HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-05 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINAL
December 5, 2001
9:00 A.M., MEETING ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
10.
~1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Resolution of Appreciation: Nancy O'Brien.
Consent Agenda (on next page).
Transportation Matters.
a. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
9:50 a.m. - Update on Family Support Program Evaluation Project.
10:10 a.m. - Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Article I, In General, to authorize the creation of Junior
Firefighter programs by volunteer fire companies.
10:20 a.m. - Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 13 Solid Waste Disposal and
Re, cling of the Albemarle County Code by amending Section 13-301 Transporting refuse in
~ehicles to clarify the requirement that it is unlawful for any material or container to be loaded
on a vehicle so that the material or the container escapes from the vehicle.
10:30 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation - School Board Chairman.
10:45 a.m. - Discussion: Police Department Citizen Advisory Committee (PDCAC).
1 hO0 a.m. - Midnight Ramble Festival Funding Request (deferred from November 7, 2001).
Approval of Minutes: September 19, September 27, October 10, October 17(A), October 17(N)
and November 14, 2001.
Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
Certify Closed Session.
Appointments.
2:00 p.m. - SP-2001-031. Orrock (nTelos) (Sign # 52). Public hearing on a request to allow
construct of personal wireless comm facility 10' above tallest tree w/in 25' (w/an approx 99' tall
steel monopole) & related ground equipment. Znd R_& TM92,P5P~ Contains approx 15.61 acs.
Loc Rt. 53, approx 1/8 ml W of intersec w/Milton Rd (Rt. 732). Scottsville Dist~
ZMA-01-03. Rio Square (Signs #95&96). Public hearing on a request to rezone 3.04 acs
from R-6 & R-2 to PRD to allow townhomes, single-family detached homes & office.
TM62A1 ,Ps 2-4,2-5,2-4A & 2B- 13. Loc on Rio Rd (Rt. 631 ) at intersec, of Rio Rd & Wakefield
Rd. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density (6-34 du/ac) in
Neighborhood 2. Rio Dist.
From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Adjourn to December I 0, 2001, 1:30 p.m., for joint meeting with Legislators.
CONSENT AGEndA
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1
Installation of "Child at Pla)/' Sign(s) on Candlewyck Drive (Rt 1650) and Cobblestone Lane
(Rt 16520 in Candlewyck Subdivision.
6.2
............. t. (Remove from Agenda.)
6.3
Authoriz~ County Executive to sign Deeds of Easement for Ricky Road/Woodstock Drive
stormwater drainage improvement project.
6.4
Authorize County Executive to execute County/VDOT Agreement pending dedication of road
right-of-way over existing Hollymead Lake Dam.
6.5
Appropriations: Various local government and education programs and projects, $2,016 (Form
#2001032); $45,013 (Form #2001034); $137,927.40 (Form #2001035).
6.6
Approve minor changes to Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual
and set public hearing for January 9, 2002 to amend Section 7-204(c) of the Road Naming and
Property Numbering Ordinance.
6.7 Ellerslie Drive Road Name Change Request.
6.8 Progress Report on Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
6.9 Update on Monticello Fire/Rescue Station.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.10
Copy of Tentative Virginia Transportation Development Han (formerly known as the Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program).
6.11
Notice of public hearing, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0025518, Moores Creek
STP.
6.12
Copy of 2001 Third Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development,
6.13 Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for October 9, October 16 and October 23, 2001.
6.14
Copy of letter dated Noyg~er 20, 2001 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
~ll~,.~f~;'~ O~!((! tPe,termination of Development Rights and Parcels: Tax Map 121,
¢~t ~.0: :(piGPe~ 0f'Vit~a Johnson Estate), Section 10.3. I.
~~)~O,T,..Residency Monthly Report, December 2001.
1. Call to Order.
2, Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4~ From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Resolution of Appreciation: Nancy O'Brien.
6. Consent Agenda (on next page).
7, Transportation Matters.
a. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
8: 9:50 a.m. - Update on Family Support Program Evaluation Project
9. I0:10 a.m. - Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Artide I, In General, to authorize the creation of Junitr
Firefighter programs by volunteer fire companies.
10. 10:20 a.m. - Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 13 Solid Waste Disposal and
Reqyding of the Albemarle County Code by amending Section 13-301 Transporting refuse in
vehicles to darify the requirement that it is unlawful for any material or container to be loaded
on a vehicle so that the material or the container escapes from the vehicle.
I I. I0:30 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation - School Board Chairman.
12. 10:45 a.m. - Discussion: Police Department Citizen Advisory Committee (PDCAC).
13. 11:00 a.m. - Midnight Ramble Festival Funding Request (deferred from November 7, 2001).
14. Approval of Minutes: September 19, September 27, October 10, October 17(A), October ! 7(N)
and November 14, 2001.
15. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
16. Certify Closed Session.
17. Appointments.
18. 2:00 p.m. - SP-2001-03 I. Orrock (nTelos) (Sign # 52). Public hearing on a request to allow
construct of personal wirdess comm facility 10' above tallest tree w/in 25' (w/an approx 99' tall
steel monopole) & related ground equipmen~ Znd R~ TM92,P5A~ Contains approx 15.61 acs.
Loc Rt. 53, approx 1/8 ml W of intersec w/Milton Rd (Rt. 732). Scottsville Dist_
19. ZMA-OI-03. Rio Sq~mre (Signs #95&96). Public hearing on a request to rezone 3.04 acs
from R-6 & R-2 to PRD to allow townhomes, single-family detached homes & office.
TM62A1,Ps 2-4,2-5,2-4A & 2B-13. Loc on Rio Rd (Rt~ 631) at intersec of Rio Rd &Wakefield
Rd. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density (6-34 du/ac) in
Neighborhood 2. Rio Dist.
20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
21. Adjourn to December 10, 2001, 1:30 p.m., for joint meeting with Legislators.
FOR APPROVAL'..,
6.1 Installation of "Child at Pla)~' Sign(s) on Candlewyck Drive (Rt 1650) and Cobblestone Lane
(Rt 16520 in Candlewyck Subdivision.
6.2 Set public hearing for March 6, 2002, for Owensville Road (Route 678) relocation right, f-way
abandonment.
6.3 Authorize County Executive to sign Deeds of Easement for Ricky Road/Woodstock Drive
stormwater drainage improvement project.
6.4 Authorize County Executive to execute County/VDOT Agreement pending dedication of road
right-of-way over existing Hollymead Lake Dam.
6.5 Appropriations: Various local government and education programs and projects, $2,016 (Form
#2001032); $45,013 (Form #2001034); $137,927.40 (Form #2001035).
6.6 Approve minor changes to Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual
and set public hearing for January 9, 2002 to amend Section 7-204(c) of the Road Naming and
Property Numbering Ordinance.
6.7
6.8
Ellerslie Drive Road Name Change Request.
Progress Report on Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
6.9 Update on Monticello Fire/Rescue Station.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.10 Copy of Tentative Virginia Transportation Development Plan (formerly known as the Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program).
6.11 Notice of public hearing, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0025518, Moores Creek
STP.
6.12 Copy of 2001 Third Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
6.13 Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for October 9, October 16 and October 23,200 I.
6.14 Copy of letter dated November 20, 2001 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Axtministration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels: Tax Map 121,
Parcel 70 (property of Floyd E. Johnson Estate), Section 10.3.1.
6.15 Charlottesville VDoT Residency Monthly Report, December 2001.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting Of December 5. 2001
December 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
1. Call to order.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Usted on the Agenda. (None.)
5. Resolution of Appreciation: Nancy O'Bden. PRESENTED.
Not docketed: Presentation of Governor's Technology Awards for
Monticello Avenue Community Portal.
6.1 Installation of "Child at Play" Sign(s) on Candlewyck Ddve (Rt.
1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Rt. 1652 in Candlewyck Subdivision.
APPROVED Resolution.
/=,....~ n-~x .~.,,,~;,,..~..~+ ..~= ...... ~.....~ .... ..+ (Remove from
Agenda.)
6.3 Authorize County Executive to sign Deeds of Easement for
Ricky Road/Woodstock Drive stormwater drainage improvement
project. APPROVED.
6.4 Authorize County Executive to execute CountyNDOT
Agreement pending dedication of road right-of-way over existing
Hollymead Lake Dam. APPROVED.
6.5 Appropriations: Various local government and education
programs and projects, $2,016 (Form #2001032); $45,013 (Form
#2001034); $137,927.40 (Form #2001035). APPROVED.
6.6 Approve minor changes to Albemarle County Road Naming and
Property Numbering Manual and set public hearing for 1/9/02 to
amend §7-204(c) of the Road Naming and Property Numbering
Ordinance. APPROVED changes and set PH to amend Ordinance.
6.7 Ellerslie Drive Road Name Change Request. APPROVED.
6.8 Progress Report on Acquisition of Conservation Easements
(ACE) Program. APPROVED final applicant ranking priorf[y list-for
year 2001-02. Ordered appraisals for top seven ranked properties.
6.9 Update on Monticello Fire/Rescue Station. APPROVED.
6.10 Copy of Tentative Virginia Transportation Development Plan
(formerly known as the Six Year Transportation Improvement
Program). RECEIVED FOR INFO. (Note: This item was further
discussed under Transportation Matters.)
· Several Board members commented that the format VDOT
uses is confusing and virtually useless to both the Board and
the public. Ms. Humphds asked that Mr. Proctor, representing
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. BOS members present:
Thomas, Humphris, Bowerman, Dorrier, and
Martin. Officers/staff: Tucker, Cilimberg, and
Davis. Clerk: Bentley.
None.
None: Resolution (Attachment A) presented at the
meeting.
None: Award presented at the meeting.
Clerk: Forward signed Resolution (Attachment B)
to Juan Wade so that he can arrange installation of
signs.
None.
En~ineedna. Staff: Pursue permanent easements
for the stormwater drainage improvement project.
Forward deeds of easement to County Executive
for his signature.
En,qineedn,q Staff: After developer has recorded
plat dedicating right of way, get County Executive
to sign agreement. Provide copy of recording
receipt and signed agreement to Board office.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriations to Melvin
Breeden, copies to Robert Walters, Roger
Hildebeidel, Jackson Zimmerman and Kevin
Castner. Draft and send thank you notes from
Chairman.
Clerk: Advertise PH for January 9, 2002.
Planninq Staff (Tex Weaver); Coordinate road
name change.
Planninq Staff: Complete appraisals and forward
them to Appraisal Review Committee. Forward to
Board fOr approval, then purchase development
rights.
County Attorney Staff: Send contract to
Purchasing to be processed.
Plannin.q Staff: Review the report to see whether it
matches what the Board requested during the
preallocation hearings.
Sheriff's Dept Staff: Look into problems associated
with a recent bicyde race held in Scottsville.
Jim Bryan, from VDOT, con~act the Me[~upolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) to assist them with their information
gathering. The Board provided several corrections to the
information to Mr. Proctor, who noted them. Ms. Thomas
asked that staff review the report to see whether it matches
what the Board requested dudng the preatlocation hearings.
· Mr. Dorrier asked about implementing a program to provide
bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths in rural areas, nOting that
Scottsville residents were recently inconvenienced during a
local bicycle race. The Board said it is unlikely this will occur
for several reasons. Mr. Tucker said staffwill look into
problems associated with the race.
· Ms. Thomas mentioned that a streetlight is needed to control
traffic for the old water treatment plant road (Rio Road area).
Mr. Bowerman said the right-of-way is not available and that
this is part of the Meadowcreek Parkway project. Mr. Benish
added that a signal with a left turn lane light would not assist
w/traffic problems.)
6.11 Notice of public .~hearing, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No.
VA0025518~ Moores Creek STP. RECEIVED FOR INFO.
(Ms. Humphds said she is confused by these notices. Mr. Tucker
said that the Water Resources Manager indicated that these are
routine notices, and that he lets the Board know of any item that
may require, comment from the Board.)
7. Transportation Matters.
Update provided by Mr. Chuck Proctor, from VDOT:
· The Route 29 bddge is now open for all traffic.
· The Meadow Creek Parkway project is on this month's CTB
agenda.
· Re changes in the Six Year Plan, he mentioned that he recently
attended a training conference where there was discussion
about moving from sequential to concurrent planning on
projects.
?.a. Transportation Matters NOt Listed on the Agenda.
· Mr. Martin said Rt. 746 (Fosters Branch Road) and Rt. 807
both need maintenance to the road and culvert.
· Mr. Dorrier said he would like to give a permanent name to
Carter's Bridge. He will provide the Clerk a draft resolution for
an upcoming Board meeting.
· Mr. Dorder said engineers are examining the entrance to
Scottsviile, but that right-of-way problems exist, and engineers
should be communicating with VDOT. Mr. Proctor said has
seen preliminary plans for this area. Rights-of-way were not
obtained b/c the project was never undertaken. He will look
into the matter further.
Ms. Thomas said there is a lot of traffic on the Dry Bridge over
Dry Bddge Road, and potholes need attention.
Ms. Humphds said VDOT did not install warning signs in front
of recent construction on Barracks Road, which could have led
to an accident. Mr. Proctor will look into the matter.
Mr. Bowerman asked about a connector road between Rt. 20
and Meadow Creek Parkway. Ms. Humphris said CHART (a
subcommittee of the MPO) is examining the issue and will
report on it within the next year. This will be important to the
City as it makes its Meadow Creek Parkway plans.
None.
None.
None.
Mr. Bc';;c~T~-3 said he though[ this should be expedited. Ms.
Thomas said the Eastern Planning Initiative traffic counts did
not show traffic in this area to be as bad a problem as that on
Free Bddge. Ms. Humphds said that regardless, funding is not
available.
