List
B. Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, Chapter Two, Tables 2-1 and 2-2, of the County of
Albemarle ComprehensIve Plan 1999-2016, Adopted Match 3rd, 1999.
4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
FAJ< (804) 972-4126
March 5, 2001
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
TID (804) 972-4012
Spencer F. Young
4069 Echo Valley Road
Barboursville, VA 22923
RE: REVISED OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND
PARCELS-
Tax Map 35, Parcels 26, 26B, 26C, 32A, and 43 (Property of Spencer F. Young)
Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Young:
N.B.: Thi~Jetter replaces that of January 30, 2001. It has been revised to describe the
realignment of State Route 641 around Parcel 26B.
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
properties. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination
that Tax Map 35, Parcel 26 contains five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax Map
35, Parcel 26B consists of two separate parcels divided by State Route 641. Either 7 or
8 development rights are allocated between these two parcels, depending on the
acreage of each. Tax Map 35, Parcel 26C contains five (5) theoretical development
rights. Tax Map 35, Parcel 32A contains five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax
Map 35, Parcel 43 contains two (2) theoretical development rights. The basis for this
determination is provided below.
Tax Map 35. Parcel 26: Our records indicate this parcel contains 31.62 acres and no
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 687,
page 168. It is dated December 20, 1979 between Ann Robins Haskell and John C.
Haskell, Jr. and John C. Haskell, Jr., as Trustee for Maple Ridge Land Trust. That deed
conveyed 333.328 acres that included Parcel 26. On the date of the adoption of the
zoning ordinance this part of Parcel 26 included what is now Parcel 26C, that portion of
the original Parcel 26 located on the East side of State Route 641. Parcel 26 is the
portion of the original Parcel 26 located on the West side of State Route 641. It is
considered a parent parcel with a full compliment of development rights on December
10, 1980.
Young Determination
March 5, 2001
Page 2
Deed Book 798, page 097, dated April 23, 1984 is between Spencer Faulconer Young
and Virginia Ruth Ismond. This deed included the transfer of 2.8 acres from Parcel 27 to
Parcel 26 and 7.2 acres from Parcel 27 to Parcel B (now 43B and 43B1 ).. The plat,
approved on April 30, 1984 did not allocate the development rights of Parcel 27.
However it is assumed that the 2.8 acres transferred to Parcel 26 contains 1 potential
development right and the 7.2 acres transferred to Parcel B (Parcels 41B and 41B1)
contains 3 potential development rights. In order to credit these potential development
rights to particular parcels, the owners of all the parcels shown on the plat must approve
a plat showing the reallocation. This plat also transferred 8.5 acres from Parcel 26 to
Parcel A(now 43C) and transferred 5.5 acres from Parcel 43 to Parcel 26. As a result of
these transactions, the residue of parcel 26 contained 172.9 acres and five (5)
development rights.
Deed Book 798, page 092, dated May 1, 1984 between Spencer Faulconer Young and
Tantivy-Blue and Associates divided 123 acres from the portion of Parcel 26 referenced
above. An additional 5.5 acre portion of Parcel 43 was added to this new tract resulting
in a total of 128.51 o acres (260 and 2601). This left a residue of 58.6 acres. The plat,
approved on April 30, 1984, noted that the residue retained all development rights.
Deed Book 1083, page 161, dated December 15, 1989 was an exchange between
Spencer F. Young and Anita E. Edstrand. It divided 21.078 acres from Parcel 26 and
added those acres to Parcel 28. No development rights were transferred. There have
been no off-conveyances from this parcel since that transaction. Therefore, as a result
of that transaction, Parcel 26 contains 31.6 acres and five (5) development rights; 5
retained by the portion of Parcel 26 located on the West side of State Route t541.
Tax Map 35. Parcel 26B: Our records indicate this parcel cOlltains 17.287 acres and
has one dwelling. 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
687, page 168. It is dated December 20, 1979 between Ann Robins Haskell and John
C. Haskell, Jr. and John C. Haskell, Jr., as Trustee for Maple Ridge Land Trust. That
deed conveyed 333.328 acres that included Parcel 26B.
Deed Book 586, page 333, dated December 17, 1979 between Harold E. Young and
Ann Robins Haskell conveyed Parcel 26B, which at that time contained 15.018 acres.
Deed Book 747, page 327, dated May 10, 1982 between John C. Haskell, Jr., Trustee
for the Maple Ridge Land Trust, Spencer F. Young and Thomas S. Edwards &
Winnifred O. Edwards adjusted the boundary between parcel 26, 26C and 26B. As a
result, Parcel 26B contains 17.827 acres. No off-conveyances from Parcel 26B have
occurred since this transaction. The parcel has its full compliment of development
rights.
Young Determination
March 5, 2001
Page 3
Further, it is my determination that Parcel 26B 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. On December 10, 1980 the parcel was divided by
State Route 641. Each of these separate parcels has as many as five (5) theoretical
development rights, depending upon the acreage. The combined number of
development rights of both parcels is either 7 or 8 depending upon the acreage of each
parcel.
In 1981, a section of State Route 641 that divided Parcel 26B was realigned so as to
avoid the parcel. On January 13, 1982 the Board of Supervisors accepted the new
alignment and abandoned the old alignment of State Route 641. This. action did not
affect the development rights on Parcel 26B.
Tax Map 35. Parcel 26C: Our records indicate this parcel contains 195.930 acres and
has 1 dwelling. 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
687, page 168. It is dated December 20, 1979 between Ann Robins Haskell and John
C. Haskell, Jr. and John C. Haskell, Jr., as Trustee for Maple Ridge Land Trust. That
deed conveyed 333.328 acres that included Parcel 26C. On the date of the adoption of
the ordinance this was part of Parcel 26 which was divided by State Route 641. Parcel
26C is the portion of Parcel 26 located on the East side of State Route 641. It is
considered a parent parcel with a full compliment of development rights on December
10,1980.
Deed Book 1083, page 161, dated December 15, 1989 was an exchange between
Spencer F. Young and Anita E. Edstrand. It divided 46.93 acres from Parcel 28A and
added those acres to Parcel 26C. No development rights were. transferred. There have
been no off-conveyances from this parcel since that transaction. Therefore, asa result
of that transaction, Parcel 26C contains 195.93 acres and five (5) development rights.
Tax Map 35. Parcel 32A: Our records indicate this parcel contains 11.9 acres and has
no 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 313,
page 474. It is dated October 29, 1954 between David Hill Kindermand and Samuel S.
Lockhart. The parcel is described as, "containing eighteen (18) acres and thirty-one (31)
poles." .
Deed Book 798, page 097, dated April 23, 1984 is between Spencer Faulconer Young
and Virginia Ruth Ismond. This deed included the transfer of 6.6 acres from Parcel 32A
to Parcel B (now Parcels43B and 43B1). Notes on the plat state the residue of parcel
32A, containing 11.9 acres retained its five (5) development rights.
Young Determination
March 5, 2001
Page 4
Tax Map 35. Parcel 43: Our records indicate this parcel contains 11.6 acres and has no
dwellings. The most recent deeds for this property prior to the date of adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) are found in two separate
deeds. Deed Book 570, page 617, dated September 8, 1969, between Launnard Cobbs
& Mildred Viola Cobbs and Katus R. Blakey, Trustee conveyed 24.87 acres. Deed Book
577, page 412, dated June 30, 1975, between Katus R. Blakey, Trustee and
B.W.L.&M., Inc. conveyed 55.51 acres.
Deed Book 719, page 356, dated June 22, 1981 between Thelma 81akey and
B.W.L.&M., Inc. conveyed Thelma Blakey's interest in both of the above referenced
parcels that were shown on a plat containing 78.0613 acres. On August 3, 1981 the
County Real Estate Department combined parcel 43 and Parcel 43A. These were
separately deeded parcels and each is entitled to a full compliment of development
rights.
Deed Book 798, page 097, dated April 23, 1984 is between Spencer Faulconer Young
and Virginia Ruth Ismond. This deed included the transfer of 2.8 acres from Parcel 27 to
parcel 26 and 7.2 acres from Parcel 27 to Parcel 8 (now Parcels 43B and 4381). This is
discussed under Parcel 26. This plat also transferred 8.5 acres from Parcel 26 to Parcel
A (now ParcelA3C) and transferred 5.5 acres from Parcel 43 to Parcel 26. As a result of
these transactions, the residue of parcel 43 contains 11.6 acres. The. creation of a
residue of 11.6 acres used one (1) development right. Notes on the plat assigned the
residue one (1) development right. No other off-conveyances have occurred since this
transaction. As a result of these transactions, Parcel 43 contains 2 development rights.
~
Further, this plat used. one (1) development right to reduce Parcel 43 to 11.6 acres
acres The plat allocated one (1) development right to Parcel B and one development
right to the residue of Parcel 43. Seven of the 10 development rights associated with
Parcel 43 and parcel 43A were not allocated. In order to credit these potential
development rights to particular parcels, the owners of all the parcels (32A, 43, 438,
43B1, 43C, and 26D1) shown on the plat must approve a plat showing the reallocation
of development rights.
Each of the above mentioned parcels is entitled to the noted development rights if all
other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are hypothetical in
nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing at least two acres but
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
Young Determination
March 5, 2001
Page 5
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,
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors, Reading Files
Two additional parcels by tax map
DQO-MMONWEALTH'of,VI&Gl~IA,
efJJj;PARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Valley Regional Office
James S. Gilmore, III
Governor
Street address.' 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801-3000
Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878
http://www.deq.state.va.us
March 28, 2001
Dennis H. Treacy
Director
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Secretary of Natural Resources
R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Valley Regional Director
Ms. Sally Thomas, Chairman,
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 Mcfutire Road
Charlottesville, VA 2290 I
Re: Issuance ofVP A PermitNo;~ VP A01570, ConAgra Frozen Foods-Crozet
Dear Ms. Thomas:
fu accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, I am enclosing a copy of
a public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. If you have any questions
r~garding this proposed permit, please give me a call at (540) 574-7814.
Sincerely,
C~4t
C. Kemper Loyd, P.E.
Environmental Engineer Senior
Enclosure
cc: Permit Processing File
'DfYU 1.0 t <h f-3e.-h WU1!--s-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
401 McIntire Road, Room 211
CharlottesviIle, Virginia 22902-45%
(804) 296-5861
19 April 2001
Re: ConAgraFrozenFoods- Crozet- VPAPermitNo VPA01570
Dear Landowner:
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sent you a letter dated 9 March 2001, notifying you of
VirginiaPollution:Abatement permit application from ConAgra Frozen Foods to land apply food-
processing sludge on a neighboring parcel. The DEQ sent the County of Albemarle a "Public Notice"
regarding the proposed permit on 28 March 2001. The COlUlty Board of Supervisors has asked me to
look into the matter, prepare comments to DEQ, and provide adjacent owners with additional information.
Regarding this permit, I have made three comments to DEQ. First, I coinmented that it would be
desirable to keep the application 100 feet away from all streams to provide extra water quality protection
and'match County restrictions on development in the area. ConAgra supported this request and asked
DEQ to write the 100-foot buffer into the permit. Second, I askedDEQ to include in thepermit any
requirements that will reduce problems with odors. Third, I expressed appreciation for the fact that the
. permit explicitly states that this application is a one.,time event. In addition to comments on this specific
permit, Ir~quested that DEQ provide more information to adjacent landowners and the County in future
cases.
The authority over this permitting process rests with DEQ. I feel DEQ has given the permit a thorough
review and been open to questions and responsive to comments. I do not feel there is a need for the
County to request a public hearing. Of course, individual citizens may provide comments to DEQ or
request a hearing (through 3 May 2001). A copy of the public notice is included on the back ofthis1etter.
If you have further questions on this permit, please contact Mr. C. Kemper Loyd at the Valley Regional
Offic.e ofDEQ in Harrisonburg (540-574-7814). For questions regarding this letter, please feel free to
contact me (804-296;'58.61).
Sincerely,
l~~
Stephen Bowler
Watershed Manager
SB/bk
Attachment
Copy: Kemper Loyd, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
RobertW. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V
William'!. Mawyer, Jr., P.E., Engineering & Public Works
~
-", ~
File: Bowler\ConAgraLandApplyCitLetter.doc
FAX (804) 972-4035
~.r
PUBLIC NOTICE
ISSUANCE OF A VIRGINIA POLLUTION ABATEMENT (VPA) PERMIT AND
STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW
FirSt Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied by newspaper)
The State Water Control Board has under consideration issuance of the following Virginia Pollution
Abatement Permit:
VPAPermitNo.: VPA01570
Facility Name and Location: ConAgra Frozen Foods-Crozet, 5391 Three Notch'd Road, Crozet, VA
22932
Name of Owner: ConAgra Frozen Foods
Owner's Address: Five ConAgra Drive, Omaha, NE 68102
Description of VP A Pollutant Management Activities: Prior to ceasing operations in September,
2000, the applicant's Crozet facility prepared and packaged frozen meals. The applicant proposes a
one-time, land application of the biological industrial sludge remaining in its wastewater treatment
lagoons. The lagoons were part of the treatment of process wastewater from production and
sanitation of the food plant.
This proposed issuanceis tentative; . On the basis of preliminary review andapplicationoflawful
standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to issue theVirginiaPollution .
Abatement Permit.. subject tot~ertainconditions~
Land applicationfornutrientrecycle is a step in the final closure and reclamationofthefacility?s
wastewater treatment..system; The proposed project consists. of a one.:.time sludge application .tosix
hay and pasture fields at or below standard agronomic rates.. The six proposed application sites are
in the Crozet area as follows: 80 acres owned by ConAgra adjacent to the treatment lagoons in
Crozet; 120 acres owned by Don Russo southwest of the 1-64 / Route 691 overpass; 90 acres owned
by Daley Craig on Route 684 northeast of Yancey Mills; and 70 acres. owned by LinwoodBamett on
Routes 688 and 689 west of Midway.
All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected or copied by contacting C. Kemper Loyd at
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, P.O.
Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia2280l; Telephone No. (540) 574-7814; e-mail
ckloyd@deq.state.va.us. Persons may comment in writing or bye-mail to DEQ onthe proposed
permit action and may request a public hearing within 30 days from the date of the first notice. Only
those comments received within this period will be considered. Address comments to the contact
person listed above. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer,
the facility name and VP A permit number, and a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for
the comments. Requests for a public hearing shall state the reason why a hearing is requested, the
nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing, and a brief explanation of how the
requester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed permit action. DEQ
may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant.
Following the comment period, the Board will make a determination regarding the proposed permit
action. This determination will become effective unless DEQ grants a public hearing. Due noti.ce of
. any public hearing will be given.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Six Year Secondary Road Priority List
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Six Year Secondary Road Priority List
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACnS):
Messrs. Tucker,Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
REVIEWED BY:
~
~
BACKGROUND:
On February 21,2001, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List.
The majority of the comments from the public were concerning the Catterton Road(Rt. 667) paving project. The
Board of Supervisors voted to remove Catterton Road from the unpaved road priority list. Instead the Board of
Supervisors requested staff to work with VDOT to develop a spot improvement project to address issues related to
Catterton Road.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has rnet with VDOT and a resident to determine the type and location(s) of spot improvements along Catterton
Road. Based on this meting, VDOT will:
· Lower the hill on Catterton Road at a location approximately 315 feet from the intersection of Buck Mountain Ford
Road (Rt. 776).
· Lower the bank from the Ashcom mailbox to a location approximately 260 feet south.
· Lower bank where the road narrows for a distance of approximately 100 feet.
VDOT estimates these improvements would cost approximately $50,000. The County's maintenance fund would be
used to fund this project. The improvements could start as early as the Summer, 2001. All improvements could be
done within the existing right-of way. Please find attached the County's revised Six Year Secondary Road Priority List
(Attachment A) reflecting Catterton Road being removed from the unpaved priority list. VDOT's updated Secondary
Construction Program can be found in Attachment B. .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List (Attachment
A).
01.061
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the FY
2001-02/2006-07 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. In addition, the Board is aware that
the FY 2001-02 allocations shown in the Plan are the budgeted amounts for that year.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of an extract from the minutes of April 4, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Supe
. \,tto
.
Secondary System
County: Albemarle
Construction Program
Estimated Allocations
I
. 1~
FIscal Year T.,Jalments Federal other Total
__~______J_------~------------------------
2001-02 1$735,923 $3,814,811 $195,000 $4,745,734'
2002-03 $864,395 $4,111,478 $445,000 $5,420,873
2003-04 $944,443 $4,830,936 $70,000 $5,845,379
"..., 1"".'" ".919.'" '"'.''' $6,071,091
2005-06 1,026,419 $4,742,481 $565,656 $6,334,556
2006-07 1,026,419 $4,900,000 $408,137 $6,334,556
-------- ----------------.. --------
Totals t5,578,904 $27,319,492 $1,853,793 $34,752,189
I
!
Board Approval Dale:: Apr i 1 4, 2001
I
I
~)b
Page 1 018
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
District:
Scope of Work
FHWA#
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
previo\ls Funding
Estimated Cost
County: . Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
Road Name
#
Route
PPMS 10
Accomplishment
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
Project
FROM
TO
Length
Traffic Count
BUDGET ITEM
2003-04 $150,000 SIGNAL@ RT
631/164
Rev. Sh. 2003-4 $300000
Prelim. Engineering 2001-02
Ho/lymeade Dr.
$300,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$125,000
$125,000
$850,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$300,000
$300,000
7/1/01
PE
RW
CON
Total
Total County-Wide Allocation
CWI
TRAFFIC CALMING
VARIOUS LaC.
$0
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$300,000
7/1/01
o
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$120,000
$120,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
HA HON FERRY
0625-002-
OPERATE HATTON
FERRY
(BUDGET ITEM)
220
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota.
AD Date:
$0
$0
$850,000
$850,000
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
Rt. 8000
10: CWI
State Forces
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Pri#: 0
Rt. 8001
10: CWI
Contract
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Pri #: 0
Rt. 0625
10:
State Forces
PE
RW
CON
Total
Total County-Wide Allocation
CWI
NEW PIPE INSTALL.
SIGNS, SEEDING
NEW PLANT MIX
o
STATE
Regular
Pri#: 2
Rt. 9999
10: 56085
RURAL ADDITION
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$120,000
$20,000
$20,000
$210,000
$250,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$20,000
$20,000
$460,000
$500,000
7/1/0
PE
RW
CON
Total
WEST LEIGH DRIVE
9999-002-269, C501
Route 250
0.4 N. RTE. 250
0.4 MI
Contract
STATE
Regular
Pri#: 3
Rt. 0631
10: 2530
4-LANE BRIDGE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$250,000
$0
$250,000
$50,000
$0
$840,000
$890,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$50,000
$0
$1,830,500
$1,880,500
8/1/02
PE
RW
CON
Total
o
MciNTIRE RD. EXT.
0631-002-128,B657
BRIDGE OVER CSX RR
NEW ALIGNMENT
Contract
BR
Regular
Pri#: 4
NEW ALlGNMENT-2Ianes
4/5/01
Date:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,486,916
$990,500
$973,579
$990,500
$2,460,495
$1,205,000
$2,403,000
$6,556,105
$10,164,105
PE
RW
CON
Total
7/1/02
PE ,$1,205,000
RW $2,403,000
CON $9,016,600
Total $12,624,600
7/1/02
o
MciNTIRE RD. EXTENDED
0631-002-128,C502
NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE
CSX RAILROAD
1.37 MI
o
Rt. 0631
10: 2530
Contract
Page 2 of 8
STP
Regular
Pri #: 4
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
District:
Scope of Work
FHWA#
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
Road Name
Project #
Route
PPMS 10
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
2-lane Bridge
$150,000
$0
$2,054,500
$2,204,500
PE
RW
CON
Total
AD Date:
$150,000
$0
$2,054,500
$2,204,500
PE
RW
CON
Total
Length
Traffic Count
MciNTIRE RD. EXT.
0631-002-128,B612
BRIDGE OVER
MEADOW CREEK
Type of Project
Priority #
-
Rt. 0631
10: 2530
Contract
BR
4-LANE DIVIDED
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000
99
Paid
URBAN DESIGN WI S. W. & BIKE LANES
1998-
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,237,400
$3,092,477
$0
$4,329,877
PE
RW
CON
Total
7/1/02
PE $1,237,400
RW $4,856,550
CON $4,850,100
Total $10,944,050
o
AIRPORT ROAD
0649-002-158, C501
ROUTE 29
ROUTE 606
0.83 MI.
1
Regular
Pri#: 4
Rt. 0649
ID: 2456
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri #: 5
Rt. ROOO
2-LANE DESIGN
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 1995-
96
Paid
$0
$0
$0
$1,343,319
$2,920,122
$1,700,000
$650,732
$6,614,173
$600,000
$502,641
$0
102,641
$1
PE
RW
CON
Total
$600,000
$750,000
$2,000,000
$3,350,000
7/1/03
PE
RW
CON
Total
3411
FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTO
ROOO-002-259,C501
RIO ROAD
ROUTE 651
0.70 MI
10: 52393
Contract
STP
NEW ALIGNMENT
REVENUE SHARING $800,000 1997-
98
Paid
$0
$0
$610,477
$1,600,000
$36,662
$0
$0
$2,247,359
$1,402,365
$0
$0
$1,402,365
PE
RW
CON
Total
7/1/05
PE $4,200,000
RW $6,500,000
CON $26,800,000
Total $37,500,000
o
MEADOW CREEK PKY.
ROOO-002-253,PE101
RIO ROAD
RTE. 29
3.8 MI
Regular
Pri #: 6
Rt. ROOO
ID: 12981
Contract
STP
REVENUE SHARING
$1,000,000
2-LANE URBAN WIS. W. & BIKE LANES
1999-2000
$34,317 ,133
$300,000
$667,465
$432,681
$150,456
$109,900
$100,000
$36,097,635
$208,209
$0
$0
$208,209
PE
RW
CON
Total
$650,000
$1,300,000
$3,200,000
$5,150,000
5
PE
RW
CON
Total
11
o
JARMAN GAP ROAD
0691-002-258,C501
ROUTE 240
ROUTE 684
1.5MI
Regular
Pri#: 7
Rt. 0691
10: 11129
Contract
STP
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,000
$641,791
$1,500,000
$700,000
$100,000
$4,941,791
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$9,500,000
8/1/05
PE
RW
CON
Total
8
PROFFIT RD.
0649-002- ,C
21
Regular
Pri#: 8
Rt. 0649
ID: 54415
Contract
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 2006-
07
2-LANES RURAL WIBIKE LANES
4/5/01
Date:
$1,474,541
$4,100,000
$1,685,326
$901,995
$223,476
$114,662
$1,000,000
$9,500,000
8/1/06
ROUTE 29
E. RTE. 29
2273
1.6 MI
2.60 MI
STP
Regular
Pri#: 9
Page 3 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
EI()ard Approval Date:
Scope of Work
FHW A #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
Project #
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
REV. SHARING $ 1,000,0002000-01
3-LANES WIS.w. & BIKE LANES
$910,000
$0
$0
$910,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota
AD Date:
$950,000
$2,500,000
$3,750,000
$7,200,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
Length
Traffic Count
OLD IVY ROAD
0601-002-237,C501
ROUTE 250
RTE. 29 BYPASS
0.7
Route
PPMS 10
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
-
Rt.0601
ID: 8807
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri #: 10
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
REVENUE SHARING $200,0001997-
98
$5,845,461
$200,000
$244,539
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,290,000
$600,000
$100,000
$0
$700,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$600,000
$600,000
$2,000,000
$3,200,000
8/1/08
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
4358
GEORGETOWN ROAD
0656-002-254, C501
ROUTE 654
ROUTE 743
0.8 MI
Rt. 0656
ID: 12982
Contract
2-LANES WI S. W. & BIKE LANES
INTERSECTION IMPROV.
REVENUE SHARING $400,000 2005-06
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
AT INT. OLD STAGECOACH RD.
$1,900,000
$200,000
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$250,000
$300,000
$500,000
$1,050,000
12/1/08
PE
RW
CON
Total
13500
SUNSET AVE.
0781-002- ,C
STP
Regular
Pri #: 11
Rt. 0781
ID: 17171
Contract
NCL CH'VILLE
OLD RTE. 631
0.5 MI
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 12
REVENUE SHARING 2001-02
$1,000,000
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
$510,746
$143,598
$395,656
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,050,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$250,000
$250,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
10/1/08
PE
RW
CON
Total
275
OLD L YNCHBURGH RD.
0631-002- ,C
1.35 MI.S. 1-64
RTE. 708
5.0 MI
Rt. 0631
ID: 15329
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri#: 13
Rt. 0726
ID: 17170
$1,785,326
$100,000
$114,674
$0
$0
$0
$0
I
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
$150,000
$200,000
$450,000
$800,000
12/1/08
PE
RW
CON
Total
1500
JAMES RIVER ROAD
0726-002- ,C
ROUTE 795
1302
REVENUE SHARING $200,000 2002-
03
Contract
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
ROUTE
1.0 MI
STATE
Regular
Pri#: 14
LIGHTS & GATES
4/5/01
Date:
$705,461
$0
$94,539
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
~o
$0
$0
$0
$800,000
$0
$3,000
$1,000
$96,000
$100,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$3,000
$1,000
$96,000
$100,000
2/1/08
PE
RW
CON
Total
6/1/01
200
RAILROAD CROSSING
0679-002-260,FS713
0.25 MI S, RT. 738
(LIGHTS & GATES)
0.05MI
485
Rt. 0679
ID: 17172
Contract
Page 4 of 8
RRP
Regular
Pri#: 15
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
Project #
FROM
TO
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
AD Date:
Length
Traffic Count
GATES & LIGHTS
Construction Complete
$3,000
$1,000
$96,000
$100,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$3.000
$1,000
$96,000
$100,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
HATTON FERRY ROAD
0625-002,262.FS714
RAILROAD CROSSING
NEAR HATTON FERRY
O.05MI
Route
PPMSID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
Rt. 0625
ID: 17173
Contract
RRP
GATES & LIGHTS
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
12/1/00
21
$1,000
$0
$9,000
$10,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$1,000
$0
$9,000
$10,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
HUNT CLUB ROAD
0744-002-S63,FS715
NEAR INT. RTE. 22
RAILROAD CROSSING
0.05
Regular
Pri#: 16
Rt. 0744
ID: 54460
Railroad
RRP
Regular
Pri#: 17
GATES & LIGHTS
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8/1/01
640
,000
$0
$99,000
$100,000
$1
PE
RW
CON
Total
$1,000
$0
$99,000
$100,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
WEST LEIGH DRIVE
9999-002-270,FS716
N. OF ROUTE 250
RAILROAD CROSSING
0.05 MI
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
UNPA VED ROAD
CaNST. STARTED OCT. 2000
Rt. 9999
ID: 56086
Railroad
STATE
Regular
Pri#: 18
-
Rt. 0637
10: 11125
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri#' 19
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,000
$30,000
$1,045,000
$1,100,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$25,000
$30,000
$1,045,000
$1,100,000
10/1/01
PE
RW
CON
Total
DICK WOODS ROAD
0637-002-P52,N501
ROUTE 635
RT.682
2.9MI
UNPAVED ROAD
Const. To Begin 4-16-2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$15,000
$235,000
$260,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$10,000
$15,000
$235,000
$260,000
10/1/00
PE
RW
CON
Total
o
MIDWAY ROAD
0791-002,P56,N501
ROUTE 635
DEAD END RTE. 791
O.73MI
Rt. 0791
10: 11128
SAAP
STATE
Unpaved
UNPAVED ROAD .
Const. Started March 2001
4/5/01
Date:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-
$0
$0
$5,000
$15,000
$280,000
$300,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$5,000
$15,000
$280,000
$300,000
5/00
/15/00
11
PE
RW
CON
Total
307
DURRETT RIDGE ROAD
0605-002-P57,N501
GREENE CO. LINE
0.83 ME GREENE CL
0.83MI
93
Pri#: 20
Rt. 0605
10: 17175
SAAP
STATE
Page 5 of 8
Unpaved
Pri #: 21
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
District:
Scope of Work
FHWA#
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
Project #
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
GRA VEL ROAD
Canst to Begin June 2001
-
$10,000
$10,000
$280,000
$300,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
AD Date:
$10,000
$10,000
$280,000
$300,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
Length
Traffic Count
GRASSMERE ROAD
0679.002-P61,N501
ROUTE 738
END MAINT.
0.7 MI
Type of Project
Priority #
Rt. 0679
10: 11127
SAAP
STATE
Unpaved
Pri#: 22
Rt. 0615
UNPA VED ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$200,000
$220,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
$10,000
$10,000
$200,000
$220,000
11/1/00
PE
RW
CON
Total
216
L1NSDAY ROAD
0615-002-P64,N501
ROUTE 639
LOUISA CO,
0.50 MI
10: 54422
SAAP
STATE
-
LINE
UNPA VED ROAD RIGHT OF WA Y
AVAILABLE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$347,365
$387,365
PE
RW
CON
Total
$20,000
$20,000
$610,000
$650,000
4/1/0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
UNPA VED ROAD PARTIAL RIGHT OF
WAY
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$262,635
$262,635
$30,000
$50,000
$69,067
$149,067
PE
RW
CON
Total
$30,000
$50,000
$745,000
$825,000
8/1/02
PE
RW
CON
Total
0.7 M.W. RTE.
0.28 MW. RT.
2.09
UNPAVED ROAD
NO RIGHT OF WAY
$0
$0
$0
$0
$105,474
$222,171
$348,288
$675,933
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$20,000
$40,000
$1,340,000
$1,400,000
1/1/03
PE
RW
CON
Total
Unpaved
Pri #c 23
..." 0737
54425
ntract
ATE
paved
#: 24
0708
11130
ntract
ATE
paved
#: 25
-
0702
54426
ntract
ATE
paved
237
MOUNTAIN VISTA RD.
0737-002-P ,N
ROUTE 6
1.19 MI.E. RT. 6
1.19
75
SECRETARYS ROAD
0708-002-P77,N501
795
620
Rt.
10:
151
RESERVOIR ROAD
0702-002-P ,N
ROUTE 29 RAMP
DEAD END
2.4 MI
Rt
10:
UNPA VED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WA Y
4/5/01
Date:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$366,987
$0
$578.512
$140,000
$329,501
$220,000
$125,000
$0
$1,400,000
$360,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
$20,000
$40,000
$300,000
$360,000
12/1/04
10/1/03
PE
RW
CON
Total
406
GILBERT STATION RD.
0640-002-P ,N
ROUTE 641
ROUTE 747
0.70 MI
230
Pri #: 26
Rt. 0640
ID: 54427
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 27
Page 6 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
District
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated,cost
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
Road Name
Project #
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
UNPA VED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WA Y
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
AD Date:
$20,000
$40,000
$300,000
$360,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
Length
Traffic Count
HEARDS MT.RD.
0633-C02-P ,N
NELSON CO. LINE
ROUTE 634
C.50MI
Rt. 0633
10: 54428
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
UNPA VED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WA Y
$0
$0
$0
$146,820
$120,457
$92,723
$0
$360,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$20,000
$60,000
$1,200,000
$1,280,000
10/1/04
PE
RW
CON
Total
59
DICKERSON ROAD
0606-002.P ,N
ROUTE 850
ROUTE 1030
1.99 MI
Pri#: 28
Rt. 0606
10: 54429
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD
$0
$280,000
$650,000
$350,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,280,000
10/1/06
170
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$10,000
$15,000
$175,000
$200,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
BEAM ROAD
0769-002-P ,N
RTE. 1484
END STATE MAl NT.
0.27 MI
Pri#: 29
Rt. 0769
10:
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
$0
$0
$82,502
$117,498
$0
$0
$0,
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$15,000
$30,000
$300,000
$345,000
10/1/06
PE
RW
CON
Total
50
WOODS EDGE ROAD
0623-002-P ,N
0.5 MI. S. RT. 616
END STATE MAl NT.
0.90MI
Pri #: 30
Rt. 0623
10:
SAAP
STATE
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
4/5/01
Date:
$0
$479,664
$195,000
$551,419
$150,000
$143,917
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$345,000
$1.175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$25,000
$50,000
$1,100,000
$1,175,000
10/1/06
10/1/08
PE
RW
CON
Total
140
DOCTORS CROSSING RD.
0784-002-P ,N
ROUTE 600
ROUTE 640
2.9 MI
360
Unpaved
Pri #: 31
Rt. 0784
10:
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri#: 32
Page 7 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
$48,318,332
$6,334,556
$6,334,556
$6,071,09
$5,845,379
$5,420,873
$4,745,734
$83,070,521
$25,188,129
$108,258,650
Total Allocated
107,920
$1
$494,539
132,139
$1
$624,543
$373,932
$606,353
$1,220,000
$5,559,426
$6,500,974
$12,060,400
PE
$9,056,207
$1,018,139
$2,515,521
$1,025,610
$978,673
$1,551,550
$690,732
$16,836,432
$6,270,118
$23,106,550
RW
$38,154,205
$4,821,878
$2,686,896
$4,420,938
$4,492,774
$3,262,970
$2,835,002
$60,674,663
$12,417,037
$73,091,700
CON
4/5/01
Date:
$6,334,556
$0
$6,334.556
$0
$6,071.09
$0
$5,845,379
$0
$5,420,873
$0
$4.745,734
$0
Original Allocation
Balance
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
County Totals
Report Totals
Page 8 of 8
\
ATTACHMENT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
2001-02 Through 2006-07
APPROVED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON APRIL 4, 2001.
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 Jun-02 $6,500,000 relocated to meet FAA requirements, funded wI Fed. Funds, proj. will extend runway
Month-Year
1 1 County wide County wide Jun-07 . .$850,000 signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding
1 1 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program Jun-07 $300,000 Staff working with VDOTfor traffic calming in the Hollymead area in 2001-02
2 2 625 Hatton Ferry Hatton Ferry Jun-07 $120,000 operation of ferry [220]
3 3 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to.4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Aug-02 $500,000 rural addition
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Melbourne Rd to Rio Road Jul-02 $14,505,100 plans being dev. with citizen adv. cmt., includes bridge over CSX RR
4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over CSX RR Jul-02 $2,204,500 widen to four lanes (associated with project above)
5 5 649 Airport Road Route 29 to Route 606 Jul-03 $10,944,050 widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [14,800]
6 6 651 Free State Road Free State Road Jul-05 $3,350,000 substandard bridge in Developed Area,project may build a new connector road [420]
7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 631 to Route 29 Jan-15 $37,500,000 new road, County also petitioning for eligib. for primary road funding RS 97/98
8 8 691 Jarmans Gap Road Route 240 to Route 684 Aug-05 $5,150,000 serve increased trafwl minwidening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 [2,100]
9 9 649 Proffit Road Route 29 to Route 819 Aug-06 $9,500,000 GATS. recom.,il11prove .si9l1tc:listance and. alignment,bike/sidewalk,RS2002/03 [3,000]
10 10 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250/29 Byp Aug-08 $7,200,000 widen, improve align, bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01 [5,400]
11 11 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 Dec-08 $3,200,000 spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [14,000]
12 12 781 Sunset Avenue Rt. 780 to Rt. 708 Oct-08 $1,050,000 spot improvements at various locations.RS 2005/06
13 13 631 Old Lynchburg Road Route 780 to Route 708 Dec-08 $2,000,000 spot improvements at various locations,RS01/02 [2,500]
14 14 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 Dec-08 $800,000 spot improve, improve sight distance, RS02/03 [720]
15 15 679 Grassmere Road .25 miles south of Rt 738 Nov-OO $100,000 Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [370]
16 16 625 Hatton Ferry Road .75 miles south of to RR Dec-OO $100,000 Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. [220]
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
Description/Comments
Estimated
Cost
Estimated
Advertisement
Location
To
From
Route Number and Name
County's
Proposed
Ranking
VDOT's
Priority
List
Date
Month-Year
-==============================================================================================================================
~.6
~
,,)
.Q.Qe::OO oeft . v
------------------------
-------------------------
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. Hazard elimin. safety funds
$10,000
near intersection with Rt. 22
Club Road
744 Hunt
gate.
RS 2003/04.[2,000]
lights or
Railroad crossing with no
$100,000
Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250
West Leigh Drive
ntersection improvement.
$550,000
Aug-06
ntersection of Route 789
810 Browns Gap Road
676 Tilman Road Road
[4,800]
intersection improvement,RS 2003/04
intersection. improvement [2,800]
$200,000
May-06
Jun-06
ntersection of Route 250
17
18
19
20
21
17
18
$650,000
ntersection of Route 250
678 Owensville Road
[570]
traffic, CATS
improvement.
improve to handle projected
recommended from CATS,
intersection
$300,000
$1,200,000
Jun-06
ntersection of Route 790
795 Blenheim Road
recommm.. RS 2002/03 [5,800]
Aug-06
Route 649 to Route 743
606 Dickerson Road
intersection improvement.RS 2005/06 [2,800]
$350,000
Dec-07
ntersection of Route 53
Monroe Pky
Southern Parkway
795 James
be constructed to serve development as it occurs
wi
$4,000,000
N/A
?
Avon Str. to Fifth Str.
22
23
24
25
26
**
**
nterconnect of future neighborhood streets as needed
?
Route 240 to Route 250
N/A
improv. safety related, RS2 004/05 [750]
improv align
to
public req
instal
$1,500,000
$440,000
Sep-08
recommendedsafety project
not a County priority,a VDOT
Aug-08
Aug-08
recommended safety project
instal
$60,000
mprove. requested by City, to be funded from private source [25,000]
Inter.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Aug-08
Oct-08
Route 29 to Route 649
Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run
Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run
Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane
Rivanna River to Rt
643 Polo Grounds Road
Frays Mill Road
641
Road
Frays Mi
Rio Road
641
631
improv. safety related.RS 2004/05 [8,300]
public request to improv align, spot
643
743 Earlysville Road
Mile Branch Road
traffic wi minimum widening [680]
improvement to serve increased
with low sufficiency rating
spot/safety
Rt. 691 to Rt. 797
684 Half
[340]
limit
request,
lights or gate [390]
low weight
transp
Railroad crossing with no
Dept.
bridge project
school
NOITolk Southern RR
Railroad overpass
.01 miles south Route 626
602 Howardsville Tnpk
640 Gilbert Station Road
27
N/A
N/A
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Burnley Station Road
708 Dry Bridge Road
641
[ 170]
bridge project with low sufficiency rating
NOITolk Southern RR
[1 00]
Railroad crossing with no gate
Rt.708
.28 miles northeast
Road
642 Red Hill Depot
35
[370]
intersection improvement
ntersection of Route 665
Millington Road
671
36
limits
[1,500]
improve alignment [1,200]
new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, most of project is located in City
improvements, safety related
spot
Route 29 to Route 712
Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.
Route 20 to Route 29
692 Plank Road
708 Red Hill Road
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
Hillsdale Drive
37
39
38
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 64 633 Heards Mtn Road Nelson CL to Route 634 Oct-06 $360,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [60]
29 65 606 Dickerson road Route 850 to Route 1030 Oct-06 $1,280,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360]
30 66 769 Beam Road Off Route 20 north Oct-06 $200,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [780]
31 67 623 Woods Edge Rd Route 616 to dead end Oct-06 $345,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [420]
32 68 784 Doctors Crossing Route 600 to Route 640 Oct-08 $1,175,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360]
69 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 711 to Rt. 692 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [250]
70 647 Maxfield Road Rt.22 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [470]
71 666 Allen Road Route 664 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [220]
72 734 Bishop Hill Road Route 795 to Rt. 1807 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [180]
73 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 784 to Route 20 unpaved road, R-O-W not available [170]
74 685 Bunker Hill Road Route 616 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [150]
75 645 Wildon Grove Rd Rt. 608 to Orange CL unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [140]
76 712 North Garden Road Route 29 to Route 760 unpaved road, R-O-W not available [140]
77 668 Walnut Level Road Rt. 81 0 to dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
78 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
79 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt. 732 to Deand End unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [130]
80 682 Broad Axe Road Rt. 637 to 1-64 unpaved road, R-O-W nqt available [120]
81 678.0wensville Road Route 676 to Route 614 unpaved road, R-O-W not available [120]
82 760 Red Hill School Road Route 29 to RHES unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [120]
83 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [100]
84 674 Sugar Ridge Road Route 614 to Route 673 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [80]
85 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [70]
86 707 Blair Park Road Rt. 691 to Dead end unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined [70]
87 769 Rocky Hollow Road Rt. 1484 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [45]
$119,508,650
[ ] Most Current Average Daily Trips
Currently not eligible not for VDOT funding List includes projects from Scottsville not reviewed by the Planning Commission RS - Revenue Sharing
ATTACHMENT B
Secondary System
Albemarle
County
Construction Program
Estimated Allocations
Total
Other
Federal
New Surface
Treatments
$4,745,734
$195,000
$3,814,811
$735,923
$5,420,873
$445,000
$4,111,478
$864,395
$5,845,379
$70,000
$4,830,936
$944,443
$6,071,091
$170,000
$4,919,786
$981,305
$6,334,556
$565,656
$4,742,481
$1,026,419
$6,334,556
$34,752,189
$408,137
$1,853,793
Date
Date
$4,900,000
$27,319,492
Chairman, Clerk, Co. Administrator
$1,026,419
$5,578,904
Board Approval Date:
VDOT Resident Engineer
.\
Fiscal Year
..---
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
---
Totals
...
Page 1 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001.02 through 2006.07
Culpeper
Albemarle
Date:
District
County:
Board Approval
Work
Scope of
FHWA #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
Project #
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
Length
Traffic Count
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
BUDGET ITEM
2003-04 $150,000 SIGNAL @RT
631/164
Rev. Sh. 2003-4 $300000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$850,000
$850,000
AD Date:
PE
RW
CON
Total
Total County-Wide Allocation
CWI
NEW PIPE INSTALL.
SIGNS, SEEDING
NEW PLANT MIX
o
$300,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$126,000
$125,000
$850,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
07/01/2001
$0
$0
$300,000
$300,000
Prelim. Engineering 2001-02
Hollymeade Dr.
Rt. 8000
10: CWI
State Forces
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Pri#: 0
Rt. 8001
ID: CWI
Contract
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
Total County-Wide Allocation
CWI
TRAFFIC CALMING
VARIOUS LOC.
$0
$50,000
$60,000
$50,000
$50,000
$60,000
$50,000
$300,000
07/01/2001
o
Pri#: 0
-
Rt. 0625
10:
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
$0
$0
$120,000
$120,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
HATTON FERRY
0625-002-
OPERATE HATTON
FERRY
(BUDGET ITEM)
220
RURAL ADDITION
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$120,000
$20,000
$20,000
$210,000
$250,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
07/01/2001
$20,000
$20,000
$460,000
$600,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
WEST LEIGH DRIVE
9999-002-269,C501
Route 250
004 N. RTE. 250
OAMI
State Forces
STATE
Regular
Pri#: 2
-
Rt.
ID:
9999
56085
Contract
STATE
Regular
Pri#: 3
-
Rt.0631
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$260,000
$0
$250,000
$50,000
$0
$840,000
$890,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
08/01/2002
PE $50,000
RW $0
CON $1,830,500
Total' $1,880,500
o
MciNTIRE RD. EXT.
0631-002-128,8657
'BRIDGE OVER CSX RR
NEW ALIGNMENT
10: 2530
Contract
4-LANE BRIDGE
BR
Regular
Pri #: 4
-
Rt. 0631
10: 2530
NEW ALlGNMENT-2Ianes
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$990,600
$990,600
$1,205,000
$2,403,000
$6,556,105
$10,164,106
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
07/01/2002
PE $1,205,000
RW $2,403,000
C9N $9,016,600
Total $12,624,600
o
MciNTIRE RD. EXTENDED
0631-002-128,C502
NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE
CSX RAILROAD
1.37MI
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri#: 4
2/2001
$0
Date: 031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,486,916
$973,619
$2,460,495
07/01/2002
o
Page 2 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001.02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
District
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
#
Project
FROM
TO
2006-07
2005-06
200+05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2-lane Bridge
$150,000
$0
$2,054,500
$2,204,500
PE
RW
CON
Tata,
AD Date:
PE $150,000
RW $0
CON $2,054,500
Total $2,204,500
Length
Traffic Count
MciNTIRE RD. EXT.
0631-002.128,B612
BRIDGE OVER
MEADOWCREEK
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
Rt. 0631
10; 2530
Contract
BR
Regular
Pri#: 4
-
Rt. 0649
10; 2456
4-LANE DIVIDED
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,0001998-
99
Paid
URBAN DESIGN WI S.W. & BIKE LANES
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,237,400
$3,092,477
$0
$4,329,877
PE
RW
CON
Tata,
07/01/2002
PE $1,237,400
RW $4,856,550
CON $4,850,100
Total $10,944,050
o
AIRPORT ROAD
0649-002-158,C501
ROUTE 29
ROUTE 606
0.83MI
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri#: 5
2-lANE DESIGN
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,0001995-
96
Paid
$0
$0
$0
$1,343,319
$2,920,122
$1,700,000
$850,732
$8,614,173
$600,000
$502,641
$0
$1,102,641
PE
RW
CON
Tata,
01/01/2003
$600,000
$750,000
$2,000,000
$3,350,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
3411
FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTO
ROOO-002-259,C501
RIO ROAD
ROUTE 651
0.70MI
Rt. ROOO
10; 52393
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri#: 6
-
Rt. ROOO
10: 12981
NEW ALIGNMENT
REVENUE SHARING $800,000 1997-
98
Paid
$0
$0
$610,477
$1,800,000
$38,882
$0
$0
$2,247,359
$1,402,365
$0
$0
$1,402,385
PE
RW
CON
Total
07/01/2005
PE $4,200,000
RW $6,500,000
CON $26,800,000
Total $37,500,000
o
MEAOOWCREEK PKY.
ROOO-002-253,PE101
RIO ROAD
RTE. 29
3.8MI
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri#: 7
REVENUE SHARING
$1,000,000
2-LANE URBAN WIS. W. & BIKE LANES
199~2000
$34,317,133
$300,000
$887,465
$432,881
$150,456
$109,900
$100,000
$36,097,635
$208,209
$0
$0
$208,209
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
P1/01/2015
$650,000
$1,300,000
$3,200,000
$5,150,000
PE
RW
CON
Tata,
o
JARMAN GAP ROAD
0691-002-258,C501
ROUTE 240
ROUTE 684
1.5MI
Rt. 0691
10; 11129
Contract
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,000
$641,791
$1,500,000
$700,000
$100,000
$4,941,791
08/01/2005
2118
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tata,
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$9,500,000
PE
RW
CON
Tata,
PROFFIT RD.
0649-002- ,C
STP
RegUlar
Pri#:8
-
Rt. 0649
10: 54415
Contract
REVENUE SHARING $1.000,000 2006-
07
2-LANES RURAL WIBIKE LANES
2/2001
Date: 03/1
$1,474,541
$4,100,000
$1,685,328
$901,995
$223,476
$114,882
$1,000,000
$9,500,000
08/01/2006
ROUTE 29
E. RTE. 29
2273
1.6 MI
2.60MI
STP
Regular
Pri#: 9
Page 3 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
County; Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
District
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
#
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
Project
FROM
TO
Length
Traffic
-
Route
PPMSID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds;
Type of Project
Priority #
REV. SHARING $ 1,000,0002000.01
3-LANES WIS. W. & BIKE LANES
$910,000
$0
$0
$910,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
AD Date:
$950,000
$2,500,000
$3,750,000
$7,200,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
Count
OLD IVY ROAD
0601-002-237,C501
ROUTE 250
RTE. 29 BYPASS
0.7
Rt. 0601
ID: 8807
Contract
STP
Regular
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
$5,845,461
$200,000
$244,539
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,290,000
$600,000
$100,000
$0
$700,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
08/01/2008
PE $600,000
RW $600,000
CON $2,000,000
Total $3,200,000
4358
GEORGETOWN ROAD
0656-002-254,C501
ROUTE 654
ROUTE 743
0.8MI
Pri #: 10
-
Rt. 0656
ID: 12982
Contract
REVENUE SHARING $200,000 1997-
98
STP
Regular
Pri #: 11
2-LANES WI S. W. & BIKE LANES
$1,900,000'
$200,000
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,500,000
12/01/2008
13500
INTERSECTION IMPROV.
REVENUE SHARING $400,000 200$-06
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
A T INT. OLD STAGECOACH RD.
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
PE $250,000
RW $300,000
CON $500,000
Total $1,050,000
SUNSET AVE.
0781-002- ,C
NCL CH'VILLE
OLD RTE. 631
0.5MI
Rt. 0781
ID: 17171
Contract
STATE
Regular
$510,746
$143,598
$395,656
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,050,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
10/01/2008
$250,000
$250,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
275
OLD L YNCHBURGH RD.
0631-002- ,C
1.35 MI.S.I-64
RTE.708
5.0MI
Pri#: 12
-
Rt. 0631
ID: 15329
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri#: 13
REVENUE SHARING 2001-02
$1,000,000
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
$1 ,785,326
$100,000
$114,674
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
12/01/2008
$150,000
$200,000
$450,000
$800,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
1500
JAMES RIVER ROAD
0726.002- ,C
ROUTE 795
ROUTE 1302
1.0MI
Rt. 0726
ID: 17170
Contract
REVENUE SHARING $200,000 2002-
03
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 14
-----
Rt. 0679
ID: 17172
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
$705,461
$94,539
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$800,000
12/01/2008
1200
LIGHTS & GATES
$3,000
$1 ,000
$96,000
$100,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
$3,000
$1,000
$96,000
$100,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
RAILROAD CROSSING
0679-002-260,FS713
0.25 MI S, RT. 738
(LIGHTS & GATES)
O.05MI
Contract
RRP
Regular
Pri #: 15
$0
Date: 03/12/2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11/01/2000
485
Page 4 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work
PPMS 10 Project # Funding Complete FHWA#
Accomplishment FROM Required Comments
Type of Funds: TO 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Type of Project Length
Priori # Traffic Count AD Date:
Rt. 0625 HATTON FERRY ROAD PE $3,000 PE $3,000 GATES & LIGHTS
ID: 17173 0625-002,262,FS714 RW $1,000 RW $1,000
Contract RAILROAD CROSSING CON $96,000 CON $96,000
RRP NEAR HATTON FERRY Total $100,000 Total $100,000
Regular 0.05MI.
Pri#: 16 211 12/01/2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rl. 0744 HUNT CLUB ROAD PE $1,000 PE $1,000 GATES & LIGHTS
ID: 54460 0744-002-S63.FS715 RW $0 RW $0
Railroad NEAR INT. RTE. 22 CON $9,000 CON $9,000
RRP RAILROAD CROSSING Total $10,000 Total $10,000
Regular 0.05
Pri#: 17 640 12/01/2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rl. 9999 WEST LEIGH DRIVE PE $1,000 PE $1,000 GATES & LIGHTS
10: 56086 9999-002-270,FS716 RW $0 RW $0
Railroad N. OF ROUTE 250 CON $99,000 CON $99,000
STATE RAILROAD CROSSING Total $100,000 Total $100,000
Regular 0.05MI.
Pri#: 18 12/01/2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rl. 0637 DICK WOODS ROAD PE $25,000 PE $25,000 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ID: 11125 0637-002-P52,N501 RW $30,000 RW $30,000
Contract ROUTE 635 CON $1,045,000 CON $1,045,000 UNPAVED ROAD
STATE RT.682 Total $1,100,000 Total $1,100,000 CONST. STARTED OCT. 2000
Unpaved 2.9MI.
Pri#: 19 110 10/01/2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rl. 0791 MIDWAY ROAD PE $10,000 PE $10,000
ID: 11128 0791-002,P56,N501 RW $15,000 RW $15,000
SAAP ROUTE 636 CON $235,000 CON $235,000 UNPAVED ROAD
STATE DEAD END RTE. 791 AD\!. NOV2000
Total $260,000 Total $260,000
Unpaved 0.73 MI.
Pri #: 20 307 11/16/2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rl. 0605 DURRETT RIDGE ROAD PE $5,000 PE $5,000
ID: 17175 0605-002-P57,N501 RW $15,000 RW $15,000
SAAP GREENE CO. LINE CON $280,000 CON $280,000 -. UNPA VED ROAD
STATE 0.83 ME GREENE CL AD\!. NOV. 2000
Total $300,000 Total $300,000
Unpaved 0.83MI.
Pri #: 21 93 11/15/2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Date: 03/12/2001
Page 5 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
District
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
Project #
Route
PPMS 10
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
Length
Traffic Count
Type of Project
Priority #
GRA VEL ROAD
ADVERTISED OCT. 2000
-
$10,000
$10,000
$280,000
$300,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
AD Date:
$10,000
$10,000
$280,000
$300,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
GRASSMERE ROAD
0679-002-P61,N501
ROUTE 738
END MAINT.
0.7MI
RI. 0679
10: 11127
SAAP
STATE
Unpaved
UNPAVED ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$200,000
$220,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
11/01/2000
$10,000
$10,000
$200,000
$220,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
216
L1NSDAY ROAD
0615-002-P64,N501
ROUTE 639
LOUISA CO, LINE
0.50MI
Pri#: 22
-
RI. 0615
10: 54422
SAAP
STATE
UNPAVED ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
AVAILABLE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$347,365
$387,365
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
04/01/2001
$20,000
$20,000
$610,000
$650,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota
237
MOUNTAIN VISTA RD.
0737-002-P ,N
ROUTE 6
1.19MI.E.RT.6
1.19
Unpaved
Pri#: 23
-
RI. 0737
ID: 54425
UNPA VED ROAD PARTIAL RIGHT OF
WAY
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$262,635
$262,635
$30,000
$50,000
$69,067
$149,067
PE
RW
CON
Tota.
08/01/2002
$30,000
$50,000
$745,000
$825,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
75
SECRETARYS ROAD
070S-002-P77 ,N501
0.7 M.W. RTE. 795
0.28 M.W. RT. 620
2.09
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri#: 24
-
RI. 0708
10: 11130
UNPAVED ROAD
NO RIGHT OF WA Y
$0
$0
$0
$0
$105,474
$222,171
$348,288
$675,933
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
01/01/2003
$20,000
$40,000
$1,340,000
$1,400,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota.
151
RESERVOIR ROAD
0702-002-P ,N
ROUTE 29 RAMP
DEAD END
204MI
ID:
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY
$0
$0
$0
$366,987
$578,512
$329,501
$125,000
$1,400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
12/01/2004
$20,000
$40,000
$300,000
$360,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota
406
GILBERT STATION RD.
0640-002-P ,N
ROUTE 641
ROUTE 747
0.70MI
Rt
ID:
2/2001
$0
Date: 03/
$0
$0
$0
$140,000
$220,000
$0
$360,000
1 % 1/2003
230
Page 6 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date:
Scope of Work
FHWA#
Comments
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
Road Name
Project #
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
FROM
TO
Length
Traffic Count
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
AD Date:
$20,000
$40,000
$300,000
$360,000
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
Rt. 0633
10: 54428
Contraot
STATE
Unpaved
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
HEARDS MT.RD.
0633-002.P ,N
NELSON CO. LINE
ROUTE 634
0.50MI
UNPA VED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY
$0
$0
$0
$146,820
$120,467
$92,723
$0
$360,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
10/01/2004
$20,000
$60,000
$1,200,000
$1,280,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
59
DICKERSON ROAD
0606-002-P ,N
ROUTE 850
ROUTE 1030
1.99MI
Pri#: 28
-
Rt. 0606
10: 54429
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
$0
$280,000
$660,000
$350,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,280,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
10/01/2006
$10,000
$15,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
170
BEAM ROAD
0769-002-P ,N
RTE. 1484
END STATE MAINT.
0.27MI
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri#: 29
-
Rt. 0769
ID:
Contract
STATE
$175,000
$200,000
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
$0
$0
$82,502
$117,498
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Total
10/01/2006
$15,000
$30,000
$300,000
$345,000
PE
RW
CON
Total
50
WOODS EDGE ROAD
0623-002-P ,N
0.5 MI. S. RT. 616
END STATE MAINT.
0.90MI
Unpaved
Pri #: 30
Rt. 0623
10:
SAAP
STATE
GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
$0
$195,000
$160,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$345,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
10/01/2006
$25,000
$50,000
$1,100,000
$1,176,000
PE
RW
CON
Tota,
140
DOCTORS CROSSING RD.
0784-002-P ,N
ROUTE 600
ROUTE 640
2.9MI
Unpaved
Pri #: 31
-
Rt. 0784
10:
Contract
STATE
Unpaved
Pri #: 32
2/2001
$479,664
Date: 03/1
$661,419
$143,917
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1.175,000
10/01/2008
360
Page 7 of 8
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in do lars)
2001-02 through 2006-07
Balance to
Complete
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
Additional
Funding
Required
Previous Funding
Estimated Cost
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
$48,318,332
$6,334,556
$6,334,556
$6,071,091
$5,845,379
$5,420,873
$4,745,734
$83,070,521
$25,188,129
$108,258,650
Total Allocated:
107,920
$1
$494,539
$1,132,139
$624,543
$373,932
$606,353
$1,220,000
$5,559,426
$6,500,974
$12.060,400
PE
$9,056,207
$1,018,139
$2.515,521
$1,025,610
$978,673
$1,551,550
$690,732
$16,836,432
$6,270,118
$23,106,550
RW
$38,154,205
$4,821,878
$2,686,896
$4,420,938
$4,492,774
$3,262,970
$2,835,002
$60,674,663
$12,417,037
$73,091,700
CON
2/2001
Date: 03/
$6,334,556
$0
$6,334,556
$0
$6,071,091
$0
$5,845,379
$0
$5,420,873
$0
$4,745,734
$0
Original Allocation:
Balance
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
,
County Totals
Report Totals
-
Page 8 of 8
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060
April 6, 2001
Mr. Charles D. Nottingham, Commissioner
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-2000
RE: Rt. 22/231- Truck Traffic
Dear Mr. Nottingham:
The County has reviewed your letter and accompanying documentation dated December 29, 2000 (RE: Truck
Traffic Issues Route 22/231 Corridor-Albemarle/ Louisa/ Orange County). Staff evaluated the information and
presented a summary and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors (attached report) at their Apri14, 2001
meeting. Based on this information, the Board of Supervisors is requesting that VDOT conduct a thorough origin~
destination study of truck traffic on the 22/231 corridor. Mr. Jim Bryan, Charlottesville Resident Engineer, was
present at this meeting and I believe supports this recommendation.
In the interim, the County requests that VDOT install truck advisory signs along the corridor warning that the Rt.
22/231 corridor is not advisable for large trucks, e.g., "Through Trucks Discouraged". The Board of Supervisors
has also endorsed increased enforcement of speed limits along this road segment.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development or me.
RWTjrlbat
01. 00 1
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Attachment
pc: Mr. James L. Bryan
Chief John F. Miller
Ms. EllaW.Carey
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAnON
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
April 17, 2001
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
This is to acknowledge your recent letter requesting that the Virginia Department
of Transportation conduct an origin-destination study of the truck traffic using the Route
22/231 corridor through Albemarle, Louisa, and Orange counties.
Currently, the Department of Transportation is awaiting comment from the
various counties involved with the corridor and alternate routes. We are also researching
past origin-destination studies, which have been conducted in the Charlottesville area, to
determine if any of the data compiled is relative to the issues on this corridor. In the
same effort, the Department will consider the feasibility, cost and timeframe of
conducting an origin-destination study that may entail contracting professional services,
due to the time and manpower required.
In the near future, we will inform you whether studies from past data would be
. applicable in this case and, if needed, what resources would be required to conduct an
origin-destination study for truck traffic.
Thank you and your staff for raising safety issues related to truck traffic along this
corridor.
... It.....' i..D.C. e..,...r...elY.' ...
.'VLO 1Id,
. C. D.'N~t;:~~
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Truck Restriction on Rt.22/231
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review of VDOT information and truck restriction and staff's
recommendation
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACnS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg, Benish ,Wade
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County has been working with VDOT and the residents along the Route 22/231 corridor for many years to
improve the safety for all vehicles. VDOT has compiled a "Briefina- Through Tractor Trailer Traffic Issues"
(Attachment A). In this short briefing, VDOT offers an historical account of all past actions taken by VDOT, business
along the corridor, and action taken by local governments to improve the safety of trucks traveling along the corridor.
DISCUSSION:
In an effort to address continued community pressure to restrict tractor-trailers on Routes 22/231, VDOT offered three
Alternate routes in the Briefing.
Alternate Route A
Alternate Route B
Alternate Route C
Route 250 Route 250 (or 1-64) Route 20
From: Route 22 (Shadwell) From: Route 22 (Shadwell) From: Route 250
To: Route 29 (Charlottesville) To: Route 15 To: Route 33
City of Charlottesville/Albemarle Co. Albemarle/Fluvanna/Louisa Co. Albemarle/Orange County
Lenqth 6.73 Lenqth: 10.40 Lenqth: 15.07
Route 29 Route 15 Route 33
From: Route 250 (Charlottesville) From: Route 250 From: Route 20
To: Route 33 (Ruckersville) To: Town of Gordonsville SCL To: Town of Gordonsville WCL
Albemarle/Greene County Fluvanna/Louisa/Orange County Orange County
Lenqth: 14.09 Lenqth: 11 .45 Length: 5.60
Route 33
From: Route 29 (Ruckersville)
To: Town of Gordonsville WCL
Albemarle/Orange County
Lenqth: 12.41
Total Length Alternate A: 33.23 miles Total LenQth Alternate B: 21.85 Total Lenath Alternate C: 20.67
miles miles
Total Lenath of Route 22/231 Corridor: 14.89
It is staff's position that VDOT's alternate routes do not acknowledge that much of the truck traffic on Routes 22/231
does not seem to originate in the Gordonsville area. Staff believes that many of the trucks originate from the northern
Virginia area and out of state. The 22/231 corridor seemS to serve as a short cut between several state STAA
(Surface Transportation Assistance Act) routes - see Attachment B.
1
AGENDA TITLE:
Truck Restriction on Rt.22/231
April 4, 2001
Page 2
Because there is no comprehensive origin-destination study, it is difficult to map an alternate route more indicative
of the through truck traffic movements occurring. A thorough origin-destination study is necessary before the County
can offer a recommendation to VDOT on an alternate route.
The County has also requested information from VDOT on the possible implications of transferring a primary road
to the secondary system (Attachment C) to determine if it would improve the chances of getting an approval for a
truck restriction. VDOT has ultimate approval for restrictions on primary and secondary roads. VDOT responded to
the County's request for information (Attachment D) by indicating that the County would have to consider that, "the
costs for improvements tO,and maintenance of, these roads would have to come from the County's Secondary Road
allocations, rather than the Culpeper District-wide allocations for Primaries. This could have direct impact on
improvement and maintenance needs for other Secondary Routes within the County." Again, the County has not
requested a transfer from VDOT, but it is an option.
There are several steps that staff can take to improve truck safety on Rt. 22/231 while VDOT is considering
conducting an origin-destination study. These include speed enforcement and advisory signs along the corridor.
The advisory signs would be similar to those the County is requesting on Earlysville Road. The signs would indicate
that Rt. 22/231 is not recommended asa route for large trucks.
RECOMMNEDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors request VDOT to conduct an origin-destination study of trucks using
the Route 22/231 corridor. Based on this study, staff will offer an alternate truck route for the corridor to VDOT. In
the meantime, the Board may want to consider more speed enforcement and advisory signs on Routes 22/231.
01.063
2
"
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060
FAX (804) 296-5800
January 10, 2001
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Routes 22/231 Corridor - Truck Traffic Issue
Dear Wayne:
Attached is a copy of a memorandum and a briefing on the issue concerning Routes 22/231
from Charles D. Nottingham, Commission of the Department of Transportation. Please have
staff review this information and provide the Board of Supervisors with your
commentslrecommendations at your earliest convenience, preferably atone of their upcoming
day meetings.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Jim Bryan, VDOT's Resident Engineer.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
RWTjr/dbm
01.003
Attachments
pc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors w/attachments
.-t:/
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CHARLES D. NOlTlNGHAM
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROADSTREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
December 29,2000
Albemarle County Clerk
Ms. Ella W. Carey, CMC
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: Truck Traffic Issues- Route 22/231 Corridor -Albemarle/LouisalOrange County
Dear Ms. Carey:
Numerous Albemarle County residents along the Route 22/231 corridor between
Shadwell and the Town of Gordonsville have contacted me through Senator Emily
Couric regarding the level of truck traffic on the roadway and have requested the
Department of Transportation to consider a restriction on through tractor trailers.
As this corridor spans the three counties of Albemarle, Louisa, and Orange, and
potential alternate routes travel through these three jurisdictions as well as the City of
Charlottesville, Greene County, and Fluvanna County, it is our preference that the review
of this request include input from such localities' boards of supervisors or equivalent.
Enclosed is a briefing of the issues.
Please, through your resident engineer, provide your comments on the request for
athrough truck restriction on the Route 22/231 corridor.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
CLS3~1?u
Charles D. NOtt.ing~
Enclosures
CC:
Mr. W. L. Gentry, Resident Engineer @Louisa
Mr. D. B. Gore, Resident Engineer @ Culpeper
Mr. J. Bryan, Resident Engineer @ Charlottesville
Mr. H. W. Mills, Asst. Resident Engineer @ Charlottesville
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Transportation
Culpeper District
Traffic Engineering/Operations Program
Re: BRIEFING: Throuah Tractor Trailer Traffic Issues
09 January 2001
Route 22/231 Corridor
From: Route 250 (Shadwell)
To: Town of Gordonsville South Corporate Limits (SCL)
Albemarle/Louisa/Orange County
Backaround
In the past. a number of Albemarle County citizens residing along. the Route 22/231 corridor between
Shadwell and the Town of Gordonsville have expressed safety concerns over the number of trucks traveling
this roadway.. Their efforts have focused on obtaining a vehicular restriction which would prohibit through
tractor trailers from traveling this corridor. Recently, representatives of those citizens have contacted me
through Senator Emily Co uric reiterating the same concerns.
Past safety/operational studies conducted by the Department of Transportation have generated various
mitigation to address the concerns along the corridor. In the 1980's, the speed limit on the section of Route
22 from Route 250 to Route 231 was reduced from the statutory 55 mph to 50 mph. Those earlier reviews
and subsequent traffic classification studies did not indicate a significantly high truck percentage utilizing the
corridor.
More recently in 1994/95, the same concerns resurfaced. At that time. the Department's policy regarding
truck traffic on the Primary System was such that trucks should be allowed to travel on Primary System
. Highways unless there were significant safety circumstances which would deem such travel inappropriate _
extreme geometries, significantly high accident rate involving trucks, etc. At that time. -two other county
Boards of Supervisors (Orange County and Louisa County), whose jurisdiction the Route 22/231 corridor
travels through, opposed any ban on trucks citing significant adverse economic impacts to their respective
areas.
A public meeting with various state and local government agencies, local industry, community
representatives, and representation from the Virginia Trucking Association. was held with the conclusion that
our combined efforts would shift focus to the following areas:
1. Examination of the accident patterns/trends occurring along the corridor for implementation
of appropriate accident reducing mitigative measures for all vehicles.
2. Enforcement to reduce the number of illegal trucks traveling the corridor - single-trailer
combinations over 65 ft in total length and double trailer combinations.
3. Voluntary industry reductions in truck/tractor-trailer trips along the corridor.
At the meeting. one local industry volunteered to reduce their local trips on the corridor and committed to
discussing similar voluntary efforts from other local industry representatives.
Following the meeting, the Department conducted a comprehensive Safety/Operational Study to determine
whether the truck volume percentages were abnormally high and to examine the accident history of all
collisions to determine if any patterns/trends were evident.
The data collected confirmed past indications that truck percentages ranged between 4% and 6%,
relatively normal for a two-lane/two-way primary facility. The number of accidents involving trucks at that
time were somewhat elevated in calendar years 1994 - 1996 but not considered significant enough to
restrict all trucks from traveling the corridor.
The factors involved in the majority of the accidents of all vehicles, including trucks, were a result of the
motorists experiencing difficulty in following the alignment of the road in various areas of the corridor where
run-off-road accidents and accidents involving centerline encroachment were occurring. The Department
identified those areas and implemented the following measures at such areas and throughout the corridor:
1. Enhanced advanced waming signing for curves, intersections, and other areas where accidents
(mainly run-off-road) were occunjng.
2. Installation of roadside vertical post delineation in areas where the motorists appeared to be
experiencing difficulties negotiating the roadway .
3. Inclusion of this Route 22/231 corridor in a pilot of installing single indicated raised snowplowable
pavement markers intended for two-lane/two-way pavement primary roadways. The markers were
subsequ~ntly installed.
A follow-up study in 1998 indicated some positive results to the efforts in 1996-97:
1. A slight reduction of total trucks and tractor trailers traveling the roadway.
2. A reduction in the total number of accidents back to levels prior to the spikes in 1994 and 1996.
Although the accident rates remained slightly higher than the statewide average, the number of
accidents involving trucks and/or tractor-trailers, especially in those collisions where trucks/tractor
trailers were cited at-fault, dropped.
3. There were reductions in some accident types - head-on and sideswipe opposite collisions, angle,
sideswipe same., non-collision accidents, as well as collisions involving centerline encroachments.
Current Issues:
The community in Albemarle County has requested, through Senator Couric's office, that the Department
of Transportation once again consider a vehicular restriction on the corridor, mainly tractor trailers. It is the
Department's understanding that law enforcement is experiencing difficulty enforcing the statute which
prohibits longer tractor-trailer combinations (exceeding 65 ft) and the double-trailer combinations from using
Ro ute 22/231 :
Code of Virginia Section 46.2-1112 Length of vehicles, generally; special permits;
tractor truck semi-trailer combinations, etc.;
operating on certain highways.
Consequently, the Albemarle County Police requested the Department install signs indicating that such
trucks are not allowed on the roadway. These signs were installed in early December and will be evaluated
regarding their effectiveness in the next few months.
Note: Similar signing in other areas of the state is concurrently being evaluated. for
effectiveness as an emphasis on the noted statute. The sign texts generally
read:
T R U C K E R S +- Sign Panel: Black Text on Yellow Background
TRACTOR TRAILERS
OVER 65 FEET +- Sign Panel:. Black Text on White Background
PROHIBITED
ON [Route Shield}
In considering alternate routing for trucks. and/or tractor-trailers, there are concerns with directing additional
truck traffic to the three options for motorists traveling from Town of Gordonsville to Shadwell and vice-versa
(refer to location map attached):
'~""J"r""'~.")""'~'''''''''d.
~....~~~,
Route 250
From: Route 22 (Shadwell)
To: Route 29 (Charlottesville)
City of Charlottesville/A lb. Co.
Length:. 6.73 miles
"",-~~~;m:"r~"':;\:,,\_-";~~;',~H'_~'::~"~'''~' ~~
.~
<
, '~;15~~!':;j~~
p,j\,!,'\<;)i.4.;""_""1
Route 250 (or 1-64)
- From: Route 22 (Shadwell)
To: Route 15
Albemarle/Fluvanna/Louisa Co.
Length: 10.40 miles
Route 29 Route 15
From: Route 250 (Charlottesville) From: Route 250
To: Route 33 (Ruckersville) To: Town of Gordonsville SCL
Albemarle/Greene County Fluvanna/Louisa/Orange County
Length: 14.09 miles Length: 11.45 miles
Route 33
From: Route 29 (Ruckersville)
To: Town of Gordonsvill WCL
Albemarle/Orange County
Length: 12.41 miles
Total Lenqth Alternate A: 33.23 mi. Total Lenqth Alternate 8: 21.85 mi.
Total Lenoth of Route 22/231 Corridor: 14.89 mi.
Preliminary Considerations on Alternate Routes:
Alternate A:
,'....'.,,' " 'qJ'"
~"-'
'\... . ';" J
Route 20
From: Route 250
To: Route 33
Albemarle/Orange County
Length: 15.07 miles
Route 33
From: Route 20
To: Town of Gordonsville WCL
Orange County
Length: 5.60 miles
Total Lenqth Alternate C: 20.67 mi.
Alternate A is currently the designated STAA routing for the noted longer trucks, tractor trailer combinations
(in excess of 65 feet) as well a double trailer combinations, and would be a sensible routing for those trucks
traveling to the Gordonsville area from south and west of Charlottesville. However, for those originating
from the heavy commercial areas east of Charlottesville, the alternate would force the trucks back through
the heavy traffic areas within and immediately north of the City of Charlottesville. Such would create an
additional 10 :y,. miles to the length of the trip and significant time delays (traffic/traffic signals/etc.). These
truck drivers would undoubtedly opt to use Route 20 to Route 33 to Gordonsville (described below as
Alternate C) as a preferred. routing rather than travel back into the City and into the heavy traffic on both
Route 250 and Route 29. This option has its own complications as is noted below under the heading
Alternate C.
Should the truck driver travel the Alternate A routing, another complication could arise on the secondary
system. Route 607 from Route 29 to Route 33 through Greene County and Orange County is currently the
preferred commuter cut-through for those residing in western Orange County and working in Charlottesville.
Within the past 5 to 7 years, traffic on this route has increased dramatically. It appears that truck traffic has
increased as the Greene County and Orange County governments have expressed concerns and requested
a review by the Department of Transportation. Such review will be initiated in early calendar year 2001.
Alternate B:
Alternate B already has a higher truck percentage, historically ranging from 6% to 7% on the Route 250
section. and 6% to 12+% on the Route 15 section compared with 5!: % on the Route 22/231 corridor. The
accident rates on the two sections of the alternate. routes (for the last 5 Y:z yrs. -- Route 250 at 2.15 acc/mvm;
Route 15 at 1.65 acclrnvm) are above that on Route 22/231 (1.62 acclmvm) the statewide average at 1.17
acc/mvlTl. The distance of the alternate route is approximately 22 miles versus the near 15 miles on the
Route 22/231 corridor.
In 1996 and 1998, the Department was reluctant toroute additional trucks on these sections of roadways
due to the existing higher truck percentages and higher accident rate.
Alternate C:
Due to certain sections of Route 20 where the vertical and h.orizontal alignment is more challenging _
especially between Route 250 and Stoney Point - routing additional truck traffic on A1temateChas nolbeen
recommended. The accident rate on this section of highway was 2.73 acc/mvm over the fast 5 Yz years
(preliminarily, the previous 5 years appears to exceed 3.5 acc/mvm), relatively higher than Route 221231
at 1.62 acc/mvm, the combined routes in Alternate Route B at 1.92 acclmvm, and the statewide average at
1.17 acclmvm.
Truck traffic volumes have increased over the last decade from approximately 3Yz% to 5%.
The Department has received past concems regarding truck travel along this section of Route 20. (Special
counts indicated truck traffic ranging in the 3% to 6% range.) Any re.routing of trucks on to Route 20 will be
received a.dversely by those residents along the corridor.
AltemateC, being a more circuitous route, is approximately 20 Yz miles in comparison with the near 15 mi.
for the Route 22/231 corridor.
The Department would not recommend this as an altemate route for trucks.
In its consideration of the request for a vehicular restriction, the Department of Transportation will be
factoring the effects of such an action on the entire transportation network aswell as requesting input
from the localities through which the corridor IS located (Albemarle County, Louisa County, and
Orange County). Input will also be sought from the localities through which the potential alternate
routes are located (City of Charlottesville and Greene County).
JSH:jh
LOUDuu,N
.~?-:,' !..... ....~:.
r
I
-
-
.I
i
.
1
,,--
DY~
f
.....
STAA IIOU'fE
.4
../
..!\ M'(~'~n: L L
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE.
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 296-5800
February 26,2001
Mr. Ken Lantz
Virginia Department of Transportation
Transportation Division
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Ken:
The County of Albemarle is considering transferring a primary road to the secondary
road system as permitted in Code of Virginia Section 33.1-35. In order for the County to
fully evaluate this change, it is important that we understand the impact(s) it may have.
The County is requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation identify the
possible implications of transferring a primary road to the secondary system. The'County
is particularly interested in the impact on funding and maintenance. Although the: County
has two particular roads under consideration CRt. 22 and 231), VDOT' s respons~canbe
general, asthis information will be used for reference.
Thank you in advance for your assistance on this topic. We look forward to hearihg from
you at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to contact Juan Wade in the D~partment
of Planning and Community Development at (804) 296-5823 if you have anyq1!lestions
or need. additional information.
Sincerely,
~,d-
Robert W. Tucker
County Executive
---
RWT,Jr/dbm
01.004
RECE.IVED
~c, 3U:OIl U)ticlt
FEB 2. 7?OOI
Pi..,AiNNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
"""..:,;,
ATTACHMENT D
COMMON~EALTH of VIRGINIA
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
K.. E.LAN'Tl, JR.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENGINEER
March 5, 2001
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Executive
Office of County Executive
Albemarle. County
.401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. ~ ,6t:>6
Thank you for your February 26, 200 I letter, regarding the possible transfers of State
Primary Routes 22 and 231 to Albemarle County's Secondary Road System. There are several
important issues to consider; if a transfer were to be made, the costs for future improvements to,
and maintenance of, these roads would have to come from the County's Secondary Road
allocations, rather than the Culpeper District-wide allocations for Primaries. This .could have a
direct impact on improvement and maintenance needs for other Secondary Routes within the
County .
In the event VDOT is officially requested to consider this proposal, a review would have
to take place regarding the entire system of Primary Roads within the region to insure that
directness and continuity of routing is maintained, and to study any specific concerns such as
safety and truck traffic. These studies would be the responsibility ofVDOT's Traffic
Engineering Division.