8. Update on Family Support Progra~)-~ Evaluation Project.
UPDATE PROVIDED.
9. PH on an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Article I, In General, to
authorize the creation of Junior Firefighter programs by volunteer
fire companies. ADOPTED Ordinance.
10. PH on an ordinance to amend Chapter 13 Solid Waste Disposal
and Recycling of the Albemarle County Code by amending Section
13-301 Transporting refuse in vehicles to clarify the requirement
that it is unlawful for any matedal or container to be loaded on a
vehicle so that the matedal or the container escapes from the
vehicle. ADOPTED ORDINANCE.
11. Board to Board Presentation - School Board Chairman.
PRESENTATION MADE.
12. Disc_~_~ssion: Police Depar~ent Citizen Advisonj Commi~ee
(PDCAC). APPROVED creation of PDCAC and its bylaws.
iDi,r~, ...ed Clerk to advertise for three appointees.
3. r~idnigh[ Ramble Fes[ival Funding Request (defe~ed from
November 7, 2001). · APPROVED giving $600 from the Tourism
Fund and waiving the COB rental fees for the three festival days
~nn~Uatters.
t ~.'~SessiOn.
Mr. Martin made the following nominations:
o Reappoint Dr. Etora Young to the Industrial Development
Authority, with tefra to run from 1/20102 through 1119/06; and,
· Reappoint C. Jared Loewenstein as the at-large representative
on the Planning Commission, with term to run from 1/01/02
through 12/31/02.
Mr.
Dorder made the following nomination:
Appoint Eiton J. Oliver as the Scottsville District representative
to the Industrial Development Authority, with term to run from
12/5/01 through 1/19/04.
Mr. Bowerman made the following nominations:
· Reappoint Thomas A. McQueeney as the Rio Distdct
representative to the Industrial Development Authority, with
term to run from 1/20/02 through 1/19/06;
· Reappoint C. Marshall Thompson to as the Rio Distdct
representative to the Equalization Board, with term to run from
1/1102 through 12/31/02;
· Reappoint Rodney S. Thomas as the Rio Distdct representative
to the Planning Commission, with term to run from 1/1/02
through 12/31/05;
· Reappoint Arthur B. Brown, Jr. as the Rio Distdct
representative to the Beard of Social Services, with term to run
from 1/1/02 through 12/31105;
None.
Clerk: Forward signed Ordinance (Attachment C)
to Carl Pumphrey, Mark Trank, Bob Tucker, and
Tom Foley.
..Clerk: Forward signed Ordinance (Attachment D)
to Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, and Grog Kamptner.
None.
Clerk: Advertise for three appointees.
..Director of Finance: Prepare and submit
appropriation form for BOard approval on 1/9/02.
None.
None.
Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions records.
Send appointment letters, copying appropriate
3ersons. Advertise vacancies and set up
interviews as instructed by Board.
Reappoint William D. PJclcy as the Samuel Miller District
18.
representative to the Planning Commission, with term to run
from 1/1/02 through 12/31/05; and,
· Reappoint Martha S. G. Orton as the Samuel Miller Distdct
representative to the Board of Social Services, with said term to
run from 1/1/02 through 12/31105.
SP-2001-031. Orrock (nTelos) (Sign # 52). APPROVED with
11 conditions.
19. ZMA-01-03. Rio Square (Signs ~)5&-~). APPROVED as
, proffered,
20. From the Board: Ma[~ers Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Martin advised the Board that Henry Hinnant has submitted
resignation from Worldorce Investment Bd.
Mr. Martin said he had been asked to reappoint Kathleen
Cornett to the Public Defender Office Citizens Advisory
Committee. However, Ms. Comell does not wish to be
reappointed, and the Clerk was asked to advertise the vacancy.
Ms. Humphds complimented Mark Graham on the letter he
sent to the SEC regarding Old Dominion Electric's proposal for
a power plant in Louisa County. She suggested Mr. Graham
follow up for a response.
Ms. Humphds said she submitted questions regarding the
County survey to Lod Spencer. The survey will be available for
everyone to see Monday.
Mr. Bowerman asked about parking changes in the Eadysville
commercial area. Mr. Cilimberg said nothing on this has been
submitted to Planning.
Ms. Thomas asked the staff draft a ZTA to distinguish b/t what
is permitted in Light and Heavy Industry Zoning districts, since
some uses are more appropriate for one or the other,
Mr. Cilimberg said have a number of ZTA's already adopted by
the PC and Board which relate to DISC, so he needed to know
where this would fail in Pianning's list of priorities.
Mr. Bowerman said at bottom of priority list. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff would analyze the request, and make recommendation as
to how to approach the matter.
Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas commented that the Board of
Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's
determination of use permitted on Morgantown Road. This
has been appealed to Circuit Court.
Ms. Thomas said the County is being asked to do the same
things an applicant has to do when it needs to install a cell
tower, if staff or ECC staff know of any towers w/similar height
as the one proposed on Peter's Mountain, she'd like them to
be brought to the Board's attention.
Ms. Thomas said during a recent visit to Baltimore County, MD,
she was asked to provi~' Informatlon on how our County
handles cell tower requests. She also received good
information from their Virginia Outdoors Foundation
counterpart.
.joint meeting with Legislators.
21. At 3:25 p.m., adjourned te~ecember 10, 2001, 1:30 p.m., for
Clerk: List conditions (Attachment E).
Clerk: List proffers (Attachment F).
None.
.Clerk: Advertise Public Defender Office Citizens
Advisory Committee.
Mark Graham.-_ Send follow up letter.
None.
None.
~ Analyze the request and make
recommendation to the Board.
None.
~ Provide any relevant information to
the Board.
None.
None.
Attachment A
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and local government, I would like to
honor and recognize
for her outstanding efforts during the past 15 years as Executive Director of the Thom as
Jefferson Planning District Commission. During her tenure with the TJPDC, Nancy oversaw the
implementation of a variety of initiatives involving transit, housing, sustainability, economic
development, workforce development and criminal justice planning, which contributed
significantly to the quality of life of our community.
Nancy was instrumental informing the Thomas Jefferson Venture and the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development as well as in creating
a comprehensive workforce development system for our region.
Nancy was a driving force in the formation and development of the Thomas
Jefferson Sustainability Council and helped secure a highly competitive brant from the
Highway Administration for the Jefferson Area Eastern Planning initiative. Federal
Nancy has been involved in a large number of transportation-related projects, including
development of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Metropolitan Planning Organization,
development of the TJPDC Rural Transportation Planning Program with VDOT, and
development of the regional RideShare Program.
Nancy also championed human service causes including development of new initiatives and
programs in response to federal and state Welfare Reform laws and formation of the regional
HOME consortium as a Federal entitlement area, one of very few such regional entities in the
coun~Py.
Before and during her tenure with the TJPDC, Nancy has been active in
numerous organizations and causes focused on the betterment of our
community including time spent as a Planning Commissioner, City Councilor
and Mayor of the City of Charlottesville.
We as a community are strengthened by the contributions and commitment of citizens such as
Nancy O'Brien whose dedication, professionalism and advocacy for critical issues make
Albemarle County a better place to live and work.
Signed and sealed this 5th day of December 200I.
Sally H. Thomas, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Attachment B
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The residents of Candlewyck Subdivision are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood
and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, The residents believe that a "Ch ild At Play" sign would help alleviate some the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At Play" sign(s) on Candlewyck
Drive (Rt. 1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Rt. 1652).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 5 - 0 on
December 5, 2001.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
6
Attach merit C
ORDINANCE NO. 01-6(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF CHAPTER 6, FIRE
PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article I, In
General, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby
amended and reordained by adding a new Section 6-102 (Junior Firefighter Programs), as follows:
CHAPTER 6. FIRE PROTECTION
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 6-102 Junior Firefighter Programs.
Persons sixteen years of age or older are authorized to participate in a volunteer fire company duly
authorized to operate within the Coun[y of Albemarle under [he following conditions.
Any person sixteen years of age or older may work with or participate fully in all activities of a voluntary
fire company, provided that, if such person is less than eighteen years of age, such person shall first:
A. Supply to the chief fire officer of the volunteer fire company written confirmation that such person has
parental or guardian approval; and
B. Attain certjfica[ion under National Fire Protection Association 1001, level one, fire fighter standards as
administered by the Department of Fire Programs.
(Ord. 01-6(2), 12-05-01)
State law reference -- Virginia Code § 40.1-79.1.
This ordinance shall be effective upon passage.
7
Attachment D
ORDINANCE NO. 01-13(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING,
ARTICLE III, DUMPING, ACCUMULATION, STORAGE, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF
WASTE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
13, Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling, Article III, Dumping, Accumulation, Storage, Removal and
Disposal of Waste, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 13-301 Transporting refuse in vehicles.
Chapter 13. Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling
Article III. Dumping, Accumulation, Storage, Removal and Disposal of Waste
Sec. 13-301 Transporting refuse in vehicles.
It shall be unlawful for any person to transport any refuse upon the streets, roads, or highways
in the county in a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is constructed or loaded to prevent any of the load,
consisting of the refuse and refuse containers, from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping
therefrom. A vehicle may be deemed to be constructed or loaded to prevent the load from dropping,
sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping if the refuse is transported in one or more secured covered
containers within the vehicle which do not allow sifting, leakage or the escape of refuse therefrom, and
each container is loaded in the vehicle in a manner that prevents it from dropping or otherwise
escaping from the vehicle. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable as provided in section 1-115 of the Code.
(Code 1967, § 15-4; 4-17-75; Code 1988, § 16-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 01-13(1), 12-05-01)
State law reference - Va. Code § 10.1-1024.
Attachment E
The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or
equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the
trees;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to
the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set
forth in the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV 327)";
e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width sh all not
exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point may be installed at the top
of the pole.
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tree that has
been used to justify the height the monopole;
g. Within one month after the completion of th e pole installation, the applicant shall provide
a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both
in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL);
h. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special
use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit.
i. The diameter of [he pole shall not exceed fifty (50) inches at its base, and twenty (20)
inches at the top. This is a cl~ange from the standard condition which requires a smaller
diameter for the pole to allow the use of a larger diameter pole which the applicant has in
inven tory and has requested to use at this particular site.
The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV 327)";
Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV
327)";
b. No satellite or microwave dishes sha I be permitted on the monopole;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equ~'pment cabinets, or installation
of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist,
specifying tree protection methods an d procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be
removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the
tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the
permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. No tree shall be removed
that would allow the facility to be visible from Rt. 53 prior to the Architectural Review Board's
approval of a certificate of appropriateness;
10.
11.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator
determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as
required, the permittee sha I furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with
surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, ~n an amount
sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall
be to the satisfaction of [he Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
The applicant, or any subsequent owners, shall submit a report to the zoning administrator by
July I of each year. The report shall identify each user of the facility that is a wireless
telecomm unicatio ns provider;
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a
luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the
power supply;
Th e permittee sha II comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be permitted;
No slopes associated with construction of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper tha
employed;2:1 unless and, retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are
The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and
Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility,
Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the
special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of [he construction plans.
10
Attachment F
Date: 11/20/01 PROFFER FORM
ZMA # 01-003
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): TMP 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2(B)13
3.15Acres to be rezoned from R-2 and R-6 to PRD
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer x
(Amendment # 6 )
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions
are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The development on Tax Map 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, and 2 (B) 13 shall be in general accord with the
plan produced by Daggett and Grigg Architects, titled "Rio Square Preliminary Site Plan" (title sheets and
sheets C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, L-l, and A-l), dated July 16, 2001 and last revised on August 20, 2001. On Sheet
A- 1, the relative location and massing of the structures, landscaping, the building roof lines, and roof pitches are
proffered as part of the Application Plan for ZMA 01-03. Final design details such as materials, jack arches,
types of windows and first floor master bedrooms are not proffered. No building construction shall begin unless
and until the Design Planner determines that the architecture is in general accord with sheet A-1 of the
Application plan..
The owner may vary the square footage of office use or the number oftownhouse units on the Application Plan;
however, footprints of the buildings and uses within the buildings shall be in general accord with the
Application Plan and the parking provided for the office use shall be not less than 90% of the parking spaces
required for that use, and the parking provided for the townhouse dwelling units shall be not less than 40% of
the parking spaces required for that use, as these uses are defined in Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 5~, 2001.
In order to limit office uses with high parking demands, permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized
by special use permit, shall include only those uses allowed in Section 23 Commercial Office of the Albemarle
County_Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 5th, 2001, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto,
except the following:
a. Dentist offices (a portion of 23.2.1.2);
b. Churches; and
c. Businesses whose sole purpose or primary activity is providing:
i) Data entry and/or storage, subscription and/or credit card transaction processing; or,
ii) Solicitation of sales and/or order processing by telephone, mail order, internet, catalog sales or
other similar medium; or,
iii) Mailing list preparation.
1!
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor.s and local government,
I Would like to honor and recogmze
for her outstanding efforts during the past 15 years as Executive Director of the Thomas
Nancy oversaw
· .. .... , 'nvolving transit, housing, sustainability,
Jefferson Planning District Commission. During her tenure with the TJPDC,
,' lementat~on of a variety o_f_~mt~a~v~e~s ~ t and crimmaljusace planmng, which
contributed significantly to the quality of life of our community.
Nancy was instrumental informing the Thomas Jefferson Venture and the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership Jbr Economic Development as well as in creating
a comprehensive workforce development system for our region·
· ~ · ation and development of the Thomas
as a drivmg Jorce,~,n the form. · coml~etitive grant from., the Federal
Nancy w ..... , .....; and aelped secure a h. ~ghly~ ._Z_ o~ mn Initianve.
to££prSOn SustalnaollR2J ~o. ct .. ~ ~ .1 f£erson Area ~astera ~,, ~
o~- Highway Admimstranon jor ~''~ ~ejj~
Nancy has been involved in a large number of transportation-related projects, including
development of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Metropolitan Planning Organization,
development of the TJPDC Rural Transportation Planning Program with vDOT, and
development of the regional RideShare Program.