If the. County does formally pursue this matter, a request citing the reasons for the change
should be forwarded to your VDOT Resident Engineer, ML James L Bryan. The Culpeper
District Administrator and the aforementioned Traffic Engineering Division will provide needed
input. The final decision would rest with the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Page 2
March 5,2001
I hope this response will benefit the County in their future deliberations. Please advise if
you have any additional concerns that we can address.
Sincerely,
~(~j
K. E. Lantz, Jr., P. E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
cc: Ms. Ilona O. Kastenhofer
Mr. Donald R. Askew
Mr. James L. Bryan
04/03/01 11m 09:27 FAX
Walter Johnson
141 001
P~lge 1 of 1
.-,)., -. ~
Subj: Route 221231 Corridor
Date: 04/0212001 9:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
FrQm: ~~~'!~t;J...T r-=J~4r::~~~.$"~i~;
To: .Hm~rtin@&l.U~m<ii~'j~.org
CC: gb.!.l.L"1..o.M~@a!bemarf~,~rg. dbo...~rm.~.n~'a.l.Remali~.C:I:g, ~tb..gnJS\J~.@~!Qe:mi![la.ow.
Jdo;:d.~.t@~d.gem."rle. Qrg, ;IVO€trJd r.~?@..qlb...e:q;J~1~;~~l"~
For decades, maybe even centuries, residents have complained about the safety of the truck
traffic on the Route 22/231 Corridor. The prairie schooners ma.y have been the trucks of
their day.
Reduced speed limits a.nd truck warnings have ctU been employed. Alternate routesbetwe(j)n.
ends hav~ been identified for years and encouraged for use. But. to the residents. none
have been observed to effectively increase the safety of the corridor. Nothing has changed
over .aU these years.
There are at least five, but probably not more than fifteen, significant curves along this
corridor. While forrowing large trucks, and I have followed many of them over the years, ,
have yet to observe one that didn't have a left wheeVwheels cross the centerline or a right
wheeVwheels go onto the shoulder, or both, when negotiating these curves. "their speeds
are well within the maximum aIlowed. The combination of pavement width, Curve radius,
allQwed speed and truck turning radius made it impossible for them to completely stay within
, their lane of pavement.
I submit that the corridor is not currentty designed (geometrics) for some truck traffic.
VDOT's memorandum of 9 January, 2001, Re: BRIEFING: Through Tractor Traffic Issues;
includes the following: "...the Department's policy regardIng truck traffic on the Primary
System was such that trucks should be allowed to travel on Primary system Highways unless
there Were signifIcant safet'( circumstances which would deem such travel inappropriate ~ .
extreme geom~trJcs, ..... (Underlinging is mine.)
, suggest that the Route.22/231 Corridor probably does have "extremegeometrics" and that
this should be cause for denying truck traffic.
Ths.nk you.
Walt Johnson
1015 Club Dr.
Keswick, Virginia 22947
'"
n'Cl'"
~ 'J'... .~.1:Un,;) ',.~ _
\, ,,,,' 2UAt(l)
'ON ----.:.lLL&?1.QL
--
John P. Moore
5899 Gordonsville Road
Keswick, VA 22947
April 4, 2001
Ms. Sally Thomas, Chairman
clo. Clerk, Bo.ard o.fCounty Superviso.rs
Albemarle Co.unty Bo.ard o.f Superviso.rs
401 McIntire Ro.ad
Charlo.ttesville, VA 22902-4596
Subject: Proposed Through Truck Restriction on Route 231/22
Dear Chairman Tho.mas and members o.f the Bo.ard:
I was disapPo.inted that I did not have the o.Pportunity to. address yo.U this mo.rning, but I
understand that yo.U were running behind schedule and that yo.U felt co.nfident in yo.ur decision
based o.n the recammendatian in the staff report and your co.nversation with the VDOT Resident
Engineer.
Perhaps yo.U recall that back in 1994 the 231/22 residents suggested that VDOT canduct an
OriginlDestinatian (OlD) Study, but were told by VDOT afficials that such a study was
impractical for severalreasons, The reasans they cited included tlle i~s,ue tg,whic,llCha,irma,n
Thomas alluded, that of avoidance by the truckers. ", Trucker~ ~reusing 231/22 pr~~sely because
they believe it to. be the quickest route. When,they find(>ut ,tJ;l~t vnor isstappingtheIl,l to
complete aquestiannaire, they; will avaid,thero.ute'like the plague. Truckers willbe even less
inclined to. participate when they learn the reaso.n behind the survey is to. justify a truck'
restriction:. 'The seco.nd point VDOT made back in 1994 was that there is no. safe place fro.m
which to. co.nduct the study. If the County Po.lice cannat enfo.rce the laws o.n Rt. 231122 because
there is no. safe place to pull trucks o.ver, then where is VDOT going to. pull o.ver trucks to'
canduct a vo.luntary OlD study?
The planning staff has erred in their reco.mmendatio.n. What is the need fo.r the OlD study in the
first place? Such a study is no.t required in the restrictian request pracess, no.r is such a study
needed to establish Po.tential alternative ro.utes. The o.nly Po.ssible functions an OlD study might
have are to' co.nvince VDOT that the trucks are indeed thro.ugh-travelling and that VDOT's
pro.Po.sed alternative rautes are co.mpletely illagical. But, the Caunty, has no. burden to. pro.ve that
thro.ugh an OlD study. I do no.t believe that the Planning Staff cansulted with VDOT prior to.
making their reco.mmendation to. yo.u. If they had, it is very unlikely that the recammendation
Wo.uld have been. forthcoming.
The effect o.fthe Bo.ard's decisio.n this mo.rning is to remand the decisio.n back to. VDOT, who.
does nat wish to. see a restriction enacted. They can co.nduct the pro.pased OlD study any way, at
any time, and for anyduratian they please. VDOT can alert the trucking industry and o.btain and
interpret any, result they wish.
I have no.idea what additio.nal signs the planning staff is, prapasing,but thee;xisting sigD$haye
been marginally effective, and there is eno.ughsign poUutio.nin theco.rridar,asit is~ Rt. 231/22 is
a Scenic Byway. Absalutely no. mo.resigns shauld beere<;tedin ~hecorridar, tempararypr "
atherwise. As far enfarcement, therehasbeenvirtuaUy no.neaside fr()m the actians tha,t the State
BOS
Rt. 231/22
04/04/01
Page 2
Police have taken on just two occasions over the past six years. No arrests of the drivers of illegal
trucks were made on either occasion.
Neither the State nor County Police, to this day, have ever arrested or cited the driver of an illegal
truck on Rt. 231/22. The County Police have never, on their own, conducted an enforcement
action aimed at tractor-trailers on Rt. 231122. County Police cruisers do travel the road, but, to
my knowledge, the County Police have never established an observation point with the intent of
unobtrusively monitoring truck traffic and arresting drivers of illegal rigs. The County Police
cannot get an accurate picture of truck traffic on Rt. 231122 be sending cruisers down the road a
few times a day:
As you are aware, tractor-trailers were involved in accidents this past September and December.
Since that time, several tractor-trailers have broken down on the road creating dangerous
situations for other motorists.
VDOT has plans to conduct major construction projects on 1-81 this year and they expect truck
traffic to divert onto the Rt. 29 Corridor. If such a major diversion occurs, then perhaps the OlD
Study should be conducted during that time period, because the effect on Rt. 231122 is likely to
be dramatic. '
I have reviewed the requirements for enacting a through truck restriction on secondary roads
provided for in Section 46.2-809 ofthe. Code of Virginia (see attached) and have responded to
each of the five criteria used by the VDOT staff and the CTB in considering such requests.
1. Reasonable alternative routes exist on other Primary roads. 1) Rt. 33 from Gordonsville to
Rt. 29, south to the Rt. 29 Bypass to 1-64, a designated ST AA-qualifYing vehicle route. 2) Rt.
15 from Gordonsville south to 1-64. Both of these routes have the same termini as Rt. 231122
and are better designed for truck traffic than Rt. 231122.
2. Rt. 231/22 can be said to be classified as a "collector" road.
3. VDOT's own traffic counts indicate sufficient ratios of trucks to total vehicle volume (>4,000
VPD to 200 trucks). The character of the truck traffic is ill suited and incompatible with the
area through which Rt. 231/22 travels. In addition, a significant portion of the truck traffic is
illegal.
4. The geometric construction ofRt. 231/22 is ill suited to tractor-trailer traffic. The roadway is
a continuous series of blind hills and curves. There are virtually no shoulders and the
roadway is often constrained by cut banks, drop-offs, and/or trees, all of which contribute to
the Scenic Byway character of the road. The average width of thetravelway as measured
between the inside edges of the centerline and the sideline is only 9 feet. The majority of the
tractor-trailers using the road are 8 Yz feet wide. The volume of the truck traffic on Rt. 231122
includes a significant volume of illegal tractor trailers who's drivers abuse the law every day
and endanger the lives of automobile drivers who have to use the road, most especially the
residents along the roadway.
The accident statistics speak for themselves and they alone support the need for the
restriction. There have been two tractor-trailer accidents within the past seven months and a
total of 12 within the past 10 years.
BOS
Rt. 231/22
04/04/01
Page 3
Allowing tractor-trailer traffic, and especially the continual illegal traffic, on a designated
Scenic Byway has created a state-sponsored attractive nuisance.
5. It is unknown whether Rt. 231/22 meets the requirement that there be at least 12 houses per
1,000 feet of roadway within 150 feet of the centerline. However, as this criterion is
irrelevant in the case ofRt. 231/22, and the Board need only meet three out of the five criteria
in order to meet the requirements for review by VDOT and the CTB.
The Planning Staff report does not address the issue of the potential effect that downgrading Rt.
231/22 from Primary to Secondary status will have on the County's funding from VDOT for
Secondary Roads. Presumably, the County's allocation will increase proportionately with the
increase in Secondary Road miles. With a vastly reduced volume of tractor-trailer traffic, the
maintenance requirements for the roadway also will be reduced.
The hope of the residents ofRt. 231/22 is that the Board will reconsider its request for the DID
Study. If the study were to occur, we would requestthat we be permitted to participate in the
planning for the study and that County Staff or we be permitted to monitor the study. As we have
no confidence that an unbiased outcome can be achieved, the residents ofRt. 231/22 encourage
the Board to place little emphasis on its result in considering both the downgrading ofRt. 231/22
to Secondary status and your subsequent request for a through truck restriction. The purpose of
the restriction is. to reduce to the extent practical a dangerous and incompatible situation and to
leverage the enforcement capability of the County Police.
Thank. you for your continued attention to this critical issue and your commitment to its
resolution.
iifttUfuL
7u:oore
Encl.
Cc wlo encl.
Bob Tucker
Wayne Cilimberg
.'
U'illhlfUl U:.i:lt r'.U 9724012
...
DBFT OF PU)'I.'NING
~t.M by ~"'-~11h 'I'N...rtAUCiG IDu'd ",~r 15_
I
GUUI:a.xQli !'OR ~~IIG ~fa IU'l
lI1&IlDtcnaa ~ nv;u ClIf ~01' tI:Gtnlll'iS
.s~~QD 4'..i-19,9 (tQlntar1-" let:Uoa 41.1...1'U.2) oi ~ ~ 4lI'
v1!'91n1. lj:lr>Qy1Gd.
"'11M 8ta!!. JU.gna,. fIJIIC& 'h'U.IW'ia~ Ioa'd. UorurJ.y
Ceui._i._ )
1ft ~ w . Ict'UJ, I'er;uut by 4\ ~
9CWflrZUq 1oOI:tr. utar IIliUd taDcly ~ _lilt ~.U.. nUl':i.~1 1161',
UteI' dull ftO'U.I:,ua aM. .. p1"Oper bH2"~. JI"_.1.'Ilt Ot i"Mtr-lct tM
-- .,. t.b.....,n t.J'agUC or Ill? 'PC" Qf .. ..; ;-~rr ru...,." u &
r*iMlOH.bl.e IJ. tlU'1llli1. t. f'Ol.rtlI .l.JI Pr'O'IidM,..._ lD a.llt. AIWI
any tolIft 1tl\;t.gL1 ."1.I'lt.aw U. CMm atrMW. UlI" lID' CJOUft~7 ..~j.cm
_aa. fIlperat_ IP'aCl -iaWlllilW ita 0lIn:Il IIYIIt_ Of roHa I.n4
IItr.... -'" ~ truCk or ,~ U\4I tr-UJ.er Qr 114Wid.t.rail.r
aoar:AuUOft. uc,*pt ofl. p1dL1.lp or PGA81 tl"Ul:lf., .. .y ..
fteCle_ry '0 Pt'"OII.OU the baltb. -".ty ... Mell.,.. .f ~
c1tUllftS QI th. ceull~ruf"J.1:h.. Notohic=t her.i.n 11_11 atict 't.h.e
"''''u'CU.y of U'I!' Oi'ly ClM'tilf' pnwYiilllD ot' Cit.y cwduuuu".
beretGiore &~p'ed.N
'l'CI =onfor. to 1'1CNi1"...ntll elf tn. c.ocs... 'be 10C1l1.1 1O".ming body IIWR
bald Ii PJl:t.1iG aMr!_ G.Dd ....... fOnMl. 2'lIIquut Oil. 'the fHI~...1h ,.
in8W'e t~t ..n concerned tUilve an CPPM'tt.l~.i1;~ ~o plriCllvaoa iftPQ'I:. ~fti!~
tho 'i"OpO$Gd r'U't1"1a'U.ee. &ncl &1tno.'. nl'W't~~ '1M. :fo.tJ..Oil1'!:l~ awll Ila.
SdhU" \:0.
( A j '!be 'PUtll.:i.c "OO"t1c::a fof' 1:.,. fta&r1fa1> .l.l.B't 1Del.,.. . _ar t.>>t:lon ti
thlll Propailld 1:lU'flugra '1"'" I"fift:,l.=ti.. .. 'Cae &J.'t.rcate f'O'Ut.
I1lb. -u. 8M. t.nlI~&. It. ~ of .'tbrw DOtt=_ &lilt AM pl'OJ!iI'Usd.
(Il' l pl.l.bu,o ....:t1nv ... be b.~c:I DV 'CM 1.oeIL.l IOMI'1:liQI I;IeItIT .. ..
t;r~&"J.pt ", Ul.. bMr1nljJ _1:. ~ ";rIWS.~ wi tn ~ ~1","1tiQ.
,. 04/U/Ol 1%: 28 FAX 9724012
DBfT OF PLANNING
fll02
ee) 'th.4Il r..IIo1ut.1on ... :"ellC'l'ib. Ua. lK"O~d ~ tl'Ui'.S
rU'trintoo lIU1d & d1ucr1p'tlon of the .USJ"D&tllt, :.LDC1~ .....W.
(1)) _. ....J'ftJ.1l1 ~Y.1..iIfn 1nolucltt 1ft till. J'fIIIdJ,ut.~a. tMt; i'- wUl ..,
t'tll .KId offia_ for llQfOna.ent d \be IU"OIlI:'ilUMi NnrLaU_ __
'the QPNpC1'"1au 10Q1J, 1_ .afONIiIIIB<IDt ~.
,...u.u:r. 'Co 00....1 tttUl CA.!. un. (C) .. €i)) will r.aul~ f.ft tlte I'ili~
Nln, P.'~.
It.' till ~bAt P6Ulc~ ~f ';h. COeMle....1Ul '.rr~l"'t4lt;i_ IOU'd 'Cba1!: &11
YQ1a1.q -a.tld u,,,. ~ 1:0 tM roeda CIa COb Uiey an 1",~ly
Mft'&Ulri to trll.ftl.. Tr&...l __ UI,. at... ~ y..b:kJ.. IItMMAcII " rsndC'tH
oa.ly ~D dellOu~F.'t1= tbat it lIIil1 'l"OIIOtilll tia bU.Uft. .u.~ tu:Id
Meltl.:r. ~ tb.. 01'\t..Mll'Ii. Oi tn. Q:I--.,.a.1'1:b.. J'ollOQ.DQ tbat *:&.~"
the Vir'tr:f.'Qta hpanalltlt O:! Tnau"rtat.t.m& .,..U __ the O~~WMJ.'tb
Tr-n:!I'pOrta.tio= 50.;011I NUl eOM3.<s.1' '113. fCill.1.1mllflftl'l CI"UIl..ia U Pfti...iq 1&
N"'tu tblrOlUgb 't1'\ll:tk rU'tr;i.crU.CQ.
U) ......-~ul. IIlt.maw r~uu.AI "'it pnwi4lN. to De COIW.i~...rlld
Mr.~l.". .fIt a1brnau ..-out.CJII) al.M'C e8 Mlta..Nd U 4&
.tlll\!d&a'1t IINU.tc1*Ct fer tnJl3 ~r"v.l. ft. .iiwt <<Xli t.b. alterftlot.
rOl.4ti1:l; .111 be av&J,.l.i.'ec1 for tr..:Utc AtoM Nlaty J'da't4K'l Up&CtII.
If an &l~'U"Mt. -I\'C.~ . a.conduy J'CIIUte tb&'t s...n h '4IIl1r1Kl.lt4,
t~ 1INS't be 'Provided frml th8 CO\I,Qtr !NOOlallU'y i;QQD'tNc:t.j.Qa.
f\lDl1Ss. The t6l"a1Di of t.nllll "tG!~lI. relltri,!i1\ioc -....t be :td~tj/ltU
to toe &4t.~t. rout!_; &ad .f.ectivaly '~Y&1..~ ~ 111-. &
'Uafil ~ di8't4lw. GlaIII1PU1_ t.. .. aolllihMlt... ".'heca 'tn. t_
~'LD", AlIlO, 11116 ..U.erM_ tout..:tAg..~ DOt. cn....t. UI ~
bU'd1lAip lor 't:JJ"LlClU U1 ".,onLr.lg ti:le:f.r cla'U4W't!M.
.
ta) 'I'bI J"Ot4 :&"fICIUNt.N lor ....tdctLaa 1.11 tUDiC'l:.~lV CI~Ulld.IiH ....
kNIl11 01' eeUM'tOl".
: . O~rn3/01 12:2$ FAX 9T24U12
DEPT OF PUJ~ING
12103
(3) 'IbII IftwlI..ac1:ftl" IDclIClr .'tIIlltleQOt of t.bG '-1'UC1L trd:Uo on tbe reMIt.
I
PNp.1IKI for l"UUietiM b DC't 0CIlrIpI~ .!.'ilII ,be d.lCrttlCl
U'M. a.allat:!_ edU ,=1u4e ......t..y _ill *'!MIr vil4,io.
aviaurUlC ftJ..,..u....., &IDd ,,111 u.IIa iDt.o ~ tM vol....
ti t..... 'h..U;la ill re1aUcm. to 1:1:1. r....iAi.bw 'tr&tii4 _ UMM...tMi
It7 tAle ,fa.U.~ UDl.,
'bI~~ ~IQ;.'f~~UIlI'MI ___
4000.
2000-4000
lQOOe..aGDQ
400-1.000
aso...too
IC-Uo
~ ~". va&~, ....
100
100.200
!Oe1DO
10-10
13-30
3...1)
(.4) '1';nl ugt,nHt1QJ ot ~ road.ay <<Cd/or '1a KCU....t bJ.stary 0( ttw
'I'oute Pl"Gl"" for ratl'.tcU_ iacU.O&t8 -mat At u.. 1Miit. 1IU:L~1.
'01' tna:k "tTI.Ui.C..
<<$) Wi:tbiD 150' of tlW Pill't.int or 'H".d rMod.1t&Y =ont,u Une thar.
~ ... .t kMt. U dwUiftp pu 1000 1'_1: Of fOURY..
I'..uwe till IKU.." ., w/i,ft 'lU'.. (3] 1'1' the Uve (I) CU'tudl. Id,U
.
'R01'-.4).7 "tIIP.I.l't; ,2,a .. ",.jcMtt.i.Gr.a ~ t..b8 r.qu_t~ 1'....dGtlL..
ft. c.IM"we&1tb t'r&Wllportat.toQ _.rd, il"08 t.t.a. t.o u.aa ..
appl"OpII'1.'. \!mill "lID ueillllld 1M~rr. ...,. ....t.,. ""/01" 1"1I'11_ any'
provtl~Qn8 =1' erit9rLa cOQ~aLnod La taea.1U1d.l1~..~
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTOR
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
. WHEREAS, Free State Road is a dead end road that traverses a one"lane railroad
bridge that is in poor condition, and the bridge must be replaced or an alternative route
fOund to. provide access to the residents of Free State Road; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a Location
Public Hearing to solicit input- on the location of an alignment to provide access to the
properties along Free State Road, (project ROOO-002-0259C501), located in Albemarle
County, Virginia Two alternative alignments were presented for consideration at the
public hearing.
WHEREAS, the public hearing was attended by approximately 60 citizens with
written comments received from 27 citizens, and recorded comments received from six
citizens. The majority of persons expressed a preference to Alternative "A", although
Alternative lIB" and the ''No Build" option each received an equal amount of support; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the alignments and considering all aspects of the
proposed project, VDOT recommends Alternative liB" for the following reasons:
· it addresses and eliminates safety issues ofthe railroad bridge;
· it avoids possible archeological impacts (possible Sally Hemmings ties to the
area);
· it creates a transportation corridor with railroad and roadway within the same
area; and
. it meets transportation needs in this area for future development,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors, does hereby endorse Alternative "B" as proposed by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
********
I, Ella Washington-Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy ofa resolution adopted by the Board ofSupernsors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 4, 2001, by a vote of six to zero.
..
1:. -9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Free State Road Connector
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Free State Road Connector Alternative
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Messrs. Tucker,Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
On January 25, 2001, VDOT held a Location Public Hearing to solicit input from the public on the location of an
alignment to provide access to the properties along Free State Road in lieu of improvements to the existing Free
State railroad bridge. Two alternative alignments were presented for public input- Alternative A and Alternative B.
(Attachment A).
DISCUSSION:
According to VDOT approximately 60 citizens attended the hearing. Thirty-three participants submitted comments.
The majority of those expressing a preference chose Alternative A The preference for Alternative A seemed to be
due to a large number of comments received from the Fairview Swim Club members, who feel that this alignment
will least affecttheir facilities which are on the north side of Free State Road.
VDOTis recommending Alternative B for the following reasons:
. Addresses and eliminates safety issues of the railroad bridge
. Avoids possible archeological impacts (possible Sally Hemmings ties to area)
. Creates a transportation corridor with railroad and roadway within the same area
. Meets transportation needs in this area for future development
Staff supports VDOT'srecommendation for the reasons listed above. As proposed, this alignment will not impact
the Fairview Swim Club facility as it will turn east to intersect with Free State Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse Alternative B.
01.062
CHARLES NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
R, _-.::;,;~--~
MAR 1 f' ?nflJ
COM PLANNING AND
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA MUNlJY DEVELOPMENt
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVillE, VA 22911
JAMES L. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
March 14,2001
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Dept of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA .22092
Re: Free State Road Connector
Project: ROOO-002-259,C501
Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
On January 25, 2001, VDOT held a Location Public Hearing to solicit input from the public on
the location of an alignment to provide access to the properties along Free State Road.
Free State Road is a dead end road that traverses a one-lane railroad bridge that is in very poor
condition. The bridge must be replaced or an alternative route found to provide access to the
residents of Free State Road. Two alternative alignments were presented for consideration at the
public hearing, Alternative "A" and Alternative "B" as shown on the attached map.
The hearing was attended by approximately 60 citizens and we received written comments from
27 people and recorded comments from 6 people. The majority of those expressing a preference
chose Alignment "A". Alignment "B" and the "No Build" option each received an equal amount
of support. The preference of Alignment "A" appears to be the result of large number of
comments received from the Fairview Swim Club members, who feel that this alignment will least
affect their facilities which are on the north side of Free State Road. The content of these
comments are included on the attached spreadsheet.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
March 14, 2001
Page 2
After reviewing the alignments and considering all aspects of this proposed project, we are
recommending that Alignment "B" be used for the following reasons:
. Addresses and eliminates safety issues of the railroad bridge
. Avoids possible archeological impacts (possible Sally Hemmings ties to area)
. Creates a transportation corridor with railroad and roadway within the same area
. Meets transportation needs in this area for future development
Please forward this information to the Board of Supervisors for their review. If they concur with
this recommendation, please have them draft a resolution supporting this alignment and. we will
proceed with the development of this project.
Yours Truly,
xJ~/4 ~
Gerald G. Utz
Engineering Technician ill
Attachment
cc: Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr.
Ms. Karen Kilby
....-......
-..-.....
......-....
Project: ROOO-002-259, C-501
cfan"terI Alte~o.ti,,""
N
I
....,
.' ,
..".40 "
,,, ~
" :
/ .~
. f
. .e
"'-.; ~
-\ ~ Alte....tive"8"
· NOTE:
City of
Charlottesville
Alternative A displaces
one family .
Alternative B displaces \
! two families.
Device for the Hearing Impaired (TDD): 1-800-307-4630
_~a.9!'_~ __ _._ _ .. .._. .
Location Public Hearing
FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTOR. PUBLIC HEARING REPSONSE TALL Y SHEET WITH COMMENTS
Wi I I Was keeping Was keeping
@~70 g~; RR bridge (as RR bridge
sf d? road) (peds&blkes)
reque e
requested? requested?
Was
proposed
development
mentioned?
~
Was
FaiNlew
Swimclub
mentioned?
In Was
A or ,..suPPOrl Mea. dowcreek
of Pkwy
Project? mentioned?
~
B
A
NO
~
NO
NO
~
~
ri21'
NO
NO
3
1
1
1
rii2f
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
4
2
1
1
1
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
NO
NO
NO
1
3
1
~
~
YES
YES
1
1
YES
YES
i7f'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
ri21'
~
YES
YES
YES
YES
2
1
3
2
1
1
I I
, '
~
~
Southern
Environmental
Law Center
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
804-977-4090
Fax 804-977-1483
selcva@selcva.org
May 15, 2001
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Box 911, City Hall
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Hydraulic Road and Route 29 Intersection Improvements
Dear Mayor Caravati and Members of Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you the report
we released by Mr. Walter Kulash that recommends improvements to
relieve traffic congestion at the intersection of Hydraulic Road
and Route 29. We appreciate your consideration of this proposal,
and we wanted to provide you with some additional information in
response to questions you had raised.
Several council members asked about the differences between
Mr. Kulash's proposal and VDOT's 1994 design for a Hydraulic Road
and Route 29 interchange. The enclosed summary outlines eight
key differences between the proposals, and I have also enclosed
several images that highlight these differences. In short, Mr.
Kulash's proposals offer significant improvements over current
and projected traffic congestion at this intersection with far
less impact on surrounding businesses than VDOT's design would
have had. We have also created a Powerpoint presentation that
further highlights the differences between Mr. Kulash's and
VDOT's proposals, which we would be happy to present to you.
In addition, one council member asked for further
information about the impact of Mr. Kulash's recommendation that
an exclusive right-turn lane on the intersection off-ramps is not
necessary. I have enclosed a memo from Mr. Kulash dated May 4,
2001 that discusses why such an additional lane is not needed.
Please let us know if you have any other questions about Mr.
Kulash's recommendations. We look forward to continuing to
discuss these recommendations with you.
Sincerely yours,
bd4ffy#A
Transportation and Land Use Planner
Dfs1nIlJt./iI"t-
Enclosu ..... - '~:D 'f'Q
res v . .soj.\Rc)~.
cc: Gary 0' Connell SHO fJlt~'~lill<'ks
MPO Policy Board Members " SIAMfId S ',.
Hannah Twaddell 05-21-01 P12:50 IN
Carolinas Office: 200 West Franklin St., Suite 330 . Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2520 · 919-967-1450
Deep South Office: The Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 · Atlanta,GA 30303-1800 . 404-521-9900
100% recycled paper
r'
,'I
I I
May 15, 2001
Summary of the Differences between Mr. Kulash's design for the
Route 29/Hydraulic Road Intersection and VDOT's 1994 proposal
When considering the improvements around this intersection, it is
important to remember that approximately 90% of Route 29 traffic
is local, according to VDOT's own studies. Thus, the proposed
Route 29 Western Bypass, designed to serve through traffic, would
not dramatically impact the 29/Hydraulic intersection, especially
during the periods of peak congestion.
According to VDOT, the intersection will fail to adequately move
traffic, receiving a grade "F", by 2010 or sooner. By contrast, a
grade~separated intersection would greatly improve traffic flow,
bring~ng the intersection up to a grade "B."
1. VDOT's design: Four businesses would be removed -- the Exxon
station, the 7-1.1, the Speedee Oil Change and Tune-Up, and the
National Business College. (See Figure I, numbers 1-4.)
Kulash's design: No removal of businesses. (See Figure 2,
numbers--1-4.) (While the Exxon station pumps, in their
previous location, would have had to be reconfigured, their
current location may work with Mr. Kulash's design.)
2. VDOT' s design: significant impacts on parking and roadway
access to at least three 'other businesses. (See Figure I,
numbers 5-7.)
Kulash's design: No businesses would lose roadway access. The
few lost parking spaces could be replaced by alternatives to
maintain current levels of parking. (See Figure 2, numbers 5-7)
3. VDOT's design: No access to Seminole Square from Rt. 29's
mainline of traffic. (See Figure I, number 8.)
Kulash's design: Has a northbound on-ramp between Hydraulic
and Rt. 29 that is about 300 feet shorter than VDOT"s.*
Vehicles travelling north on Route 29 can access businesses at
Seminole Square via Seminole-Court. (See Figure 2, Number 8.)
4. Likewise, Kulash's design contains a southbound off-ramp
between Rt. 29 and Hydraulic that is about 300 feet shorter
than VDOT's.* As a result, under Kulash's design, drivers
travelling south on Rt. 29 would have more time to decide
whether to exit. Shorter ramps provide greater visibility of
the surrounding businesses by drivers on Rt. 29. (See Figure
2, Number 8.)
* In his initial report, Mr. Kulash suggested that the ramps at a grade-
separated intersection could be shortened (page 9); Figure 2, number 8
reflects his further work to design shorter ramps.
. 1
5. VDOT's design: Large, sweeping right-turn lanes as part of the
northbound a."nd southbound off-ramps connecting Rt. 29 to
Hydraulic Road. (See Figure 3, Number 1.)
Kulash's dei3ign: tighter right-turn lanes to reduce the space
required for the interchange and facilitate traffic flow from
the off-ramps onto Hydraulic at lower, safer speeds. (See
Figure 4, Number 2.)
6. Kulash I S design: reduces the. number of lanes on eac:;h off -ramp
connecting Rt. 29 to Hydraulic Rd by eliminating an exclusive
right-turn lane from each of these ramps. According to Mr.
Kulash, elimination of these right-turn lanes would not affect
the level of service. (See memo from Walter Kulash dated May
4, 2001.) (See Figures 3 and 4, number 2.)
7. Kulash's design: Recommends linking Hillsdale Drive from its
terminus at Greenbrier to Hydraulic Road.
VDOT's design: Does not suggest supplemental access routes.
8. VDOT's design: provides no means for pedestrians and cyclists
on Hydraulic Road to pass over Route 29. VDOT's design, which
contained holes in the bridge at several points where
Hydraulic Road passes over'Rt. 29, appears to pose a greater
risk to pedestrians than even the current situation. (See
Figure 3, number 3.)
In contrast, Kulas~'s design would be an improvement over both
the VDOT design and the current situation: pedestrians on
Hydraulic Road crossing Rt. 29 would cross no more than 70
feet of pavement at any given time, contrasted with the
crossing of over 110 feet required under the current
situation. In addition, Kulash designed pedestrian "islands"
that would allow pedestrians and cyclists to traverse much of
the intersection by means of these protected crossing spaces.
(See Figure 4, number 3.)
2
'""1'.J
ll~c
SPERRr
MARINE
;; t:
"
'U
(,l
.~'
h
~
','
~:
;,~
t:
r
~~
.~
~:
'ii
:'
r:
'"
,~
\
~
'if
'"
. ..
",.'
0:-,.
\\
ong
'r:' l'~''',,)~' I
I ;. :.))~;,
S J '" 1,; 1.
.,. ~n r.
~._ ~;f i~
~.: [1 I
I (: ~ ~
..~_~. n-'?
ROAD
t.:
If fj
-I
~'
\ ,
.),1 .
~ ......~J.
. ( t ~ .,....1 ~
.) J .~; . I
i j .' ; :!
i .1 ~ I :.'
~ ~ _ _1; \', ~.~> ::)J ::;"'l:"'" :.:
\ ~' 'l. \. '.l: ~.,,\
" ~ ~. J \. ~. ,,\
VDOT's ramps are excessively
p. ,. 7t~ :
'1 ",. . ~ .
. '. I ...S .~ "" ..."......
~"r"--L1.c..~.PL"-...r_
.....- .-_..~~-~,..;-.--
~~-.::': !r.......-;:: 'C:O!"!
---..--....-.
_A' .~ __ .____
.-- ---.. ~.-
?:
I
I
I
I
,)
~\
-
(
............ '.
~-~, .-:~
-
U.S. 29 / HYDRAULIC
HODIFIED TIGHT URBAN
~
~
!i!
-:
,'," r
&1_ A(
.:
"
"
{
'0
.Ii
,
\.
~'
:~
DIAMOND
U.S. 29 Depressed.
Hydraulic & Ramps at Grade
I
nine;)
Is
(.
8
,..
.J._
Hota
-Wo
......,;:.
:flJ~
,:i}';)
:! l
" ~ .
'. '/'"
.. ,
:: f
'; l
, i
j
L._
..~ .. -
LEGEND
TAKE.
IMPACT TO ACC~ I PARXIKG
_ STRUCTURE
~ SIGNIFICANT
-:.: ::-.':,~';,~: .~: ;. <.~".:., ;..-"':;:..
~ ',~ n, t, '-~):./') /:.:J)....
,', 'i ~ .... ~-~. , #r/. )_ '.,
1 'j I i\.' \ C. [ ,;'r .. Y:: "<',
J" I 1 - . '(~, ~ ;// (}I {.
'. . . '~"---'it .., ",;(" /.
~ ." " I (' J ..:r l' J'
.." ~.~.~~y;;:;;> \ .\..), ,,', , r f . :
.. \ \ I (' ", (. ,
' _ ,0 ~ .~. \ " /.
J \' I : f ( : i'
i. i It) ", ,.. .
J .; , .(,,', I ..J In "'..
!!~~-i',::)' "%;,c"
--, ,~ i .:. '. !
~ . S \', ,.
\ '1,. ! .\ l "\ 'i
. ~ I. ~),; ~
~~.:.~,{ \i :~ 'i':\:'
""'; )"P."';
,- \ \~. .'
. ~. :" "
.
;
..
c. ,
'e"Of!'
.
3
K~tli'
:-. .r
'"",:.
....;-."
J'.
,.
J":
i
t-':...J':
:- ..t
I~?::
> '--l
-~....
/.
1
VDOT's Design
Figure
.I
I -r If
1.~:J Ci
[1
1~-"1
.' I
._~/
8. Kulash's northside ramps are much shorter,
providing better access and visibility
u
Cll
"0
c:
'E
Cll
l/)
"
. ,
-.
L:--
.
~ . il.
~ i'
)<;) \\
'\ \ ,~
~...r~..~...d ~<r~ '-~,J -~..~,^-
--- -~
/
"
./
i
'.
----
.~. - ~
- -
"0
~
c:
III
N
-
-----
~.
";'
<~ ~
L.............,. :
'1'~
, '
\....\
L.... :
~,\'~l~~'"
': ;-.,?\., , ~-~"=':!~ . ~- . . ;.. . _ q.. ~. S
fl If.. ., /k 9_ ..___.. \-:..1...... ........ -...... . . -. ,- - - - L
~ .. "~I. . .or. " ~ -" ..~. .~- I a*"
, .f '-:; I.. "../,. ~f'...J-.J ....:3".-" 1 L'-. -. I3Er ?
""\ fit ~ 1.., ~ <.: ",' - - ~
? \{r-.<..., ~. ~ 'J ~. ."4;.~ 1,
,\, .......~"""'" .....f 1:.,.,., ,---t,...,,,- f'..r"-) >. . #\ )JiiJ.i<.o'f' /
:. .......""") . ~ . y-J r\. '. ,p ... P"Gt :r, f
1 . . r (Recently ,.w,' Stor~s
i~ ' .. J~Oliday fnll Hotel . I ll~ec'onflgUredl .I ' ,...i .L'.
f, .. '-'V';"V',-", ~ ",./
( I 4 -......r-"..,"'>.~ ..,;,}~ {.
n ! ~ . National -~ ~' i::ii 2 \'
L Business. - . ~ '1,1.;" 7:11 r
ti';e c", 1. Exxon Hi ~ ".If)" ft J;L t
t#'~~'~~ ..;:.../.,I.~' /' ~r,;,: /,-~l
I:' -. .-..-. if:.. . -'q,"~:~~"~I-!~u,..~~~1il?:~~ '9"Gl~.J:t..~~,'",.).'
~ _~ . ~ -L--- ~ <1 iI'C-'- -~---- ~..,4,
_ ~ T;:;' . /"" f .- - - . ,.
~ '_-~-__~.- ~.~;~:.~;-~:;/ 'l/.\~-: ~-~ .~-~-= _ ~..~~~~9 :~.~::
. ~~~Q'\L*-;.iQ..-i=--..~'.tl1. "". ::.J;...:,:;r"i.. ",~. . ~.~'1QF~~ Q o;j~
3 Sp d ~ ../.,.,'1" f r" :t
. ee ee 'oJ:.,:~., "f)' ;) . ;l. "I
..., 011 Change 0, /i .~. J:i.F '
,t1 .~ ~ ..,9~jt.... ,liii ~ nil/Import ' tJ
~ A..G '.. X.' r3'~ () r'. . Car Store.
~-,. ,:' ,~ ~-
'. ~ I
Wine . ~i:."'... ..Lv.;
Warehouse .~/.,jJ~" .P
!!1J:;,~.tl' .
. I ~.
.;..": ~
l4f..",... J '.
,1':\ ''''''''' I
,)I ..,'.."$}
1:\ . ~;.~ ,."
1#' "l:J'~
."i .~' ,'ft'
9"fi'
:a JJ ;~I
.1.). ::7 -;,
....' . Ill6'\:
, 0.;,.,
~ ~~~
Q~j.
P Existing' #, ~
'. ::~ Buildings . '}"i
: ". ,,: . ,
,r"-' :./....~ .. .....-
""I .'-
~- '...;1-'"
\,.-; "
"). \_r-~.:',,,
..... v-....- ....
C" ~
;) ..r..-....r.
j S~
(
'IP"' ';
,.> ...
, ...
0,...,-
~
o.:~
-Po-
Movie
Theater
~r
1.-.
ri.., ..~
LIL_
D
-
-
~ .~
{<.. .rf'~'
c: . l~ (....
1,{ rrJ.r
~ ~ ,
. . ( ,It
t.) <<
/j\.J
.,. "" (. }
53,. ("I":~.. ,-;- ~
,.,z;,:,., ',' .-J ",:
r-" ... . ,-,'
;: .) I '
, ?/ ';~~/
C -./
S' (~a,~~. rt
\'/ ,.m.
e, \ ,,-
r'<
J. /
)-. '-.!>"'-....) C
\ (
r . , , I
" [" ....."'f\ (
\}g 7. ~irst II
Union
'" '-:: ~:n~__~~.:~
-
..
bt%
lYU
.
0
" -
,.r . :.. -
.::- c:
KUlash Design
- . --.
. -. -'''. ....., - , . . . . . - ,~"
~.-- ~t v.~ '".," ,,,,,...t:- ....,
;.;" ~"::'l " - r( 1\1....'"r) '.~ ;'r ,1."-
I <<t...>> \. ,~r..
1 :.\ I ':~ \ \" >t/.."C.; I; ,It-
~ ~. - J \ - - . 1 .. : 5 "). J.' -\. .)./1'~_
,. ... i~ f, f < . ,1/" ( / I' '~',
!.: ':1~'''~, t" { 'j ~".:. / -:' r
-D' .4,i.,-.r::r I l...: )~r'" ( ) J'
'1 1 I "/' r y 1
. L " <" .1. \ '. 1 ; .
. - " I f'" f ~ i ./ () I:
J It:.. ~ ( I 1,
. . ." ... 'Ij.
.. .,. I (, , )'j ( ) J
.\ ~- n~, ':1.' " _ l(). ...... 1
. -'.'-'r -~ I l .' ~, ( '\8 .r,'.
':' L, '" I :., (".., .,..: \. ~ .~; . 0;",,' .
'r'-~\ Cl1 '~ ~ ( ";' I
: i 'J \ 't, t
I " . ( ~. :, . -;' I
\ ' ; ~ ,~ " ;
. , \ '. \ \ ) I
. I I, \ I ~ ~ ~ J
I i <. l ,.'. _ ,
. t { . \. I f
',t ... I ... I
,.I I... . i .\. I ~.. (
. (1 I" 1 '
, J " "" r''' . _' . - /,: ( ,
, ~,' '\. I ~ .' - (wI". ..:. ..
. f")' I OJ" . .
,:L\ . J . ( r 'I i:(;: \'. \
. .,1 t \ "
.,. ,-. ,If .
, " ",,', .I.,. \, \ I
,....\ \ ., I
.... .~J .- ~I .',
\;<'.,.~' '-~)" ~ \ :."
\ '~ ,'.-- :11
j'. :.j'
~
-1<
'..
',;
"~
')'1
!.~t...
I I'.
.'~ .
~:: .
" . -/'r
'l~ 0
f
'$
~\
-\',: ..
"
','
J~"
"i
.. t\~.
'j . ':t;.
. .
......1"
_:l"~__...,- _ _ .... _~~ ~~:.:::
... ~:: ~~::r_, . _~~,
::-:::::::'l' ~. _ ~'. ;-.-
.~, ~ ~~3 V' 'D'~~;~' riesign has hOf les in" ~,-- ?~~JJ?
t.' \~. lace or '~.'\ ' "','
/- ,,~. the bridge and no P r t to cross'".~, ::..:..
~~-~ . ,(f';- pedestrians and, c~c IS ~. 1 :: . :;.',,' :&~
.. '0. I ';yo :'" . . ."... ;...(;.;:r~ ,
'. , ~', <I~..,..
';~~~ } ,r ~~~~" J~:,' rRETNL~ UNDER J ~'/,' ":(~}t.f6,YI
....~.'"'port. '.,' lL.--. CONSTR. .t\.w~
.....~CarStore !......:....:..~. ".' .' .... ~ f'J (REST~ .:~,. '., . /RE
..... .,..~/ , " ) ': . ,.. ~-, '~<T7<~' .' r
. ''-.-:v . ....~ t.-. .. ...,.,.,..,..:c . ~..:._;.... _ ,.. >-
"1:1 Y : ~ '".~ . r'\ c. :J--.o ,.. ...,; .~,,' ~,
......... .' '. .'/ 'I :\ 01) 0."\Y \",---:.: '. '~"'.." ,
. !., .... 't'. ., '\ . ''t ',,},, \
~ j' , '1 ~-~ G..... '\. . ~ . _._\:~~ '
. , 'f) (). . 1>1 '. '2 \'\ .). ';. ."\;~
'. .) ~'L.".., '. '\~ ~, .....
:' ; ., 'I)' "Y . '. \"" '7;.,~,
. . . (, ,:.':' '. . " ~ ". v:.., '..' " '01
J . . ~ f.:> /. .~, '\. ~'\:.." '. . 0.'...
r ~ ~ ".... ~ ~ \\ \' . .~ :, b /
'j I R ((j I.! I.' ;~ " .., ~ ,,: .)'., .... '- ...... !(~
' . I ~ ~ f .', 0 ' ""/ ~0.""., /5 . ~
(,\ ;", / *"' ~~~~ "11 "- .:^'(~. .J \~ \:. '.. ? :. ,..'
. ~ I .. ','" '.', ~v ... \ ~. ...,..'...v
. .. . ~ '. ""l. '/ " "...
y. r ~ r : /: : fA' '.,", .. _ .
~ -}'.,)... ".;;.,. ..
~ .... ;' /~.~ .' , ...
.... ; / ',..
j
. I
.J
'1
1""
'.
inQ
s
(
...
;.:
.J._
.~:-
Go
>
,
. ~:,
I.'I'~ ".
",
(
I
,I
I
,.
,
"
f
-I
J.;r:..,
1
~:.,.
,
'~. .~'.:
....~ -"
'-
-- ~
KROGeR
;t ':: ,r-t
Figure 3
VDOT's Design
I PARKING
LEGEND
IlIPACT TO ACC~
TAKE-
_ ~RUcrURE
~ SIGHlflCAHT
I
'~~J
-',
I
.....
'r
/"\
!
; --... ..~.,._;
I I
, I
'Y/ItG/N/~'
-,
.\~~/-\
L..... ".-.....:
~..._'\ (~~'L~,:.-) ~
__"j'\ ?..~.... ~. ...'_-,--.,.....~ j"'---t ._ .' t
....... ' '1 {/ .. .' I \ (I ~ ' )
" r,l \..( r\::. . __'-"" ~;~'.-. --1-0' .--J.,"-., -i -; J-'. ....~ ~-
...-J J/ ,.. /.'i 1.,'";",,,),-- -r' ,::iY i. .. {L. ._-. I .i -;.. .-- -.! ~J'~ - . l.j,
) r ",l ~J ~_ "r---' ''-..,~'_,J~ "-...$">~'-' ;.-~..r '1 ,"
r.... ~ .;., 'I> -"\t....t A L, "v-......J j .' C )
J 1 " r') I.../'\. . ",-. " ....
\ .' ) ~lr ~ v') < "'?~.' . ,.' )
t \ ) \'.. i"V--"1.-,-,,,}r c...,."\..,;.,. . f-~._J"'-. .J'.-J"'-"''(.. .' 'iI' .l., C. ~ !,
~ I I 1') -_"'<f-'.~-,. ,. I' 'J I "
.....\ S r "- _,. "" ~ J' (Recently ,-.(;1 I r,:". ' ( \ .. I
) /"' ~. f Hi5'mlaWTIn Hate', _ '~ReCIOnfigUred). ..f..J.' '... './ _ ~ t, ,..) }L,
j.? ., ~ - ~ '-' L...,. . _ ~ (. . J" r-.....A.r7''lJ,... 1.-;7 01" 'I.)~ . ~ j tl : '-.:'
J r.... ) I ~~. - ) r- ~"''''''''''"''~;;;t'!,!/ $ \ . I ,\
''-S---.. _". U I \ 4. National '.' -:~ .. .. ,: ;".,/1# 1. Tighter right-turn ,J f :!.J..
r \.,J ,\~ . 'UJ~~. . '\ '\ "',
;"" \' .. ,.J I Business College 'i.J' g &.' 1/ 11(1 - 2..1 ..) ,~7 } )
~'t( C 1. Exxon I "i.',rA/IIP. ,7-11 \' ) ( "\.~
,)..,) , ... .t f '.11. ~~ ',.. -vn . \.0 (
_. \. _ ~ _. -N .. "' ,/. ~ \' L.. ...... f '''' ,- -" ... 't.
~7. FI~t n . ,d. ~~ _ );t.,~. :-Qt~~~~.' j~Wy~~,"' ftJ;!: ~~11~c#~___ V" '=.:", :'~ ~j--c.~
lr Union _" ~-',_ ':' ~: G~~fellas -.. -" .. - _....:.z:;::--..".,.......-~~.. ':.t<l' ;', dV~- - .. ..:: -- --- . -- - - .-
~ _~ri~_~.=;_ -':_ ~~ 2. No Exclusive right-turn lanes - I.' . '. !. f ~ - ,_ ~. N~ ~xclusive right-turn lanes
.' ~ ~ . _ : _ .:____ ~,; O"=-- . _ ,_:0 c':: ':. o~-" :,.~:,0i:l~~ 3.~P~diB[ke c~~~sfng S~~~e-s:--~" :' :'_ - 0",;
:.:.- - ~ .. - - .,. .. d..~-2:t1t~ ;'.,Q#~'. .ft.f:'...-1./:~f."..""".I.'#~~. .....:"iJ'n:J--<>>';.'W' ~ Q ~J-~."'." .
.. ....",..... ~~~k/V' ;"~.%.." 1.'. . ?
'Tighter rig'ht-turn lanes .. ..../:. Ji.'~..; .:.~"'>>~". . !+t2'1(,
." .YtIfII, I.' t':~ '.. J I
51 3.Speedee. ai', '~~ <" 't~ " -~
.......s Oil Change '. ~.i")' I . '. P'I 5. The Import v.J
~ ~.... 'I", ,:'..~ 'V ~arStore
~~...= .. I..,. '--~
,tZ\' ',/~"" . '",B
Wine A,l~/'J"... rl;,~ ~
Warehouse .~~i,1; 'f ;.{}"'..
/R"" I ., il'
-1!"fI/Iq,:tJJ' I~'
: . I ~('t..'
....: ''i'
.~ "
. Jr.'JlJ/tr. f'"
t. "~2!:c"ll
. r '.L:-;--:.~
~ :,:~~rl
"'j 'b. ~
C:i'.~' ~
:"f 'g f:i
G) r LJ I., .
fh,}. 'f!
i
,
J
f---., J I
----1 L · r
't
L..
L
11
t._.
[J
1~~
....
{ ,
4.-_1
..
.-'
....~- /'
:" ,i
.. ,(
': ,i /
..,. ,/
,
"-
\.
- -
--
".
..
"0
0:
c
nl
N
~o
.~e
V .
.~..
J_A
anes
~
].....~~
~~,J
-p~
\l\.Jr
~
~,
~~
0'
i.
"" - J!I
.~r<ma.rt.. ~/.
~I~~~~""" r
tenter
u
,. ~
""
."
...
..'
'~6
~ .
--
-
\i .S..'<. 5'". - ,'\".,
. ~ .. I ,1.
, ,; r") <
.1 \ r' .-'
'1...Jl( J~~~
~ - I
I \"
j~.. ( .f
Z./ ,) .~
t~ f
~ .
{ _..-.-"1.
'J -:~
, <..~
c... ~
( .,:.\
, .
....." ;j
.._' {r
\"" '1
"\ V
,~ ;;
l ,.r-.
.r ~
1 ~I
........"---.-.}
.........-~.
(*~~ ,'-~.
',J ~
-. '
'1 r)
, .
~-.l
. 'L.
''-; !
! .
-. '
j" rJ
,/: ()
'. "-.
'. '
.J 1*.
... ~.
Figure 4
KUlash Design
J"
Reconfigured Access
83-.,
l....~
North
o
I I
~-,.;
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 4, 2001
TO:
Bruce Appleyard
Southern Environmental Law Center
FROM:
Walter Ku1ash
RE:
Hydraulic R()ad and Route 29
GJ#15709.01
In working with SELC in developing a refinement to the grade-separated intersection
proposed by VDOT for the Route 29/Hydralic Road location, we suggested the removal of the
right-turn. lanes from two locations: (1) the ramp/frontage road from Route 29 southbound
onto Hydraulic Road, and (2) the ramp/frontage road from Route 29 northbound onto
Hydraulic Road. The removal of these right-turn lanes reduces the amount of right-of-way
needed for the intersection. The traffic that would have been accommodated in the right-turn.
only lane would then be combined with the through traffic (i.e., going straight through the
intersection) into a single through/right lane.
In our recent report to you, we suggested that there would be little traffic impact associated
with eliminating these right turn lanes. The following paragraphs amplify, in further detail,
why there is little or no impact in the removal of these lanes.
VDOT and its consultants use the standard method of computing intersection capacity (from
the Highway Capacity Manual), which bases its computation on the "critical" elements of
traffic flow. In this method, essentially the "worst case" of all movements in the intersection
are examined, and these critical flows are combined into total volume which must be
accommodated by the available signal green time. Typically, the critical flows. are a
combination of the through movements plus the opposing left turn., considered for all possible
combinations through the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual computerized
procedures (RCS software) examines all these possible alternatives, and selects the "worst
case" (i.e., the highest critical volume) for analysis.
A number of traffic flows in any intersection are not in the critical volume, and are therefore
totally overshadowed by the critical volume. For example, the through traffic in the off-peak
direction is highly likely not ,10 be in the criticai vo'lume. More traffic could be added to this
stream without affecting the critical volume. If, however, very large quantities were added, or .
Glatting Jacl,{son Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.
Page 1
I I
~
if the number of lanes were reduced, the previously minor direction of flow could become the
critical flow.
In the case of the Route 29/Hydraulic Road intersection, neither of the ramps suggestedJor
removal are components of the critical volume. Furthermore, combining the volume of these
ramps with the through movements still.leaves the combined movements far short of
approaching the critical volume. Thus, the removal of the right-turn lanes from the ramps, as
we have suggested, would have no impact whatsoever on capacity.
We can illustrate this conclusion with the VDOT Year 2015 projections for the design year
(2015) that have been the basis ofVDOT capacity analysis.ofintersections along Route 29,
both at grade and grade-separated. Attachment 1 is a 1992 VDOT document entitled" VDOT
Traffic Projections Year 2015.",Looking at the 2015 a.m. peak hour volumes for the
southbound ramplfrontage road, the critical volume is the 560 hourly vehicles making a left-
turn. These 560 vehicles determine the length of green time needed for the intersection
approach. The other movements -- the 130 vehicles making the right turn and the
(presumably) very low volume of vehicles going across the intersection, are, therefore far
from being critical. These movements essentially get a "free ride" while the critical volume
of560 left-turners is being accommodated. Clearly, combining the 130 right turners with
. whatever small volume of through traffic is present at that. time in the morning is not likely to
come close to displacing the 560 vehicles as the critical volume.
Precisely the same reasoning applies to the northbound frontage road/ramp. In this case, the
left turning volume of 340 vehicles is the critical movement. The right turning volume of
only J40 vehicles, even if combined with the presumably small through movement, would fall
far short of the critical volume of340 vehicles making the left turn.
The same reasoning continues for both directions in the p.m. peak hour. On the southbound
ramp/frontageroad in the p.m. peak hour for the Year 2015, the critical volumeof710
vehicles making a left turn hugely outweighs the 90 vehicles m.aking a rightturn. Thus,Jhe
separate lane for these right turning vehicles could be combined with the through lane with
little chance ofthe combined voluri:J.e approaching the critical volume. Further, a large
component of future Sperry traffic making a right turn onto Hydraulic Road westbound at this
point could be added in, before approaching the critical volume.
Finally, the same reasoning applies to the p.m. peak hour in the Year 2015 on the northbound
frontage road/ramps. Here the critical volume, as always the left turn volume, is 490 vehicles.
The right turn volume is only 230 vehicles hourly. Thus, combining this right turn volume
with the presumably small through volume would be highly unlikely to exceed the critical
volume of 490.
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.
Page 2
! !
"".. j
~'
In conclusion, therefore, we reaffirm our earlier assertion that the removal of the right turn
lanes from the ramps/frontage roads from Route 29 to Hydraulic Road will have little or no
impact on traffic capacity in the proposed interchanges. The traffic impact of eliminating
these lanes will appear not as a reduction in intersection capacity, but rather as some small
increases in the average delay for motorists (both turning and through) on the two ramps in
question. We can conclude, however, that these increments of delay will be small, since
neither of these movements are critical, and they therefore have more than ample green time
to be accommodated. This more than ample green time is assured by the needs ofthe critical
movements, always the left turns.
I appreciate that delving into this level of d~tail for the capacity analysis might be confusing.
However, the conclusion is clear and compelling. Even with updated projections, for some
design year other than the Yeaf2015 we are using, we would expect to continue to be able to
eliminate the right turn lanes onthe frontage roads/ramps with little Of no impact on capacity.
WMKIpae
Attachment
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, InC.
Page 3
INTERSECTION AL TERNA TIVES AND COMPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENTS:
ROUTE 29 AND HYDRAULIC ROAD
This item was scanned under "Highway Reports"
'~I ~~ &~
BOARD - TO -BOARD~o'
ApriI4,2001-10:30a.m.
(-!efV.-, Ji; I ()
A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to
the Albemarle Coun.ty Board of Supervisors.
Higblights: School Board Briefs (Attachment 1) - March 8 and 22, 2001
RECENT
~ BURLEY.MIDDLE SCHOOL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT: On Febmary28,
2001, we approved the schematic design for the Burley Middle School
Addition/Renovation. At its March 22 meeting, the Board approved the Design
Development Phase of the project allowing the architect to proceed to the
construction document phase of the project.
~ JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING CQMMISSION:Based on a
School Board request from last fall, the Board had its first Joint meeting on
Tuesday, March 20, 2001. The intention of the meeting was for the Board to
understand what the Planning Commission does and for the Planning
Commission to provide an update on the Development Area Initiative Committee
(DISC) study. Also discussed were recommendations to improve
connllunications and/or processes between the staffs.
l; BOARD/SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION: In October, the Board formed
a Board/Superintendent Evaluation Committee to review the current evaluation
process. At its March 22 meeting, the Committee, consisting of Gary Grant and
Steve Koleszar, presented recommendations for improvement to the process to
be effective July 1,' 2001. The Board will continue to review the
recommendations.
FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST
~ UPDATE ON REDISTRICTING FOR BAKER...BUTLERELEMENTARY
SCHOOL: The Baker-ButlerRedistricting Committee, which includes 12
"
citizens, has been working since December. The Committee will present its
.~ proposal to the Board at its April 12 meeting. The Board intends to adopt a.final
redistricting plan by the end of May.
q, 2001-2002 SCHOOL DIVISION CALENDAR: The Board received at its
March22 meeting,. a proposed 2001-2002 School Calendar. The Calendar
included 180 instructional days,. 9 weather make-up days (Memorial Day not
included as a make-up day), 8 School Planning Days, 3 early release days, 2 days
for central staff development, a Thanksgiving Break from November 21 -23,
Martin Luther King Holiday, a Winter Holiday from December 22 - January 3,
and the lastday of school as June 7. The Board is scheduled to approve the
calendar at its April 12 meeting. The Calendar being considered was developed
utilizing significant community input. The School Division continues to be
eligible for a waiver to open before Labor Day; therefore, the first day of the
2001-02 school year will be Monday, August 27.
q, BUDGET: The Board will begin to finalize its FY 2001-02 Operating Budget
on April 12. There will be a Budget Work Session on Monday, April 24. The
Board anticipates adopting a final budget on Thursday, April 26. We appreciate
the additional support the Board of Supervisors has provided.
2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available at http://k12.albemarle.org
"WE EXPEct SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: March 8. 2001
BOARD ACfION AND ACfIVITIES
. The Board expelled a middle school student for 365 days
for burning and destroying school propeny. The Board
also expelled a middle school student for the remainder of
the school year for police charges outside the school and a
continued panem of willful disobedience.
. The Board approved a Resolution of Appreciation for Mr.
Richard Nunley, for his financial contribution to support
the Golden Apple Awards Program.
. The Board approved the changes made to the Career and
T echrllcal Education Curriculum.
TEXTBOOK SELECfION AND ADOPTION
GRADE 8 CIVICS AND ECONOMICS
School Board Policy IIAA: Textbook Selection and Adoption,
specifies that the School Board adopt textbooks for use in the
Division based upon recommendations presented by the
Superintendent. .
1his recommendation was a result of funher alignment with
state Social Studies Standards of Learning and the development
of a middle school course to meet those standards.
Consistent with procedures outlined in Policy IIAA, a textbook
adoption comminee was convened in December of 2000.
School Principals designated members of the comminee and
included one social studies teacher from each school, two
parents, and one Assistant Principal. Students from three of the
middle schools also reviewed the textbooks and gave input.
The Instructional Coordinator for Social Studies acted as the
advisor.
The Evaluation comminee members used a common textbook
review criteria form (refer to section IIAA-E: Textbook Review
Criteria Form) to guide selection. Consideration was given to
readability and alignment with state standards. Consensus was
reached and the following recommendation was made:
Holt, Rinehart and Wmston
A rrrrican Cioo, Reri.srrl.
E clition, 1998
American Guidance Service, Inc. Uniuxl States Gar.emrrmt,
2000 (Practical)
The textbooks are available for review for 30 + days (March 9 -
April 11) at the Albemarle Resources Center, 1200 Forrest St.
For more information, please call 972-4021.
TEXTBOOK SELECfION AND ADOPTION
GRADES 6 - U LANGUAGE ARTS
School Board Policy IIAA Textbook Selection and Adoption,
specifies that the School Board adopt textbooks for use in the
Division based upon the recommendations presented by the
Superintendent. Recommendations were presented for
textbooks in language arts classes in grades 6 through 12.
O:msistent with procedures outlined in Policy IIAA, a textbook
adoption comminee was convened in December 2000.
Members of the comminee, who were designated by the school
principals, included language arts teachers and administrators
from the four high schools and the five middle schools. Two
parents, who were selected by the administrative staff, served as
resource persons.
The evaluation comminee members used a common textbook
review criteria form (refer to section IIAA-E: Textbook Review
Criteria Form) to guide selection. Members sought materials
that aligned with Albemarle County curriculum and the Virginia
Standards of Learning. After reviewing the available textbooks,
the comminee recommended the following textbooks:
Grades 6 - 12 textbooks:
Language Network: Grammar. Writing, Communication (2001)
McDougal Linell.
Writing and Grammar: Communication ill Action (2001)
Prentice Hall.
Grades 6 -12 resource materials:
Basic English Grammar (2001) and English to Use (1998)
American Guidance Service.
English 2200, English 2600, English 3200 (Founh college
edition, 1994) Harcoun Brace.
Jennifer Whitenack, the academic coach, and the
following students from Wood brook Elementary School
will be recognized: Thursday, March 22
Write Source 2000 (1999) Great Source Education Group.
Writer's Inc (2001) Great Source Education Group.
Grades 6 - 8 spelling:
Spelling Connections (2001) Zaner-Bloser.
Grades 6-12 reference:
Scholastic Children's Dictionary (1996) Scholastic
American Heritage Student Dictionary (1998) Houghton
Mifflin.
American Heritage College Dictionary (2000) Houghton Mifflin.
American Heritage Student Thesaurus (1999) Houghton Mifflin.
Roget's II The New Thesaurus (1995) Houghton Mifflin.
Language! materials:
Language! 2nd edition instructor's manuals (2000) Sopris West.
Language! 2nd edition student mastery books (2000) Sopris
West.
J&J Language Readers: 3rd edition (2000) Sopris West.
The textbooks are available for review for 30 + days (March 9 _
April 11) at the Albemarle Resources Center, 1200 Forrest St.
For more infonnation, please call 972-4021.
COMMENDATIONS
1. Students from practically every state and several counties
competed January 24 in the 24th elementary Knowledge
Master Open academic competition. The teams, consisting
of fifth and sixth grade students, used computers to answer
100 challenging questions from all curriculum areas. A
team of 11 founh and fifth graders at Woodbrook
. Elementary School scored 709 out of 1,000 possible points.
TIlls score earned the team second place in the state of
Virginia and 16th place out of a total of 337 teams
worldwide.
Roger Fan
Andrew Pericak
Abbie Deal
Rebecca Samley
Allison Beckenstein
Mark Neufeld
Ariel Schwanz
Margarita Dimova
Molly Vinson
Alex ODonnel
Zavier Catoe
Morgan Phillips
2. The Teacher Cadet and Teaching Fello'WS Seminar are
both prograrns for high school juniors and seniors '\\710 are
interested in the teaching profession. The
programs/ classes are designed to promote an
understanding of our education system through practical
learning experiences-observations and panicipatiOn in the
school classroom. The following students were
recognized for the contributions they have made in the
Albemarle County system and their interests in the field of
education.
Teacher cadets from Monticello High School:
Alicia Paul
Stacey Turner
Matt Taylor
Blair Smith
Quinton Bolden
Julia Batten
Sarah Crockett
Sherri Hahn
Erin Patton
Luke O'Toole Adam Hunt
Brandon Good Sarah Leathers
Julie Patterson Jill Patterson
TIffany Morris Amber Bazzarre
Brandon Drumheller
Mandi Campbell
Alicia Currence Heather Lane
Kelly Bates Sean Mantell
Teacher Advisor - Cheryl Brown
Teacher cadets from Western Albemarle High School:
Shannon Colletta Josh Davis Jesse Kaylor
Jessica Maupin Meagan Maupin Nichole Meyer
Lydia Taylor Danielle Jackson BeckyCoughlin
Alicia Forbes Wyatt Kendall Carrier Keyser
Cody Lathan Patricia Steppe Jennifer Whetzel
Teacher Advisors: Sandra Lowry and Sandy Keyser
3. Ms. Paula White, Gifted Resource and Technology
Teacher at Red Hill Elementary School, has been selected
a 2001 ComputeIWorld Honors Program Laureate. Ms.
White submitted a case study describing the ongoing'
pannership between Albemarle County Public Schools
Depanment of Technology and the Curry Center for
Technology and Teacher Education which provides pre-
service teachers the opportunity to work with experienced
teachers in the classroom integration of technology. In
recognition, Ms. White will receive a medal in San
Francisco in April and her submission will formally become
pan of an archive that contains over 3000 case studies
des~ribing how infonnation technology is used to benefit
SOCIety.
UPCOMING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS
Tuesday, March 20,2001
Joint Meeting with the
Planning Commission
Regular School Board
Meeting
Thursday, April 12, 2001
Regular School Board
Meeting
Monday, April 23, 2001
School Board Budget Work
Session
The Albemarle County School Board
Board Briefs
Kevin Castner, Superintendent
Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board
401 McIntire Road * Charlottesville, V A 22902
http://k.12.albemarle.org
Regular Board Meeting
Thursday, March 22,2001
Room 241, County Office Building
CLOSED MEETING
The Board approved the following actions:
. .. Expelling a high school student through the end of the first semester of the 2001-2002 School Year for
chronic willful disobedience and making threatening statements to students and staff four times during this school
year.
. .. Denying an attendance appeal regarding W oodbrook Elementary School.
. .. Denying an attendance appeal regarding Albemarle High School.
. .. Approving the election of professional staff as revised.
PRESENTATIONS
... The Board received a School Improvement Plan Presentation for Yancey Elementary School from Mr.
Mack Tate, Principal. For more information, please contact Yancey Elementary School at 286-3768. .
... The Board received an update from Dr. Kevin Hughes, Director of Testing and Program Analysis,
regarding the recently released Stanford 9 Test scores. For more information, please contact the Department of
Instruction at 296-5820.
ACTION ITEMS
The Board approved:
.... Accepting the Year-to-Date Financial Report as of January 31, 2001 as presented.
.... Authorizing the Board Chairman and the Superintendent to forward the Standards of Quality affidavit
to the Virginia Department of Education.
... Accepting the Design Development Phase of the Burley Middle School Addition/Renovation and
allowing the architect to proceed to the construction document phase of the project.
INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board received for information, direction and public comment: .
... The Grade 8 Civics and Economics Textbooks. These textbooks will be on display at the Albemarle
Resource Center until April 12. For more information, call the Resource Center at 972-4021.
... The Grades 6 -12 Language Arts Textbooks. These textbooks will be on display at the Albemarle
Resource Center until April 12. For more information, contact the Resource Center at 972-4021.
... The 2001-2002 School Division Calendar and scheduling it on the April 12 agenda for approval. For
more information, contact the School Board Clerk's office at 972-.4055. The Calendar will also be posted on the
Division website at http://k12.albemarle.org.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
... The Board received reports from the Superintendent/Board Evaluation Review Committee,
Computers4Kids, Budget Review Committee, and CATEC.
/
~TE ________________~~~~_~_______________________
AGFNlA. ITIM tV. ----fie-:::-fl.Q--:..ia.!:i------------------__
AGRO\ ITIM tW.E W~U T tttQD C.RJrnm~L~ r
Lf II f / (j /
DEFFRRID lM'IL
Form.3
7/25/86
McGuireWoods llP
, Court Square Building
310 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300
P.O. Box 1288
Charlottesville, VA 22902.1288
Phone: 804.977.2500
Fax: 804.980.2222
www.mcguirewoods.com
YalerieW.long J;\/trr:1 !!R;:\i\y/(-'(~!;~\C
Direct: 804.977.2545 1,-, ''-' \.....-. i. 'l.L V,--"...~. !JJ
RECEI\A::HMENT A
MAR 2 1 2001
?L;NNING ANC
COMMUNI1Y DEVElOPM~cguirewoodscom
Direct Fax: 804.980.2265
March 21,2001
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Joan McDowell
Albemarle County Department of
Planning and Community Development
401 Mcintire Road - Room 218
Charlottesville, . VA 22902
Re: SP 00-64 Weber (Triton PCS CVR 347D)
Dear Joan:
As you know, when the Board of Supervisors considered SP 00-64 Weber (Triton pes
CVR 347D) on February 14, 2001, the Board requested that Triton investigate several options in
connection with the treatment of the ground equipment for the proposed wireless
telecommunications facility. In response to that inquiry I offer the following information for your
review and. consideration prior to the Board's consideration of this application again on April 4:
1. One option the Board asked Triton to consider is the possibility of burying the ground
equipment in an underground vault. This would require excavating a hole that is 19 feet by
19 feet and 15 feet deep to provide enough room for the ground equipment, air conditioning
unit required to cool the equipment, and a prefabricated shelter to protect the equipment.
To avoid damaging the roots of the two trees closest to the facility, Triton would have to
locate the vault beyond the trees' drip lines. The necessary transmitting and receiving
cables would then.be placed either underground or above-ground along a cable icebridge.
Triton is hesitant to run the cables underground due to the risk of damaging the root network
of the trees that provide the most important screening of the facility. Running the cables
above-ground.along an icebridge between the underground vault and the pole would likely
require a structure.thatwould be more visible from Dry Bridge Road than the equipment
Triton originally proposed. Even if we could address these issues to the Board's
satisfaction, I would also pointout that ifthere were ever a massive failure of the equipment,
the underground shelter would have to be excavated in order to replace the equipment. In
addition, it is extremely difficult to adequately protect the electronic equipment in the shelter
from damage from rain and snow that can penetrate the vault. For all of these reasons,
Triton has determined that this option is not viable.
2. The Board also suggested that Triton investigate the possibility of collocating its ground
equipment with the ground equipment that AI/tel would use at its facility on the same
property. This option also presents several obstacles. Most significantly, it would require
that the cables from the Triton equipment cabinet be run underground for a minimum of 80
feet to connect to the pole, which is the minimum distance between the proposed location of
the Alltel facility and the Triton pole. However, in order to avoid the roots of the mature trees
which exist between the two lease areas (including the 84 and l8-foot trees within the 25-
foot radius, and the 80-foot tree to the south), Triton would have to run the cables around
these trees outside of their drip lines, which would extend the distance between the
March 21, 2001
Page 2
equipment and the pole even further. Triton's engineers have advised me that even short
spans between the ground equipment and the pole significantly degrade the strength of the
signal, and that at a distance of 80 feet or more, the impact would be so significant that the
signal would not reach the coverage objective of Interstate 64. For this reason, Triton has
determined that this option is not viable. In addition, however, I would also point out that this
option would also require Alltel's approval for Triton to locate its equipment within the Alltel
lease area. Assuming Alltel would consent to such a request, which is by no means
assured, this would also require amendments to the leases that both Triton and Alltel have
with the landowner.
3. Finally, the Board suggested that Triton investigate the use of a structure for the ground
equipment that would be architecturally compatible with the rural agricultural area. As you
may know, the equipment that Triton has proposed for this site and others in Albemarle '
County is specifically designed to withstand the elements in the open air with no structure
surrounding it. If an enclosed shelter is used, larger equipment is required, and the shelter
must be equipped with an air conditioner to control the temperature. In addition, the shelter
must be large enough so that the technician can move around freely and access all parts of
the equipment during periods of maintenance and repair. This requires a much larger
"footprint" than what is required for the "outdoor" equipment Triton has proposed. The
minimum size of an enclosed shelterwould be 10 feet by 12 feet. I have enclosed for your
review and consideration several color photographs of a shelter that is approximately this
size and that is of a simple style. The shelter could be painted any color the County desires,
such as a gray or other neutral shade, or perhaps a dark green or brown to blend in with the
area. Additionally, Triton could orient the shelter such that the necessary door, icebridge
and air conditioning unit (the latter of which is the tan box attached to the side of the shelter
in the photographs), would all be located on the back side of the shelter out of view of Dry
Bridge Road. Also, these aqditional items would be painted the same color as the shelter.
I also want to mention that I have discussed this issue with Sally Thomas of the Board of
Supervisors and understand that she had been thinking that an appropriate structure for this
area would be a horse "run-in shelter" that would have from one to three sides. Ms. Thomas
has been most helpful in trying to locate a pre-fabricated run-in shelter that Triton could
purchase and use with the existing equipment, but atthis time one has not been located. At this
point I believe Triton's option is to hire a contractor to build one, and that the ideal design would
be one-sided to allow enough air circulation so that the existing "outdoor" equipment could be
used. As with the shelter that is shown in the photographs, Triton would orient the structure so
that the exposed sides would face away from the road to the extent possible, and any open
areas visible from the road would be screened with landscaping.
Inthe meantime, I would appreciate yourthoughts on the information I have provided.
Triton will continue to investigate the possibility of building a horse run-in shelter as described
by Ms. Thomas, but I wanted to provide this information to you at this time for your
consideration. I would very much appreciate any feedback or comments you may have.
Very truly yours,
~~~.~~
VWUhll
Enclosures
March 21,2001
Page 3
cc: The Honorable Sally Thomas (with enclosures)
Frank Shortall, Triton PCS, Inc.
James Baran, Triton PCS, Inc.
Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications, Inc.
'REA\55533.l
~ J~ _
- . o' . _" ,.. ~""':.,
'I ~4." ~
~. ~ M' - '! ~~;I'il<~~~~~ ~ ""~
J"M~.:~'
.
*
If ~obr LA-r.,U!~ W~t.lr
-
l )Of ~
- 7 / j~
/
- l I J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - ----
-
- ~
-. ~ ~-- -..' .~-..~.... -, ..-...
~
:0
N
-..I
('0
o
o
......
......
'"
o
'"
"
..J
...l
'Ii:
3
t.
()
~
(::'.Q
j
~ r.A E-YIr L:.
e'OQ
ItJ~~;I-.
r-{ v
~..
'S I CliVe>
~
J' O"P:ENJ
3
.~
Q
\
~FO FOOT ~A-t..t7
V'~
11 F...",..
P
~
J
o
....
r
~
j
0-
PT
i
~
...
'i
~
tOl\X:.~{;r~
7fli)
~~
~
J
.J
-1..
'3
5J
~
k
~
~
J
-.... ,-"J
~r;;.,;.-r
>-
>-l
>-l
>-
(')
::r:
2:
tT1
Z
>-l
O:l
12w(,,~
~yJ1V
ti'''''~
OpGN
10
NOT
Se.'A f- E
-
..
-'-
--
--..
.
r
..-
1\'
\~
~
""\ ~
Vi~Q. ~
\:? ':::J. ~
~$:. H
~
~
.
~
(b
"
"
i
.:
'.
.?
.
110
J
.
.;
. ..
, .. >_",' -::.... -' .~f.. " ,.>.:...~ ..;.'-,,::.....l;........ -. '-:.~. '.
SP Q?- {PLf vJ~ .
(Tri h pes- (!.Vf3LI79 :.:
.' . ' . .. . . . ~~. .
_........~..-:..-..;.;._....~,-'.... ." ,". .....
. ...\..-..... t.: .
..._.. .:" . '" f
.. ~- . . -.. '.' :: ..~'..
: :......}.:.:.. ':. ~ .... .: .1. ,.', ' .... .
. ~ '. u . ..' ." . .~. ~ ':,.' . '.,~ ....
,'- I..
\,.)-.
(
Ap,try: .
. .S' q'
r<.< (ij( oj. I
...
'0
-
~
. :r
~
~
..;
t
-
~~.
~.-
....If'
~~
~Q
d
:~
.~
i<f
J
~
+
..
r;
Appr~,
. U'
JZ'
~
z~
.~
C.OIOC.IZ.'G- "l~
~OP~
NDT To
Se.A~E
)
Ul Ap,(~.
~ I & .s'
)( ." '!- ')
'tI:O fOOT '1IiA-t..t.?"
.1'2.~C+ .,.
. V;;F~
lZ.f~~ JL
1<-( V
V\ ;-.A,S;rIrL.
gt)or
1
:J:
:>-
:'"
...
.....
...
<>
<>
....
:~
.~
\~lf
lr J' O?bJJ'
"
.t:;.
d'
o
;
~l ~
~'r~~ CY ~
B
-Yl
~
. jZtlUG."
lhs-Y'fN
~Il:lro.}l,:.
.(~}~
w~ .
~ r::oor LA-("r'J(!.p w~u.--
....
'"
<>
0\
.~~(\f4.f Pla.1-
/ doJk-br~)
;
-~_.....,...~-_:
u_. .
- .~----
. ,.
(f) Vintellsi lJ}tS OJ"f ap p r J'/itt1f):iL
tJ.N1 MP-y ~e, based Drt.
~MS of Iv-ardtikcf-
T!DY 17v- prlJJect ~it1Rf?f) buJ-VJJ i/
l:x- i It ~U\Ua I t).CCI;rd wi f'k- htls
g j(d-c~ . .
::..
i.
open wiruJCMls
tor' alrcLdafiM
'(no~ia5S)
'*
.,
..,
-.J'
..,
'"
<>
'"
...
.~ -- -::?- -:---- .. .. :;
'"
.,
-.
.~ .
~- .
~.
APR. 3.2001 9:48AM
BRUGH
NO. HIS
P.2/2
MI.lllell. pro.rlI & 'IVlSIIR..el.