Nancy also championed human service causes including development of new initiatives and
programs in response to federal and state Welfare Reform laws and formati°n of the regional
HOME consortium as a Federal entitlementcountry.area, one of very few such regional entities in the
Before and during her tenure with the TJPDC, Nancy has been active in
numerous organizations and causes focused on the betterment of our
commUnity including time spent as a Planning, Commissioner, City Councilor
and Mayor of the City of Charlottesville.
We as a community are strengthened by the contributions and commitment of citizens such as
Nancy O'Brien whose dedication, professionalism and advocacy for critical issues make
Albemarle County a better place to live and work.
Signed and sealed this 5t~ day of December 2001.
Sally H. Thomas, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
T/~?d Annua/
Governor's Technology Awards
Commonwealth of Virginia
Present'
The SILVER WINNER in thc Category o£LoeM Government
To
Co un t? o£Albcmarlc
Poi'
MonticelIo A venue Commumt? Portal
In recognition o£outstanding achievement in usir~ technol°gy innovaa'vel? to serve c~b'zens etFectivel?
Presented
September 25, 2001
At
Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia
Commonwealth of Virginia Information Technology Symposium
Honorable James S. Gihnore, III
Governor of Virginia
The Honorable Donald~V; Upson
Secretary of Technology
It is with great pride that I announce that Albemarle County has been named a silver
winner in the category of local government for our participation in the Monticello
Avenue Community Portal project in the 2001 Governor's Technology Awards program.
This award was presented in conjunction with the Commonwealth of Virginia
Technology Symposim held earlier this fall
Award organizers praised Monticello Avenue as a "prime example of using technology
effectively, efficiently, and innovatively to better serve Virginia citizens, communities
and businesses everywhere." It is particularly gratifying to win this award as we move
forward with improving our Albemarle County website and introducing new
egovernment applications.
I would like to thank the following staff- Fred Kruger, Elaine Pack, and Lee Catlin, as
well as Rick Huff who was former assistant County Executive at the time of Monticello
Avenue's conception, for their work on this project.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,AGENDA TITLE:
Candlewyck Subdivision, Child At Play' Sign
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to install "Child At Play' signs in the Candlewyck
Subdivision on Candlewyck Drive and Cobblestone Lane
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
December 7, 2001
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S): ~ ,~'/
Me.ssrs. Tucker, FoleY~Ci!!mberg,Benish,Wade . . REVIEWED BY: ~ ~
BACKGROUND:
The residents of Candlewyck Subdivision have requested that Virginia Department of TranSportation install "Child At Play"
signage on Candlewyck Drive (Rt. 1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Rt. 1652). This request requires a resolution of support from
the Board of Supervisors to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
DISCUSSION:
1. Consideration of this request requires evaluation of the following issues per County policy: "Child ~At Play" sirens shall
only be considered on secondary roads, The residents have requested the signs to be located on Candlewyck Drive
(Rt. !650) and Cobblestone Lane (RL 1652)- both are secondary roads off Old Ballard Road.
2. The request, must come. from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. Please find attached the letter of
request from the Candlewyck Homeowner's Association, including their justification for the signage.
Theme must be child activity attract, ion nearby for the sign tp, be considered. This subdivision has many children
as noted in the attached letter. There are no sidewalks in this subdivision and the children have to walk in the street to
visit one another or to reach designated school bus stops. There are several open fields that also attract the children.
However, there is not a specific, designated, play area or other attractor/activity area as noted in this criterion.
The inStallation of the si.tin shall not conflict with any existin_cl traffic control devices. The proposed location
of the sign ~ll~ not conflict with any existing traff',= control devices. Staff will work with VDOT to determine the exact
location for the sign.
RECO, ~ ,MMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the attached resolution supporting the installation of "Child At Play'
signs on Candlewyck Drive (Rt. 1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Rt. 1652).
11-29-01 Alt:10 iN
01.218
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The residents of Candlewyck Subdivision are concemed about traffic in their neighborhood
and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, The residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate some the concems;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At Play'' sign(s) on Candlewyck
Ddve (Rt. 1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Rt. 1652).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby 'certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 5 - 0 on
December 5, 2001.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
President
Krisan Marotta
977-3019
Candlewyck Homeowner's Associa' t on
Secretary Treasurer
Leslie Baruch Bill Greene
971-9298 971-4010
October 19, 2001
Juan Wade
Albemarle County Planning Dept
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Wade:
The Candlewyck Homeowner's Association requests that "Slow Children Playing" signs be posted at
each of the two entrances to our subdivision. The "upper" entrance is on .Can~tlewyck Drive and the
"lower" entrance is on Cobblestone Lane. We have had an active Neighborhood Watch and Home-
owner's Association since 1988. The "Slow Children Playing" signs could be added to the existing
posts that hold Neighborhood Watch signs.
In the last few years, several new families with younger children have joined our neighborhood,
shifting the population of children from teenagers to toddlers. Among the 35 houses in Candlewyck,
we currently have 47 kids ages 18 and under. Of that number, 30 children are under twelve years old
and 19 are less than eight years old. We expect the number of children to increase.
Additionally, three different Albemarle County school buses stop at each Candlewyck entrance, re-
quiring children to walk from their homes to the comers to catch the buses. It is not unusual to have
24 kids moving to or from the school bus stops during the Week. Given the mix of toddlers, school-
age children, and soon-to-be teenage drivers, we believe it wise to add "Slow Children Playing"
signs to our neighborhood.
Please let me know if you need any other information to approve these signs. Thank yot~ for your
time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Krisan Marotta
President, Candlewyck Homeowner's Assoc.
1315 Chippendale Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Owensville Road (Rt. 678) Relocation
Right-of-Way Abandonment
sUBJECT,/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for the Board of Supervisors to Consider
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
December 5, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT ,AGENDA,:
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Abandoning the right of way that had been reserved
cO,,Ac s . I /
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade .
BACKGROUND:
The County at one time had a secondary read project to relocate Route 678 approaching Route 250. The relocated
Route 678 would have been aligned behind the Ivy shops and in front of the BB& T and intersect with Route 250
west of the existing Rt. 678 intersection. On October 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors voted not to proceed with
this relocation. The right-of-way in question had been dedicated for this project (Attachment A). When the Board
of Supervisors took this action, they did not abandon the fight-of-way.
The intent of the project had been to establish a better alignment of the read and create a new 678/250 intersection
with an improved design and sight distance (in part, by moving the road further away for the railroad overpass
abutments). However, the proposed alignment still contained several sharp turos and required significant grading
(cut/fill activity). Furthermore, sight distance at the new intersection with Route 250 would not have been significantly
improved. The Board voted not to pursue this project due to its cost and the limited benefit gained with the project.
If abandoned, the right-Of-way be will revert back to adjacent property owners. There are no current plans to proceed
with the previously planned project in the future. Staff cannot identify any other project, or any other public purpose,
served by retaining this right~of-way. The Board of Supervisors must first determine if they would like to proceed
with the abandonment, if so, a public hearing will be scheduled for a future date.
RECOMMENDATION:
S~aff recommends'that the Board of Supervisors authorize advertisement of a public hearing to abandon the right
of way intended for the previously planned Rt. 678 relocation.
11-29-01 Al1:33 IN
01.224
,G4L
~4
Proposed '
Corridor
'IJ.[ C TION
MERIWETH
HILLS
SECTION
9,4
g ~.B
t 92A
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedication -
Ricky Road/Woodstock Drive
SUBJECT,/,P, ROPOSAUREQUEST;
Authorize County Executive to sign deeds of Easement
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ISTAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Muhlberger REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM, ,NUMB,ER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Graphic of easement area
BACKGROUND;
~he request is for the Board of Supervisors to authorize the Engineering and Public Works Department to pursue permanent
stormwater drainage easements in support of the County ClP project serving Ricky Road and Woodstock Drive. The easements
will be brought back to the Board for approval when the documents have been completed and signed by the property owners.
In April 2000, the Board approved an Engineering recommendation that all future stormwater drainage facilities that serve the
public (including stormwater basins) be dedicated to public use by a permanent drainage easement. The County's stormwater
program is maturing to the point where public responsibility is extending to the maintenance of our stormwater infrastructure,
Current experience and evidence from field inspections indicates that this approach is necessary to adequately protect public
health (e.g., flood control) and the environmenL In general pdvate interests, chiefly homeowners' associations do not have the
technical nor financial capacity to maintain this complex infrastructure. The Ricky Road - Woodstock Drive drainage
improvement project is a correction of an existing stormwater management problem.
DISCUSSION:
stor~water runoff in the older sections of Hessian Hills Subdivision, i.e., South Bennington Road and Woodstock Drive, is
handled through roadside ditches and Iow-lying, private properties. Without a network of curb and gutter to contain the
stormflow on these streets, residents along Picky Road to the south occasionally receive excessive flows. Ricky Road residents
have periodically complained about flooded yards and basements. In 1993, the County identired this problem and appropriated
funding in the Capital Improvements Program. The original project scope attempted to contain the stormflow by installing
stormpipes in several backyards of Ricky Road parcels. This scope proved difficult to procure as the County's Contractor.would
destroy and replace improvements such as fencing, shrubbery and sheds. Since potential bidders were reluctant to replace
these improvements, staff revised the project scope to include installation of stormpipe at the source of runoff, i.e., South
Bennington Road and Woodstock Drive, thus limiting the disruption of mature residential properties. The new design essentially
redirects stormflow to an existing stormpipe located within the Charlottesville City limits at 1602 Ricky Road.
This CIP project will complete a regional stormwater management system of underground stormpipes located within the VDoT
right-of-way along Woodstock Ddve, Where the project traverses private property, three parcel owners (two County, one City)
have expressed an intent to dedicate a permanent drainage easement to the County and City for the purpose of a drainage
easement project. Staff has worked with both VDoT and the City Engineer to ensure conformance with pertinent roadway and
engineering standards. The City will re'm3burse the County for all work done in the City, which is estimated at approximately
$10,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Engineering and Public Works Department to pursue permanent easements for the Ricky Road - Woodstock
Drive stormwater drainage improvement project and authorize the County Executive to sign deeds of easement.
01.217
]1-29-01 AI~:08 IN
R CKY
ROAD
WOODSTOCK
DR. DIP
. ~D136 13
127
r26
121
BENNINGTON RD
WATERSHED MAP
SCAT,R: 1" = 250'
PROPOSED STORUPIPE
INSTALLATION ALONG
WOODSTOCK DRIVE
PROPOSED PIPE
ENLARGEMENT AT
1602 RICKY RD.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ella Carey
Monday, December 10, 2001 10:23 AM
Laude Bentley
FW: Re: Hollymead Dam Agreement
--~Original Message---
From: Jack Kelsey
Sent: Fdday, December 07, 2001 9:08 AM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: Re: Hollymead DamAgreernent
The BOS authorized Bob T. to sign this agreement on Wed. 12/5/01, but as mentioned in the executive summanj there is
some information needed from the developer to complete the agreement before its signed by Bob T..
The developer needs to record the plat dedicating the right-of-way to public use and the recordation information added to
the agreement. Hopefully this will not take long. I'll let you know when all is ready.
Thanks Ella - have a great weekend!
J~ck M. Kelley, PE
Chief of Engineering
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE.:
Hollymead Lake Dam Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
BOS approval of County Executive authority to execute the
agreement.
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
December 5, 2001
ACTION:
IN FORMATION:
_CONSENT AGENDA:
.ACTION: X
INFORMATION.:
j ATTACHMENTS.: Agreeme,i~t ~
STAFF CONTACT(S): I REVIEWED BY: .
DISCUSSION:
Springridge is a development located at the end of Powell Creek Drive and to the east of the Hollymead Lake Dam. Approval
of the Springridge PRD (ZMA 98-13) was recommended by the Planning Commission with the construction of a road over the
dam to provide interconnection of the neighborhoods. On 12 May 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved the Springridge
PRD with proffers. Proffer fl-4 provided for the developer to construct a public road over the Hollymead Lake Dam and to
dedicate to public use a 120-foot wide strip of land over the dam for the road right-of-way.
VDOT will accept, for maintenance in the State Secondary Road System, a public road that crosses a dam. However, the
municipality is required to submit various documentation, including: 1) evidence the right-of-way over the dam dedicated to
public use; and, 2) a VDOT/County agreement (signed by the County) regarding the dam and road maintenance. In brief, the
agreement assigns VDOT responsibility for the road and relieves VDOT of any responsibility and liability for the dam.
As identified in the staff presentation during the 12 May 1999 meeting, the consequence of the County accepting ownership
of the dam is the County's assumption of the liability and responsibility for its maintenance, repair and inspections as necessary
to comply with the State Department of Conservation & Recreation permit for the dam. However, the benefits of County
ownership of the dam are: it allows for the construction of a public road linking the adjacent developments/neighborhoods;
and, will provide "local trips" with an alternative to using the regional road network - specific standards stated in the
"Transportation" chapter of the "County of Albemarle Land Use Plan".
A copy of the draft CountyNDOT agreement has been attached for your consideration. This agreement is a standardized
document that VDOT endorses and uses across the state. The right-of-way is to be dedicated with the Springridge final
subdivision plat. Approval of the plat is pending the Boards action to accept the dedication and the CountyNDOT agreement.
Should the Board accept the right-of-way dedication and the provisions of the CountyNDOT agreement: 1) the developer will
record the right-of-way dedication in the County Courthouse; 2) the county engineer will enter the deed book reference into
the CountyNDOT agreement; and, 3) the final agreement will be presented to the County Executive for signature.
RECOMMENDATION:
theAUth°riZeexistingtheHollymeadC°Unty ExecutiVeLake dam.t° execute the CountyNDOT agreement, pending the dedication of the road right-of-way over
01.222
11-28-01 A09:36 IN
LOCALITY - STATE AGREEMENT FOR
MAINTENANCE OF A ROAD OVER A DAM
(Alternate Access Exists)
THIS AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF A ROAD OVER A DAM, made the
day of , 2001, by and between COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, (hereafter "Locality"); and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (hereafter "Department");
WHEREAS, the Locality approved plans for a subdivision that is shown on a plat entitled
Springridge,Subdivision Phase 1 Final Plat that was recorded on in book
ir~ the Clerk s Office of the Circuit Court, a copy of which is incorporated herein page ,
as Exhibit A;
WHEREAS said plat shows areas dedicated to the public, including the area of the existing
Hollymead Dam, that retains a body of water referred to as Hollymead Lake, and over which a
road named Powell Creek Drive is to be or has been constructed;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2265, recording the
described plat transfers to the Locality, in fee simple, all portions set apart for streets, alleys, and
areas for public use; and
WHEREAS, the Locality will petition the Department to maintain the roadway crossing the dam
as a part of the Secondary System of State Highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the acceptance of this Agreement by the parties hereto; and
In consideration of the Locality's request that the roadway over the dam be maintained as a part
of the Secondary System of State Highways; and
In consideration of the Department's acceptance of responsibility to maintain the roadway
facility (as defined herein) over the dam;
The Locality and the Department agree as follows:
The roadway facility constructed over the dam is defined as the pavement base and surface
courses, the shoulders, the roadway drainage facilities and the guardrails.
The Locality agrees that the Department will have all fights necessary to maintain the roadway,
including access to the dam and surrounding areas.
The Locality agrees the Department has no obligation to maintain, repair or replace the dam, and
no liability for damages resulting from the dam or its failure and agrees it will not seek
indemnification or contribution from VDOT to correct any damages arising from improper
maintenance or construction of the dam.
The Locality agrees that the expenditure of State funds to maintain the roadway shall not
obligate the State to maintain or reconstruct the dam or to correct any damages caused by the
dam or its failure.
The Locality agrees to notify the Resident Engineer for the Department, of any detrimental
condition associated with the dam reported by any source, and of the plans, schedule and parties
responsible for correcting of the condition.
The Locality agrees that all work to the dam will be conducted in a manner that minimizes
interference with the flow of traffic and the rights of the Department.
The Locality agrees that drainage of water from the roadway to the lake, and other areas not
specifically named herein, are an element of maintaining the roadway and damages resulting
fi.om that drainage shall not obligate the State in any way.
By executing this Agreement, the Locality certifies that it has reviewed and filed the plans and
specifications for the dam, including appurtenances, and that the design conforms to prevailing
engineering principles applicable to the design of dams.
By executing this Agreement, the Locality certifies that the construction of the dam and its
appurtenances has been inspected by or for the Locality, and that the construction fully complies
with the approved plans and specifications.
The Department agrees that the Locality shall have access to the roadway to maintain, repair, or
replace the dam, subject to reasonable notice to the Resident Engineer.
The Depamnent agrees that responsibility to maintain the roadway will become effective on the
date the roadway is accepted for maintenance as part of the Secondary System of State
Highways.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, in the sole opinion and determination of the
Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, may discontinue maintenance of the roadway
over the dam if the condition of the dam threatens the integrity of the roadway or the ordinary
and regular travel over the roadway, or in the event that maintenance and repair of the roadway
becomes impractical. Maintenance of the roadway may cease on the date of such determination.
The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner may close the road over the dam as the
Commissioner deems necessary for the safety of the traveling public or for proper completion of
work.
In consideration of the things aforesaid, witness the following signatures and seals affixed as of
the date written above:
FOR THE GOVERNING BODY OF TIlE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Approved as to form
County Attorney
For the Virginia Department of Transportation
Signature By:
Robert W. Tucker Jr.
County Executive
Approved as to form
Office of Attorney General;
Charles D. Nottingham, Commissioner
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation Requests
SUBJECT/PROpOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropdation ~2001032, 2001034,
2001035, totaling $184,956.40, for vadous local
government and education programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Y~_~..........~"'~
REVIEWED BY:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must amend its current budget only if the additional
appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser.
DISCUSSION:
Subsequent to the November 7~ budget amendment public hearing, three requests for additional appropriations
have been received. These requests, which are described on Attachment A, total $184,956.40, less than the
$500,000 requiring a public hearing. Therefore, the appropriation requests are being presented for the Board's
consideration and approval at this time without a public hearing or an approved budget amendment. If approved,
this appropriated amount will be included in the next budget amendment request currently scheduled for the January
2, 2002 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval of Appropriations #2001032, 2001034, 2001035, totaling $184,956.40, at detailed on the
attached appropriation forms.
11-29-01 A09:4t tN
01.219
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION OF DONATIONS,
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
EDUCATION
X
2001032
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $ 716.00
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc. Expenses 1,000.00
I 2210 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 300.00
TOTAL $ 2,016.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109Donation $ 2,016.00
TOTAL $ 2,016.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 24, 2001
i~- /0-~ I
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION'
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
2001034
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
FUND:
GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 1528 31013 120000 WAGES-OVERTIME $ 4,600.00
I 1528 31013 210000 FICA 413.00
1 1528 31013 312500 PROF. SERVICES 30,000.00
I 1528 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 5,000.00
1 1528 31013 800710SOFTWARE 5,000.00
TOTAL'- $ 45,013.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1528 33000 330414 FEDERAL GRANT D.O J. $ 45,013.00
TOTAL $ 45,013.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
,NOV. 14,2001
12-/~-~/
David E Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Jr.
Scot'~vilh
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
· '- Jack Jouelt
COUNTY OF ALB~E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
P~vann~
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 18, 2001
Williams Gas Pipeline
C/o Jim Shannon
345 Greenbriar Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Shannon:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward paying for new band uniforms at Western Albemarle High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC;
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsv~e
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI_R
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696
(804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White H~
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel l~iller
December 18, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas DuPont
1685 Owensville Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. and Mrs. DuPont:
On behalf of the Board of-Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward paying for the Fine Arts Program at Western Albemarle High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
SHT/lab
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scotts~le
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
.-. Jack Joueff
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
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 18, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. Blaine~:~=:ie~ Norum
1400 Clearbrook Ln.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Norum:
On behalf of the Board of'Supervisors please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward the gifted program at Monticello High School. It is a pleasure to
acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to
help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for
your continued support.
SHT/lab
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Scot~ville
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
ChaflottesvUle, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
White
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 18, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. James Straker
4778 Blenheim Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Straker:
On behalf of the Board of. Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward the gifted program at Monticello High School. It is a pleasure to
acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to
help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for
your continued support.
SH-l-/lab
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Do,der, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouell
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supen~isors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F.. Perkins
White H~I~
Sall~, H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 18, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. Michael. Phillips
215 Homestead Ln.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Phillips:
On behalf of the Board of. Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward the gifted program at Monticello High School. It is a pleasure to
acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to
help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for
your continued support.
SHT/lab
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 18, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Kent
105 Vincennes Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kent:
On behalf of the Board of. Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward the Gifted Program at Monticello High School. It is a pleasure
to acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds wil! be used
to help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for
your continued support.
SHT/lab
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Scoflsville
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouefl
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire 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 Isiill~
December 18, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Zelikow
1358 Queenscroft
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Zelikow:
On behalf of the Board of. Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward the gifted program at Monticello High School. It is a pleasure to
acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to
help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for
your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CCZ
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerrnan
Rio
Lindsa~ G. Dorder, Jr.
$cott~vllle
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jou~tl
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sall~ H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 18, 2001
Mr. A. William Ordel
Route 22, Box 151
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mr. Ordel:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation toward paying for a presenter for the 4th grade science project at Stone
Robinson Elementary School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our
educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education
provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'AGE"DA TffLEi
Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Manual
SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREQUES ..T:
Approve minor changes to the Manual to incorporate
efficiencies for administration and set public hearing date to
arc--nd Section 7-204 ( c ) of the Road Naming and Property
Numbering Ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
r _v!e~srs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Davis, Weaver
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ACTION.,:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
~,,~ .
ITEM NU,.,,~ER.
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
/
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to incorporate efr~,iencies for administration, staff has identified several sections of the Road Naming and
Property Numbering Manual for change as listed below and incorporated in the attached Manual.
DISCUSSION:
1. Part I, Section 5 on page 3 of the Manual. We propose the removal of road types 'Arch' and 'Nook'. These road types
are not recognized by the United States Postal Service. Furthermore, the County of Albemarle does not currently have any
road names with these road types. This change reflects the County's commitment to a nationally accepted road naming
standard.
2. Part I, Section 6 (e) paragraph 3 on page 7 of the Manual, We propose that %.. the proposed name is othawise
consistent with Part I of this Manual, the agent shall forward the road name change request to the Board of Supen~om for
approval." be changed to read: "the proposed name is otherwise consistent with Part I of this Manual, the agent may make
administrative approval to correct errors in pdor approvals of road names, othenNise the agent shall forward the road name
change request to the Board of Supervisors for approval:". This change will allow for correction of errors in prior approvals
of road names (incorrect spelling of road names, etc.) to be handled more expeditiously by administrative approval.
3. Part I!, Section 1 (a). We propose that "Numbers assigned by any other person or entity shall be recognized." be
changed to read: 'Numbers assigned bY any other person or entity shall not be recognized.'. This change correctS an
obvious typo in the Manual.
4. Part I1, Section 5 (a). We propose that "Even numbers shall occur on the north side of east-west designated roads and
the west side of north-South des'~nated roads." be changed to read "Even numbers shall occur on the right hand side of the
road in the direction of Increasing range.". This change reflects changes in current addressing policy/procedure.
5. Part Iii, Sections 3 and 4. We propose that these Sections be renumbered from 3 to 2 and from 4 to 3. There is
currently no Part Ill, Section 2 present in the Manual.
6. Part !11, Details C. The Department of Engineering and Public Works has asked that we include a new graphic illustration
to assist with road sign installation (attached) that would be noted as Details C at the end of the Manual.
After action has been taken on Manual changes, staff proposes that the Board authorize adve[tisement for a public hea-ing
to amend the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance as follows (and incorporated into the
attached Ordinance Section):
Section 7-204 (c). We propose that %..has been allowed under Part !11, Section 3 (c) of the Manual..." be changed to read:
".,.has been allowed under Part Iil, Section 2 (d) of the Manual...". This change reflects a misidentification in the ordinance
as to the pertinent section of the Manual. it also will reflect the renumbering of this section of the Manual.
t1-?-9-01 ~11:03 IN
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual
December 5, 2001
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve changes to the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual as requested and authorize
advertisement of a public hearing date to amend the Ordinance to incorporate section numbering charlges approved for the
Manual.
01.226
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ROAD NAMING AND PROPERTY NUMBERING MANUAL
INTRODUCTION
This manual is to prescribe a system for the naming of roads; the
nuafoering of properties and structures; and the erection and
maintenance of associated signage as provided for in Section 16.01-
3 of the Code of Albemarle.
The Director of the Department of Planning and Community
Development or designated agent shall be responsible for the
interpretation and administration of the provisions of this manual.
DEFINITIONS
Addressable Structure: Any building used for human habitation,
or gathering, or for the production or sale of goods or services.
Addressing Grid: A series of intersecting lines running north-
south and east-west on 1000 foot intervals which is coincident with
the Virginia State Coordinate Grid System 1927 datum used to assign
address ranges to road segments.
Agent: The Director of Planning and Community Development for
Albemarle County, Virginia.
Cul-de-sac: A vehicular turnaround area at the end of a dead-
end street provided for the purpose of safe and convenient reverse
of traffic in one continuous forward movement.
Direction: The geographic orientation of a named road segment
(either east-west or north-south).
Designator: Suffix used to indicate the road type.
Primary Access: A road or driveway used as the primary means
of vehicular access to an addressable structure.
PART 1. ROAD NAMING
Roads Requiring Names
In addition to the requirements of section 16.01-1(c) of the
Code of Albemarle, private roads which serve less than three
addressable structures may be named as provided for in Section
6 of Part I of this manual.
Review and Approval of Proposed Road Names
Ail proposed names shall be reviewed by the agent for
conformance with the guidelines established herein. If a
proposed road name is found to be in accordance with all
provisions of Part I of this manual, the agent shall approve
the name.
Maintenance of Master Road Names Directo~ and Road Names
Map
Ail approved road names shall be listed in a Master Road
Names Directory to be maintained in the offices of the
agent.
The location of all approved road names listed in the
Master Road Names Directory shall be illustrated on a
master set of Road Names Maps to be maintained in the
offices of the agent.
Road Name Guidelines
While it is intended that these guidelines be complied with,
the agent may modify, vary, or waive any guideline in Part 1,
Section 4, in a particular case.
Se
A proposed road name which duplicates an existing or
reserved road name in Albemarle County or the City of
Charlottesville shall not be approved. An exception
may be made for cul-de-sacs which have the same name as
the road from which they originate (example:
"Amberfield Court" which originates from "Amberfield
Drive").
Road names are limited to three (3) words not including
the road type designator.
A road name shall not exceed more than sixteen (16)
characters including spaces and the designator's
abbreviation.
A road name shall not include numbers, dashes,
apostrophes or other non-alphabetical characters.