235 Terrell Rd. West. Charlott.esvilfe, Virginia 22901
Phone 804-296-3367 . Fax 804-979-7394
ll.pr.11 2" 2001
County of' IIlbemarlo
Dept. of'PlaJ1J1ing
lVIa. Mal"'garet Doherty
401 McIntire Hoad~ Room 218
Cr.arlottBsville" VA 2?902
RE: SemiflOle Plaza flajor Amendment SD'P 00 19l
Dear' Ms. DOherty:
'-Che purpose of tbis letter 1s to Withdraw.TI1..V appeal of' the Pla.nn1.rl.g COltJlI1.issionrs
conditional appr'Oval I~or the critical slopes waiver, for tIle above !"eferenced
pro,ject.
Robert 'Brugh
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
(SDP-00-154) Seminole Plaza Site Plan Amendment,
Critical Slopes Waiver Request
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To amend the Garden Patch site plan allowing a 8,205
square foot building dedicated to retail sales on 1.017 acres
zoned Highway Commercial (HC). The property, described
as Tax Map 45B1, Section 5, Block C, Parcel4A, is
located in the Rio Magisterial District on the Route 29 N.
frontage road approximately 1/8 of a mile south of the
RivannaRiver bridge. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 2.
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Doherty
REVIEWED BY:
,-------
I
BACKGROUND:
This site was previously developed as a nursery, known as the Garden Patch. Most of the improvements to support that
use have been removed. However, much of the paved parking area remains, and is proposed for expansion as part of
this development. With Planning Commission approval of this critical slopes waiver, SDP 00-154 can be approved
administratively. Final approval ofthe site plan, including building elevations and landscaping visible from Route 29, are
subject to review and approval of the Architectural Review Board.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant proposes a single story 8,205 square foot retail building with 62 parking spaces (where 58 are required)
and one loading space. The proposal includes parking at the rear of the building, which will require replacing
approximately 5' of steep slope with a new retaining wall, water quality swale and concrete drainage ditch and catch
basin. These improvements require approval of a critical slopes waiver.
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes because it is recognized that
such development of critical slopes may result in potential dangers to public health, safety and/or welfare. These
provisions are intended to direct building locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage
development on critical slopes. Section 4.2.5.2 allows Planning Commission modification of this restriction upon finding
that strict application of the restriction would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, unusual physical
conditions exclude the proprietary interest of the developer, or the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import
than would be served by strict application of the ordinance. The applicant's waiver request and justification is attached
(Attachment C).
The Planning Department's review of this request concentrates on whether granting the waiver would serve a public
purpose. Constructing the retaining wall, water quality swale and concrete drainage ditch and catch baSin will improve
the drainage and water quality of the site. It should be noted that the proposal includes four more parking spaces than
are required. Staff finds that removing these spaces from the plan would not create a benefit greater than the proposed
improvements to the slope. The Engineering Department has addressed the remaining concerns and provisions of
Section 4.2 of the ZOning Ordinance and supports this waiver request (Attachment E). Therefore, Planning Staff
recommends approval of the waiver to allow the proposed disturbance of critical slopes.
RECOMMENDATION:
With the support of the Engineering Department, Planning staff finds no conflict with the applicant's requests and
recommends approval of the critical slope waiver with the following conditions:
1
AGENDATITLE:
(SDP-00-154) Seminole Plaza Site Plan Amendment, Critical Slopes Waiver Request
April 4, 2001
Page 2
1. The undisturbed portion of the critical slopes shall be stabilized with low maintenance vegetative ground cover. This
cover should supplement the existing trees. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37-C on page
111-391 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the Engineering Department.
The selected ground cover should have a high shade tolerance.
2. The applicant shall replace the existing fence located along the eastern property line with a new fence to provide
screening from the site and increased safety for the adjoining residential properties. The fence shall be reviewed and
approved by staff to ensure consistency in material, form and height with the fence located on the property south of the
subject property.
Attachments:
A - Tax Map and Location Map
B - Site Plan Reduction
C - Applicant's justification for waiver, dated January 31,2001
E - Departrnent of Engineering comments, dated February 9, 2001
F. Neighbor's letter regarding fence, dated January 23,2001
01.075
2
;1
,I
n
0,
/
('
I"
ALBE.MARLE COUNTY
SOP 00-154 Seminole Plaza MaiorAmendment'--
!
i
@ SECTION A
@ SECTION B
.~SECTlON C BLOCKS A&B
~..SECTION C
@SECTION 0
~. PARCEL 0
0. SECTI9N G
@) SECTION E
SCALE. UII FEET
3
,/
J
[
t
SCALf.tN F[[T
.-
,
61','
RIO t RIVANNA
JACK JOU~Tr DISTRICTS
SECTION 4
... .:..VH<........- ....i~.:.._ :.-=:RES'7A:...
...
- .. -
4
"'".. oy; J.,\jIlJ.::iJ.l:H..l:;;j
._~
Jan-31.01 4:46PMj
Page 1/1
. ':-ri
~
" JoHONE ($04) 879-8121
.....:sIMIl-1t (804) .78.1&51
B. AUBREY HUPF,11AN 6- ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL EiV(,1NEERlNG- LA/I.l!) SlfRVEYTNG _ lAND '>LAllflVrN(;
195 Rlk'48BEND .PRl~'ifif'5't!rTE2
MAILING ADDRE'iS_ P.o. BOX 612-1
CffARI.orl'l:'Sv/J.J.1;: V1R("lN/A 22906
AlOrTHU.__ ."".ItI:lW,A.IltD$. c.....S.. ~"'.SIO~"T
B. AUBRItYHU"frMAN. P.I!:., VIC"....ESIQENT
To
From
Post-lt'M brand fax transmittal memo 7671
Mr..WilliamFritz
Development Process Manager
Dept. of Building Code and Zoning Servi<
Albemarle. County
401.Mcfntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Far..
Co.
Co..
Jan. 31.2001:
RE:. Seminole Plaza
Dear Mr. Frit~
This letter is to revise our previous request for a waiver in regards to the
disturbance ofa critical slope as described in Section 4.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.. This disturbance wjJJ take place on .a manmade cut slope near the rear of the
property. .. The site plan calls for the placement of a retaining wall and concrete drainage
ditch and catch basin on the steep slope. This construction will have no effect ona
drinking water supply as it is downstream from the Rivanna Reservoir. There will be no
problems associated with septic disposal as the site is served by public water and sewer.
This construction will.actually remove a section of the steep slope which in turn will not
cause any degradation ofthe site or adjacent properties nor will it caUSe any rapid and/or
largescale movement of soil and rock., excessive stonnwater runoff" siltation of natural
and manmade bodies of water and loss of any esthetic resource. Thisconstructionin
actuality will improve existing site conditions as a portion of the steep slope will be
removed, therefore. we believe the granting of this waiver is justified.
If you . have any questions. or. commehts, please contact this office at your. earliest
convenience.
AFE/mb
ccRobert Brugh
Jeff Thomas, Engineering
Jack Kelsey, Engineering
Margaret Doherty. .Planning
5
Albemarle County Development Departments
SDP-2000-154
SPIN Submission and Comments
Seminole Plaza Major
Engineering
critical slopes waiver
revision 4
reviewer
Jeff Thomas
received
01/31/2001
reviewed
~.C\.o\
.QH12/2001-
decision
approved with conditions
The critical slope waiver request received on January 31,2001 has been reviewed. Based on the
preliminary site plan received January 16, 2001, the proposed site has an area of 1.017 acres. This
includes a critical slope area of 0.16 acres, which is approximately 15.5% of the site. Approximately 42%
(0.07 acres) of critical slope area on the subject property will be disturbed during construction. It appears
that the slopes will mostly be disturbed by the construction of a 10 foot (maximum height) retaining wall
at the base of the critical slope area. Based on a February 2, 2001 field visit, the toe of the critical slope
has little vegetative cover and is highly eroded. The upper portion of the critical slope (to the east)
appears more stable. Vegetation in this area consists of small to medium sized trees with some
underbrush. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following concerns must be
addressed before any critical slope waiver is granted.
1. "movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of
soil. The applicant has indicated the critical slope waiver request that construction of the retaining wall
"will actually remove a section of the steep slope." We agree that this will improve the condition of the
lower portion of the 9ritical slope. Stormwater runoff will be diverted from the retaining wall by swales
and a storm sewer inlet.
2. "excessive stormwater runoff" .
A stormwater management plan has been submitted. A biofilter is proposed for this site to irnprove runoff
water quality. This site is adjacent to the South Fork Rivanna f/oodplainand the storm sewer in $eminole
Lane connects directly with the river. Based on the Engineering Department's analy~is, the downstream
storm sewer system is adequate to convey the drainage from this site in its proposed state. Therefore,
we feel the detention requirements for this site can be waived. [17-314 f (6)]
3. "siltation"
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction that meets state
erosion control standards. Proposed stabilization and.maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource"
This site was previously developed as a plant nursery. As stated above, the lower portion of the critical
slope is not vegetated. The proposed landscaping must meet ARB approval. We therefore anticipate
little negative aesthetic impact on this site.
5. "septic effluent"
This is not a concern, as this site will be served by public water and sewer.
While we agree with the applicant's assertion that the proposed retaining wall will stabilize the toe of the
critical slopes, we feel the upper portion needs additional stabilization. Therefore, the Engineering
Department recommends approval of the waiver with the condition that the undisturbed portion of the
critical slopes be .
stabilized with low maintenance vegetative ground cover. This cover should supplement the existing
trees. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37 -C on page 111-391 of the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the Engineering Department. The
selected ground cover should have a high shade tolerance.
02120/2001 03:15 PM
Page 1 of 2
6
John F. Kirk Jr
3509 Monacan Dr W.
Charl()ttesville~ Va 22901
804 9784997
loIni'PMcGraw
3511 Monacan Dr. W.
Charlottesville~ Va. 22901
8.Q4 971 13..1 0
Mlrgaret R Doherty, Sr Planner
Planning Commission _
RE: SDP 00-154 Seminole Plaza
Ian, 23.2001
Dear Madam:
Regarqrng the above mentioned constructio~ we ~he adj~cent owners have areas of deep concern.
UnfortUnately, we have learned the hard way. Therefore we ask that you consider our problem
and help us. Back in the early 80's the construction ofthe Garden Patch Nursery (on 29 North)
was going through the planning commission stage and the noise problem was on the table.
Several ofthehome<)wners in the Can-sbrook subdivision spoke regarding the problem of noise
llbatemeIlt.",e",ere naive enough to accept the spoken word rathertilan the written word. We
weretol~~hatwewould have.afence 8 to 10 feettallthatelitninatemost of the traffic noise due
to the removal 9ftrees, shrubS. etc. Mr. McGraw cmd Itoldtheo}VJ1erofthe nursery that we
wouldpa>:, theciifIefencetohavea higtI more closeiybuilt fence.' He. saidokay,,- but it never
hllppened.......TWoye}U"s laterthefencewlls built. ( Illygrcmd~on,' 10 years old could have done a
b~tterjoQ.)l're~s'\Vere .used instead offence posts. ...Theslatsthat .ti).ey said would b~tt.ag~st
each other to he1p~~bduethe noise wefT non existent, many were 1 inch apart. Therearesome
placesthathllveopeningsofahpost 3 feet. None ~ttheslatswereeveJ"trimrnedon top, aside
from being uneven, they're unsightly,. The worst of all is.theswail. Thenoiseiresonates through
t. h... e.. ":rrum. . ....Catl. yon".....as if we ar. e standing inthe middle of 29 North with aconvoyof18 wheelers
............ ',' ................. '" ............. .................... ...... ", . .. ..... .,. ' ",' " ,',', "'...,
with cutouts and Jake brakes.
When the fence was completed, we contacted the PlanninKDep.artment regardingJhe shoddy
fence. It did not live up to anything that had been discussed. We were told thatitwas too late
and they could not do anything. Therefore, we come to you with the following.req1jests. We
would like a . noise · abatement wall high enough to muffle the traffic noise, including a high wall at
the swail to be level to the walls on the both hills. Trees and shrubs between the wall and the
backyard. Carrsbrook is a beautiful subdivision, please help us keep it that way.
~tru1y t
....~.? /
t~ 'k r
cc. David Bowerman, Rodney Thomas, Joe Teaglle, Robert Witworth
7
;k::~~~~~7,;~~~;~~?~":;i;:i~FA~i
'i N e\~~~'S>
"T'Ms
~ '-'O\?~.
~ au.J6~\ ~Le --Co
Ft>vl/O v.:> ~ N b]
NO\"
~<::::1~-r: . \ ~ .
)
8
2000
-
/'/'~ .,f
~ BY: JOHN DAUMHIlLLE,!!,.
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT FIRE OFFICIAL
ZONING OEPARTMENT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
PLANNING OEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
9
MAJOR AMENDMENT
PLAN SHOWING
p
'I
TAX ~AP 45B(1)PA~QEL 05 C 4A
RIO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
VICINITY MAP 8CAI.E : l' : 2,000
SITE TOTALS AND LAND Use DATA NOTES
SITE DEVELOPMENT
SEMINOLE
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ANY EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
INCLl.tIING CCJNIIECTION TO ANY EXISTING ROAD. A I'ERMIT SHAll. BE CElT AINEO FROM
THE VIRlINIA DEPARl'MSrr OF TRANSPOAATION Noon. THIS PLAN AS DRAWN MAY
NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE REGUIFBENTS IF THE PERMIT. WHERE I#Y
DISCREPANCIES OCCLfl TtE REGUIflEt.ENTS OF THE PERMIT SHALL GOVER>i.
ALL PAVING AND OAAINAGE RELATED MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS
SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF V.O.O. T.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SHALL BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING. GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION.
ALL SLOPES AND OISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE FERTILIZEO. SEEDED AND
MULCHED. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FILL OR CUT. SLOPE IS 2: 1. WHERE REASONABLY
OBTAINABLE LESSER SLOPES OF 4: 1 OR BETTER ARE TO BE ACHIEVED.
PAVED OR RIP RAP LINEO DITCH MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. OR HIS DESIGNEES. IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO STABILIZE A DRAINAGE CHANNEL.
ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE VIRGINIA MANUAL FOR
UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. LATEST EDITION.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL cONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED
CONCRETE PIPE CLASS III.
ALL EXCAVATION FOR UNDERGROUND PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY WITH OSHA
STANOARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ( 29 CFR PART 1926 ) .
IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO ClECK All. DIMENSIONS. SITE
CONDITIONS. FINAL GRADING AND FIELD LAYOUT ON THIS PRllJECT Af'(] REPORT ALL
INCONSISTANCIES TO THE ENGINEER. SU1VEYOR. ARCHITECT _ OHA. SHOULD
THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO COIR. Y WITH THE ABOVE tE WILL Assu.E TOTAL
RESPONSIBILITY FCl'l I#Y ERRORS AND INCONSISTANCIES.
THE SPILLOVER OF LIGHTING FROM PARKING AREA LUMINARES ONTO PUBLIC ROADS
ANO PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIAL OR RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICTs SHALL NOT
EXCEED ONE HALF ll/2) FOOT CAI'lIl.E.
ALL SERVICE UTILITIES ARE TO BE PLACEO UNDERGROUND.
IN LIEU OF CONCRETE STORM DRAIN PIPE ADS N-12 CORRUGATED POLYETYLENE
PIPE MAY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH BEDDING TYPE PB-1.
IlH'L Y WITH THE STATE BUILDING CODE
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION. NOTES
1.
')
2.
ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL C.
IN EFFECT AT THE TIM!! IF CONSTRUCTION.
EADi llUTOOCIR LI}oIINAIRE EIlUIPPED WITH A LAMP hliIDi EMITS 3.000 DR MORE
INITIAL LlIENS SHALL BE A FULL MIFF LIJlINAIRE OR A DECORATIVE L~INAlRE
WITH FlLL CUTOFF OPTICS.
WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY INSPECTORS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
NOTIFYING THE PROPER SERVICE AUTHORITY OFFICIALS AT THE START OF WORK
THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ACROSS OR ALONG THE LINE OF THE
PROPOSED WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND WHERE
SHOWN ARE ONLY APPROXIMATELY CORRECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ON HIS
OWN INITIATIVE LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND LINES AND STRUCTURES AS
NECESSARY.
ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH GENERAL WATER AND
SEWER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AS ADOPTED BY THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY ON JANUARY 15. 199B.
DATUM FOR ALL ELEVATIDN9 SHOWN IN NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY
tHE CONtRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING . MISS UTILITY
( 1 BOO 552 7001).
ALL WATER AND SEWER PIPES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET OF
COVER MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF PIPE. OVER THE CENTERLINE OF
PIPE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FIRE HYDRANT LINES. SERVICE LATERALS
AND WATERLINES. ETC.
ALL WATER AND SEWER APPURTENANCES ARE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
ROADSIDE DITCHES.
V ALVES ON DEAD END LINES SHALL BE RODDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
RESTRAINT FOR THE VALVE DURING A FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE LINE
WATER AND SEWER GENERAL PLAN NOTES
3.
6.
7.
B.
9.
1.
3.
7.
8.
2.
4
5
6.
4.
1
12
13.
14.
5.
10
)
PAft<ING SCHEOL\..E :
APPROXIMATE IUlBER oF EIR.OYEES 18
PAft<ING REQUIRED - 57 SPACES
B.205.5 S.F. GROSS X BO% - 6.564.4 S.F. NET
FIRST 5000 S.F. - 50
REMAINING 1564.4 S.F. -7
PAft<ING PROVIDED - 6 0 SPACES & 1 LOADING SPACE
PRESENT ZON~NG :. HC
PROPOSED USE: RETAIL
MISCELLA~OUS NOTES :
PRCPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A AESERvom WATERSHED.
BOUNDARY SURVEY BY : B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES. LTD
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY: B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES. LTD
PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
OWNER DEVELOPER
ROBERT O. BRUGH
235 TEfflELL ROAD WEST
CHAFl..OTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
TOTAL SITE AREA : 1.017 ACRES (44.316 S.F..
AREAS : eUILOING COVERAGE : B.205.5 S.F. lB.5%
IMPERVIOUS. COVERAGE 24A2O SF. 56.1%
OPEN SPACE : lt690.5S.F . 26.4%
PLAN PREPARED BY
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LAND. PLANNING
CHARLOttESVILLE, . VIRGINIA
S TOR M D R A I NAG EST R, U C T U RES
~
399 Zoll
399.96
40 l. 32
395. e 9
391.10
'NY.IM
..
06
95.99
>"
400
~
40 1;54
102;,7 a
409.5
400.5
402.0
~
TVP.
O!'.
01;
01
MH
01
~.
2
.
.
.
EXIST.
-@
~Kisf. MH
rop 40262
In~. J 7/. /2
To~ Map 458(1/ PtuaIO!J- C4
8efliom;n Of Rbseffa Oici,fSQ"
0.8. 1222 -166
Zoned: He"
Pr.unf Use tit
[)~(1"r sl1ip
TE BENCHMARK
Top Botl of Firl Hyd
E lev 01 ion 405.15
US.G S Dotl,lm
C2
0'
EAist. MH
Top 401.14
lilt'. o39J.9'
Parctt
Kifl
d611 C~
R.
Tail Mop 45 8(t)
JOIIII S 0' MDufyn
[). 8.956. 189
ZtMlld R~I
P",.II; lis.
n
0'
d flle6
Pon:el
McGraw
R.
To" Map 458rl)
John P,Of'JOOn
0.8. 905- 466
Zoned R./
P,ttS,,1 f 1)$11
,
,
@---~. \
__ ___ . ~'Sl
__ __ . 1,5'
_ _ 0
----~ \
__ ~'.rt~ ___ f"OSd'nt \
_ _ 60" _ - k.,
~~ - ~ - _:----------
. I . --- I-
I . ---.1 --
"--- \. --------L - -
~ ' I,
. \ "
~.
'~~
--
/8
06
Parc,
F..
<,
rax MtJp 458(1)
Wendell W. Woo If
0.8, 445.566
ZOl/lId' He
PrttSllnl lis'
----:.--.
Eiisl. MH
Top J95. 77
In!' 360.2T
.-
--
!f'--/I
,.
\, 4
,Ex/sf
ToR 39
In"~$,
NE
---
----~-
,.
A
E
CALIPIR HIIO"' AT TOTAL HIIGHT TC AliA OP TOTAL A"IA
QUANTITY
,LAN'IN. IN 1-0 YIA-". IN An CUOPV 0' CANO'Y
1/4" 19 . 14.06 ' I 5 ~ S.f I to S.
.. ZZ 3 ge S.F. 792$.
..~\.\:~.~It'W't! #
"~"'1J #
Ii - _ _'~~
:~. - ~!
:: tJ AATQ F. EtMWI)S :
;. 10420-8 tJP _ :
~, < 11.1~"" ...a~'~
...::'0 SUR"i'E:..,_"'''
-'''HUt!"
20
=
/
E
seAL
nlervo
PLAN
n b
29
ROUTE
u s
SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE
con f 0 u r
IIIN.
OA
.OTOMICALa
CO..OH NAil.
CORNUS FLOR
OOGWOOD
KEY
('""l'l)
7.1)
....~..r
(........,
,..)
<....~
10
~
~f
?
SIT E
SEM NOLE
B.AUBREY HUFFMAN.6 ASSOCIATES,LTD
CIVIL ENGI NEERING-LANO SURVEYING~LANO PLANNING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, V IRalNIA
~ h Q l)
P LAN
PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT
4,3165.1".
4,432 S.f.
1,910 S.F
3,9155.
8. 1.25
98.74
91 S.
20
TOTAL. SITE ARlA .,1
10% TREE CANOPY REQUlftB.MENT
1
CREDIT FOR EXIST. BRADFO~DPEAR TREES
CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE DEt:I!)CT10N ~ 20' BUFFER
7 .
t/4'
CERCIS CANADENSIS
EASTERN REDaUD
UTILITIES PROFILE
STORM DRAIN
SEMINOLE PLAZA
B.AUBREY HUFFMAN 8 ASSOC. LTD.
DE.CE.MBER lB. 2000
11
Sheet no.3 of 3
~
(.
)
''\1
/
\
)
. .
~~,.- -- .~._~~._~;;~~~~~
c~f.~~:!-..~~;.~~~-~t:::=.':~..: __ ~ _ 4~ . _,. ~ .-i:. '"
~:-:~~~~:"~Z~;c:]~~~+F"~~;,~~l?~~:r~~i,~
::> Ne\~~f--:'
Ttns
t2G U'u.)~S""\ ~ c..e
'To
~~~-r: l~
)
NO",
Fbvl/O V-' ~ N b1
'7 vopEt.
8
John F. Kirk Jr
3509 Monacan Dr W.
Charlottesville, Va 22901
804 978 4997
Iohn.PMcGraw
3511 Monacan Dr. W,
Charlottesville~ Va. 22901
&Q4 973-. 13..1 0
Margaret R Doherty, Sr Planner
Planning Commission _
RE: SDP 00-154 Seminole Plaza
Jan, 23.2001
Dear Madam:
Regarding the above mentioned constructio~ we .the adj~cent owners have areas of deep concern.
UnfortUnately, we have learned the hard way. Therefore we ask that yo.U consider our problem
and help us. Back in the early 80's the co.nstruction o.fthe Garden Patch Nursery (()n 29 No.rth)
was going through the planning co.mmissio.n stage and the no.ise problem was on the table.
S.everal oftheho.meownersin the Carrsbroo.k subdivisio.nspoke regarding the problem o.f noise
abaternent.W-e\Ver?I1~veeIlo~ghto accept the spo.kenword rather than the writtenwo.rd. We
were to.ld thatwe w01l1Phave a fe~ce 8. to. 10 feet t~ that eliminate most of thetraflic no.ise due
to.the remo.YaLoftrt~s,shrubsetc'.Mr.McGrawan~I to.ldtlleowner ofthenursel'Ythat we
w?uldpay.the<iift'eI"~ceto.. haveabigJ.1IIl9re c1oselybuiltfe1Jce;H:~said()kCly,,-b~titnever
haPpeneq. ...T\VoYears l~tertheftmcewasbllilt (mygrands()n, 10 years old coul<ihavedo.ne a
betterjo.....b.). . Tr.. ee... .. s......w........ef..e u. s...ea inste... ad. 0... f D. e. n...c. ep.. oSis. . T. h. e. slat.....sJhat. ..t. .i1e..y...... sat.. .'dw.. .oUld.... ... b. u.tt........ against
each()therto.l1elpsll~dueithe no.ise wen~ n()n existent'imanywerelinchap~. Theteare so.me
place~ithathaveo.penings?faln10.~t3{eet.None()f the slats wereevet' triwmed o.n to.p, aside
fro.m b~ing uneven, they'reunsightly..Tb.e "Wo.rstofall iStlle swail.Th~n()isereso.nates thro.ugh
the "mini canyo.n" asifwe~e standing in the middle o.f2Q .No.rth with aco.nvo.yof18 wheelers
with cuto.uts and Jake brakes. .
When the fence was.co.mpleted, we co.ntacted the PlanninKDep.artment regarding. the sho.ddy
fence. It did no.t live up to. anything that had been discussed. We were to.ld that itwas to.o late
and they.co.uld not do. anything. Therefo.re,~we co.me to. yo.u with the.fo.llo.wing.reqtlests. We
wo.uld like a no.ise abatement wall high enough. to. muffle the traffic no.ise, including a high wall at
the swail to. be level to. the walls o.n the bo.th hills. Trees and shrubs between the wall and the
backyard. Carrsbroo.k is a beautiful subdivisio.n, please help us keep it that way.
Ci. truly t
62t .
t~ -'k r
cc. David Bo.werman, Ro.dney Tho.mas, Jo.e Teag11e, Ro.bert Witwo.rth
7
Albemarle County Development Departments ....
SDP-2000-154
SPIN Submission and Comments
Seminole Plaza Major
Engineering
critical slopes waiver
revision 4
reviewer
Jeff Thomas
received
01/31/2001
reviewed
~ . C\ . 0-'
.Q1/12/~60)-
decision
approved with conditions
The critical slope waiver request received onJanuary.31, 2001 has beenraviewed. Based on the
preliminary site plan received January 16,2001, the proposed site has an area of 1.017acres.This
includes a critical slope area of 0.16 acres, which is approximately 15.5% of the site; Approximately 42%
(0.07 acr~s) of critical slope area on the subject property will be disturbed during construction. Jtappears
that the slopes will mostly be disturbed by the construction of a 10 foot (maximum height) retaining wall
at the base of the critical slope area. Based on a February 2,2001 field visit, the toe of the. critical slope
has little vegetative cover and is highly eroded. The upper portion of the critical. slope (to the east)
appears more stable. Vegetation in this area consists of small to medium sized trees with some
underbrush. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following concerns must be
addressed before any critical slope waiver is granted.
1. "movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of
soil. The applicant has indicated the critical slope waiver request that construction of the retainingwaJl
"will actually remove a section of the steep slope." We agree thatthis will improve the condition of the
lower portion of the critical slope. Stormwaterrunoff will be diverted from the retaining wall by swales
and a storm sewer inlet.
2. "excespive stormwaterrunoff'
A stormwater management plan has been submitted. A biofilter is proposed for this site to improve runoff
water quality. This site is adjacent to the SouthForkRivanna f100qplain and the storm sewer in Seminole
Lane connects directlywith the river. Based on the Engineering Department's analysis, the downstream
storm sewer system. is adequate to convey the drainage from this site in its proposed.state. Therefore,
we feel thedet~ntion requirements for this site can be waived. [17;'314 f (6)]
3. "siltation"
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction that meets state
erosion control $tandards. Proposed stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource"
This site was previously developed as a plant nursery. As stated above, the lower portion of the critical
slope is not vegetated. The proposed landscaping must meet ARB approval. We therefore anticipate
little neg*ive aesthetic impact on this site.
5. "septiceffiuent"
This is not a concern, as this site will be served by public water and sewer.
While we agree with the applicant's assertion that the proposed retaining wall will stabilize the toe of the
critical slopes, we feel the upper portion needs additional stabilization. Therefore, the Engineering
Department recommends approval of the waiver with the condition that the undisturbed portion of the
critical slopes be
stabilized with low maintenance vegetative ground cover. This cover should supplementthe existing
trees. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37 -C On page 1II~391 of the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the Engineering Department. The
selected ground cover should have a high shade tolerance.
02120/200103:15 PM
Page 10f 2
6
CII'- 0)_ J..1'iVJ.,;;;>J..OI..t:...
--.".
19999999999;
Jan-31-01 4:46PM;
Page 1/1
,0
\. /,"HONE (S04) lJ'1g.SIJU
.. ...c::SIMILI: (81:14) !t7.....UI81
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN 6- ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL EN(;/NEERlNG- LAiVD SURVEYING - lAND I'LA1V7V1NG
195 RlVERBEND DRIVE. SUITE 2
MAILING ADDRESS -EO. BOX 6124
ClIARI-017'l:'SVILl.J:: VI~'fNlA 22906
! i
."THtlII '~..IE."WAROS. c....lit.. ""IESfDENT
a.AUBRE.Y HUP_AN, P:It.. vIe" PRESIDENT
To
From
Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
Mr. William Fritz
Development Process Manager
Dept. of BqildingCodeand Zoning Servi<
AlbemarteCounty
401 McIntire. Road
Charlottes\'ilIe~ V A 22902
Far..
Co.
Co.
Jan. 31,2001'
RE: Seminole ~a
Dear Mr. Frit~
This letter is to revise our previous request for a waiver in regards to the
disturbanceofa critical slope as described in Section 4.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance. .This disturb~t1ce will take place on a ma.nm.ade cut slope near the rear of the
. property. .The site plan caJIs for the placement ofa retaining wall and concrete drainage
ditch and catch basin on the steep slope. This construction will have no effect ona
drinking water supply as it is downstream from the Rivanna Reservoir. There will be no
problems associated with septic disposal as the site is served by public water and sewer.
This construction will actually remove a section ofthe steep slope whichintum will not
cause any degradation ofthesite or adjacent properties nor will it cause any rapid and/or
l~e scale movement of soil and rock" excessive. stonnwater runoff: siltation of natural
and manrnade bodies of water and.loss.ofany esthetic resource. This.constructionin
actuality will improve existing site conditions as a portion of the steep slope will be
removed, therefore, we believe the granting of this waiver is justified..
If you . have any questions or comments, please contact this office at your earliest
convenience.
AFE/rnb
cc Robert Brugh
Jeff Thomas, Engineering
Jack Kelsey, Engineering
Margaret Doherty, Planning
5
/
,
I
~
I
...
-...-
....
.-
,
61
RIO. RIVANNA 8
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION
....:..Gli :~.;....:-,..i\~_ ~ ::~7:J(ESTA:..
SCAU .IN ..F[[1'
4
(
.. _._.~.__...- -- - --. ".- .. ---_.
I
/
~,
U
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
o SECTION A
@ SECTION' B
~.SECTION C BLOCKS ASB
~ SECTION C
~) SECTION 0
~ PARCEL 0
@l' SECTION G
@ SECTION E
!
14
!
o
SCA4.E ... FEET
3
2000
-
/-/'" ~l
DFlAWNfN:JClHN~
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT FIRE OFFICIAL
ZONING DEPARTMENT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
9
MAJOR AMENDMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING
TAX MAP 468(1) PAR9E~ 05C.4A
RIO ."MAGISTERIAL .DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
::t
~i
SITE TOTALS AND LAND USE DATA NOTES
p
SEMINOLE
2.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10
IB
OF EM'LOYEES
57 SPACES
PAFt<ING SCHEIllLE
API'ROXIMATE IUtBER
PAfl<ING REQUIRED -
6.564.4 SF. NET
BOX .
~ 50
. 7
LOADING SPACE
B,205.5 S.F. GROSS X
FIRST 5000 SF.
REMAINING 1564.4 S.F
. -60 SPACES &
HC
RETAIL
LTD
LTD
PAfl<ING PROVIDED
PRESENT ZONING :
PROPOSED USE :
MISCELLAtEOUS NOTES':
PRa'ERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A RESERVOIR WATERSHED.
BOUNDARY SURVEV BY: B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY: B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES,
PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
OWNER DEVELOPER
ROl!ERT' D. BRUGH
235 TEfI'IELL ROAD WEST
CHAFLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
TOTAL SITE AfF.A : 1.017 ACROS (44.316 SF.)
AREAS : BUILOING COVERAGE : 8,205.5 SF. IB.5X
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 24,420 S.f,. 56.IX
OI'EN SPACE : 11.690.5SF. 26.4X
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ANY EXISTIMG PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,
INCLlXlING C<HECTII:I>l TO ANY EXISTING ROAD. A fllEftlIT SHAll. BE DBT AIlED FI'IOM
TIE VIRGlNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS!'ORATION (VDOn. THIS PLAN AS DRAWN MAY
NOT ACCURATEL V I'B'LEC'T THE RElllJIAEIENTS OF TIE PERMIT. wtERE /om
DISCREPANCIES QCCI..ll TIE RElllJlRElENTS OF THE PERMIT SHALL GOVER>!.
ALL PAVING AND DRAINAGE RELATED MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS
SHALL CONFORM TO-CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF V.D.O. T.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SHALL BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING. GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION.
ALL SLOPES AND DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE FERTILIZED. SEEDED ANO
MULCHED. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FILL DR CUT SLOPE IS 2: l. WHERE REASONABLY
OBTAINABLE LESSER SLOPES OF 4: 1 DR BETTER ARE TO BE ACHIEVED.
PAVED OR RIP RAP LINED DITCH MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, OR HIS DESIGNEES, IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO ,STABILIZE A DRAINAGE CHANNEL,
ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE VIRGINIA MANUAL FOR
UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, LATEST EDITION.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED
CONCRETE PIPE CLASS III.
ALL EXCAVATION FOR UNDERGROUND PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY WITH OSHA
STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ( 29 CFR PART 1926 ) .
IT SHAll. BE THE CONTRACToRS RESPONSIBILITY TO ClECK All. DIMENSIONS, SITE
CONDITIONS; FINAL IlAAllING AND FIELD LAYOUT ON THIS PRO.ECT AI'll REPORT ALL
INCONSISTANCIES TO THE EI'6I1EER. SLflVEYOR. ARCHITECT AI'll DWIER. 5HOlA.O
THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO CCJIoFI..Y WITH THE ABOVE IE WILL Assu.E TOTAL
RESPONSmILITY FOR ANY EARllRS AND INCONSISTANCIES.
THE SPILLOVER OF LIGHTING FROM PARKING AREA LUMINARES ONTO PUBLIC ROADS
AND PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIAL OR RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL NOT
EXceED ONE HALF (1/2) FOOT CAI-O..E.
ALL SERVICE UTILITIES ARE TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUNO.
IN LIEU OF CONCRETE STORN DRAIN PIPE ADS N-12 CORRUGATED POLYETYLENE
PIPE MAY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH BEDOING TYPE PB-l.
BUILDING COlE
3.
4.
5.
ALL CONSTRlJCTII:I>l AND MATERIALS SHALL CCJIoFI..Y WITH THE STATE
IN EFFECT AT Tee TIME OF CON5TFllJCTION.
EAa-t 0UT00llR Lu.4INAIRE EGUIPPED WITH A LAMP WHla-t EMITS 3,000 OR MORE
INITIAL LUENS SHALL BE A Fll.L CUTOFF Lu.4INAIAE OR A DECORATIVE Lu.4INAIAE
WITH FlJ..L CUTOFF OPTICS.
WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY ALBEMAA\.E COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY INSPECTORS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
NOTIFYING THE PROPER SERVICE AUTHORITY OFFICIALS AT THE START OF WORK
THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ACROSS OR ALONG THE LINE OF THE
PROPOSED WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND WHERE
SHOWN ARE ONLY APPROXIMATELY CORRECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ON HIS
OWN INITIATIVE LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND LINES AND STRUCTURES AS
NECESSARY.
ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH GENERAL WATER AND
SEWER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AS AOOPTEOBY THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY ON JANUARY IS. 199B.
OATUMFOR ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING . MISS UTILITY .
( I BOO 552 7001).
ALL WATER "ANO SEWER PIPES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET OF
COVER MEASURED FROM' THE TOP OF PIPE. OVER THE CENTERLINE OF
PIPE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FIRE HYORANTLINES. SERVICE LATERALS
AND WATERLINES. ETC.
ALL WATER ANO SEWER APPURTENANCES ARE TO BE LOCATEO OUTSIDE OF
ROADSIDE DITCHES.
VALVES ON DEAO END LINES SHALL SE ROODED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
RESTRAINT FOR THE VALVE DURING A FUTURE EXTENBION OF THE LINE
WATER AND SEWER GENERAL PLAN NOTES
II
12
13.
14.
1.
4
5
6.
7.
B.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
l.
2.
3.
PLAN PREPARED BY
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL, .ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING
CHARLOmSVILLE, VIRGINIA
04~CI
d",i:1
Pore.
Kirl
Ttll Mill "S 8(I}
Jolt" $. dr.-Morllyll
D. 8. 9$1 ~ 1'89
Z.n,d ,. H.I
Pr'll" I VI." H.
"""'.,,...........
/
/
/
",,,,'"
......"--
1:3
Pore.1 0$
AleDr""
",.'d.n~.
Ttlx "'"'p"$'61IJ
JlJlflJ P. lJi'!Jol1f1
0.8. 904. "'86
Zt1/1ld" H.I
Pr.I."1 lis.
I
.STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
~
399.24
399. 96
401. 32
39~L89
397.10
IMY.IM
34
0'6
95.99
3..
400.
!!!
01.54
02.18
09.5
00.15
02.0
1:..
!.!!!
01. I
DI~ I
01"1
M.
D 1.7
!.!..
I
.
3
4
~
EXIST.
.'
............
............,
J 0.67
" -~---
8LJILPING
H;igIJ 3d
ON.
"'ax.
~
I~
"
, , "
~,/'/ ..
06.18
Pore'
TOIl MDp"58(I}
W,nd./I W. Woo d
O.B..""6~566
2on.d.. He
Pr...nl tI.,
rift Map ,,~8(1) Pare. I O$~ C4
8.nj(lmlll or Ho.,"o Dlc-k",all
0.8. /222 ~ 166
ZOlad' HC
P,.stJnl V,... Ca
...-------..._M
10
"
..
..
.,
F.d.
O.al..,sh/p
Po.l#
Ligh
.
"
~ ;~
~ .'"'>>
"; O:l I
'b C\l f
..; r. (
"" '
..; It) I
.~':It /
.:J "i"'"
;.. LI hI
, \pq.
.~.~
"*,baek
,
,
,
I \24' ~
r \
\,
"
\
\\
,.qul"d Oil tIJ. dontllllc wat,,t
"dut;lng. I'll Iff.. Ufillz"lltisli'ng
.
",
.