Compass points such as NORTH and EAST shall not be used
in road names.
Articles (the, a, an) shall not be used to begin road
names.
g. Road names duplicating facilities shall not be approved
(example: "Bowling Alley", "Tennis Court").
he
Usage of names derived from community names or geographic
features shall be limited to locations in close proximity
to such communities or geographic features.
No proposed road name shall be approved which begins with
a word that appears as the first word in five or more
official road names.
No proposed name shall be accepted which is a homonym of
an official road name or may be easily confused with an
official road name (example: "Forrestview" and
"Forestvue").
Where a proposed road is a continuation of or in
alignment with an approved road, it shall utilize the
same road name as the approved road. A new road name
shall be required if the proposed road is disconnected
from the existing road by an offset greater than sixty
(60) feet.
Road Type Designators
Road type designators shall be consistent with the roadway's
expected traffic use, width of right-of-way and physical
design/location.
While it is intended that these guidelines be complied with,
the agent may modify, vary, or waive any guideline in Part 1,
Section 5, in a particular case.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
STREET AND ROAD TYPE DESIGNATIONS
ALY - Alley
ARCE ~.Arch
AVE - Avenue
BND - Bend
BLF - Bluff
BLVD - Boulevard
CIR - Circle
CV - Cove
XING - Crossing
CT- Court
A narrow or minor road in a community.
A major road in a community.
Generally a minor road in subdivision.
Generally along high ground,
Wide road with median and landsCaping.
A road which returns to itself.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
A road which crosses a geographic feature
such as a creek or mountain pass or, a short
road that serves as a connector between two
other roads.
Generally shorter, permanent dead ends or
cul-de-sacs.
3
~ Tm~4ARLE COUNTY
STREET AND ROAD TYPE DESIGNATIONS
(Continue~)
CTR - Center Shopping, commercial areas.
DR - Drive A winding arterial/collector.
EST - Estate Single ownership (three or more dwellings).
EXT - Extended (Extension)
FARM -**- Farm single ownership (three or more
GRN - Green(e)
GRV - Grove
HL - Hill
HTS - Heights
HWY - Highway
KNL - Knoll
LN - Lane
LOOP - Loop
PARK- Park
PATH - Pa th
PL Place
PT - Point
*PKWY - Parkway
**- Reach
RD - Road
RDG - Ridge
ROW - Row
RUN- Run
SQ - Square
dwellings).
See "Square"
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Generally along high ground.
Generally along high ground.
Federal or state designated primary road.
Generally along high ground.
Generally a narrow road.
A drive which begins and ends on the same
road.
Reserved for entranceways to public parks.
A short and/or narrow road.
A dead end or cul-de-sac road from which
other cul-de-sacs originate.
Generally along high ground.
A scenic or landscaped road.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Generally an arterial/collector road
connecting to the primary system.
Generally along high ground.
A short street that parallels another road.
Generally a central area with buildings
clustered around it.
ST - Street A community or subdivision road.
TRCE - Trace Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
TER - Terrace Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
TPKE - Turnpike Reserved for historic turnpikes.
TRL - Trail Generally reserved for roads through
uninhabited areas.
WAY - Way A minor road or street often which dead
ends.
Five-letter designators may be spelled out completely in suffix
space on sign.
**You,, m~ use,, Farm and Reach~ but ,on~,~ if ~elled out co~letely.
6. Road N-m~.ng Process
For the purpose of this section, "served" by a road shall include
right of use whether or not a property actually uses such road.
a. Policy on Participation in Road Naming:
(i)
The process of naming roads shall be limited to those
who own property served by the road in question.
(2)
Where the road serves several properties, the landowners
shall be given the opportunity to propose the name.
(3)
In the event that there is no participation from the
landowners, the agent shall name the road in accordance
with County procedures.
b. Processing Requests for Road Names:
Requests to name roads shall be in writing to the agent who
shall include the following information:
(i)
A description of the road's location giving the
direction and approximate distance from the nearest
intersection of two (2) public roads.
(2)
A list of all landowners having property served by the
road in question together with certification that all
such landowners have been notified of the proposed
name.
(3)
Signatures of landowners representing a majority
(greater than fifty [50] percent) of parcels served
by the road in agreement of a common road name. When
determining the percentage of the parcels served by the
road in question, a landowner owning more than one (t)
parcel served by the road in question is equivalent to a
landowner owning one (1) parcel.
Upon validating that landowners of more than fifty (50)
percent of the parcels served by the road in question
have signed the petition in favor of a common road name,
and that the proposed name is otherwise consistent with
Part I of this manual, the agent shall approve the road
na~le.
do
Road Name Reservation Process
Road names may be reserved during the prelirainary plan or
plat review process by a Written request to the agent. N~es
shall be reserved unless the project is disapproved,
abandoned or otherwise voided.
Road Naming in the Subdivision and Site Development Review
Process
5
(1)
A developer may contact the agent prior to submission to
determine the viability of proposed names. Road names
may be reserved as provided in Section 6-c.
(2)
Proposed road names shall appear on all final site
development plans and subdivision plats, where
applicable.
(3)
No final site development plan or final subdivision plat
shall be approved by the agent until all road names have
been approved by the agent.
(4) Names approved on a preliminary plan/plat shall be
reserved for the life of the preliminary plan/plat and
shall be shown on the final plan/plat.
Road Name Change Process
Requests to rename roads shall be in writing to the agent and
shall include the following information:
(1)
A description of the road's location giving the direction
and approximate distance from the nearest intersection of
two (2) public roads.
(2)
A list of all landowners having property served by the
road in question together with certification that all
such landowners have been notified of the proposed name.
(3)
Signatures of landowners representing a majority (greater
than fifty [50] percent) of parcels served by the road in
agreement of a common road name. When determining the
percentage of the parcels served by the road in question,
a landowner owning more than one (1) parcel served by the
road in question is equivalent to a landowner owning one
(1) parcel.
Upon validating that landowners of more than fifty (50)
percent of the parcels served by the road in question
have signed the petition in favor of a common road name,
and that the proposed name is otherwise consistent with
Part I of this manual, ~ ....... ~'~ = ...... ~ ~ .... ~
~ the. agent may make administrative approval to
correct errors, in prior approvals of .road...names,
otherwise the .agent..s~ai1. forward the, road name change
request to the Board of Supervisors for. approval:
Final Authority of Board of Supervisors to Assign Road Names
The Board of Supervisors may name or rename any road at any time.
PART II. NUMBERING
Assignment of Numbers by Agent
ao
Ail numbers for properties and addressable structures shall be
assigned by the agent following the procedures and guidelines
contained in this manual. Numbers assigned by any other person
or entity shall not be recognized.
bo
Numbers shall be assigned to any new addressable structure
shown on a site development plan or lot created by subdivision.
Numbers shall not be officially assigned until the final site
development plan or subdivision plat has been approved.
Numbers shall also be assigned when requested by individuals
for new structures that do not reqUire site development plan or
subdivision approval.
UniformN~--~hering System Established
Ail numbers shall be determined by the uniform numbering system
hereby established. This uniform system shall utilize a grid
system combined with an equal-interval numbering system.
Albemarle County~,mhering Grid Defined
The Albemarle County Numbering Grid shall be based on the grid
superimposed over the State having lines at 10,000 foot
intervals oriented north-south and east-west. The Numbering
Grid shall have lines every 1000 feet interpolated between the
10,000 foot grid lines. The Numbering Grid thereby establishes
a series of 10,000 square foot cells or blocks covering the
entire County.
The axes or baselines of the Numbering Grid shall have their
origin at the intersection of the 1000 foot gridlines nearest
to the actual intersection Of Wertland Street and 15th Street
NW in the City of Charlottesville.
Numbering along the axes of the grid begins with zero at the
origin and increases outward from that point with 100 numbers
allotted per tOOO feet (thus resulting in a pair of numbers
every twenty feet). This grid shall be used to determine the
direction and address range of a given road segment.
N%~m~ering Procedures
a. Direction of Road Determined
(1)
Before numbering along a named road may proceed, the
direction of the road must be determined (east-west or
north-south). Generally, a road's direction shall be
determined as that of the Numbering Grid baseline the
road in question most closely parallels.
(2)
Consideration may also be given to the type of development
involved, the relationship of the road in question to
other roads around it, and the pattern of address
numbers that result.
b. Number Range of Road Established
(i)
The number range along a naraed road shall be established
by the Numbering Grid baseline which has the same
direction as the named road.
(2)
In the event that a named road crosses one of the
baselines of the Numbering Grid, the number range of that
named road shall be adjusted so that no number occurs
twice along the named road.
c. Numbers Assigned
Once the direction and number range of a particular road
segment has been determined, the numbering Of the addressable
structures and properties along the road segment shall be done
utilizing an equal-interval methodology. The numbers shall be
assigned beginning at the end of the road segment nearest the
origin of the Numbering Grid. The numbers shall then be evenly
distributed within established number range.
General Numbering ~uidelines
so
Even numbers shall occur on the .... ~ -~- -= .........
roads, right hand side. of the road in ~he direction of
increasing range. Odd nu_mbers shall occur on the opposite
sides.
Ail addressable structures and properties shall be on the named
road which a structure's or properties numbered primary access
intersects. The specific number shall be determined by the
point at which the access meets the named road.
The number sequence for addressable structures or properties on
opposite sides of a road should conform to each other as nearly
as possible.
Half numbers shall not be used. Alphabetical suffixes are
acceptable when a secondary address designation is necessary.
Reverse frontage or through lots shall be numbered along the
local road which provides access to the lot.
Corner lots shall be numbered on the road which provides
access. Where the driveway for a corner lot intersects more
than one street, the agent shall make the final determination
as to which road to base the number, with consideration to such
factors as the driveway's length, orientation of the structure
and other relevant factors.
When two (2) addressable structures share an access, they shall
be numbered consecutively with adequate consideration given to
possible future development between the structures.
8
Temporary numbers shall not be i~sued. A number may be issued
to a structure that is intended to be temporary (such as a
construction site trailer office), and upon removal of the
temporary structure, the number shall be retired.
Mobile Home Developments
Within mobile home parks all roads shall be treated as private roads
unless dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of
Transportation and road name and road signage shall apply
accordingly. Each mobile home lot shall be nun~bered in accordance
with this manual. The mobile home park owner shall be responsible
for posting lot numbers in a manner acceptable to the agent in
accordance with Part IV, Section 1, of this manual.
Residential Apartments and Other Multi-dwelling Structures
Individual apartment units shall be numbered considering the type of
unit, the individual apartment entrance location and building design
as follows:
Duplex: A number shall be provided to the front entrance of
each individual unit.
bo
Townhouse: A number shall be provided to each individual unit
at its front entrance.
Garden Apartment: A number shall be provided to each unit at
the entrance. If the apartment unit's entrance is located on
an inside foyer, a number shall be provided outside the
building entrance. Each unit located on such foyer shall be
provided with a numerical suffix as a secondary method of
addressing. Specifically, ground floors shall use suffixes in
the 100's starting at unit 101, the second floor shall use the
200's starting at unit 201 and so on to other levels (the
basement level shall use 000's starting at unit 001). The
building number and road name followed by the apartment unit's
numerical designation shall form the address (Example: 630 Old
Shady Grove Road, Unit 101). Numerical characters shall not be
combined (as in 630-101 Old Shady Grove Road). The development
name may also be used in the address whenever desirable. For
single level garden apartments and house apartments, letters
may be acceptable as a secondary method of addressing.
Commercial, Office and Industrial Complexes
For commercial, office and industrial complexes, a numbering choice
shall be made by the agent from several methods:
so
Assign the number to the main building where all mail is to be
received for the complex. The development name may be included
in the address.
Each principal building in the complex may be provided a
separate number, and the buildings may also be named. The
development name and/or the building name may be included in
the address.
9
Co
For shopping center development, a separate number shall be
assigned for each unit's main entrance. The shopping center
name should be included in the address. Consideration should
be given when assigning numbers to provide flexibility for
adding stores and redivision of spaces. In the event a space
is redivided and no numbers remain available alphabetical or
numerical unit designations shall be used.
do
Interior mall shopping centers should have one number assigned
for the entire mall. The shopping center name and store name
should be included in the address. Individual stores should
not be assigned numbers except that secondary addressing may be
provided in accord with Part ll.5.d of this manual. A separate
property number may be assigned for the mall business office.
Where deemed appropriate by the agent, a multiple-story
building may be assigned one address number at its main
entrance. Individual units may be provided with secondary
addressing based on floor numbering together with unit
appellation such as "suite" or "room". The first floor shall
be assigned numbers beginning with 100 and numbers on each
successive floor should increase to the next highest 100
Series (second floor - 200 series; third floor - 300 series,
etc.). A basement or floor below ground level may use a three
digit series beginning with zero.
Agenc£es to Be Notified of N,,mhezs Assigned
The agent shall notify the following agencies and departments
of all approved road names and assigned numbers within five (5)
days of approval or assignment, as the case may be:
Albemarle County Department of Real Estate
Albemarle County Department of Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Police
Albemarle County Department of Sheriff
Albemarle County Service Authority
Albemarle County Registrar's Office
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Administration
University of Virginia
charlottesville-Albemarle Emergency Operations
Center
United States Postal Service Address Programs
Support Office
The agent shall also notify any other governmental agencies or
departments and utility requesting notification.
10
PART III. SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD NAME SIGNAGE
1. Materials and Physical Description for Signs
so
The road name sign blank shall be made from extruded edge
aluminum material, conforming to ASTM 6209 for Alloy 5052-H38
or its equivalent. The sign blank thickness shall be 0.83" or
greater and each corner of the sign blank shall be square cut.