~I
SITE BENCH MARK
Top BoliO' Fire t1ydr
EI.va~jon 405.15
U.S.G_.S. Datum
~.
~J.n
l./n.
,
\
,
\\
-------- ------- ".,,, IS' '.
. ----...:: ~ ".'~"'.hl
@- - - - - - '- - - ~ ;-.
- - - - -- !!.!.!:...~" He!> - _: _ _ ~
---- ~ ~~--~I
~"..,
'.'\~/
~\. ;
"~\,'" :" '
", . ~
'~~
E~{sl. MH
rop J95.71
In 1', $60.2'
-- -
- -
- -@
E,I{{III. MH
rqp402_&2
Inl'. .1".'2
EX/II'. MH
rop 401.14
IAI'. J 9J. gJ
~,..........-
~...,i......
l LANE
'....,
",
8
.,
,
"
..,,'tW61l'f.
.~V""~" .
l5~ A .Ii
:6- 41. . .~:
i U ARllUI F. EOtIdDS~ i
~ S420o..&p ~
\<-. IZ'lllAI c!',,~
", "'0 SUP~"..,
'i'flQU""
-
PLAN SCALE I" = 20
contour intlrvD
n b
29
ROUTE
TOTAL HI'.HT T~TA" WIDTH ...IA O. TOTAL ARIA
.UUITY
,.. to TI.... I. to TIAU . ...IlO.y O. o....on
Hlle,R1' AT
HUT Ill.
III., OALIPI.
IOTONICAL a
COIIIIO.. ."111
KIT
2000
DEe E M B E R I 8,
-'n
S.l:.
1925.'F
'4.06' "S.F.
2'.2.5" 3'9,5.F.
9 '
/4
DA
CORNUS FI.OR
DOGWOOD
{"'"
. '.1 ~
'-~.r
{'----'
T__}
<.,.~
_ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ --II>~,7,.;.-i-;;;,-';.- _;__ __-- - -- -- -- - - _0 -- - - - - -- - -- ---
------------- ----------- -- -'...,.--.,..
E
NO L
SEM
U. S
ONS
SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS a CANOPYCOMPUTAT
>0
10
"\
nf
I
\
I
\
\
\ srORY
I
\ 8.Mill/ln,-
~ F.F. 40J
I
\ 8(JcUI()wPi'l'~nnq" D'l'le. i
]1I"I,Olon, willi OjJr.SSU('
\ $'W#f JlIl.,lIJ conn' e tion,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
\
~
:>
SIT E DEVELOPMENT P LAN
S E M N 0 L E PLAZA
B. AUBREY H U F F M A N,'8 ASS 0 C I AT c: S. LTD.
CIVIL ENGI NEERING.LAND SURVEYING.LAND ~LANNING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
-
~hA A
44,3 '16 S."-,,_
4,432 S.'.
J. 910 S.F.
3,97(55.F.
9IS.F.l8l-f,25
201119S.74
TOTAl- SfTEAR'fA
10% TREE CANOP.VREQUIRf-MENT
CREDIT FOR EXIST. BRADFORD pEAR TREES
CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACEOEOuCtION. 20' &UFFER
23.1
1/4,
CERelS CANAOENSIS
EASTERN REDaUO
11
3
of
3
-)
)
)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public
Hearing
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Application for CDBG Funding - Whitewood Village
Apartments
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFFCONT ACTlS):
Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White
REVIEWED BY:
~
I
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers the Community Development Block
Grant Program (CDBG) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. CDBG funding is provided for a variety of actiVities,including
housing, economic development and community facilities. Projects must meet at least one of three national objectives, which
are: (1}primary beneficiaries are .Iow to moderate income; (2) prevention or elimination (of slums or blight; and (3) urgent
community needs. DHCD projects approximately $13.9 million available for competitive grants for program year 2001.
The County of Albemarle held a Public Hearing at its March 21, 2001 Board meeting receive public input on eligible housing
or community development activities that may seek CDBG funding. One resident of Whitewood Village Apartments spoke
requesting "more room in her apartment" and on-site services linked to tenant needs.
The County also received a Planning Grant, funded through DHCD, to study the feasibility of acquisition and rehabilitation of
White\Nood Village Apartments. Feasibility studies included a market analysis and architectural study to determine
rehabilitation needs and estimated costs of improving the units and constructing a community center.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has executed an option to purchase Whitewood Village Apartments. County
staff has maintained involvement with these negotiations and continue to participate in discussions with other groups that may
provide some services to tenants of Whitewood Village.
DISCUSSION:
Whitewood Village Apartments is approximately 30 years old and has been maintained in relatively good condition. It is a
Moderate Rehabilitation Projectthat has rental assistance tied to all 96 units. The contract for the rental assistance begins
to expire early next year. The current owners have indicated a desire to sell not later than the expiration of the contract. Loss
of this amount of affordable rental housing will have a significant impact on housing costs and will result in potential
displacement of families with limited available housing for relocation.
On average, the rental assistance paid through Section 8 is approximately 55% of the contract rent, meaning that the average
family's contribution is under$260/month. This indicates that most of the tenants have incomes that are near or below thirty
percent of the area median income (30% AMI). In addition, the latest count indicates over 120 children residing at Whitewood.
AHIP's proposal to purchase Whitewood Village Apartments includes improvements to the property and construction of a
community center to enhance livability at the property. Current tenants will have the opportunity to remain there with Housing
Choice Vouchers. Based on funding and availability of units, a mix of income-ranges (up to 60% AMI) may be eligible to
occupy Whitewood in the future. In addition to housing, AHIP proposes to link services'based on tenants' needs. Development
of a community center could enhance programs such as HeadStart, Bright Stars, and the Family Support Program. In addition,
offering space for childcare and after school services would help working parents. .
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing
April 4, 2001
Page 2
The projected estimated costs for the proposed development activities will approach $8 million. Proposed funding sources
will include assumption of an existing HUD loan, private gap financing, CDBG, low-income housing tax credits, Federal Home
Loan Bank, HOME funds, local funding through the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund and other state loan funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a resolution (attached) to apply for up to $1,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant
funding from DHCD. Such funding would be secured by a deed of trust on the property to ensure that the property remains
affordable for a minimum of twenty years. In addition, staff recommends that the Board encourage the use of Albemarle
Housing Initiative Funds (AHIF) and other funds leveraged by AHIF as permanent financing resources to support the project.
01.076
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all
existing affordable housing stock; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held March 21, 2001 and April 4, 2001 the County of
Albemarle wishes to apply for $1,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant
funds for a Comprehensive Community Improvement Project for the Whitewood Village
Apartments; and
WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess of $6,000,000 including, but not limited to,
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia
Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged
by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and
WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village
Apartments is very-low and extremely-low income, all receiving rental assistance
through project-based vouchers; and
WHEREAS, the project-based contract expires beginning in early spring 2002; and
WHEREAS, the current owners have indicated a desire to sell the property and have executed an
option with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as purchaser; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits ofthe project include
>- Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third
of whom are children;
>- Construction of a community center;
>-- Provision of services including daycare and afterschool.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is
hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this
Virginia Community Development Block Grant application.
**********
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarl.e... .county, Virgini7. at~meetin..g
he1d April 4, 2001. ~?(aaJ( i" "
, . Clerk, County Board of SUP.~
821n67
PROJECTED INCOME
Rent .
Less Vacancy. 5%
Plus Laundry Incpme
Net Receipts
llll'
..
TarAt ~"ElilSES: ::::"'~~;:;;:;;":~";':;::';:':;,
NE1:0P,ER'AlllilG{NCPR;e,;
(ESS:OUT SERVICE
.:: :272,101.5,9:'
NET OPERATING'CASHfLOW' .
OUT SERVICE COVERAGE .:; ,
" 3U1Ul
1.14:
f;
~.6 lfN/(){
7~ -Ji.!J
(2tc.(j.
t
~
'-">-- -.,:~
Whitewood ,Village Redevelopment
Schedule
Updated: AI
3, 2001
pril
\!
,~-
ActIvIIv N.... March April May June July August Sept. October Nov. Dec. January Feb.
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002
Finalize Purchase Purchase scheduled to close
A$U'eement wi.interim financinl'! M 12A)1
Submit Predevelopment Up to $70,OOO-Qrant' " , ,
Grant Application to Low - .
Income Rousina Fund ,;
"
Submit'Predevelopment Up to $85K @8'tAPR ;
Loan Application to VA !
Dept of Hsing & Comm
Dev (DRCD) ~
Submit CHDO Dev. Asst. t:'p to 840K. Grant ,
Application to DUeD-
Project Management . ,
FundinJ!
County submits CDBG Up to $1 Million for Rehab & .
Application for Whitewood Community Service Facility ,,' . .
Vill~e to DRCD
Complete Prelim Ongoing Process I
Architectural Plans & w/cQmmunity input- Prel ..
Sl)eCS Plans needed for CDBG ..
Applyfor Interim - Private Lending Institutions
Financing to close on -'National CDFfs !.....
purchase per Sales Contract -DUCD
Submit Final Plans, Specs, Possible 00 day process
Site Plan to Albemarle for ...
Approval ...
FnndingRecommendations
Due from DRCn Be:
CDBG
Receive Regulatory ApprovalslPermitslEt.c.
Approvals From Albemarle
County
oy(3
1
Page
"
':\
'..
Whitewood Village Redevelopment
Schedule
Updated: 'April
Actlvltp
...
Feb.
2002
January
2002
Dee.
2001
Nov.
2001
October
2001
Sept.
2001
August
2001
July
2001
June
2001
May
2001
April
2001
March
2001
3,2001
N....
$594,ooo..Grant
..
$750K @ 3't (InMl'flSt Only)
5%130, yeaJ'&'$270967
"'JI'
'""""
..
. Assumable Loan
.Own~r Financing
. Interim wan
. Fed. Rome wan Bank
.DHCD ABPP
-VHnA Rousing Fund
Approx. $2.5 Million in
Equity Financing
PrepareiSubmit Grant
Application to Federal
Home wan Bank of
Atlanta
Submit Application to
DHCD for Affordable
Rousing Preservation &
Production $
Submit wan Application
to VHDA for Yu-ginia
Rous~ Fund Loan
Close on PnrohBse of
Whitewood Village
Notification of status.of
LoaIliGrant applications
snbmitted above
Submit Application to
VHDA for ww Income
Rousin/! Tax: Credits
Feb.
2003
January
2003.
Dee.
'20022
Nov.
2002
October
2002
Sept.
2002
August
2002
July
2002
June
2002
May
2002
April
2002
March
2002
--.
Approx. $2.5 Million in
Equity Financing
-CDBG
.A1IPP
-FHLB
-VEDA
Submit Application to
VHnA for ww Income
Hous~ Tax: Credits
fusnbmit any un.funded
applications for
loans/grants to fund project
Actlvltp
~
...
-Tax: Credits
-CDBG/AHPP
-FHLB
Receive notification of Tax:
CrediM'untling applications
Negotiate Final Contracts
with -Funding Sources
Page 2 of~..$
"'"
"
.;..
'$
Whitewood Village Reclevelopment
Schedule
April
3,2001
Ne'e,
~pdClted:
.......
Feb.
2003
January
2003
Dee.
20022
Nov.
2002
October
2002
Sept.
2002
August
2002
July
2002
June
2002
May
2002
April
2002
Mareh
2002
-II
Private lender
\
Tenants will be relocated in
vacant apartments @
WbiUlWood Village during
construction
Obtain commitment for
Construction Loan
Construction Begins on
Building #1-8 weeks to
completions
..
Construction Begins on
Building#2.JOweeks to
completion.due to
Christmas Holiday
I March I April I May I June . I July August , Sept. I October I Nov. Dee. I January I Feb.
2003 2003 2063 2003' 2003 12003 2003 2003 2003 .1.2003 2004 2004
....
......
..
-II
Construction delayed1Dltil
spring to minimh,e weather
delays.
Construction Begins on
Building #3-8 weeks to
~1)lpletion
Construction Begins on
Building#4-8 weeks to
completion
Construction Begins on
ConmmnitySemce
Facility- Approx. 9 month
construction schedule
Construction .Begins on
Building #5-8 week
completion schedule
Constmction Begins on
Building #6-8 week
completion schedule
Construction Begins on
Building #7~8 week
completion schedule
Construction Begins on
Building"#8-10-week
completion schedule
because of Christmas
Holida.y.
Ad"'"
Page) orIs
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.17, Outdoor Lighting, of the Zoning Ordinance. establishes
regulations pertaining to outdoor lighting; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 4..17 to address numerous issues including,
but not limited to, those related to threshold lumens and footcandles, light spillover, shielding,
sports field lighting, overall lighting levels on individual sites, and light pole heights.
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 4.17 and any other related
regulations ofthe 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
Resolutionduly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 6 to 0, as
recorded below,irt a meeting held on April 4, 2001.
63-,. .... //7
-., //
/~{ /. ~
Clerk, Board of County
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent to Amend the Lighting Ordinance
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend the lighting ordinance to address issues related to
threshold lumens and footcandles, light spillover, shielding,
sports field lighting, overall lighting levels on individual sites;
and light pole heights.
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFFCONTACTlS):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Sprinkle, Maliszewski, Kamptner
REVIEWED BY:
~
I
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Lighting Ordinance was adopted on August 12, 1998. At the time of adoption, the Board of
Supervisors requested that a review of the waiver provisions be completed after one year to determine if any changes
were warranted.
DISCUSSION:
Since the ordinance was adopted, three applications for waivers have been received by the County. Two of the waivers
were for sports lighting (SDP-98-156: Western Albemarle High School and SDP-99-02: St. Anne's Belfield School). One
request was for "pedestrian" lighting at the Crozet Convenience Store (SDP-99-100). All three requests were granted.
Also since the ordinance has been adopted, staff has conducted a review of the waiver provisions and a review of
troublesome lighting-related issues that have arisen repeatedly since adoption. These reviews have resulted in the
identification of several areas that staff would like to study further, with the potential of making recommendations for
ordinance amendments to improve plan review and enforcement procedures. Identified areas include, but are not limited
to, threshold lumens and footcandles, light spillover, shielding, sports field lighting, overall lighting levels on individual sites,
and light pole heights. (See Attachment A for the complete list of staff recommendations.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment B) to amend the
lighting ordinance.
Staff further recommends. that the Board of Supervisors provide staff with direction regarding inclusion of members of the
public on the team that reviews the lighting ordinance issues and ordinance amendments. If the Board desires non-staff
representatives on the team, staff recommends that the Board be as specific as possible regarding their wishes for
representation.
01.060
ATTACHMENT A
LIGHTING ORDINANCE REVIEW - RECOMMENDATIONS
March 21, 2001
1. Modification of spillover requirement. Section 4.17.5 provides for modifications, waivers, or variations of
the standards of Section 4.17.4 by the Planning Commission, including the spillover requirement. Because
the spillover requirementis a safety issue, as well as a nuisance issue, it should not be waivab1e.
Recommendation: Revise the ordinance so that the spillover requirement can not be modified.
2. Sports Lighting. Recent reviews of proposed sports lighting have indicated that full cutoff sports lights are
not manufactured.
Recommendation: Modify the ordinance to exempt sports lighting from cutoff requirements. To otherwise
reduce the impact of sports lighting, adopt guidelines to: cut off more glare for fixtures emitting over 3000
lumens; further reduce glare and spillover; add shielding to protect adjacent properties; and establish
appropriate setbacks. Also, modify the ordinance to refer to "organized sports" rather than "baseball,
softball, football, or soccer."
3. Initial/maintained 1umens/footcand1es. The ordinance applies to outdoor luminaires with a lamp that emits
3000 or more initial lumens. The initia11evel of illumination must be used because sites must comply with
the ordinance prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. However, manufacturers and applicants
generally use maintained levels (illumination after approximately 100 hours or more) in planning and
design.
Recommendation: Clarify the ordinance to emphasize initial lumens and footcand1es. In Sec. 4. 17.4.b,
clarify that the 12 footcand1e is an initial measurement, not a maintained value.
4. Spillover of non-parking lot lighting. The current spillover regulations only apply to parking lot lighting,
but other types of lighting (wall, canopy) can spill onto adjacent properties. There is an inherent inequity in
applying spillover regulations only to parking lot lighting. Recommendation: Make all lighting that is
subjectto 4.17.2 comply with the spillover regulations, now found in 4.17.4.b. Remove the words "parking
area" from Section 4.17.4.b.
5. Spillover measurement. It is unclear in the current regulations where spillover IS measured.
Recommendation: A ZTA is required to clarify where and how spillover will be measured.
6. Spillover and lumens. Spillover regulations are only applied to fixtures emitting over 3000 lumens.
Recommendation: A ZTA is required to apply spillover regulations even for fixtures that emit less than 3000
lumens.
7. Arran~ement and shielding of light. Prior to the modification of section 4.17, Section 4.12.6.4 of the
ordinance read as follows: "Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or shielded to reflect
light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets." This wording allowed for
greater control of glare.
Recommendation: Restore the ability to control these aspects of lighting with the following language: "All
exterior lighting regardless of lumens shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining
residential districts and away from adjacent streets."
8. Full cut-off optics for decorative fixtures. Decorative fixtures have been approved, based on manufacturer's
information confirming full cut-off optics, but the result has been fixtures that produce considerable glare.
Recommendation: Revise the ordinance to delete the allowance for full cut-off optics for decorative fixtures.
1
ATTACHMENT A
9. Measuring Glare: One ofthepurposes oftne lighting ordinance is to "protect the public safety by preventing
glare from outdoor luminaires." Measuring glare is, at best, difficult, and the County currently has no
consistent method for measuring glare and no standards or guidelines for detennining at what level light
becomes glaring.
Recommendation: Using IES standards, luminence ratios, VDOT light to dark guidelines, or other
appropriate information, establish guidelines for glare (including levels of illumination for the site, position
of lamp, direction of light, etc.). The guidelines should include a requirement for measuring light levels at
various heights along the property lines, not just at ground level.
10. Overall lighting levels. The ordinance includes provisions for reducing the level of illumination produced by
parking lot lights at the edges of a property and for reducing the amount of light directed up into the sky.
Despite these regulations, a site can still be extremely over-illuminated and/or inconsistently illuminated.
These types of illumination can be safety hazards.
Recommendation: Revise the ordinance to provide standards for appropriate overall lighting levels. Use IES
standards or other appropriate information to establish these levels. The "maximum lumens per acre"
method of regulating overall lighting levels is not recommended. A "maximum lumens per site" method
should be investigated. Provide guidelines for achieving lighting that is consistent across the site.
11. Li~hting measurement.
Recommendation. Establish a policy for measuring light of different types: spillover, glare, overall intensity.
Incorporate this information into the County's Design Manual.
12, Pole height. Pole fixtures are often proposed at heights that appear to be out of scale with the rest of the
development. Pole height can have a direct relationship to the creation of glare, and pole fixtures. also
represent potential damage for adjacent owners if they overhang property lines or fall onto adjacent
property. Towers have a required setback from any property lines equal to their height. This requirement
may be modified by the Planning Commission in cases where the adjacent owner is protected in some
manner, . e.g., collapsible structure or easement area. Towers are also limited to 100 feet in residential
zoning districts. Applicants find that fewer, taller poles provide desired lighting levels at lower cost. Staff
fmds more problems with spillover with taller fixtures.
Recommendation: Establish guidelines for pole height. The tower requirements could be easily extended to
cover light poles.
13. Education. Many applicants . don't understand the methods used by county staff for determining compliance
of proposed luminaires.
Recommendation: Prepare an educational brochure on how lighting plans are reviewed by the county, with
tips on choosing appropriate luminaires. Among the issues to be addressed are: the use of initial and
maintained lumens/footcandles; methods used by the county for determining if a fixture is a full cut-off
luminaire~ purpose of a photometric plan; lighting plan requirements.
14. Non-confbrming lights. The ordinance applies only to newly installed or replaced luminaires. In many
instances ithis results in new conforming fixtures installed adjacent to non-conforming fixtures, and creates
discontent among applicants.
Recomme~dation: Establish a 5-year period (from the date of adoption of the lighting ordinance) to review
the benefits of the lighting ordinance and to determine the need and timeframe, if applicable, for requiring
the upda~ng of all non-conforming light fixtures.
I
I
NOTE: It is recommended that suggestions regarding overall lighting levels (item #13) should be pursued
fOllOwingl items #1-12, and item #14 should be considered in 2003, as described above.
I
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Update on Status of Applications for the Acquisition of
Conservation Easements (ACE) Program
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of the final ACE Applicant Ranking,
number of appraisals to order and identification of
applicants who should receive funding from "transient
lodging tax"
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
(
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall
BACKGROUND:
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received eleven (11) applications by its initial January 151, 2001 deadline.
Since then, staff and the ACE committee have met once a month to discuss the ACE program, and the status of individual
applications. Per the County ordinance, properties were ranked by a series of objective criteria including: open space resources;
threat of conversion to developed use; natural, cultural and scenic resources; and County fund leveraging from outside sources. To
be eligible for acquisition of a conservation easement, an applicant must score at least fifteen (15) points under the established
"ranking criteria" (see Attachment "C").
DISCUSSION:
From the initial pool of eleven applications, nine remain eligible for funding - one voluntarily withdrew and another did not qualify.
Applications came from nearly every part of the County and scored on a variety of criteria. Average applicant income is less than
$50,000 per year - the threshold at which ACE pays 100% of appraised value.
Most applicants consider farming their principal occupation and source of income. The primary reasons for applying to the ACE
program include economic hardship and a strong belief in conservatior;l and the protection of open space and farmland. Because
of limited funding and a need to earmark some of the funding ($350,000 from the transient lodging tax) for properties which have
values promoting travel and tourism, there will not be enough money to purchase easements on all of the eligible properties.
Depending on the value of the easement, the County may be able to purchase only 3~5 easements. If some of these properties
qualify for outside funding (through VOF and USDA), ACE would be able to purchase an additional easement(s). As a result, the
Board of Supervisors must consider how many appraisals to order in the event some applicants do not accept the County's offer.
The ACE Committee recommends five or six appraisals.
While the County ordinance enables ACE to rank all properties objectively using the "ranking criteria" system (see Attachment
"C"), it does not define how to rank properties eligible for money from the transient lodging tax - those with unique travel and
tourism values. As a. result, the ACE Committee passed a motion recommending the following criteria be considered in qualifying
a property for this portion of ACE funding (see Attachment "B"): adjoins protected open space; provides mountain protection;
contains historic resources; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor;
adjoins a state scenic river. The Board of Supervisors must determine on a case by case basis whether an easement is purchased
with money from this special funding source. To assist in making this decision, the "General Description of Year 2000 ACE
Applicants and Property" (see Attachment "D") provides valuable information about the individual applications.
Since most of the ACE applicants own property in fee simple, the ranking procedure has been clear and straightforward. One
application, however, is complicated for several reasons: most of the parcels under that application are under option; some of the
1
AGENDA TITLE:
Update on Status of Applications to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program
April 4, 2001
Page 2
property is encumbered by outstanding mineral rights; and several dump sites (tires and car gas tanks) are present. The ACE
Committee believes there are too many unresolved and troublesome issues regarding this application and recommends that the
Lloyd application not be purchased. If the applicant is able to remove the above-mentioned impediments in a timely manner, the
ACE Committee feels her application should be reconsidered in a future year.
The Committee also debated what would happen if ACE does not have enough money left over (from prior acquisitions) to entirely
pay for the next easement on the ranking list. Should this money trickle down to the next highest scoring applicant whose
easement ACE can purchase (in its entirety) or should it be carried over into the next fiscal year? The ACE Cornmitteebelieves
the money should be carried over to the next fiscal year unless an applicant is willing to accept what is left of the funds.
Finally, staff anticipates the following timeline in order to purchase easements in a timely manner:
April - Select an appraiser
Mid-June - Appraisals are reviewed and confirmed by the Appraisal Review Committee
July 5th - Board of Supervisors receives appraisals and authorizes acquisition
RECOMMENDATION:
The fOllowing recommendations are provided for action by the Board of Supervisors:
1) Approve the final applicant ranking priority list - "ACE Applications for Year 2000" (see Attachment "A").
2) Approve the use of transient lodging tax funds for the purchase of those parcels identified in Attachment A with Travel/Tourism
value. To assist in making the decision, the "General Description of Year 2000 ACE Applicantsand.Property" (see Attachment
"D") provides valuable information about the individual applications.
3) Approve proceeding with appraising for the top six recornmended applications.
4) Approve. carrying forward into the next fiscal year any funds which remain after the purchase of easements, unless the owner
of the next highest scoring property is willing to accept the remaining funds for purchase of their easement.
01.074
2
~.
. I
ACE Applications for Year 2000 {deadline of January 1 S\ 2001)
(15 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant
Young, Spencer
Powell, James
Lawson, Robert J.
Tax Map (Acreage)
TM 35, Parce126B ( 17.827 acres)
TM 35, Parcel26C (195.930 acres)
TM 35, Parce126 (31.620acres)
TM 35, Parcel32A ( 11.900 acres)
TM 35. Parcel 43 ( 11.689 acres)
Total (268.966 acres)
TM 87, Parce164 J217.200 acres)
TM 99, Parcel 59 (194.380 acres)
TM 99. Parce160A ( 1.250 acres)
Total (412.830 acres)
TM 37, Parcel 11 (250.901 acres)
Henley, Joseph III &Charles T.
TM 40, Parcel 22
TM 40. Parcel 49
Total
(100.00 acres)
( 12.80 acres)
(112.80 acres)
McCaskill, W. Brand
(\
Freem.an, Arthur
Hart, James
Scharer, Edward
TM 72, Parcel 51 (167.602 acres)
TM 69, Parcel 50 (44.056 acres)
TM 69, Parce150A ( 37.910 acres)
TM 69. Parcel50C ( 66.074 acres)
Total (148.040 acres)
TM 103, Parce131 (227.03 acres)
TM 93, Parce151A (113.725 acres)
Points
56.15 points
48.15 points
35.91 points
22.61 points
22.48 points
18.25 points
17.55 points
17.45 points
ATTACHMENT A
TravellTourism Value
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
Lloyd, Linda
----------------------------------------------------------...-------------..--------------------------------------------"'.-----....---------------
yes
Crickenberger, David J.
Sojka, Nickolas & Eleanor
~
TM 126, Parcel 31 (117.67 acres)
TM 126, Parce131A (238.43 acres)
TM 126, Parce131H (104.00 acres)
TM 126, Parcel 311 ( 1.20 acres)
TM 126, Parce131J ( 60.00 acres)
TM 126, Parcel 31K ( 3.00 acres)
TM 126. Parce131L ( 38.00acres)
Total (562.30 acres)
TM 32, Parcel 7
(123.957 acres)
TM 69, Parce147A
TM 69, Parcel 48
TM 69. Parce148D
Total
(18.81 acres)
(29.74 acres)
06.62 acres)
(65. 17 acres)
44.42 points
13.47 points
13.46 points
Notrecornrnended
to be purchased by
I ACE Committee
INELIGIBLE
WITHDRAWN
3
ATTACHMENT B
ACE Applicants: . Travel and Tourism Values
Applicant
Points
A.I
Travel/Tourism Criteria
C.I C.3 CA
C.8
Young, Spencer
56.15 points
x
x
Powell, James
48.15 point~
Lawson, Robert J.
35.91 points
x
x
Henley, Joseph m & Charles T.
22.61 points
McCaskill, W. Brand
22.48 points
Freeman, Arthur
18.25 points
x
Hart, James
17.5 5 points
Scharer, Edward
17.45 points
x
x
---------------------..--..--..---------------------------.---------.------------------.------------------------------
Lloyd, Linda
(Dropped by ACE Committee)
44.42 points
Crickenberger, David J.
(Ineligible)
13 .4 7 points
Sojka, Nickolas & Eleanor
(Withdrawn)
13.46 points
Travel and Tourism Value: the following criteria were used in assessing whether a property promotes
travel and tourism (an "X" means the property meets the given criteria):
Criteria A.l - parcel adjoins an existing conservation easement or other protected open space.
Criteria C.l - parcel offers mountain protection.
Criteria C.3 -parcel adjoins a Virginia Scenic Highway, Byway or entrance corridor.
Criteria C.4 ~ parcel contains historic resources, iies in a historic district or within the primary Monticello viewshed.
Criteria C.8 - parcels adjoins a state Scenic River
4
Sec. A.I-W7. Eligibility cnt~ria...
"."';-.'-' .....>.., - "':-,;. '-~"'" ,-'
In order ror a parcel to be eligible ror a.conservation easement" it must meet the following
criteria: (i}the use ofthe parcel subject to the conservation easement must be consistent with the
comprehensive plan; (ii) the proposed teons of the conservation easement must be consistent
with the minimum conservation easementtenns and c()r~ti()n~,.setforth in section A.I-I 09; and
(iii) the parcel shall obtain at least fifteen (15) points uiKl~rlhe ranking criteria set forth in
section A. 1.108. . .
(Ord.OO-A.I(I))
Sec. A.I-I08. RIUlkillg cnteria.
In order to eff~ctuatt<. the purposes ofthisc~apter, parcels for which c.onservation
easemelltapplicatio"ri havebeen;p:ceived shall be ranked according to. the criteria and the point.
values assigned thereto as set forth herein. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal.
A. Ope'!-$pace resources.
I. The parceL adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement. a
national, stllte orlocal park, or other permanently protected open-space: one (I) point for every
five hundred (500) feet of shared ~undary.
2. Size ofthc parcel: one (l) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threa/of conversion to developed use.
I. The parcel is threatened with forc.ed sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of us able development rights on the parcel: one-half (1/2)
point for each usable development right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by
subtracting the number of usable development rights to be retained from the total number of
usable development rights.
C. Natural. cultural and scenic resources.
I. Mountain protection: one (I) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
mountain ridge, as shown on county mountain overlay maps.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one
family member's principal occupation and income (more than haLf) is farming or foresting the
parcel; three (3) points if at least one family member produces farm products derived from the
parCel.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway
oibyway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County
Code: one (I ) point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel adjoins a
public road: one (I) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a
national or state rural historic district or is subject to a pennanent easement protecting a historic
resource; two (2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on
viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the possession of the county.
5. The parcel contllins an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage
inventory: five (5) points.
6. The parcel contains class I, II or III soils, based on federal natural
resources conservation service classifications: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing
such soils, for uptoa total of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed or the
-rotier Creek Watershed: three (3) points; or the .parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River,
Moormans River, DoyLes Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South ForkRiva.nna R.eservoir, Rivanna
River, Totier Creek Reservoir. lacob's. Run, or the Hardware River: one-half (1/2) point for each
one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(112) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
r-\
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to
establish orinaintain vegetative buffers adjoining perermial or intennillent streams. as those
tenns are defined in Chapter 17 oflhe Albemarle County Code: one (I) point for each one
thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and one hundred (100) feet wide;
two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100)
feet wide. If the owner voluntarily olTers in his application to place the parcel in such a
permanent easement, then the above-referenced points may aLso be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a
county.sponsored groundwater study: one (I) point.
D. Co"nty fillld levera/{ing. State. federal or private funding identified to leverage
the purchase of the conservation easement: one (I) point for each ten (10) percent of the
purchase price for which those funds can be applied.
ATTACHMENT C
5
ATTACHMENTD
General Description of Year 2000 ACE Applicants and Property
1. SpencerF. Young ProPerty (268 .966 acres) - the Young property lies on both sides of SR 641
in Echo Valley, a beautiful valley on the western foots10pes of the Southwest Mountains near
Orange County. The property consists offerti1e pasture (mostly Davidsonc1ay loams or
"redlands" soil) and productive forestland of mature oak and poplar. All of the surrounding
land is farmland, a large portion of which is currently under easement. The owner breeds
horses, sheep and cattle and is generally responsible for managing and maintaining the well-
kept appearance of the property. Over the last twenty years, Mr. Young has gradually been
putting tracts of land together in orderto protect them from development and to maintain the
pristine, bucolic look of this very private valley. He is willing to put greater restrictions on
the future use of his property by limiting timber harvesting and the number of development
rights beyond what is required in the Deed of -Easement. The primary source of points in the
ranking criteria include: 1) parcel adjoins an existing conservation easement; 2) an easement
would eliminate 34 usable development rights;. and 3) parcel lies in the Southwest Mountains
Historic District. Score: 56.15 points
2. James F. Powell (412.830 acres) - the Powell property lies on the eastside of Route 29
between Crossroads and North Garden. It has been a working family farm since the early
1900's and is now threatened by partition because two siblings wish to be "bought out".
VOF has pledged to cover 50% of the easement value if ACE will cover the balance - a good
deal for us. These funds would be used to buyout the siblings and concomitantly put the land
under easement. This is an extremely important property because developments are springing
up on neighboring lands (it is contiguous to a formerly planned growth area). Since the land
consists of rolling terrain on highly productive soils with outstanding mountain views from
numerous open building sites, it is vulnerable to development. The primary source of points
in the ranking criteria include: 1) lots of road frontage on SR 712; 2) an easement would
eliminate 33 usable development rights; 3) it is a big farm; 4) it has excellent soils; and 5)
VOF will leverage the PDR with a 50% payment Score: 48.15 points
3. Linda Llovd & Fred Oesch (562.299 acres) - the Lloyd property (aka the "Quarries") lies
south of Route 6 next to the Nelson County line on the road to Schuyler. Nearly all of the
property is largely immature and undeveloped woodland in the rolling hills of the upper
Piedmont. Throughout the property are the remains of old quarry sites and remnants of old
Route 6. In addition, nearly 5,000 feet of track-bed from the old Nelson and Albemarle
County Railway Company runs through the property. Of the 562.299 acres in seven parcels,
Linda Lloyd owns one parcel outright (1M 126-31A). The balance ofland is under option. In
addition, approximately 37 acres ofland are affected by outstanding mineral rights. Lastly,
eight dump sites were located on land .either under option or owned by Linda Lloyd outright.
Nearly all of them are composed of old car gas tanks and tires, creating potentially hazardous
waste. Thus far, the owners have spent approximately $300,000 to develop the property
(plats, site work, internal roads, etc.). Since they have second thoughts about the feasibility
of a development in this remote and destitute area, they are willing to suspend their
development plans if an easement provides enough money to be worthwhile. The primary
source of points in the ranking criteria include: 1) large total acreage; 2) an easement would
eliminate 37 usable development rights; and 3) it has lots of state road frontage. Score: 44.42
points
4. Robert J. Lawson Property (250.901 acres) - the Lawson property lies in the eastern foothills
of the Southwest Mountains between SR 231 and SR 646. It is composed of gently rolling
6
farm:and. woodland' on. pavidson. clay loams ~ one of theinost productive soils in the entire
Piedn;lOnt plateal.l.. Though much of the surrounding land consists of large farms,th.ere is
some limited development along the contiguous Orange County line. Mr. Lawson inherited
this p~operty from his parents and is one of the few row-crop fanners left in the County. His
farm iis well~kept and neatly organized and vegetative buffer strips have been established
along! stream channelstopteserve . water quality. Because of an outstanding. fann loan
(inherited), there is a pending foreclosure if the debt is not paid off by June 30th. The primary
source of points in the ranking criteria include: 1) it is highly visible with lots of road
frontage onSR 231 (an entrance corridor and Virginia byway); 2)an easemenFwould
elimwate 12 development rights; and 3) it lies within the Southwest Mountains. Historic
Distri~t. Score:35.91 points
5; Joseph T. & Charles T. Henlev Property 012.800 acres) - the Henley tract is co-owned by
two brothers who were given the land by their father. It lies betweel1Crozetand White Hall
in the'shadows of Buck's Elbow Mountain and has long frontage on SR 811. The topography
is lev~l to gently rolling. Though immature hardwoods are found along riparian zoneS, most
of thtf property is open . for agriculture (mostly feed com), pasture, grazing. and horticulture
(apple and peach orchards). The primary soils are Braddock and Meadowville loams - rich
colluVial soil washed from. the Blue Ridge Mountains. This property contains an old
farmhouse (currently. used) and several dilapidated barns and. sheds. Since much of the
surrounding. land has been developed. and this property. is gently rolling with outstanding
views of the Blue Ridge, it could easily be lost to subdivision. TheHenley's want to preserve
the tract because they are distraught by recent development which has impacted their
viewshed and their pristine memory of a beautiful farming community. The primary source
of points i111 the ranking criteria include: 1) it is highly visible withlotsof road frontage; and
2) an easement would eliminate 12 development rights. Score: 22.61 points
6. W. Brand McCaskillPropertv (167.602 acres) - the McCaskill property lies in the foothills of
the Blue Ridge Moun.tains where the terrain is gentle-steeply rolling and dissected by
numerous streams and intermittent tributaries. It has long road frontage on' SR 637 (Dick
Woods Road), a gravel road which is about to be hardsurfaced. The land consists of both
pasture and a high-grade hardwood forest with tremendous Blue Ridge Mountain views. It is
surrounded by other. farms and open space. While the owners have an ardent interest in
conservation (they do not want the land developed, have fenced out creeks from cattle and
have signed up with the CREP Program), they actively use their land to produce income in a
number of ways: 1) a temporary EP A approved landfill for organic debris from upgrading
SR 637; 2) raising nursery plants; 3) selling plants (directly to the public) from their
greenhouse with plans for expansion. This last business may represent a "commercial use" of
the property. The McCaskill property gets points for the following criteria: 1) lots of road
frontage on Dick Woods Road; 2) elimination of 14 usable development rights; and 3) it lies
in the South Rivanna River watershed. Score: 22.48 points
7. Arthur & JoAnn Freeman Property (148.040 acres) - the Freeman property lies in the western
part of Albemarle County in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It has long road
frontage on Route 250 and Route 6, both of which are "Scenic Highways" and "Virginia
Byways". Although the property and buildings have.been neglected for many years, the new
owners hope to reclaim the land and return it to it's former grandeur. With tremendous
mountain views and several excellent building sites on elevated knolls and ridges, the
property has some development potential. Though a small sawmill lies across the road, most
of the surrounding landscape is open farmland. The primary source of points in the ranking
criteria include: 1) it is highly visible with lots of road frontage on Routes 6 and 250 (both are
7
Virginia Scenic Highways & Byways); and 2) an easement would eliminate 11 development
rights. Score: 18.25 points
8. Jim & Liz Hart Propertv(227.030 acres) -the Hart property is located on both sides of Buck
Island Creek in the rolling Piedmont of east em Albemarle County. It contains a mixture of
both woodland and pastureland, neither of which is well.maintained: the woods have been
picked through to produce lumber for domestic use (siding, shed construction etc.) while the
pasture has been neglected for many years (as evidenced by the abundance of redcedar in
many old fields). Though the terrain is conducive to development, the wide bottom around
Buck Island Creek may limit the number of "usable" development rights. It appears from
looking at tax maps that the property is surrounded by . many . smaller lots and rural
subdivisions. The primary source of points in the ranking criteria include:. 1) it is a working
farm; 2) it is alarge tractofIand;l:lnd 3) an easement would eliUlinate 10 usable development
rights. Score: 17.55 points
9. Edward Scharer Property 013.725 acres) ,. the Scharer property is located on the westside of
Route 53 (an "Entrance Corridor") in the rolling Piedmont of eastern Albemarle County. It
also lies within the . primary Monticello viewshed. Though some of the property .contains
relatively undisturbed woodland, most of it is well.managed farmland used for crop and hay
production. Vegetative buffer strips have been created along streams to protect water quality
from runoff and sedimentation. Most of the surrounding land is composed of large tracts of
farm and woodland. Since most of the property is gently rolling on well-drained uplands, it
could easily be developed, something Mr. Scharer has considered (and the reason he gave his
son half of the original acreage while retaining most of the DR's). He is primarily interested
inA.CE for financial reasons. The primary source of points in the ranking criteria include: 1)
it is a working. farm; and 2) an easement would eliminate 10 usable development rights.
Score: 17.45 points
8
Owner:
Property:
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Criteria A.2
Criteria B.l
Criteria B.2
Criteria B.3
Criteria C.l
Criteria C.2
Criteria C.3
Criteria CA
Criteria C.5
Criteria C.6
Criteria C. 7
Criteria C.8
Criteria C.9
Criteria C.l 0
Criteria D.l
Point Total
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Spencer F. Young
Tax Map 35,Parcel26B ( 17.827 acres)
Tax. Map 35, Parce126C (195.930 acres)
Tax Map35, Parcel 26 (31.620acres)
Tax Map 35, Parce132A ( 11.900 acres)
Tax Map 35. Parcel 43 (11.689 acres)
Total (268.966 acres)
Determination
9,480 feet
Source for Points
County tax map
268.966 acres
RE Assessor's Office
no
landowner
no
landowner
37 usable DR's
Zoning & Planning Departments
o feet
county overlay maps
yes
letter from landowner
4,950 feet on SR
County tax map
yes
PEC (Map of SW Mountains RHD)
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
93.163 acres
CIS program -RE Assessor's Office
no
County overlay maps
no
plats/surveys, County overlay maps
no
landowner
n/a
County Engineering Department
no
VOF. PEC. mc etc.
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VQF == Virginia Outdoors Foundation
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = ComprehensiveInformation Systems
SH = Scen~c Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
Points
18.96
5.38
0.00
0.00
17.00
0.00
5.00
4.95
3.00
0.00
1.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.15 points
9
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
o
Owner:
Property:
James F. Powell, Jr.
Tax Map 87, Parce164 (217.200 acres)
Tax Map 99, Parce159 (184.380 acres)
Tax Map 99. Parce160A ( 1.250 acres)
Total (412.830 acres)
Ranking Criteria Detennination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.l no PEC 0.00
Criteria A.2 412.83 acres RE Assessor's Office 8.25
Criteria B.l no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes letter from landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 41 usable DR's Zoning & Planning Departments 16.50
Criteria C.1 o feet county overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes letter from landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 5,400 feet on SR County tax map 5.40
Criteria CA no PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 358.303 acres CIS program - RE Assessor's Office 5.00
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C. 8 no plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.1 0 n1a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria D.l 50% leverage VOF 5.00
Point Total 48.15 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
10
Ranking Evaluation Criteria. & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Linda Lloyd & Fred Oesch
Tax Map 126, Parcel 31 (117.670 acres) - under option
Tax Map 126, Parce131A (238.429 acres) - owned fee simple
Tax Map 126, Parce131H (104.000 acres) - under option
Tax Map 126, Parce131I ( 1.200 acres) - under option
Tax Map 126, Parce131J ( . 60.000 acres) - under option
Tax Map 126, Parce13lK ( 3.000 acres) - under option
Tax Map 126. Parce131L ( 38.000 acres) .. under option
Total (562.299 acres)
Ranking Criteria Detennination Source for Points Points
Criteria A. 1 no PEC 0.00
Criteria A.2 562.299 acres RE Assessor's Office 11.25
Criteria B.l no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 44 usable DR's Zoning & Planning Departments 18.50
Criteria C.l o feet county overlay maps 0.00
Criteria. C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 9,675 feet on SR County tax map 9.67
Criteria C.4 no PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
CriteriaC.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 363.670 acres CIS program - RE Assessor's Office 5.00
Criteria C. 7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.1O n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria D.l no VOF. PEC. TNC etc. 0.00
Point Total 44042 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
"
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Robert J. Lawson (Albert Lawson Estate)
Tax Map 37, Parcel 11 (250.901 acres)
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.l no PEC 0.00
Criteria A.2 250.901 acres RE Assessor's Office 5.02
Criteria B.l no landowner 0.00
Criteria.B.2 yes letter from landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 15 usable DR's Zoning & Planning Departments 6.00
Criteria C.1 o feet county overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes letter from landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 4,050 feet on SH County tax map 10.94
4,192 feet on SR
Criteria C.4 yes PEC (Map of SW Mountains RHD) 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 147.424 acres CIS program - RE Assessor's Office 2.95
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.! 0 nla County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria D.l no VOF. PEC. TNC etc. 0.00
Point Total 35.91 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
11
Owner:
Property
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Criteria A.2
Criteria B.l
Criteria B.2
Criteria B.3
Criteria C.l
Criteria C.2
Criteria C.3
Criteria CA
Criteria C.5
Criteria C.6
Criteria C.7
CriteriaC.8
Criteria C.9
Criteria C.l0
Criteria D.l
Point Total
Ranking Evaluation Criteria &. Points Determination
Joseph T. and Charles T. Henley
Tax Map 40, Parcel 22 (100.000 acres) - IT & CT Henley
Tax MaD 40. Parce149 ( 12.800 acres) - JT & CT Henley
Total (112.800 acres)
Determination
no
Source for Points
PEC
112.800 acres
RE Assessor's Office
no
landowner
no
landowner
14 usable DR's
Zoning & Planning Departments
o feet
county overlay maps
yes
letter from landowner
4,650 feet on SR
County tax map
no
PEC & Monticello viewshed maps
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
85.070
CIS program - RE Assessor's Office
yes (Rivanna WS)
County overlay maps
no
plats/surveys, County overlay maps
no
landowner
n/a
County Engineering Department
no
VOF. PEC. mc etc.
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
Points.
0.00
2.26
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
5.00
4.65
0.00
0.00
1.70
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.61 points
12
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
W. Brand McCaskill
Tax Map 72, ParcelS1 (167.602 acres)
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Determination
no
Source for Points
PEC
Criteria A.2
167.602 acres
RE Assessor's Office
Criteria B.l
landowner
no
Criteria B.2
landowner
no
Criteria B.3
16 usable DR's
Zoning & Planning Departments
Criteria C.l
o feet
county overlay maps
Criteria C.2
letter from landowner
yes
Criteria C.3
2,940 feet on SR
County tax map
Criteria C.4
PEC & Monticello viewshed maps
no
Criteria e.5
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
no
Criteria C.6
59.725 acres
CIS program - RE Assessor's Office
Criteria C.7
yes (Rivanna WS)
County overlay maps
Criteria C.8
plats/surveys, County overlay maps
no
Criteria e.9
landowner
no
Criteria C.1 0
n/a
County Engineering Department
Criteria D .1
Point Total
VOF. PEe. mc etc..
no
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
mc = The Nature Conservancy
DCR == Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
Points
0.00
3.35
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.00
5.00
2.94
0.00
0.00
1.19
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.48 points
13
Owner:
Property:
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Criteria A.2
Criteria B.l
Criteria B.2
Criteria B.3
Criteria C.l
Criteria C.2
Criteria C.3
Criteria CA
Criteria C. 5
Criteria C.6
Criteria C.7
Criteria C.8
Criteria C.9
Criteria C.lD
Criteria D.l
Point Total
Rankin Evaluation Criteria & Points De ermination
Arthur and JoAnne Freeman
Tax Map 69, Parcel 50 (44.056acres)
Tax Map 69, Parcel50A ( 37.910 acres)
Tax Map 69. Parcel50C ( 66.074 acres)
Total (148.040 acres)
Determination
no
Source for Points
PEC
148.040 acres
RE Assessor's Office
no
landowner
no
landowner
13 usable DR's
Zoning & Planning Departments
o feet
county overlay maps
no
landowner
3,344 feet on SH
plat/survey
no
PEC & Monticello viewshed maps
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
61.151 acres
CIS program - RE Assessor's Office
yes (Rivanna WS)
County overlay maps
no
plats/surveys, County overlay maps
no
landowner
nla
County Engineering Department
no
VOF. PEC. TNC etc.
PEC == Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
~
Points
0.00
2.96
0.00
0.00
5.50
0.00
0.00
5.57
0.00
0.00
1.22
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.25 points
14
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Jim and Liz Hart
Tax Map 103, Parce131 (227.030 acres)
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Determination
no
Source for Points
PEC
Criteria A.2
227.030 acres
RE Assessor's Office
Criteria B.1
landowner
no
Criteria B-2
landowner
no
Criteria B.3
13 usable DR's
Zoning & Planning Departments
Criteria C.1
o feet
county overlay maps
Criteria C.2
letter from landowner
yes
Criteria C.3
1,080 feet on SH
County tax map
Criteria CA
PEC & Monticello viewshed maps
no
Criteria C.5
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
no
Criteria C.6
96.725 acres
CIS program - RE Assessor's Office
Criteria C.7
County overlay maps
no
Criteria C.8
plats/surveys, County overlay maps
no
Criteria C.9
landowner
no
Criteria C.lO
n/a
County Engineering Department
Criteria D.l
Point Total
VOF. PEC. TNC etc.
no
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
Points
0.00
4.54
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
5.00
1.08
0.00
0.00
1.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0;00
0.00
l7.55 points
15
OWner:
Property:
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.1
Criteria A.2
Criteria B.1
Criteria B.2
Criteria B.3
Criteria C.1
Criteria C.2
Criteria C.3
Criteria CA
Criteria C.5
Criteria C.6
Criteria C.7
Criteria C.8
Criteria C.9
CriteriaC.lO
Criteria D .1
Point Total
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Edward Scharer
Tax Map 93, ParcelS1A (113.396 acres)
Determination
no
Source for Points
PEC
113 .725 acres
REAssessor's Office
no
landowner
no
landowner
12 usable DR's
Zoning & Planning Departments
o feet
county overlay maps
yes
letter from landowner
1,697 feet on EC
plat/survey
44% tract in viewshed
Monticello viewshed maps
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
74.050 acres
CIS program- RE Assessor's Office
no
County overlay maps
no
plats/surveys, County overlay maps
no
landowner
nla
County Engineering Department
no
VOF. PEe. mc etc.
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
mc = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR == State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
Points
0.00
2.27
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
5.00
1.70
2.00
0.00
1048
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.45 points
16
Source for Points Determination of ACE Applicants
Criteria A.I (parcel joins an existim! easement etc.) - PEC, VOF, TNC, VDHR, County of Albemarle PRFA
Criteria A.2 (size of parcel) - Real Estate Assessor's Office
Criteria B.l (parcel threatened with forced sale) - written proof from landowner, his attorney etc.
Criteria B-2 (parcel threatened by economic hardship) -written proof from landowner, his attomeyetc.
Criteria B.3 (number of usable development rights eliminated) - official detennination by Zoning and Planning
Departments. This calculation assumes a loss of one DR due to an existing main residence.
Criteria C.l (mountaintop protection) - county overlay maps
Criteria C.2 (working: familv farm) - written proof from landowner, site visit, tax returns etc.
Criteria C.3 (parcel joins a Vir!finia scenic highway or bywav. entrance corridor or public road) - determine
from plats/surveys (if available), unot, then County tax maps (1 inch = 600 feet)
Criteria C.4 (parcel contains historic resources or lies in primary Monticello viewshed) - see PEC maps, obtain
proof from landowner if registered structure and review Monticello viewshed maps
Criteria C5 (~arcel contains a Natural Heritage listing) - contact Natural Heritage Division (DCR)
CriteriaC.6 (parcel contains Type III soils or better) - for properties under land-use, see CIS program from
County Real Estate Office. Otherwise, use dot grid with County soil survey
CriteriaC.7 (parcel within drinking supply watersheds) -look at County overlay maps
Criteria C.g (parcel lies on state scenic river) - determine from plats/surveys (if available), ifnot, County tax
maps
Criteria C.9 (parcel. subject to permanent easement that establishes a riparian buffer) - written proof from
landowner or holder of easement
Criteria C.IO (parcellies within sensitive groundwater recharge area) - contact Dan Hirschman in County
Engineering Department
Criteria D.I (parcel can be leveraged with funding from outside source) - contact landowner, obtain written
proof
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council
VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
17
i2tc- '& f365 nd:j
L(!<f!o(
D
-:1/MlV.Jl ((.,
APRIL 4, 200 I
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
. UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND
. UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION
OF PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC USE SITE AND A PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY.
MOTION TO CERTIFY CLOSED SESSION
MOVE THAT THE BOARD CERTIFY BY A RECORDED VOTE
THAT TO THE BEST OF EACH BOARD MEMBER'S KNOWLEDGE ONLY
PUBLIC BUSINESS MATTERS LAWFULLY EXEMPTED FROM THE
OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT AND IDENTIFIED IN THE MOTION AUTHORIZING
THE CLOSED SESSION WERE HEARD, DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED
IN THE CLOSED SESSION.
I _
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2001 Redistricting Work Session
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Cehsus Data and Proposed Plans
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Redistricting Guidelines & Schedule
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Tucker, Davis, Harris, Weaver
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 7, 2001 the Board of Supervisors approved a schedule and guidelines to be used in preparing 2001 redistricting
plans for the Board's consideration and a 2001 Redistricting Ordinance for 990ption. Census block data has now been
received and reviewed by staff. Staff has made necessary adjustments to the data necessitated by errors in the Census count
and is now preparing proposed redistricting plans for the Board's review.
DISCUSSION:
The published Census information reflects the County population to be 79,236 people. Upon inspection of Census block
information relating to University of Virginia property in the County, it has been determined that there has been a counting error
of at least 4,886 persons. These persons have been identified in six Census blocks where dormitories and other housing exist.
Additional under counting may actually exist, but until the Census Bureau releases residence data in May, itis impossible to
identify the exact number of persons not counted. A review of the City Census data indicates that the under count in the
County has been over counted in the City. A census block in the City within the Alumni Hall precinct and adjacent to the under
counted blocks in the County reported 374 people in 1990 and reports 5394 people in 2000. This increase of5,020 people
is reported even though no new structures have been built in this Census block since 1990.
County staff has adjusted the Census data by 4,886 persons for purposes of proceeding with the redistricting. A correction
of the Census count will be pursued as soon as possible to officially correct the Census error. 2,503 people have been added
to the Jack Jouett District numbers and 2,383 have been added to the Samuel Miller District numbers. The adjusted County
population is 84,122.. It is .Iikely that the Jack Jouett numbers are still under counted. The adjusted number is still less than
the 1990 Jack Jouett populqtion of 11,710. Staff had projected a significant population increase in the Jack Jouett District.
Additional Census data will be scrutinized as soon as it is available.
The Census data, adjusted for redistricting purposes, shows the population by district, as follows:
Rio District 12,451
Jack Jouett District 11,484 (adjusted by +2,503)
Samuel Miller District 13,632 (adjusted by +2,383)
Scottsville District 14,226
Rivanna District 18,904
White Hall District 13,425
The population range for redistricting based on a County population of 84,122 is plus or minus 5% of 14,020. The range,
therefore, is 13,319 to 14,721 people. Because most population growth is anticipated within the Rivanna, Scottsville, and White
Hall districts, ideally those districts should be reconstituted with population counts in the lower half of the range and the Jack
Jouett, Samuel Miller, and Rio districts should be reconstituted with population counts in the upper half of the range.
Based on these identified populations, the Rivanna District must be reduced by more than 4,884 people, the Jack Jouett District
must be increased. by more than 2,536 people, and the Rio District must be increased by more than 1,569 people. The other
districts have populations within the required range but may need to be adjusted to reasonably reallocate the population or to
make the redistribution from the Rivanna District to the Rio and Jack Jouett districts meet the adopted Redistricting Guidelines.
AGENDA TITLE:
2001 Redistricting Work Session
April 4, 2001
Page 2
The staff redistricting work group is in the final stages of preparing two proposed redistricting plr;msthat attempt to meet the
adopted Redistricting Guidelines to the maximum extent possible. Those plans will be presented to the Board. at the April 4th
redistricting work session. If the Board reaches consensus on a. plan, staff will finalize that plan by making any requested
adjustments and proceed to define final precinct lines and polling places. An additional April 11th work session is available,
if necessary. It is recommended that a plan acceptable for proceeding to the scheduled May 9th public hearing be approved
by no later than April 18th to provide adequate time for the Redistricting Ordinance to be drafted and advertised.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that at the conclusion of the work session that the Board direct staff to proceed with any necessary changes
required to prepare a redistricting plan for a May 9th public hearing.
01.073
Attachment to 4/4/01
Executive Summary
Redistricting Guidelines & Schedule
Redistricting Guidelines:
1. Maintain six magisterial districts;
2. Contain both urban and rural segments of the County in each district;
3. Minimize changes to existing magisterial district boundaries;
4. Establish population equality within a deviation of +/- 5%;
5. Maintain geographical compactness;
6. Maintain geographical contiguity;
7. Preserve communities of interest, including neighborhoods, within the same district;
8. Avoid the pairing of incumbent Board of Supervisors or School Board members in the same
district;
9. Provide for voter convenience and effective administration of elections to the greatest extent
possible (including locating appropriate polling places and creating properly sized precincts
within each district);
10. Avoid splitting of census blocks to assure accuracy of the data;
11. Provide clearly defined and observable district and precinct lines which include roads, rivers,
and other permanent features recognized on official maps;
12. Assure that the change in districts does not have the effect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group; and
13. Avoid splitting precincts with Virginia Senate and House of Delegate district lines and United
States House of Representatives district lines (if these lines are not established prior to
Board action, the lines may have to be adjusted prior to 2002 elections).
Precinct and Polling Place Guidelines:
1. Target size to be not more than 2,500 voters;
2. Maintain easily identifiable boundary lines (including streams, ridges, railroads, primary
roads, but avoiding secondary roads, if possible).
3. Provide a central location within a precinct so that the maximum travel time for a voter does
not exceed 20 minutes;
4. Locate within a publiC building, if practicable;
5. Maintain accessibility pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act standards;
6. Maintain existing polling places, where possible; and
7. Provide accessibility to public transportation, where appropriate.
Remaining Schedule:
April 4, 2001 Board of Supervisors' work session on proposed redistricting plan(s).
April 11, 2001 Second Board of Supervisors' work session on proposed redistricting plan(s), if
necessary.
May 9, 2001 Board of Supervisors' public hearing on 2001 Redistricting Ordinance; Adoption of 2001
Redistricting Ordinance.
May, 2001 Submittal of 2001 Redistricting Ordinance to U.S. Department of Justice for
preclearance pursuant to Voting Rights Act.
icu)d 'fI'Ilo!t;: ~
"J~ 4(y
III . -
1.42% 1923 13.40%1
12.23% 895, 6.32%
8.88% 526 3.89%1
7.84% 10751 7.55%1
13.06% 337 2.49%1
5.92% 360 2.51%
- - -
. . ..
1.79% '919 13.85%
13.68% 920 6.48%
8.88% 526 3.89%
6.46% 888 6.05%
13.59% 551 3.81%1
4.55% 312 2.32%
2000 MAGISTERIAL REDISTRICTING
Presented Apri/4th, 2001
Plan A
} - ..
2.35% 10786 1639
0.94% 11525 1731
-511 -3.65% 11782 1200
221 1.58% 12049 1116
c51Q -3.64% 11408 1764
337, 2.40% 13146 850
- - - -
Plan 8
. ... .. - .
-164 -1.17% 10302 74.36% 1634
174 1.24% 11331 79.84% 1942
-511 -3.65% 11782 87.22% 1200
653 4.66% 12836 87.49% 948
440 3.14% 11943 82.60% 1965
-594 -4.24% 12502 93.12% 611
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
14348
14151
135081
142401
135091
14356
13855
14193
13508
14672
14459
13425
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session on the Proposed Neighborhood Model
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
x
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Work Session on the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive
Plan Amendment as Proposed by the Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Ms. Catlin, Echols
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its March 7, 2001, meeting, the Board of Supervisors scheduled a work session to review and discuss the proposed
Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Materials are attached as background and to facilitate discussion
during the work session.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment contains the major elements that were outlined in the original report which
was distributed. to the Board last spring, inCluding the twelve principles which form the basis of the Neighborhood Model.
During the March 7 meeting, staff outlined some important changes between the original document and the proposed
amendment. Also during that meeting, staff provided Points of Discussion for the Neighborhood Model which were felt to be
significant topics for the Board's attention. The Board determined that the work session would be a facilitated discussion
focusing on the Points of Discl,lssion, the relevant policylregulatory and investment impacts associated with those points, and
possible action options, with the ultimate outcome being a decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed or
revised.
The attached worksheets focus on the topics mentioned above. The worksheets include DISC Committee comments from
Volume 2 of the final report entitled "Recommendations: Policy and Regulatory Changes" and also summarize staff comments
which were generated during an internal review of the Model. Staff will be in attendance during the work session to answer
questions and provide additional details as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board conduct the work session and take appropriate action, which may include scheduling an
additional work session if necessary or coming to a decision to take the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the Proposed
Neighborhood Model to public hearing.
01.070
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
#1 Pedestrian Orientation
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
. Change subdivision and zoning
ordinances to require sidewalks and
paths and provide standards for
sidewalks and paths.
. Leave current policy/regulations as is
and allow pedestrian access at the
option of the developer in by-right
development. Continue asking for
pedestrian access in developments
requiring legislative decisions. (not
recommended)
. Continue to fund sidewalk construction
at the current level
Increase the level of sidewalk
construction funding.
Decrease the level of sidewalk
construction funding. (not
recommended)
.
.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
~equirement
.
to make
Additional money for capital projects
will be needed to build all needed
sidewalks on existing streets.
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
need to be changed to require
pedestrian access and provide
standards. Involves staff time
ordinance changes.
.
Current Policy/Regulations
In special use permits and rezonings,
applicants are requested to provide
sidewalks and pedestrian paths.
Subdivision and zoning ordinances do
not require sidewalks.
The County currently funds sidewalk
projects in the CIP. Road widening
projects in Development Areas include
sidewalks where appropriate.
Current CIP funding is $100,000 in
general sidewalk improvements plus
$340,000 in Georgetown Road
Sidewalk.
Future CI.lJ funding is $410,000 in FY
Yz plus $406,000 for Route 20
sidewalk. Full FY 01 - 06 CIP for
sidewalks is $1,988,000.
.
.
.
.
Point of Discussion
Regulatory changes will be needed
"by-right" developments to change
from the "developer's option" 12
"mandatory provisionh of sidewalks or
paths in new developments in the
Development Areas.
County investment may be needed in
the future to add sidewalks to existing
streets. Master Plans are proposed to
identify locations of sidewalk
improvements. The CIP identifies
sidewalks that are needed now.
for
.
.
Continue sidewalk/path maintenance
by homeowners' associations, VDOT,
and the County,depending on the role
.
Staffwill need to be available to
ensure that sidewalk/path maintenance
is done. If maintenance of sidewalks
.
At present, maintenance responsibility
lies with homeowners' associations,
VDOT, and the County, depending on
.
Long-term maintenance responsibility
for sidewalks and paths will need
discussion in the future.
'"
.
. Greater emphasis may be needed in ,.
school design to ensure "walkability"
.
VDOT requires sidewalks and
pedestrian paths within I mile of all
elementary schools and 1 Y:z miles of
all middle and high schools along
public streets.
Site planners ask school designers for
paths and sidewalks from surrounding
neighborhoods.
2
.
.
.
Change community facilities plan to
allow for separation of schools and
recreational playing field facilities to
increase opportunities that nearby
residents will walk to schools.
Staff will need. to develop
recommendations on how snow
removal will be dealt with.
nearby areas.
Change community facilities plan to
include sidewalks as a goal for all
community facilities.
Change school design guidelines to
include a pedestrian access from
.
.
.
.
.
.
the role of the sidewalk or path in the
larger community.
.
.
and paths by homeowners'
associations and/or VDOT is not
satisfactory, the County will need to
fund sidewalk maintenance.
Additional public works crews will be
needed.
.
.
.
.
schools.
Continue building schools under
existing community facilities plans and
change Neighborhood Model
language. (not recommended
Require separation oflarge
recreational playing fields (not
affiliated with the schools) from
of the sidewalk or path in the larger
community.
Inspect paths periodically to ensure
maintenance.
Deal with maintenance on a
"complaint basis".
Ask VDOT to maintain all paths.
Change policy to have County
responsible for maintenance of all
paths and sidewalks not maintained by
VDOT.
Find ways to make property owners
responsible for snow removal on
sidewalks and paths adjacent to the
properties.
County removes snow from sidewalks
and paths.
Snow melts.
Change community facilities plan to
allow for separation of schools and
recreational facilities, provided the
school has the pla,yingfields required
for school needs
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
#2 Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
. Change subdivision ordinances to
require curb, gutter, sidewalks, and
street trees in new developments as the
standard; the rural cross-section would
be the exception.
Leave current policy/regulations as
they are and allow urban street section
at the option ofthe developer in by-
right development. Continue asking
for pedestrian access in developments
requiring legislative decisions. (not
recommended)
With a high level of maintenance
desired, County funds or performs
sidewalk maintenance; otherwise,
maintenance continues with
homeowners associations, VDOT, and
the County (on a limited level).
BOS instructs ACSA to find ways to
accommodate street trees in relation to
.
.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Requirement
Subdivision Ordinance will need to be
changed to require urban street
sections in the Development Areas,
with few exceptions.
Stafftime is required to make
ordinance changes.
Maintenance level for urban street
section and responsibility for
sidewalks needs to be identified.
.
.
.
Current Policy/Regulations
Staff asks for urban street sections with
subdivisions and site plans in the
Development Areas. The County
cannot "require" curb and gutter in by-
right activity at present.
Staff asks for urban street sections with
rezonings and special use permits and,
in most instances, applicants will
proffer or are conditioned to an urban
street section.
.
.
Point of Discussion
-
"Urban" road section (curb, gutter, and
sidewalk) would become the new road
standard for the Development Areas;
the "rural" section would become the
exception.
.
utility lines and sidewalks.
BOS formally asks VDOT to find
ways to accommodate street trees by
allowing manholes in the street.
Change subdivision ordinances to
require street trees.
County continues to have
.
.
.
Staffwill need to work with ACSA
and VDOT to find more acceptable
and less time consuming ways to
achieve approval for street trees.
Subdivision and zoning ordinances
will need to be changed to require
street trees.
.
.
Staff asks for street trees with new
subdivision streets on a project-by -
project basis. The County cannot
"require" street trees in by-right
activity at present.
Staff asks for street trees with
rezonings and special use permits and,
in most instances, applicants will
proffer or are conditioned to provide
.
.
Street trees would be expected with
new roads construction. Trees would
be placed in the right-of-way in most
instances.
.
)
.
3
-,)
)
o
6
.
If negotiations with VDOT are not
successful for interconnected streets at
more narrow widths, County will have
to consider approving more private
roads or taking over road maintenance.
.
County will need to invest in road
building to ensure that interconnected
roads (not anticipated to be built by
developers) are actually built.
.
.
.
.
County receives funding from the State
through the Six-year Plan.
At times, the County funds engineering
costs separate from VDOT; at times
the County contributes a portion ofthe
construction costs for roads in the Six-
year Plan.
The County receives proffers for road
construction with some rezonings.
In most instances, proposed
"connector" roads are shown on Land
Use Plan but are not funded for
construction for fiscaVpolitical reasons
Private roads are allowed in the
Development Areas on a very limited
basis. Public roads are expected to be
the standard in the Development
Areas.
.
If private roads are to be more
prevalent in the Development Areas,
staff will have to develop new road
standards. (At present private road
standards are the same as public road
standards.)
If private roads are to be approved
more often in the Development Areas,
homeowner associations will be
responsible for maintenance.
Additional staff will be needed to deal
with complaints.
If the County intends to take over
maintenance of non- VDOT roads, an
expanded public works department
will have to be funded with equipment
and personnel to ensure maintenance.
County takes over maintenance of all
roads - requires investment in an
expanded public works department and
crews. (Not recommended)
.
.
Leave current private road standards as
they are and limit their use in the
Development Areas.
ModifY private road standards to
reflect desired road profile. Develop
standards for maintenance and deal
with complaints on a case-by-case
basis.
.
.
County will need to establish needed
road interconnections through the
Master Planning Process
County will need to fund proposed
road construction proj ects to ensure
interconnections that will not be
provided by developers (examples -
Meadowcreek Parkway; Route 240-
250 Connector Road)
.
.
Continue funding and building
connector roads at the same level and
at the same pace
Increase funding for major road
construction to establish major road
interconnections whose building by the
development community would be
prolonged.
.
.
interconnected streets out of fear of
additional traffic.
.
.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession ou the Neighborhood Model
#4 Parks and Open Space
Modify zoning and subdivision
ordinance to require a specific quantity
of open space in single family
residential and duplex developments
that are by-right developments.
Modify zoning and subdivision
ordinances to require park amenities in
new by-right developments.
Modify zoning ordinance to provide
more specificity in the location and
amenity value of parks and open space
in all developments (rezonings as well
as by-right)
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Requirement
. Modify zoning and subdivision
ordinances to require parks or open
space in all new developments with a
residential component. Emphasize the
location and amenity value over the
Current Policy/Regulations
25% open space is required in planned
developments. No criteria are placed
on location or amenity value.
.
Point of Discussion
Greater emphasis will be placed on the
location and use of open space rather
than the quantity of open space
.
.
.
quantity.
Develop standards for parking near
new parks.
Stafftime is required to make
ordinance changes and convey the new
information to the development
.
.
Recreational features are required with
multiunit developments of more than
30 units or in developments with
density of greater than 4 units per acre
(except duplexes and sf detached
homes)
No recreational
amenity or parkland is
required in conventional single family
residential development.
.
.
Leave current policy/regulations as
they are and accept open space where
and how it is provided. (not
recommended)
.
community.
Only the changes noted above would
be required for provision of parks and
open space in new developments.
.
Developers would continue to provide
some of the park and recreational areas
for neighborhoods and the community.
After developing Master Plans, needs
for public parkland acquisition may be
identified. There will be costs
associated with acquisition of
parkland.
.
.
Developers of "planned" districts and
multi-unit developments are required
to provide open space and recreational
facilities with new development.
Public parkland sornetimes is proffered
with rezonings.
.
.
Part of the responsibility to provide
parks and open space will continue to
reside with developers; part will reside
with the County.
.
to
Amend Community Facilities Plan
remove recreational facilities
.
Ifplaying fields are separate from
school sites, developers may give land
.
7
The County provides regional parks
and recreational playing fields, usually
.
Acquisition ofland for recreation
fields will be done differently.
.
8
Any economies of scale for
maintenance costs by the County may
be lost with a separation of large
playing fields from the schools.
Options regarding the maintenance of
the new parks are available ranging
from homeowners association to
County staff.
Homeowners associations, the County,
and semi-public entities maintain
public and private parks and open
space at present.
.
The County will likely be expected to
take accept ownership and
maintenance of some parks. If this
takes place, additional maintenance
costs will accrue.
.
Homeowners associations, the County,
and semi-public entities maintain
public and private parks and open
space.
County takes ownership of more parks
and open space and must pay for
maintenance.
.
.
.
.
more costly.
Various field users desire complexes of
fields instead of single fields. This
issue and locations of multiple fields
will require staff analysis to
recommend appropriate policy changes
to the Community Facilities Plan.
Issues relating to gym size and
capacity at schools will have to see if
the gym size affects the school acreage
requirements. If new gyms are to be
created that are not located .at the
schools, additional costs will be
incurred.
.
.
Additional acquisition activities for
County recreational fields could be
Purchase of sites separate from schools
could take place.
when acquiring new school sites.
.
.
for recreational playing fields with new
developments.
The County could purchase land for
schools and parks separately. This
situation could result in more parcels
being available for either school or
recreational use.
.
associated with parks and service such
as playing fields from school sites.
Leave current policy for recreational
playing fields and school ac:reage as
shown in the Community Facilities
Plan. (not recommended)
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
Existing neighborhood centers and
future "center" needs ate identified in
the Master Plan process.
Public facilities continue to be
prioritized and sited to meet larger-
scale needs.
Action Options
Q:his list is not exhaustive)
.
.
#5afid #8 Neighborhood Centers and Mixture of Uses
Policy or Regulatory ChangelResource
!leQuirement
.
County's CIP process would identify,
prioritize and fund public facilities in
accordance with Master Plan
recommendations.
Public buildings generally are located
on the outside of neighborhoods rather
than within neighborhoods to prevent
traffic impacts on residents.
Current PolicylRegulations
.
Point of Discussion
Public buildings in which the County
services are provided (fire stations,
libraries, schools) will be located more
inside a Development Area than on
major thoroughfares.
.
Public facilities continue to be located
along major thoroughfares. (not
recommended)
Provisions will be made for the
planning and maintenance of amenities
and auxiliary facilities necessary to
support neighborhood centers.
.
.
Public facilities will be planned to
accommodate smaller-scope
neighborhood needs.
.
Community involvement would be
required in individual project planning
of appropriate uses/elements for
neighborhood centers.
Appropriate locations for centers are
identified after Master Plans are
.
Zoning ordinance changes are needed
to improve the options for achieving
mixed use communities.
.
The private sector is beginning to
develop mixed use projects and
buildings.
.
created and not approved for
development until the Master Plans are
adoped.
County makes higher investment in
water capacity and distribution systems
to increase the ease with which mixed
use developments can occur.
.
.
Staff time will be
with adjacent property owners to
accept uses different from theirs.
Appropriate mixture of uses can
benefit crime prevention efforts.
Regular activity around business
establishments in a mixed use setting,
especially when businesses are closed,
reduces criminal opportunity.
Mixing building uses, especially
involved in working
.
Provision ofa mixture of uses in an
area would primarily be the
responsibility ofthe private sector.
The public sector may be involved if a
building houses a mixture of public
and private services.
.
.
.
)
9
10
.
.
intense development.
Maintaining large volumes of water in
the pipelines for fire service may
require distributions system
disinfection systems.
ACSA's water design and construction
specifications may need to be amended
and approved by state agencies.
More complex mixtures of uses will
increase staff plan review time and
evaluation.
.
I
.
Water systems must be designed to
meet fire flows required for more
commercial and residential, in the
same or adjacent structures, entails
more stringent application of fire
separation, fire suppression and other
fire safety procedures.
.
County encourages developers to
provide mixed uses in developments
and work with existing water capacity
and distribution systems or provide
sprinklers.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
#6 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
ModifY zoning regulations to be in
keeping with minimum building code
requirements.
ModifY zoning regulations to allow for
lesser setbacks and zero lot line "by-
right". ModifY other zoning
requirements to relate to building
heights, parking location, spatial
enclosure, and street trees.
Develop "overlay" districts after
master plans are completed to reflect
the "human scale" elements above for
each Development Area.
Leave regulations as they are currently.
(not recommended)
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Requirement
· ModifY zoning ordinance to reduce .
setbacks, change height regulations, I
require parking to the side and rear of
buildings, deal with spatial enclosure,
and add trees to the streets cape and
parking areas.
Stafftime is required to make
ordinance changes and convey the new
information to the development
community.
.
.
.
-)
.
11
Current Policy/Regulations
Current zoning requirements are for
setbacks that promote a more
"suburban" than "urban" form of
development
.
Point of Discussion
The zoning ordinance needs to address
the "human scale" aspects of new
development.
.
12
.
facades or in alleys
Allow non-asphalt for required
parking
Ordinance changes
involve stafftime
.
.
.
Promote the location of parking
areas behind, underneath, and to
the sides of buildings
Locate residential parking behind
Longstanding needs for diminishing
the prominence of parking on sites
have been identified.
.
Parking regulations support a suburban
development style and require
. All parking to be off-street
. More parking than what is
reasonably required for many uses
. Planning Commission approval for
all cooperative and shared parking
. No "by-right" parking lot uses
The majority of parking lots are in
front of buildings rather than to the
side or behind buildings.
.
.
.
Policy or Regulatory ChangelResource
Requirement
. Change parking requirements in
zoning ordinance to result in:
. Standalone parking lots or garages
. Increased distances from which a
use and its associated parking can
be provided by-right
. Reduce parking requirements to
coincide with common usage rather
than peak usage
Increase opportunities for shared
parking arrangements and allow
them by-right
Provide reductions in parking
requirements where employers use
Transportation Demand
Management
Provide reductions on parking
requirements where public transit
available
is
.
.
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
. Change the parking requirements in the
zoning ordinance to result in changes
in all items in column to the left.
. Prioritize parking changes and develop
ordinance amendments on the least
difficult items at first.
.
Hire a consultant to develop changes to
parking regulations.
Leave current policy regarding County
ownership of parking areas intact.
The County acquires land for
development of public parking lots or
garages.
.
.
Point of Discussion
Current PolicylRegulations
#7 Relegated Parking
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
.
13
.
County policy should promote the
provision of affordable housing as a
part of neighborhoods rather than
bei~ built in "enclaves". Affordable
County policy should promote the
provision of affordable housing in the
Development Areas rather than in the
Rural Areas.
.
No County policy exists concerning
location of affordable housing or its
appearance.
Not-for-profit groups (such as Habitat
for Humanity) look for affordable land
on which to provide housing. At
present much of the affordable land is
in the Rural Areas.
14
.
The Housing Department would assist
the Housing Committee to recommend
changes in housing policy for the
County.
The Housing Department would assist
the Housing Committee in developing
changes in housing policy for the
County.
.
.
.
Work with non-profit groups to
promote the Development Areas as the
appropriate locations for low-to
moderate income housing production.
Develop incentives for affordable
housing production in the
Development Areas.
Leave current policy and practices as
they are. (not recommended)
Work with non-profit groups and the
development community to promote
ways to blend affordable units into
..Q!oposed housing developments in
.
.
.
.
The Housing Department would staff
the Housing Committee to recommend
changes in housing policy for the
County.
Any changes needed to the Zoning
Ordinance would require stafftime.
The County would need to be more
proactive in assuring that affordable
housing in the Development Areas is
provided. Although the County would
not be expected to build affordable
housing, it may need to take initiatives
to ensure the provision of affordable
housing.
The County's Housing Department
assists low-to-moderate income
persons in finding affordable housing
in the County and the City.
.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Requirement
. Staff would assist in the Master
Planning process to determine existing
locations of affordable housing. The
Master Plan committee would suggest
places where a true mix of housing
does not exist in each Development
Area.
.
.
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
. Create incentives for suppliers of
affordable housing such as fee waivers,
density bonuses, or fast-tracking.