There shall be two sizes of road name signs; standard and
oversize. Standard signs shall be six (6) inches in vertical
length (height) while oversize signs shall be nine (9) inches
in vertical length. Standard signs shall be used along all
secondary and subdivision roads except at intersections with
primary roads. Oversize signs shall be used along primary roads
and at secondary and subdivision roads intersecting primary
roads.
The letter type shall confo~T~ to Federal Highway Association
"Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs", Series B, upper case,
as prescribed below and in d.
The size of the sign blanks; message lettering; and
reserved spaces for route and block numbers for Standard
and Oversize signs are as follows:
S~G~ BL~S
Horizontal length
Vertical length
*Route Decal
Reserved Space
Block Number
Reserved Space
STANDARD
(Local/Subdivision)
24" min to 46" max
6"
6" x 1.25"
6" x 2.5"
OVERS I ZE
( Primary/Collector )
30" rain to 48" max
9"
12" x 2.5"
12" x 3.5"
MESSAGE LETTERING: SIZE AND TYPE
Prefix Capitals 2" B 3" B
Name Capitals 5" B 6" B
Suffix Capitals 2" B 3" B
Route Decal 1" B 2" B
Private 1" B 2" B
Block Number 2" B 3" B
*For private roads, place the word PRIVATE in Route Decal Space
The less common designators such as FARM, WAY, HEIGHTS and TRACT may be
placed in the main message field if space is available.
11
The sign may be constructed using the cut letter process. The
green and white colors shall be uniform throughout the length
of the sign.
(1)
When the cut letter process is used, the sign blank shall
be covered on both sides for the entire length of the
blank with a high intensity (encapsulated) reflectorized
green background sheeting, 3M "Scotchlite" brand product
number 3877 or equivalent product. High intensity
(encapsulated) reflectorized sheeting 3M "Scotchlite"
product number 3870 or equivalent product shall be used
for the silver-white letters and numerals. The reflective
material shall be applied to both sides of the blank name
plate with mechanical equipment in a manner specified by
the sheeting manufacturer. The sign background shall be
comprised of not more than one piece of reflective
sheeting. The letters and numerals shall be applied on
both faces of the sign using the cut letter process. The
reflective sheeting shall have a minimum guaranteed life
of ten (10) years.
The maximum space available on a standard (6" high) sign for
the road name is thirty (30) inches and an oversized (9" high)
sign has 32 inches of space for the road name. Spacing between
letters within a street name should conform to the spacing
dimensions shown in the Virginia Supplement to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways unless
this will result in a sign width greater than the maximum space
available. If the n~e will not fit in the space available, a
thirty (30) percent force factor may be used. Finally, if the
approved road name will not fit on the maximum length sign with
the Series B letters and a thirty (30) percent force factor, a
modification shall be required from the County Engineering
Department.
so
At the end of the road name there are three (3) spaces either
six (6) inches (for the 6" sign) or twelve (12) inches (for the
9" sign) in length which are stacked one over the other. These
spaces are reserved for the route decal, the block number and
the road type suffix. If the block number is to be affixed in
decal form, the decal will be of the same material as the main
sign sheeting as specified above. The directional triangle, a
1.25 inch equilateral triangle for the six (6) inch sign or 1.5
inch equilateral triangle for the nine (9) inch sign of silver-
white "Scotchlite" material or equivalent product, is to be
affixed in front of or at the end of the block number to point
in the direction of increasing numerical values. See "Detail
B" for location of spaces.
f. The route decal shall be non-reflectorized with a black message
on a white color field.
Post and Hardware Specifications
a. A metal post will be used to mount the signs to.
The post shall be a 9'x2"x2" 14 gauge square galvanized steel
quick punch break-away post complete with anchor base or
12
equivalent. Hole diameters should be seven-sixteenths inch,
centered and aligned with holes on the opposite side. There
shall be no holes drilled into the post more tkan 18~ above the
tope of the in-ground anchor.
The signs will be attached to the mounting bracket(s) and post,
using heavy duty aluminum vandal resistant screws, bolts and/or
nuts.
A special sign post and/or installation may be allowed at the
discretion of the Director of Engineering provided it is equal
to or exceeds the specifications above. Where allowed, a
maintenance agreement between Albemarle County and the
responsible party shall be required for the maintenance of any
special installation.
Location of Post and Sign
The sign post shall be placed in the road right-of-way a
minimum of three (3) horizontal feet from any above ground or
underground utility or equipment line. The installer shall be
responsible for contacting "Miss Utility" before installing
signs (1-800-552-7001). At the intersection of a primary and
secondary road or in the event a road name changes at an
intersection of two (2) secondary roads, two (2) sign locations
are to be used. For all new roads, a minimum of two (2) signs
are required at every intersection. The sign post shall be
located on the right hand side of the street for a right turn
onto the secondary road, where possible. The sign shall be a
minimum of five (5) horizontal feet on the centerline radius of
the curve from the outer edge of the pavement for roads without
ditch lines. The sign must be installed behind an existing
ditch line while remaining within the road right-of-way. Those
roads that have ditch lines less than three (3) feet from the
edge of pavement will have signs placed two (2) horizontal feet
back from the ditch line. (See "Detail A" for diagram.) For
urban road sections with curb and gutter, the sign post will be
placed behind the edge of the curb and five (5) horizontal feet
on the centerline radius of the curve from the edge of
pavement. If a sidewalk is adjacent to the curb, then the sign
post will be placed behind the sidewalk and within the right-
of-way. Signs and posts shall not obstruct handicapped ramps
or wheelchair loading areas in the vertical or horizontal
direction.
At the intersection of two (2) secondary roads, only one (1)
sign location is to be used except as required in 4.a. This is
to be the right hand corner of the intersection for inbound
traffic to the subdivision (see "Detail A" for diagram).
The Director of Engineering may allow an alternate sign
location upon finding that due to existing site conditions, the
foregoing locational requirements cannot be practicably met, or
that an alternate location would equally or better serve the
purposes of this manual. This must be confirmed with the
County Engineering Department prior to installation of the
sign.
13
PART IV. DISPLAY OF ADDRESS NUMBERS
~eneral ~uidelines for Display of Address Numbers
so
Address numbers shall be displayed at the primary access
entrance on a mailbox, post, fence or other suitable location
that is easily discernible from the road. If the structure
is one hundred (100) feet or less from the road, the entrance
door of the structure is clearly visible from the road, and
there is no mailbox, post, fence or other suitable location
at the primary access entrance. Numbers shall be displayed
on, above, or at the side of the main entrance door in a
manner that is clearly visible from the road upon which it is
numbered.
The address number shall be displayed as numerals and shall not
be spelled out. Secondary address designations shall comply
with Part ll.'5.d.
Co
The numerals displayed, and where applicable, lettering, shall
be at least three (3) inches in height on a contrasting
background (dark figures over a light background or light
figures over a dark background).
If the mailbox is not located on the named road from which the
number has been assigned, the entire address (number and road
name) shall be shown on that mailbox to avoid confusion. In
such cases, it will be necessary to also display the number on
the property as stated above.
On corner lots, the number shall only be displayed to face the
street upon which the property is numbered.
Any numbers previously displayed, which could be confused with
or mistaken for the assigned address number shall be removed
from the mailbox and property.
Numbers shall be properly maintained by the property owner to
ensure they are clearly discernible from the roadway upon which
the property is numbered.
Displa~ of Address ~,m~ers for Multi-Unit Buildings and Multi-
Building Complexes
so
If a building is divided into multiple units with separate
entrances, and each unit has been assigned an individual
number, then each unit number shall be displayed on or next to
the main doorway.
The address range of all individual unit numbers within a
multi-unit building shall be displayed in a manner that is
clearly visible from the road upon which the units are
numbered. If more than one building shares an access, then the
address range shall also be displayed on each building.
Additional Signage Required When Necessary
The agent may also require numbers or address ranges to be posted in
14
additional locations as deemed necessary to the purpose of Chapter
16.01 of the Code of Albemarle~
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual adopted
by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors at a regular meeting held on
January 6, 1999.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
15
Draft: 11-20-01
ORDINg2~ICE NO. 02-7( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE II, NAMING OF
ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7,
Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the Code of the County
of Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 7-204.
Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs.
The responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs required by this article shah be as
follows:
A. The county engineer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at
other locations deemed necessary by the agent on:
1. Each public street or private road which serves or is designed to serve three (3) or
more dwelling units or business structures which is not approved as a part of a subdivision or site plan;
m
Each road funded by the county or the Virginia Department of Transportation;
and
3. Each existing road serving more than two (2) parcels but not more than two (2)
addressable structures, but only at such time when the road serves three (3) addressable structures;
provided that if a subdivision or site plan is approved which would be served by the road, then the
subdivider or developer shall be responsible for such placement, as provided in paragraph (B)(1).
B. The subdivider or developer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection
and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on:
1. Each road approved as part of a subdivision plat or site plan;
2. Each existing road in an existing subdivision or development which is bonded for
future acceptance into the secondary system of state highways; and
3. Each existing road for which the placement of signs becomes the responsibility
of the subdivider or developer, as provided in paragraph (A)(3).
C. The subdivider or developer shall maintain signs it is required to place until such time as
the roads are taken into the secondary system of state highways, or are taken over for maintenance by the
homeowners as required pursuant to a private road maintenance agreement. Thereafter, the signs shall be
maintained by the county except where a special installation has been allowed under part m, section 3(e)
2(d) of the manual developed and adopted pursuant to section 7-202.
(§§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5, 7-8-92; 1043-93; Code 1988, §§ 16.01-1, 16,01-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Or& 02-
7(1), 1-9-02)
State law reference-Va. Code § 15.2-2019.
Sec. 7-204 Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs.
T S ~C
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Elierslie Drive Name Change
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Road Name Change Request
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Weaver
',AGENDArDATE:'
December 5, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:'
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
'Pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name
change requests may be forwarded tO the Board of Supervisors for approval upon validation of the following:
L.andowners of m~r.e than fi ~ft~. (50)~.percent of the parcels sen/ed by the road in question have signed a petition in favor
ota common roaa name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with ~ mad. name guidelines
(not a duplicate name, etc,) outlined in the Manual.
DISCUSSION:
Request to change the name of a portion of Ellerslie Drive to Albemarle House Drive at the request of the landowner
(see attached letter). A map indicating the location of this portion of the road is also attached. The property owner will
be responsible for costs associated.with new signage.
~COMMENDATION:
Approve the new road name as r~quested and grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced
change.
01.225 11-20-0t ^11:13 IN
/iL
P-iTIUCK POWEIff.,
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAl, SFIEET
TAMEILA BO[.1DR~'~A U
ALBJSM2\RLE PI~5 NNING 1 '1 / 16/01
'l'()'['AI. NO ()1; laACH~S INCLLIIJIN~;
80~972-~12 2
URGENT ~ F()R REVIEW ~ PI,I*;ASI~ CO,MM 5N'I' ~ PI,[':ASI,~ RJ~PLY ~ PI,tL~SI5 RISCYCLI.~
N ( Yt'I iS/Ct) MMI ( N'I-S:
Following please tMd our "Petition to Rename a section of Ellerslie Drive"..
able to secure UVA's consea~t to re-name the road "Albenx~rle House Drive".
Thank you for your kind assistance, and for your many other courtesies,
Tamera Boudreau
We were
'[O'd
'~-15-0~ PO;~:O~ ra
~snol-I ~k~tu~qk-x7. Vi~: [12 120 9"E-^ON
T-Z3g
P oo~/ooz
F-39Z
Octobc,r 25,
Petition 'Yo Rennltw it ~nn of lfl~c~ile l~tiva
asnoH ~L~ZtU~qL,o, ~';~17: 1El: [0-9~
CITY OF
,OTTESVILLE ~
E DETNL MAPI
\
\
A
/
!
/
/
/// ~//
/
o...I
PVT
£LL£RSL IE
PORTION OF
ELLERSLIE DRIVE
TO BE RENAMED
/
I
/
/
I
\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Progress report on the
Easements (ACE) Program
Acquisition of Conservation
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request approval of the final ACE applicant ranking order
and number of appraisals to order.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ×
ATTACHMENTS:
Summary of applications
properties
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
and rankings of individual
BACKGROUND:
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received six (6) applications for its second round. 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. In
addition to the new applicants, three (3) applicants from last year asked to be re-enrolled and placed in the second applicant
pool. To be eligible for funding from ACE, an applicant must score a minimum of fifteen points under the established "ranking
criteria".
DISCUSSION:
From the second pool of.applications, all six (6) applicants are eligible for funding by virtue of scoring at least fifteen points.
Applicants came from nearly every part of the County and scored from a variety of criteria. In addition to the new pool of
applicants for 2001-02, three (3) applicants from last year have been included for the second round. Though all were
eligible last year, none of these applicants scored high enough in the ranking order to qualify for an appraisal or receive
funding from ACE. At their request, they were added to this year's list and ranked according to points scored from the
evaluation criteria. The most common source of points for all properties included elimination of development rights, length
of road frontage, working family farm, mountaintop protection and location next to an existing easement or protected open
space.
Based on the projected easement value using the appraisals from last year as a guideline, it appears ACE can afford to
purchase the development rights on all six of the new applications (for 2001-02) plus the McCaskill property, a re-enrolled
applicant from last year. At its November 15th meeting, the ACE Committee approved the final ranking priority list
recommended by staff (see Attachment "A"). It also recommended that the Board recommend appraisals for all seven of
the properties described above.
Assuming a revised and improved RFP for appraisals is mailed out in the next week, staff anticipates the following timeline
in order to complete the purchase of conservation easements:
mid February - completion of appraisals
mid March - appraisals are reviewed, accepted by the Appraisal Review Committee and sent to the Board
for approval
mid May- County purchases development rights on properties
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 2001-02.