. County government or non-profit
could offer public assistance to allow
participation in the market
. Develop a mandatory affordable
housing ordinance.
. Leave current policy and practices as
they are. (not recommended)
.
Point of Discussion
Current Policy/Regulations
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
#9 Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability with Dignity
neighborhoods.
Leave current policy and practices as
they are. (not recommended,
.
15
housing should look like other housing
and blend into neighborhoods.
16
Most redevelopment activity will take
place by the private sector. County
investment may be needed to help spur
redevelopment in some cases
At present, redevelopment activity lies
with the private sector.
.
.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Requirement
. Maintain firm boundaries for
Development Areas to encourage
redevelopment rather than
Development Area boundary
expanSIOns.
. Additional funding could be necessary
to construct and maintain infrastructure
improvements to support desired
redevelopment.
.
.
.
.
redevelopment.
Responsibility for redevelopment will
remain with the private sector. .
County investment in infrastructure
may be necessary to support desired
redevelopment.
Investigate resources to support
redevelopment through low -interest
loans or state grants.
Require private sector to assume some
level of responsibility for providing
infrastructure.
Investigate incentives including forms
of taxation i.e. tax deferrals for
rehabilitation in the Development
Areas
.
process.
County economic development efforts
are increased to facilitate
.
.
County staff creates a comprehensive
redevelopment strategy.
Opportunities for redevelopment are
identified during the Master Plan
Action Options
-0:his list is not exhaustive)
.
Point of Discussion
Current Policy/Regulations
#10 Redevelopment
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
Review appropriate regulations and
revise to accommodate redevelopment
goals of infiII and mixed use.
Pennit redevelopment on non-
confonning sites without requiring
total confonnity with zoning
ordinance.
.
.
Zoning ordinance changes may be
necessary to support redevelopment.
Analysis of the needs for and
recommendations will take staff time
.
.Zoning regulations do not address
redevelopment differently than new
development.
.
-
Regulatory changes will be needed to
make redevelopment easier.
.
No expansions to the Development
Areas boundaries while opportunities
for redevelopment are still available.
.
)
17
The Neighborhood Model includes
suggested edge treatments. In most
instances, development in the
Development Areas should extend to
the boundary with the Rural Area.
.
Point of Discussion
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession oU the Neighborhood Model
# 12 Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
Current Policy/Regulations Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Re uirement
. No clear policy exists with regard to . Master Planning process should
the boundary with the Rural Area. In establish the desired features ofthe
rezonings and special use permits, staff boundary between the Development
attempts to address ways to deal with and Rural Area. Identify appropriate
the boundary. entity to protect/maintain buffered
edges.
18
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
. Allow development community to
address edge treatments as they prefer
in by-right developments.
. Consider proposed edge treatments in
rezonings and special use permits
where the property abuts a rural area or
city boundary.
. Include edge treatments in Master
Plans for the Development Areas.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
Continue to master plan the
Development Areas at the pre-
Neighborhood Model rate (one every
2-3 years) (not recommended)
Work with the community on one
Master Plan as a pilot. Then continue
at a rate of 2 per year. This option wil
necessitate providing the necessary
resources in staff and consultants.
Action Options
{!:his list is not exhaustive)
.
.
Master Plans
Master Plans for the Development
Areas will be needed. At least 7
Master Plans are anticipated, ifthe
urban neighborhoods are paired for
study. If too much time is taken in the
preparation of the Master Plans,
greenfield development will be
unlikely and redevelopment of the
Development Areas or expansion wi!
be the focus.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
Requirement
.
The Pantops Neighborhood and the
Crozet Community have been
"planned" in past years. The County's
goal has been to provide individual
plans for each Development Area. The
Hollymead community Was slated to
be the next Development Area for a
Master Plan before the DISC process
began.
Current Policy/Regulations
.
Point of Discussion
Master Plans will be needed for each
ofthe Development Areas.
Development will involve property
owners, residents, staff, Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors
members.
.
Undertake all Master Plans
immediately. This option will
necessitate more staff and consultants
over a shorter period of time.
In the absence of Master Plans,
encourage developers to involve
citizens in the front end of planning for
land development projects.
.
.
be
process.
The Drainage Area Master Plans are
being set up to provide base mapping
of environmental resources to expedite
Staff expertise and involvement will
required to guide the Master Plan
.
.
Continue to rely on the Comprehensive
Plan for County investment needs in
the 5 Year CIP. As Master Plans are
completed, fund Master Plan
improvements after already identified
CIP improvements have been
completed.
Re-prioritize capital improvements
projects with existing CIP after each
Master Plan is completed.
.
.
Master plans will playa significant
role in developing and prioritizing the
county's capital improvement needs,
with an emphasis on concurrence
between construction of public
facilities and elements of
neighborhood plans.
Specific fiscal impacts and resource
requirements will be determined at the
Master Planning level.
the process.
.
The Pantops Neighborhood Plan and
Crozet Community Study identify
needed capital improvements in these
Development Areas. Other capital
improvement needs are identified in
the Comprehensive Plan and
Community Facilities Plan.
.
Master plans will identify the majority
of the investments needs of the
County.
.
.
19
20
The County will need to develop a
clear shared understanding of resource
availability and allocation and process
for funding with the public.
.
. Creation of master plans will raise 1
citizen expectations for the
commitment of resources to implement
plan elements.
The County funds improvements based
on identified elements in existing
plans. Citizen expectations are high
for needed improvements to schools
and roads in the Development Areas.
.
.
.
process.
A plan for prioritization of funding of
capital improvements related to Master
Plans will be needed.
.
.
.
The County's capital/infrastructure
investment needs for each
Development Area will be determined
with each Master Plan.
A plan for funding investments
needed.
will
be
.
.
Future locations of public facilities will
be determined through the Master Plan
.
.
Recommended plan elements are given
increased resource commitments
through a combination of public and
private resources, including innovative
funding solutions identified from other
communities.
Give improvements in Master Plans
top priority over existing CIP projects.
Fund all existing capital improvements
identified in the CIP during the next
CIP cycle (NOT RECOMMENDED)
Adopt an "official map" for
transportation improvements and have
developers provide their share of these
improvements as projects are
constructed.
Recommended plan elements are
simply programmed into the County
budget and CIP to be funded as
resources allow, without any further
resource commitments. (not
recommended)
Each Master plan includes an approved
development and funding plan for the
provision. of its recommendations
under a realistic schedule reflecting
resource commitments.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
Ordinance Changes
Staffing to Implement
Leave current regulations in place.
Continue to develop changes for
zoning and subdivision ordinances at
current rate.
Action Options
{):his list is not exhaustive)
.
.
Hire a consultant to help expedite the
writing ofthe ordinance amendments.
Hire a consultant to help make changes
with VDOT.
Direct ACSA
in the
Hire additional staff in the County
Attorney's office to help write the
ordinance amendments.
If additional maintenance is necessary,
contract for maintenance work.
If additional maintenance is necessary,
hire additional crews.
.
.
project-by-project basis.
Ifthe County is to maintain more
sidewalks, additional expenditures wil
be needed for maintenance crews. If
the County relies on VDOT or
.
.
Point of Discussion
. The extent to which additional staff
may be needed is dependent on the
level of regulatory change and
maintenance responsibilities the
County may take on.
Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource
~equirement
.
Regulatory changes will continue to
require staff time. More expedited
ordinance amendments mean
additional staff time.
to find ways to
street trees
encourage and allow
easements.
Homeowners' Associations to maintain
sidewalks and pedestrian paths, no
change in maintenance expenses is
anticipated.
A separation of recreational playing
fields from school sites may result in
additional maintenance costs for the
Staff currently works on zoning
ordinance and subdivision amendments
on an as-needed basis. At present, a
Zoning Text Amendment Team meets
bi-weekly to develop zoning ordinance
amendments to meet current
development needs. Included in this
work are "housekeeping" items,
changes to parking regulations,
changes to steep slopes regulations,
and changes to home occupations.
Staff works with ACSA and VDOT on
individual development projects to
help facilitate conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Minimal sidewalk maintenance at the
County level takes place; in most
instances VDOT or Homeowners'
Associations are responsible to
maintain sidewalks and pedestrian
paths.
Current staffing needs in the
development departments are dealt
with annually through the budget
Current Policy/Regulations
.
.
.
.
.
New regulatory requirements will
result in the need for additional staff
training as well as presentations and
workshops to the development
community.
Inspections for new amenities will
increase staff time.
Working with VDOT and ACSA up-
front to change policies and
requirements will require stafftime. It
should result in less time spent on a
.
.
.
.
.
.
process.
An economy-of-scale exists in
maintenance of recreational fields at
.
)
21
school sites.
Private roads in the Development
Areas are the exception rather than the
rule and are privately maintained.
Staff rarely receives complaints with
maintenance issues on the few private
roads that exist in the Development
Areas.
22
.
.
If more use of private roads in the
Development Areas is to take place,
the County will likely have to perform
more private road inspections.
Ifmaintenance of private roads
becomes a major problem, the County
may have to take over maintenance of
private roads.
Ifnegotiations with VDOT are not
successful to result in "neighborhood
friendly" streets, the County may
decide to develop new road standards
and create a public works department
for maintenance.
.
.
County.
Albemarle County Boardof Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
Philosophy - "The Way" or "One Way'
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
. Continue current policy on legislative
decisions to look for conformity with
as many Land Use Plan goals as
possible.
. Leave current zoning and subdivision
ordinances in place for by-right
development. (not recommended)
. Make zoning and subdivision
ordinance changes to reflect goals of
Neighborhood Model
StaffwilI assess rezoning and special
use permit requests with as many ofthe
12 principles as possible.
Changes to subdivision and zoning
ordinances are needed to support
existing Land Use goals as well as
Neighborhood Model goals.
Development or ordinance
amendments takes time.
Policy or Regulatory ChangefResource
~eqllirenieIlt
.
.
, Current PolicyfRegulations
I
In legislative decisions, planning staff
looks for conformity with as many
Land Use Plan goals as possible.
The subdivision and zoning ordinances
fail to support many existing Land Use
Plan goals.
.
.
Point of Discussion
It is recognized that all of the 12
principles will not be achievable on
each site for new development.
.
Continue current policy on legislative
decisions to ensure pedestrian
orientation, neighborhood friendly
streets and paths, interconnected streets
and transportation networks, and site
planning that respects terrain
Leave current zoning and subdivision
ordinances in place for by-right
development and allow improvements
at the developer's option. (not
recommended)
.
.
Modify the zoning and subdivision
ordinances to require curb, gutter,
sidewalks, street trees, parks and open
space, and good site grading as the
standard for all new developments.
.
Staff tries to ensure that each of these
items is incorporated into rezonings
and special use permits in accordance
with current Land Use Plan.
Provision of sidewalks and paths,
neighborhood friendly streets and
paths, interconnections, and site
planning that respects terrain is
optional in by-right developments.
Frequently, these items are not
provided.
.
.
The principles relating to pedestrian
orientation, neighborhood friendly
streets and paths, interconnected streets
and transportation networks, and site
planning that respects terrain would be
expected in all new developments.
Adherence to these principals is
needed to accommodate the density
proposed by the Land Use Plan and
make liveable areas.
.
Have staff prepare zoning and
subdivision ordinance amendments to
support the goals ofthe Neighborhood
Model.
Have a consultant prepare zoning and
subdivision ordinance amendments to
.
.
23
.
The principles relating to a mixture of
uses, a variety of housing types,
neighborhood centers, buildings and
spaces of human scale, and
redevelopment would be provided
where it makes sense in the larger
context of the general area.
.
These items are considered on a
minimal basis with rezonings and
special use permits. Information is
placed in the staff reports on
conformity with the Neighborhood
Model; however, recommendations
not made in reference to the
Neighborhood Model goals at this
time.
ate
24
.
.
.
Staffwill continue to include this
analysis in rezonings and special use
permits. Recommendations for
approval will be based on conformity
with the Neighborhood Model.
Master planning is expected to provide
the "big picture" needs for mixture of
uses, affordable housing, design,
redevelopment needs, and
recommendations on zoning ordinance
changes to promote higher density.
Public investment to support the "big
picture" needs would be determined
after the Master Plans are comjJJeted.
.
.
support the goals of the Neighborhood
Model.
Staff continues to include this analysis
in rezonings and special use permits
with recommendations for approval
based on conformity with the
Neighborhood Model.
Staff reviews "big picture" issues in
rezonings and special use permits and
works with developer and community
to begin Master Planning where Master
Plans have not been developed.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Worksession on the Neighborhood Model
#// Site Planning that Respects Terrain
Action Options
(this list is not exhaustive)
· Modify the zoning ordinance to reflect
any or all of the items to the left.
· Place site grading regulations in the
Design Manual.
· Leave current regulations/practices as
they are. (not recommended)
Policy or Regulatory CbangelResource
Requirement
· Change the steep slopes regulations to
· Separate the Rural Area needs from
the Development Area needs.
Reflect the site grading needs for
the Development Areas for slopes
that are stable, non-erosive, safe,
attractive, and easily vegetated.
Ensure the preservation of systems
of critical slopes and streams
shown on the County's Open Space
Plan or future Development Area
Master Plans.
.
.
Encourage the use of architectural
solutions to building on steep
slopes in order to make better use
of sloping land in the Development
Areas
.
· Ensure that retaining walls, when
used, are appropriately scaled,
benched when necessary, and
considered for long-term stability.
· Ensure that fire safety and
emergency access needs are
included in building construction
on steep terrain.
New public facilities would be
expected to be designed with the land
.
Review of disturbance of slopes in
excess of25% grade relates to the
effect on the drinking water supply;
rapid and/or large scale movement of
soil and rock; excessive stormwater
run-off; siltation of natural and
manmade bodies of water; loss of
aesthetic resource; and the potential of
septic system failure.
Current regulations allow for the
creation of steeper slopes than those
being disturbed.
Current regulations do not address site
grading and resulting slope safety,
appearance, and long term
maintenance needs of homeowners and
other property owners.
Community Facilities Plan for schools
requires use Of protypical school for all
terrain. Earthwork costs can be
expensive.
Current PolicylRegulations
.
.
Point of Discussion
The zoning regulations for disturbance
of critical slopes relate more to rural
area goals than to Development Area
goals.
.
.
.
-
rather than with a prototype facility if
grades do not easily support the
prototvne.
2
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
~
Vl.oon~\~
Members, Beard d Supervis~ \ 0.\. /
Ella WashingtOl Carey, Q1C~ -
Reading List fa- April 4, 200 I
March 29, 2001
D=cember 6(A), 2000
Ms. Thana~
February 7, 200 I
MEMORANDUM
pages I - I 8 - Mr. D:nier
pages 19 - 34(item # 13) - Ms. Humphris
pages 34 (Item # 13) - end - Mr. Bov-.erman
February 14, 2001
M r. Pem ns
February 21 , 200 I
/e\AC
Mr. Martin
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Bentley, CoM.CO
Senior Deputy Clerk ~
March 3D, 2001
DATE:
RE:
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through July 31, 2001. Please
advise me if you want me to advertise any of the vacancies. .
Thank you.
Cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
Chamber of Commerce
WISH TO BE
RE-
APPOINTED?
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT?
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
TERM EXPIRES
MEMBER
BOARD OR COMMISSION
JQRPAI
CQRPQ.
Readve
4/25
JAlINTSQAfiP
Readvertised: applications due
4/25
eQtJA~tlQ<<II9I!RlJ
Readvertised; applications due
4/25
to
11-14-04
11-14-04
Timothy M. Michel
CIA JOINTAIRPOliT
COMMI$$ION:,:;,v, ;..., ....
... ,....-.. co","..,_, . "''',' ".
3 interviews scheduled for 4/4
cies -
ions due 4/24
WISH TO BE
RE-
APPOINTED?
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT?
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
TERM EXPIRES
07 -01-01
07-01-01
nd
MEMBER
Donald R. Crosb'
Martha R. Tarrant
BOARD OR COMMISSION
CHART;A.tJ\IlSPAy,OARO.
Applications due 3/27
REGIONAI-t?ISAIJIt../Tf
SERVlCESJlOARO
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Laurie Bentley, C.M.C.
Senior Deputy GI~ /
March 30, 2001 V
Applications for Boards and Commissions
DATE:
RE:
I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/Commissions. Note:
You will be conducting three interviews on April 4, 2001. Thank you.
Attachments
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
BOARD OR COMMISSION
NEW TERM
EXPIRE
DATE
APPLlCANTI
INCUMBENT
INTERVIEW,
I.F
SCHEDULED
1 one-year Paul J. Grady, Jr.
term,
2 two-year
terms, and
2 three-year
terms
Ann H. Mallek
Shirley Midyette
Milton B. Moore
Nickolas J. Sojke
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPliCATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee C.~I L C.''ffLt...E-'-~~ ~l&V-{A-L -r~6!)
Applicant's Name ?.4UL-~~je, HomePhone 8M-'iS2.3-QC'Ocr
Full Home Address '"P 0 A &oK 'I 'D~ {. ~ 7~ f~f26.u.>'-H."?\.f (UE leD.)
-;;J;:VCr" ,'lA, Z-2- "'245"
I
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
+tt6/o f2-tL P~-sE-/25..lI4--rrM-f
Employer ~...LI=- . ~.....,pwy.fGp
beJ-f. Ctrt-I. Tf2.AG-rOf!.-
Business Address ~y _
Wm-rE- ~
Phone . -:5~~
Occupation/Title eu..~
Years Resident in Albemarle County ..3 S jlLb
Previous Residence c3f-Z--f ::::r::v y /2.0.
.
Date of Employment
1~77
Spouse's Name
Number of Children
Education (De~rees and Graduation Dates) U VA- 6<:'-t-t6oL 6-1==-. ~ -Cl'c..e_;"(Ufl.-E.-
-:F? ~r ~ 01=- 72-
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/ or Other Activities or Interests CJ TI Zli:H H~~ ~~ ')
~ ~ :l!!:A-?-r~ 1I..1>~N.?NLr::t:HI7IA=7IVL/4A//~qCt1h',
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee -ro ~ T I,,<.toE 70 ~~E..
R;-4/#-IM.. -?L.,A+-fH~/ P/U-t6t:-~~P?(~~ A-e4~L/bH-l G.
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
~ r. 6~ ,(. 31/~J, )
Sig<>e.~ :/ Date / / '
Return to:
Clerk, Boardof County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 2290:;2.4-596
FAc"<:: (804) 296.5800
MAR-27-01 TUE 12:25 PM
P.01
County. of Albemarle
'g
:1j.jJ ., .
."'~~~.. '
~I",::,~~ ~..11
~,~
Office of BoardofCounry SupervisO/."$
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type l,lt print)
Board/Commission/Committee CharlQttc$vilh:: Albemllde Regional Transportation Advisory Comnutlee
Applicant's Name Ann H, Mallek
FuU Home Address CUITituck Farm P. O. Box 207 EarlY$vilie. VA 22936
HOme phone .804~978.1150
Magist~riai District In which your home resIdence Is located Whi~ Hall
Employet' 51. Anne's-BeHield School
Business Address 2132 Ivy Road Charlottesville VA 22903
Phone 804-295-0106
Occupation/Title ComputerTeachc:r, Tec;hnolo~ Coordinator for Lower School
Years Resident in Albemarle County 17
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name Leo Mall<::k
9/1/1992
Previous ResIdence Amherst. Massachusetts
Number of Children
2
.E.rjy~atlorl (Dllgrcesand Graduation Dates) Q)nn\lctic\,ll CQlJe~e B A in Zoolol'iY lil71
Memberships In Fralernal. Business.Chp{ch ;md'(Q,(Jiocial Groups Junior l-eague ofCharlQttesville,Virginiil Society for "technology in
E<.IlJcatJoll. Virginia Farm Bureau. American He.reford Association Owner Operator- E 3 Soience Camp, a $\1l11rner envirolUl\elltQ.J aWill'eness camp for
elementalY children,
Public. Civic and Ch~rlU.2!.l' Office and/or Other Activitip.s or Int~rests ACE Committee rQr Albel'l'\llrJe COUllty. e~dys\lil)e Area R<::sic.lenlO'
League, funncl' prcsirJe!ll. CQTl'I1Utly SllcfIltary and conservation committee chllinllan
Reason(s) for Wishh}g t9 Sgrxg on this Board/Commission/(:ommittee Transportation issues will direct the future of (ItveJopmlJnt .ml
life ill Albemarle COUllI)'. I Ml COl)~erl'led abt'1lt the effects of the proposed weSlern bypass on our llrinking water supplyaod on tl'le environment itl gell.md. PJ1lDlling
will Ot'e~erv\l our aualitv of Ii fe. our faffl\s ~nd locallv 2rown fOod. and allow Qur economv to Dcosoer,
on this application will be released to the. public upon request.
3/26/200 I
Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
4.01 Mcintire Road
CharlottesvillQ, VA 22902.1596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
(~~J~
MAR-27-01 TUE 12:26 PM
P.02
Ann Hucld~ Mallek
Currituck Farm · P. O. Box 207 ~ ~l~~e, VA22936 -.(804) 978-1150
amallek@Stab.org
Career Objective: To use my teaching and technology skiLLsina new setting.
Key Experience:
Classroom teaching', cuniculumDevelopm. ent) Desktop Publishing, Web Page
Development, Technology lntegratioIltLeadership, People Skills
Family :
Born April 17, 1950 jn Charlottesville, VA
Married Leo Ma11e~ D.M.D. June, 1971
Daughters: Kate, born April15t 1975. Laura, born October 9, 1982.
Education:
Co.rmecticut College
B. A. in Zoology
Senior Independent study project in electron microscopy. "Ultrastructure of
the Gemules of the marine sponge, Haliclona loosanoffi."
Albemarle High School
Belfield School
New London, cr
June 1971
June 1967
June 1963
Grant:
Virginia Society for Tedmology in Education 1996-97 Grant Winner. Project
to develop a Web-Based Sodal History Reference Database from the Lives
of STAB Alwnni
April 25-27, 1997
Publications:
Ann H. Mallek, "Bringing History Alive." JQumal of the Virginia Society for
TechnologV in Education. Vol. II, No.4, Spring.. 1997.
D. E.Brooks, D. W. Hamilton and Ann H. Mallek, "Carnitine and glyceryl-
phosphorylcholine in the reproductive tract of the male rat." ]. Reprod. Fert.
(1974) 36: 141-160.
D. E. Brooks, D. W. Hamilton and .Ann H. Mallek,"The Uptake of L-Me-3H
Carnitine by the Rat Epididymis."BiochemicaJ and Biophvsical Re~
Communications. (1973) 52,4.
Work Experience:
St. Anne's-Belfield School Charlottesville,VA
Computer teacher, grades K-4. Lower School Computer coordinator.. September, 1993-rnsent
In addition to the teaclring the academiC'. romput& cttr:O.culU1'11., I work with !:he s:~udQnts in
grades 1.4 in writing workshop, editing and publishing their creative writing, in the computer
Cab and in the classroom. I manage the Lower School Technology budget, train faculty in
the use of technology, develop stua.ent curricula, develop and manage report card processesl
distribute and service Lower School macl1ines. I also taught fourth grade science for three years.
MAR-27-e1 TUE 12:26 PM
Ann Huckle MaUak.2
E 3 Science Summer Camp; Exploration and Enjoyment in the
Environment. Owner I operator .
p.e3
Charlottesville, VA
Summer 1995 - Present
Substitute. teacher in the ST AS Lower and Middle School December 1989 _ June 1993
Worked regularly with fourteen teachers:in pre-school through
fifth grade. The majority of the experience over the years was gained
teaching math and science.
Currltuck Fa:tn\. Fanft manager of cowl calf beef operation
Provide daily care. and manage cow herd anclcommercial.ftower
greenhouse, both field and office business operations
DentaIoffice. Substitute Office Manager/Receptionist
Computer data base patient records, billing, payments, reports
Forest ana Farm Realty. Licensed Realtor.
Owned a solo bUSine$S specializing in forest properties
Earlysville, V A
October, 1980 - Present
Culpeper, V A
August, 1990 - Present
Amherst, MA
1978-1981
Hampshire College. Adm.. Secretary in School of Natural Science Amherst, MA
Assisted faculty and students in research and office J1.1ne, 1974 -September, 1975
UniverSity of Massachusetts. Research AsSistant in Genetics lab
Assisted graduate students with tiSSlJe Gulture
Harvard Medical School. Researcll Assistant in Biochemistry
Research concerned various aspects of reproduction CUld involved
sampling of electron microscopically prepared tissue at the light
lnicros<:opic level. Lipid biochemistry studies focused on the erU\Ton-
mental consitutents lillportant in sperm maturation. Expensive
photography and darki-oom experience. Two papers published.
Undergraduate Work:
Connecticut College. Research Assistant in marine ecology and
sponge structure. Second project in endocrinology
studied melanoma growth.
Amherst, MA
June, 1973 ~ June, 1974
Boston, MA
June,1971 - June, 1973
New London,.. cr
1969 -1971
University of Virginia Medical School
Research Assistant in Reproductive Physiology.
This lab was in the foret!ont of research on in vitro fertilization and
infertility. The work was with rabbits, and the basic chemical requirements
for ova culture were determined, as well as the procedures for relmptant~
ing the cu1turedeggs into the mother.
University of Virginia Hospital Lab Technician, Bacteriology
Charlottesville Savings and Loan, Teller
Volunteer Experiel1ce:
ACE Committee, Albemarle County
Earlysville Area Residents' League, Secretary, Publications, Conservation
Earlysville A.1:"ea Residents' League, President, EarlysvUle, VA
Earlysville Area Residents' League, Board of Directors, Earlysville, VA
CharlotteSville, VA
Sunm'l.ers, 1969 and 1970
SUlDlller, 1968
Sununer, 1967
2000-
2001-2003
1998-2000
1996-1997
St. Arute's.Belneld School Assistant in SCience, DASH program Charlottesville, VA
First and second gra.de, experiment based science September, 1989 _ June 1991
MAR-27-01 TUE 12:27 PM
!
I
.I
1
Ann Huckle Mallek-3
P.04
Girl Scout Troop Leader, Charlottesville, VA.
Newsletter Co-Editor.. The. Grapevine , .monthlymagazirte of the Junior
League of Ol.ittlottesville. writing, layout, advertising, printing,
1989~1995
Charlottesville, V A
1989~1990
Puppeteer, Kids on the Block, J'llllior League of Charlottesville
Girl Scout Troop Leader, Amherst,MA
Fund-raiser. Fine Art Solicitation Chairman for Hampshire and Fr.anklin
Counties (MA)for the PBS ChannelS7 Annual Auction. Organized county
conunutees, made contacts with artists, collected pieces, arranged and hung
Gallery shows, pampered artists
Board of Directors for Land Use and Local Action, Amherst, MA League
of Women Voters. Local chairman, national land use study
Zoning Board of Appeals, Board Member, Amherst, MA
Treasurer First Congregational Church Pre~School. Handled a $35,000 budget,
teacher salaries, withholding, tax forms, ordering, financial operations
1986-1989
1981-1983
1978-1980
1976-1982
1976-1982
1978-1980
Mar 12 01 10: 12p _ Saunders M i d~ette 804 293 0746
..,...........". ". I'U~UvBlGlo.l; AV ':>1 J.GI VJ. J.:~::) YAUJ:. :':::1;':: Hightl"AX
TO:Shirley Midyette COMPANY:
p. 1
County ~f ~bemarle
. > .
.... ...
-
Office of Board of Co\UIty Supervisors
401 MclntircRoad
Owiouesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPUCATIONTO SERVE-ON BOARD!COMMlSSION/COMMITfEE
(Please type or pint. ) ...
BoardlCommissi()nlCo~e . C tf IJ r T A~ ~~.lt I r ~A'Y\$ 0/
::::: ~:;/~kva l~;;"t~ r~rlo;;:;tle~~-1~'i:1
Magisterial District in which your home ~siclence is located , ~I" A:! JoC/ € 'IA
Employer 7ft f) MI!t r;,. Je f{ -e r s. 0 1\ 'Fo LI n rJ Ii /.;10 h. Phone 9 g '+ ~- q J>3 ':::'
;-
BusinessAdd.ress to, b~y 3/t:>, CI.JtJ( j!/~tle'sjl';lk/ /J1h ;:> /....yl) d-... .- 0 3/""
Occupatio~1tlefl-f ~40tl'N! ( 3/\ if f' fttie r~~/d~) DateofEmploymem 111~~7 ,
Years Resident in Albemarle Count'! r D C r'J fJ ~-:, . , Spouse"s Name 13LJ.. ~*JI 5~", n Jerc;. /J1/dy e fie-,
P"'iouJ~:: ~J: ~~h~~4 N.mb.nl~d- ~u,,,
F~ toq....;~ ~"" o...~ j _ _ ~ e <T Ii 'I; u< rc; /i'J I 1>.;. , , " :)
I>I<mb.is!Dpo in .""""'. Bu.~', CI.unob ,.dIor 5oci.I "ll'.,," th -l '" 1 ~ si.." ? ~ e s6ytc r ,'q 11
a.t{f'~t.t) I Be~3S. 'f\"t"d6 ~<;fDg-'l:s CILt L _ . _
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and( or Other Activities orInterests U. U 11-, u) 11 m @ ill (5 e I ~ /; .- l(. lJ f9. .
./
Lv b'(\"\" iJ\\ S C ~ {I\ -\- f' f' (' 1:', I { 1\ (\ d
Reason($) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committeeo::S J.I1/1 e /J.)tJlJ )4/ h' r e- / :J lu~. U(? ./
if()//(YIJed tth~ <AY-l'/CCf~ Y.6~ d.pwt.?'l~~ f. c-f' 'l-~;&;;f'tkl'''~ /?'~
t. t:Jt1t) /.JI1.s~d Sd/4-''6!~...,.s.. ~ t(.).-;c:~* /'& h J2?1'I/C'/~)l'e., / /) :e pi(/( /UJ,';t'Cj ~ /'zye l?SS)
ThlWo~n prov~d on this applicatlon will be released to the public upofueque6t.. .See"''"Nr Sc ht-t: ~ ~ s fo ~tCd.{ CO t'l<!e 1'1\,5 .
~if~f' ~-'~-;Ik 6tr4a~ /.:?,/ ~cq/
Return to: ~ Board ..CouuI1 Superrison
AIbemarte Caaaty
401 Mdotire Road
CbaddtesviDe, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5100
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee ('NAte I Vlll€- A-L-KE.AtA1et€ e~.
MIL,tJN g.
Full Home Address I () .? F~ L C <!>N b~
J
Applicant's Name
T~JtLJ5. PLAV Ccf(-A-R::r)
M CJo,e.E HomePhone (<!Otf) 'J 79-2-~~~
CJfAeLo1T~SVIt.LE 22-90 I
MagisterialDistrict in which your home residence is located
Employer
(J oS ftF R € TI ICeJJ
Phone
Business Address
Occupation/Title
Date of Employment
Years Resident in Albemarle County
J2
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates)
) CA-
MA
MA
Previous Residence M,4 R I f> 0 ~ A-
r?~
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Public Civic and Charitable Office and/ or Other Activities or Interests
ps '(LIfO L. 0 ~ Y ;-fv M .rr-v
/
/3€HItVIP t::. fe72S0A.//fL-1 TV' A5s~SIv(E:UT
)
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee DE:35leG rlJ EJJS ()fZ=& 77+1+7
H/;f~'fe~t;j~j:f1Z~~~yi,77 3"ftJ~~ 1ff~. ~
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
!1'ttd;;, ~~ )11~~-
Signature
.3 -13 -01
Date
Return to:
Oerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesvine, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
--,
.;
N'~r~,' IF Nt) (;)u~ ELS:E
/r Pf>t..tE5 F(JJ~ rHG ;fV/JI1-77o~
Fe;; ~ T/I>I(/ I I t-V tP (./ L-.l) gE.
1N'Te;e.GS;TGD; I,.tf-M" te ET/~lJ
ifF P /LOr w ~ T7-r ~ t?~C:> l~v2.5
/
a~ rL-Y/.v6 r-~",,~,
I FA.Gtv' r"e. fl co~u.v~e.
frt,eu.(/G r=e;,e c:PVE YE~; I
FLG"4/ /1-5 CCI-j>/L~r t:J,u 1?+E
Vt/A- A-rrec.eA-rr APe A- rE~
Me?A/77r~, .
/ #'/t/tG" ..M y j> .R.1t//I"77E;
CCJPt~ElZ-c.JfrL- /f7v.:J) A-r~
'-, c&V$ G> ~
114 / t.. 7?J v frtt? (J' .e~
17 9 -- 2-~~~
03/27/01 07:37 FAX 5404566866 NICKOLAS J SOJKA
~Qun~y 0% ^~Demar~e ~/~~/u~ ~:~O ~AU~ Z/Z ft1ghtFAX
Dr. SOjka COMPANY:
[4]01
County pt ~bemarJe
Office of Boad of . . SuperVisors
.wl~.Raed
0tarl0ttesviDe,. VA 229024596
(804) 296-5343
M'agisterial District in whicb your home residence is located
EtnpJoycr ~,/ -F ..e' Wt f I (J iJ-A Jl.
-,,;~ -
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type Or print.)
BoardlCormnissionlCommittee CI,''';''~rYl'II~ . #4M.,,'......i.cro~..t 1~& ....~'o y ~ -/".,
Applicant'sName ~'C~..t :1". S.iJ5c.. HomePhone SY-o '?~, _(" IS"'_
FuHHomeMlress r3q~'O.-ek.. W04'cl". f'..9.
A ~ t..O"M \. vcr. ~;L., ""0
1r..II.~hf/4
~.r' -" I S'f
Phone
Business .Address
Occupation/Title 14.J.. ,,: 111_ J~ . ~ ~ <t "'11?~ &~. ..,f.'If>ate of Employment ttJfl. m..lJ.~ t f' ~
I I
y.... Res&ax in AIbcm.de G,umy 3.s- J'" 0. ...~ Spollse', N.... EA Ii ... "...
Previous Residence IJ/a rft' U "*d /,,, '" ( Num.beI- of <..:b.iIdm1 .3
Ednl"'!:l';on t'pegees and GnduMY.Q ~)
. ~"f" ..'y....t~...h....., h\.,J... II , 4S'S'CI'C...
~"..~""'..L. C ~ ~. (
Retum to:
Oerk. BoGrd of County Supervisors
Albemuic Couuty
401 McIntire Road
CharJd%esviIIe~ VA 22902.4596
FAX: (804)296.5800
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Un~ay G. Domer, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna'
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 1 0, 2001
Mr.' Kurt B. Goodwin
3156 Darby Rd.
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, the Board appointed you to fill out the
balance of Michael R. Matthews, Jr.'s term on the Joint Airport Commission. Your term will run from
April 4, 2001 through December 1, 2003. I have enclosed a roster 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,
~~4~/~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc:
James Camblos
Bryan Elliott
Jeanne Cox
Robert Tucker
.- '" ~J.
*
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of QmntySupervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee Joint Allport Commission
Applicant's Name Kurt B. Goodwin
Home Phone 804-293-3378
Full Home Address 3156 Darby Road Keswick, Vit:ginia 22947
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Rivanna
Employer Gutchfield Corporation
Phone 804-817-1000
f-
Business Address 1 Gutchfield Park cnarlottesville. Vit:ginia 22911
Occupation/Title Vice President. Operations
Date of Employment October 1982
Years Resident in Albemarle County 31
Spouse's Name Pamela MGoodwin
Previous Residence 2260 Lanford Hills Drive cnarlottesville, Vit:ginia 22911 Number of children 1
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) Bachelor of Business Administration 1983 - James Madison
University
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and! or Social Groups cnarlottesville Regional O1amber of Commerce *
Direct Marketing Association * Society of Consumer Affairs Professiona1s* Charlottesville Cub *
Glenmore Country Cub
Public, Gvic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Former Member & Officer. Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Department >10 Former Board President. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department
Reason's) for WIShing to Serve on this Board! Commission/Committee As a licensed private pilot and a local business
person, I recognize the importance of efficient airport operations and the impact that those
operations can. have on the health, welfare and development of our communio/. I believe that my
experiences as a pilot and as an operations executive will have a positive impact on the
effectiveness of the Joint Allport Commission and our community.
. application will be released to the public upon request.
II/to/il
Date
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Undsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
ScottsviJJe
Charlotte Y Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel MiUer
April 4, 2001
Mr. Richard L. Jennings
1607 Jamestown Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Jennings:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, you were reappointed to Jail Authority,
with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster 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 continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Y/df7/,/~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: John Isom
Jeannie Cox
Commonwealth's Attorney
*
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
COUNlY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VIrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Undsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scollsville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
WaIter F. Perkins
WhiteHall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel MIller
April 4, 2001
Ms. Martha R. Tarrant
16 Ednam Village
Charlottesville, VA .22903
Dear Ms. Tarrant:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, you were reappointed to the Regional
Disability Services Board, with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004. I have enclosed
an updated roster 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 continue to serve the County In this capacity.
Sincerely,
yf4~(~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth's Attorney
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Undsay G. Domer, Jr.
ScoItsviDe
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNlY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
CharlottesviUe, VIrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
While HaD
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel MIller
April 4, 2001
Mr. Donald R. Crosby
3870 Graemont Dr.
Earlysville, Va 22936
Dear Mr. Crosby:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, you were reappointed to the Regional
Disability Services Board, with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004. I have enclosed
an updated roster 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 continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
;{411'~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth's Attorney
*
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Undsay G. Domer, Jr.
Scottsvii1e
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VIrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 12, 2001
Ms. Ann H. Mallek
P.O. Box 207
Earlysville, Va 22936
~
Dear Ms. Mallek:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART), with said term to run
from April 4, 2001 through April 3, 2004. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingnes,s to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Play ~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Hannah Twaddell
*
Printed on recycled paper
David RBowerman
Rio
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40 1 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VIrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Undsay G. Domer, Jr.
Scollsville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miner
April 12, 2001
Ms. Shirley Midyette
102 Cavalier Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Midyette:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART), with said term to run
from April 4, 2001 through April 3, 2003. I have enclosed a roster 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,
yfdf9Y./~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Hannah Twaddell
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Undsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y. H~mphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
WaIter F. Perkins
While Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel MiOer
April 12, 2001
Mr. Milton B. Moore
106 Falcon Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Moore:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART), with said term to run
from April 4, 2001 through April 3, 2004. I have enclosed a roster 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,
P(rdf#~
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHTllab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Hannah Twaddell
*
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
ScoItsviUe
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
cOUNlY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel MIller
April 12, 2001
Dr. Nickolas J. Sojke
8392 Dick Woods Rd.
Afton, VA 22920~J. (
ntAU<-.
Dear Dr. Sojke:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 4, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART), with said term to run
from April 4, 2001 through April 3, 2003.1 have enclosed a roster 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,
Pldf
Sally H. Thomas
. Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Hannah Twaddell
(1)
Printed on recycled paper