2) Order appraisals for the top seven ranked properties.
01.220 11-29-01 P03:53 IN
ACE Applications for Year 2001 (deadline of August 1s~, 2001)
(15 points are needed to qualify.for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map (Acreage) Points
Travel/Tourism Value*
MehringFamilyLP TM 97, Parcel 2lB 565.363 acres)
(Covesville)
41.96 yes
Pollock Jason K. TM 71, Parcel 26
(Batesvffie) 2M 85A, Parcel 1
TM 85, Parcel 21
TM 85, Parcel 22B
Total
21.730 acres)
23.990 acres)
42.000 acres
56.710 acres)
144.430 acres)
24.70 - 27.53 no
Byrom, RobertM. TM 6, Parcel 16 (115.350
(Boonesville) TM 6, Parcel 29 (484.240
Total (599. 590
acres ) 23.10 yes
acres)
acres)
W. B. McCaskill ** TM 72, Parcel 51
(Batesville)
167.602 acres) 22.48 no
Hughes, MassieE. TM 84, Parcel 57
(Batesville) TM 84, Parcel 58
Total
29.200 acres) 20.18
89.620 acres)
118.820 acres)
no
Clarke, Gladys W. TM 55, Parcel 7
(Greenwood) TM 55, Parcel llA
Total
54.700 acres) 19.53
65.550 acres)
120.250 acres)
no
Millwood Land Trust TM 65, Parcel 86 (105.360 acres) 19.28 yes
(Cismont)
Hart, James** TM 103, Parcel 31 (227.030 acres) 17.55 no
(Buck Island Creek)
Scharer, Edward** TM 93, Parcel 5iA {113.725 acres) t7.45 yes
(Boyd Tavern)
* Travel/tourism Value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed;
adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides
mountaintop protection.
'** Re-enrolled from last year.
4 i
ACE Applicants for 2001-02
" 10 11
.!
~ [ ~"~ ~ ~ ,.~.. ~ ~',~ '--~ ~ { '--..
/ ~ ~ . : ~ ~ , / ,
,/,. ' · .,'
": '.X'" -~ 86 874,88. 89 ,b~90 /~1 ~ :' ·
k ~ ' ivle~ln~ '~ ~ / ~J -- ~ T ~ ~ /
~ . ,~ __','~ ~.~ ' ~ ' ' ":t',=~ -- " H~ :'"' .'~(:....-.<'
I ~ ,~ ,~ ~: ', ~ ~'~',, ~ALBEMARLE
~ 'X ff ~/1~' ~ ff'~',..- ~ ,~ '%~" ~COUNTY VIRGINIA
~ / ~'~'~~ -- 1' ~*~, '2~ , MAP QUADRANT
1~ 133 11~4~,,~,6 ~1:7
HIGH~AY -
~REPARED BY: ~op~ent )
epartment of Planning and Community De',elop ~ent , Office of Mapping~Graphics and Information Resources (OOMGAIR
ACE Progress Report L nder
This was scanned separately
Land Use Reports
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Update on Monticello Fire Department
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of final budget based on recent bids
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Graham, Lilly, Pumphrey
/
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The enclosed information
information indicates, the b
designing the project, staff a
As a result, the bids also inc
of the building and additior
County projects t(~ proceed'
and site work has increas
development of the property
In addition to site and road
and durability. While the
cost will result in energy-effi
of these changes should r~
(approximately $50,000) is
Even with these changes,
indicates, this square foota
stations.
DISCUSSION:
With the exception of $50,0
investment in the future de,
proceeding with these chan
utlines the results of recent bids received for the Monticello Fire/Rescue Station. As the
ds came in only slightly higher than currently budgeted for the project itself. However, in
so considered the much larger tract of County property surrounding the site and its future use.
lude planning for use of the entire site through changes in the grade of the road, the elevation
al rock removal to accommodate the changed elevation. These changes will allow future
without extensive roadwork and cut and fill. To accommodate these changes the cost of road
~d by $445,000. However, this investment will result in $521,000 in savings for future
ssues, staff is recommending several upgrades to the building to improve energy-efficiency
s for the building are 6% or $104,000 higher than originally planned, approximately half of this
;iency, durability and operational improvements, as is noted in the enclosed information. Each
;suit in operational cost savings once the facility is open. The remainder of the increase
equired to accommodate ADA and other building code requirements not originally anticipated.
the total cost of construction will be $121 per square foot. As the information from staff
e cost is below that of other localities who have recently constructed similar Fire/Rescue
0 for required changes to the project, the $545,000 increase in cost represents a worthwhile
~elopment of County property or a savings in the operation of planned facilities. In addition,
les will offset approximately $521,000 in future development costs.
Because this project has been planned for several years and due to remaining balances from other projects previously
completed, sufficient fundsare currently available to proceed with the total bid. Assuming approval of these additional
investments the station buc~get will need to be amended by $100,300, as shown in the atta~hr~ent. The amended budget
will reflect only the changffs in the cost of the Fire/Rescue station. The additional costs associated with future land
development wil be identified separately in the CIP.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the amended budget as shown in the attachment. No additional appropriation will be necessary.
11-30-01 P01:33 IN
01.230
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Mark Graham, Director of Engineering & Public Work~
Ron Lilley, Project Manager ~
November 12, 2001 (revised 11/30/01)
Monticello Fire & Rescue Station
Project Budget update
This will update my October 23 memo regarding fire station budget update, with revised cost figures based
on bids received October 30, 2001.
Summary
In summary, the Fire & Rescue Station project cost is $2.75M, which is $100K more than the 3/01
schematic-level project cost. The building cost increased $104K, due to required changes and operational
improvements that will yield future cost savings. Additional sitework costs for future development that is
more cost-effective to do now rather than later are also necessary.
The following table summarizes the cost changes and the basis for them. A more detailed explanation and
attachments follows.
3/01 Building budget
+ required building changes
+ operational improvements for
future cost savings
11/01 building budget
1,618,000
49,500 (1)
54,500 (2)
1,722,000
3/01 site & road budget
11/01 site & road budget
505,000
505,000
11/01 Property Infrastructure
Improvements
445,000 (3)
(1) Enlargements for ADA accommodations and structural improvements for seismic requirements
(2) Energy efficiency improvements, durability improvements, ease-of-use improvements
(3) Future road and property improvements. Provides $616K benefit to future development ($171K
savings by doing at same time as Fire Station instead of later).
MEMORANDUM
Monticello Fire Station - budget update
November 12, 2001 (revised 11/30/01)
Page 2
Construction Cost
Building w/base site, and road: 2,272,500
Building w/enhanced'site, and road: 2,672,000
Total Proiect Cost
2,771,500
3,192,000
Background
Based on the schematic design and cost estimate provided to you 11/00, which indicated a
$3.02M total project budget for a 3-bay station (scope of 2-bay vs. 3-bay still unresolved at that
time), the BOS requested potential cost reductions to be identified in 12/00.
The following were identified:
try to use a slightly steeper access road, thereby allowing the building elevation to be
about 2' higher, thereby eliminating approximately $180K in grading and retaining wall
costs.
do a 2-bay building instead of a 3-bay, reducing costs by about $116K
do only the originally-envisioned partial access road (24' width) instead of 38' width
access road, reducing costs by about $125K (based on prior estimates of different road
scenarios -- no road had been designed at that point and no "real" estimate prepared).
A net savings of approximately $372K was identified, bringing the total project budget to
$2.65M, which was approved by the BOS in 3/01.
Current Status
Design was completed and bids were received, resulting in a total project budget (fire station
portion without future property improvements) of $2.75M ($100K (3.8%) above BOS-approved
budget).
Explanation
This cost increase is accounted for as follows:
Approx $104K is additional building cost (6% above budget)
Approx $16K is additional geotechnical engineering cost
Approx $20K is reduction of contingency as uncertainty has been reduced.
Building costs increased due to:
(a) a slight increase in building size (396 SF) to accommodate ADA requirements in corridors
(b) an increased seismic rating requirement
(c) durability improvements to improve life-cycle costs
(d) energy-efficiency improvements
(e) operational improvements
(f) scope corrections/enhancements
Geotechnical engineering c6sts increased due to the additional time involved in assessing rock
conditions and in monitoring placement of fill material on site.
MEMORANDUM
Monticello Fire Station - budget update
November 12, 2001 (revised 11/30/01)
Page 3
The building cost is now estimated to be approx $121/SF. This compares favorably with costs
seen in other jurisdictions.
Cost Offsets - Future Proiect Investment
A substantial potion of this project's costs will offset costs of future County projects in the
vicinity.
fill material -- approx 53,000 CY of excavated material will be used for fill on other
portions of the County property, which offsets the cost of off-site borrow that might
otherwise be needed by approx $425K. The cost of on-site borrow for future projects
would be reduced by approximately $270K.
road construction -- the access road that will ultimately serve development on the west
side of the County property and the County property to the south will be substantially
constructed with this project. Including the cost of waterline relocation, this is estimated
to amount to $ 316K.
sewer to site -- bringing sewer to the site will cost approx $30K.
These cost-offsets amount to $771K in the case of offsite-borrow or $616K in the case of on-site
borrow. On-site borrow was assumed for this analysis.
Another way to look at the amount of infrastructure being provided by this project that will
benefit other projects is to compare what would be needed just to serve a fire/rescue station with
what is being provided. The following table shows this comparison, based on a simpler, steeper
road that would be sufficient if other uses were not expected to use the road in the future, which
also allows considerable site development cost savings associated with a higher building
elevation (less cut).
Fire Station Only
Road and Site $ 505,000
Fire Station w/future infrastructure
$ 950,000
Difference: $ 445,000
Although future infrastructure was considered with the schematic-level cost estimate, only about
$30,000 was included for the cost of the infrastructure beyond what would be needed for the fire
station.
An updated project budget sheet is also attached.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Copy: Carl Pumphrey, Fire/Rescue
File: \lilley\fire station\cost explanation mcmo3.doc
PROJECT BUDGET
for
Monticello Fire Station
Updated 11/30/01
Construction
Building (2 bays)
Site Development
Architectural Consultants
Architect
Surveyor
Road
Inspections/Testing
Special Inspections & Testing
County Project Inspector
Geotechnical Surveys/Testing
Furniture/Fixtures
Computer Equipment
Miscellaneous
Land
Subtotal
Contingency
TOTAL
Original 3126101 Current
Bud_oet Bud_oet Bud_oet Difference
1.600.000 2.123.000 2.227.000 (104.000)
1.600,000 1,618,000 1,722,000 (104,000)
505,000 505,000 0
D 204.000 204.000 Q
142,000 180,000 185,000 (5,000)
0 4,000 4,000 0
20,000 15,000 5,000
50.000 30.000 46.000 (16.000)
50,000 30,000 35,000 (5,000)
0 0 0 0
0 0 11.000 (11,000)
100.000 100,000 100,000 0
25,000 25.000 25.000 0
10,000 10,000 10,000 0
0 0 0 0
1,785,000 2,492,000 2,612,000 (120,000)
80,000 t54,700 135,000 19,700
$1.865,000 $2,646,700 $2,747,000 (100,300)
Mill Creek Property improvements for Future Development
$445,000
file: \lilley\fire station\project budget as of 11-30-01
Comparable Costs -- Other Jurisdictions
(Building costs w/out sitework)
Fair.fax
1995 project
1996 project
2001 project
$/SF
126
166
- Igl
Loudoun
Broadlands (FY02)
151
Henrico
current project
(more sheetrock walls
than preferred)
135
Chesterfield
1999 project
2000 project
130
135
CONTRACT
BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR
This Contract dated this 6th day of November 2001, between The County of Albemarle, Virginia
("Owner"), and Crenshaw Construction Co., Inc. ("Contractor"), is binding among and between
these parties as of the date of the Owner's signature.
RECITALS
1. The legal address for the Owner and for the Contractor and the addresses for
delivery of Notices and other project documents are as follows:
Owner-
Attention-
Address-
City, State, Zip-
Telephone-
The County of Albemarle, Virginia
Ronald A. Lilley, Project Manager
Albemarle County Office Building
Department of Engineering and Public Works
401 Mclntire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5861 FAX (804) 972-4035
Contractor-
Attention-
Address-
City, State, Zip-
Telephone-
Crenshaw Construction Co., Inc.
Richard N. Crenshaw, President
129 East Davis Street, Suite 230
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
(540) 829-6919
Contractor's Virginia License #: 2705-029923A
FAX (540) 829-6957
FEIN: 54-1761271
2. The Project is identified as:
Project Title - Monticello Fire & Rescue Station No. 11 (RFQ 2001-10303-11)
General Project Description - The project is generally described as a 14,242 SF single-story 2-
bay fire station of concrete masonry with steel roof structure and typical HVAC systems, and
includes utilities and site improvements, including substantial excavation and road construction.
The scope includes the roof system in additive bid item number one.
The Project Title indicated above is required to be shown for identification purposes on
all project-related material and documents including, but not limited to, Notices, Change Orders,
Submittals, Requests for Information, Requests for Quotes, Field Orders, minutes of meetings,
correspondence, Schedule of Values and Certificate for Payment, test reports, and related
material.
3. After competitive sealed bidding pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act,
Contractor is awarded this Contract to perform the Work described by the Contract Documents
for the above-described project ("the Project").
THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals set forth above, and good and valuable
consideration as set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. STATEMENT OF WORK: The Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment,
and materials and perform all Work for the Project in strict accordance with the Contract
Documents and specifications.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: This Contract shall consist of the following:
- this Contract Between Owner and Contractor;
- the Bid Form submitted by the Contractor;
- the County of Albemarle Construction Contract General Conditions, latest
revision;
- the Supplemental General Conditions;
- the Special Conditions attached to the Owner's Invitation for Bids;
- the Owner's Project Plans and Specifications dated October 1,2001;
- modifications to the Invitation for Bids shown as Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3
All of these documents are incorporated herein by reference.
3. TIME FOR COMPLETION: The Work shall be commenced on a date to be
specified in a written order of the Owner and shall be Substantially Completed within 350
calendar days of issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The Work shall be finally completed within
30 consecutive calendar days after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work.
4. COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR: The owner
agrees to pay and the Contractor agrees to accept as just and adequate compensation for the
performance of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents the sum of two million, six
hundred twenty-two thousand, one hundred and 00/100 dollars ($2,622,100.00).
This Contract is subject to annual funding by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, for services and work specified hereunder. In the event the Board of
Supervisors fails to appropriate funds necessary to perform the services and work specified in
this Contract and other contract documents, this Contract shall be deemed cancelled, with no
penalty to the County, and of no effect, provided notice of such cancellation is given to the
Contractor within thirty (30) days of the Board of Supervisors final approval of the annual
County budget. In the event that this Contract is cancelled for the reasons set forth in this
paragraph, the Contractor will be reimbursed for the value of all work performed or services
rendered as of the date of cancellation in accordance with the General Conditions.
5. PAYMENTS: The procedures for establishing a Schedule of Values for the
Work, for requesting monthly progress payments for Work in place, and for requesting payments
for properly stored materials are stated in the General Conditions. Unless otherwise provided
under the Contract Documents, interest on payments due the Contractor shall accrue at the rate of
one percent per month (§2.2-4354(4) of the Code of Virginia).
6. CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS: Any contractual claims shall be submitted in
accordance with the contractual dispute procedures set forth in Section 46 of the General
Conditions and the supplemental instructions or procedures of the contracting State Agency, if
any, attached to this Contract.
7. NON-DISCRIMINATION: §2.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia applies to this
contract. See Section 4 of the General Conditions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto on the day and year written below have
executed this agreement in three (3) counterparts, each of which shall, without proof or
accountancy for the other counterparts, be deemed an original thereof.
Crenshaw Construction Co., Inc.
CONTRACTOR
By: By:
(Signature in ink)
(Date)
The County of
Albemarle, Virginia
OWNER
(Signature in ink) (Date)
Name: Richard N. Crenshaw
Title: President
Name: R. Edward Koonce, III
Title: Chief of Financial Management
ATTEST
(Signature) (Date)
ATTEST
(Signature) (Date)
Attachments:
A - Bid Form submitted by the Contractor
File: \lilley~fire station\construction contract.doc'
Laurie Bentley
From:
Sent:
To:
SUbject:
Ron Lilley
Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:40 PM
Laurie Bentley;, Mark Trank; Ed Koonce; Marsha Davis; Ella Carey
RE: Monticello Fire Station
Based on the fact that funds are already in the project cost code, Ed Koonce was able to sign the contract. I
don't think any BOS paperwork needs to happen after all.
---Original Message---
From: Laurie Bentley
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:39 PM
To: Ron Ulley; Mark Trank; Ed Koonce; Marsha Davis; Ella Carny
Subject: Monticello Fire Station
I am unable to ascertain what, if any paperWork, I am to send out on this item, as Ella unexpectedly became ill today.
Please be advised that, in fact, the Board did approve the revised budget for the project at the 12/5/01 Board meeting,
but no.new appropriation was needed. I hope this will serve as the confirmation you need, for now. Because of my
workload, the action letter will not likely go out until Monday. Thank you, Laurie
Laurie Bentley
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mcln#re Rd.
Charlottesville. VA 2290~
PH: (434) 296-5843
FAX: ('434) 244-7017
email: lbentley~albemarte.org
Laurie Bentley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ron Lilley
Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:56 AM
Mark Trank
Ed Koonce; Marsha Davis; Laurie Bentley
Monticello Fire Station Construction Contract
Mark -
The BOS did approve the revised budget for the Fire Station project today (no new appropriation was
necessary), so I believe you should be able to send the contract on to Purchasing now.
Ed -- I believe Laurie will provide you some documentation on the Board's action no later than Thursday.
I'd like to issue a Notice to Proceed by Friday (12/7) on this because the Contractor needs to start soon to have a
decent chance of staying on schedule.
Please advise if any problems.
thanks.
December 6. 2001
Mr. Richard Crenshaw
Crenshaw Construction Cc
129 East Davis Street, Suil
Culpeper, VA 22701
Re:
Monticello Fire &
Notice to Proceed
Dear Mr. Crenshaw:
Enclosed is the fully execu
with the Contract, you are:
December 7, 2001. By tha
Documents. In accordance
350 calendar days from an
I look forward to working
any questions, please do m
Sincerely,
Project Manager
RAL/ps
Enclosure
Copy:
William Adams, Tn
Carl Pumphrey, Fir~
Ed Koonce, Chief o
Mark Graham, Dire,
File: \lil[ey\fire station\notice to proceed,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
401 McIntire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(434) 296-5861
rnpany, Inc.
e 230
?,escue Station No. 11 (RFQ #2001-10303-11)
Ied Contract Between Owner and Contractor (AC-9). In accordance
~otified that the Time for Completion will commence to mn on
date, you are to start performing your obligations under the Contract
with the Contract, the Work shall be substantially completed within
:t after the said date, which is November 22, 2002.
vith you on this important project for Albemarle County. If you have
hesitate to contact me.
in & Partners Architects
7Rescue Chief (w/out encl.)
."Financial Management (w/out encl.)
:tor of Engineering and Public Works (w/out encl.)
~O¢
FA~9724035
12-20-0 1 P03:48.. RCVl)
BE]
This Contract dated this 6t
("Owner"), and Crenshaw
these parties as of the date
1. The legal adc
delivery of Notices and otk
Owner- The
Attention- Ron~
Address- A1N
Dep
401
City, State, Zip- Chin
Telephone- (804
Contractor- Crel
Attention- Rich
Address- 129 ]
City, State. Zip- Culp
Telephone- (540
Contractor's Virginia Lice~
2. The Project
Project Title - Monticello
General Project Description
bay fire station of concrete ~
includes utilities and site im
The scope includes the roof
The Project Title inc
all project-related material ~
Submittals, Requests for
correspondence, Schedule o
material.
CONTRACT
WEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR
day of November 2001, between The County of Albemarle, Virginia
Construction Co.,. [nc. ("Contractor"), is binding among and between
of the Owner's signature.
RECITALS
tress for the Owner and for the Contractor and the addresses for
er project documents are as follows:
County-of Albemarle, Virginia
dd A. Lilley, Project Manager
marle County Office Building
trtment of Engineering and Public Works
vlclntire Road, Room 211
tottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
296-5861 FAX (804) 972-4035
shaw Construction Co., Inc.
~rd N. Crenshaw, President.
:mst Davis Street, Suite 230
.~per, Virginia 22701
829-6919
se #: 2705-029923A
FAX (540) 829-6957
FEIN: 54-1761271
identified as:
ire & Rescue Station No. 11 (RFQ 2001-10303-11)
- The project is generally described as a 14,242 SF single-story 2-
nasonry with steel roof structure and typical HVAC systems, and
>rovements, including substantial excavation and road construction.
;ystem in additive bid item number one.
icated above is required to be shown ~br identification purposes on
ad documents including, but not limited to, Notices, Change Orders,
>rmation, Requests for Quotes, Field Orders, minutes of meetings,
;Values and Certificate for Payment, test reports, and related
3. After compe
Contractor is awarded this
for the above-described pro
THEREFORE, in
consideration as set forth b,
1. STATEME]
and materials and perform
Documents and specificatio
CONTRA{
- this Contra~
- the Bid For
- the County
revision;
- the Supple~
- the Special
- the Owner'
- modificati{
All of these documents are
3. TIME FOR
specified in a mitten order
calendar days of issuance of
30 consecutive calendar day
4. COMPENS~
agrees to pay and the Contra
performance of the Work in
hundred twenty-two thousan
This Contract is subj
Albemarle, Virginia, for sen
Supervisors fails to appropri
this Contract and-other contr
penalty to the County, and o:
Contractor within thirty (30)
County budget. In the event
paragraph, the Contractor w
rendered as of the date of ca
titive sealed bidding pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act,
2ontract to perform the Work described by the Contract Documents
ect ("the Project").
,onsideration of the Recitals set forth above, and good and valuable
iow, the parties agree as follows:
iT OF WORK: The Contractor Shall fUrnish all labor, equipment,
11 Work for the Project in strict accordance with the Contract
r DOCUMENTS: This Contract shall consist of the following:
:t. Between Owner and Contractor;
m submitted by the Contractor;
of Albemarle Construction Contract General Conditions, latest
~ental General Conditions;
Conditions attached to the Owner's Invitation for Bids;
Project Plans and Specifications dated October 1, 2001;
is to the Invitation for Bids shown as Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3
acorporated herein by reference.
COMPLETION: The Work shall be commenced on a date to be
,f the Owner and shall be Substantially Completed within 350
the Notice to Proceed. The Work shall be finally completed within
after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work.
TION TO BE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR: The owner
ctor agrees to accept as just and adequate compensation for the
accordance with the Contract Documents the sum of two million, six
d, one hundred and 00/100 dollars ($2,622,100.00).
,~ct to annual funding by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
'ices and work specified hereunder. In the event the Board of
~re funds necessary to perform the services and work specified in
~ct documents, this Contract shall be deemed cancelled, with no
!no effect, provided notice of such cancellation is given to the
days of the Board of Supervisors final approval of the annual
that this Contract is cancelled for the reasons set forth in this
~1 be reimbursed for the value of all work performed or services
~cellation in accordance with the General Conditions.
5. PAYMEN
Work, for requesting mort
for properly stored matena
under the Contract Docum{
one percent per month (§2.
6. CONTRA(
accordance with the contra
Conditions and the suppten
any, attached to this Contra
7. NON-DIS(
contract. See Section 4 of
IN WITNESS WH
executed this agreement in
accountancy for the other c
Crenshaw Construct:
CONTRACTOi
(Signature in ink). //
Name: Richard N. Crensha~
Title: President
ATTES~T ~
' C-'"((S~g~nature)
Attachments:
A - Bid Form submitted by t
File: \lilley\fire station\cons£rucuon contr,
S: The procedures for establishing a Schedule of Values for the
~ly progress payments for Work in place, and for requesting payments
.s are stated in the General Conditions. Unless otherwise provided
mrs, interest on payments due-the Contractor shall accrue at the rate of
!-4354(4) of the Code of Virginia).
TUAL CLAIMS: Any contractual claims shall be submitted in
:tual dispute procedures set forth in Section 46 of the General
rental instructions or procedures of the contracting State Agency, if
RIMINATION: §2.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia applies to this
he General Conditions.
gREOF, the parties hereto on the day and year written below have
hree (3) counterparts, each of which shall, without proof or
mnterparts, be deemed an original thereof.
on Co., Inc.
(Date)
By:
The County of
Albemarle,. Virainia
(Signature in ink) (Date)
Name: R. Edward Koonce, III
Title: Chief of Financial Management
II/~ /O l
(Date)
(Signature) (Date)
te Contractor
,~t.doc
Page I of 4 Pages
BID FORM (Revised per
DATE: 10/3o/2o01
PROJECT TITLE: Mon
RFQ Number: 2001
TO: County of Albema:
Purchasing Office
Room 248 - Alber
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
~n compliance with and su
all of which are incorporat
ail labor, equipment, and rr
project, in accordance with
noted below, as prepared b
amount:
BASE BID (inctudin~ the 1
PART A.
Lump sum price for consm
walls of the building, comp
~.ddendum #2, October 22, 2001)
:icello Fire and Rescue Station Number 11
-10303-11
e, Virginia
arle County Office Building
22902
ject to your Invitation for Bids and the documents therein specified,
:d herein by reference, the undersigned bidder proposes to furnish
.aterials and perform all work necessary for construction of this
the Plans and Specifications dated I October 2001 and the Addenda
Train & Parmers Architects for the consideration of the following
[Iowin~ parrs but excluding work in Additive Bid Items):
PART C, and the rock mate rial and trench rock described in PART D and PART E, and in
accordance with the Plans a ~d Specifications:
ction of the building within a perimeter extending 5 feet from the
ere, except for the excavation of additional unsuitable material in
md E shall be based on the estimated quantities indicated to be
:ordance with the applicable portions of the plans and
~unts for each of these items will be based on the act-ual quantities
)roved, multiplied by the unit prices indicated by the bidder. The
adjusted upward or downward based on the actual payment
its for PARTS C, D and E.
nber 1998)
Station Number
01-!0303-11
County of Albemarle Bid Form (Septel
Edited for Monticello Fire and Rescue
County of Albemarle RFQ Number: 2C
x, ork beyond the 5 feet building perimeter (except for work
a~d E) complete and in accordance with the Plans and
Base Bids for PARTS C, D
provided complete and in ac,
specifications. Payment amc
authorized, provided, and ag
final contract amount shall b
amounts versus the bid amot
PART
A =
PART B.
Lump sum price for the site'
described in PARTS C, D
Specifications:
Page 2 of 4 Pages
PART C. EXCAVATIO]~
Excavation of unsui
the levels required
per specifications.
downward based o]
PART
PART
Estimated quantity
D. EXCAVATIOb
Excavation of ROCt
site of excess materi
yard.) Quantity is
test reports from Scl
downward based on
PART
Estimated quantity o
PART E. EXCAVATION
Excavation of ROCI4
of excess material az
(Price per cubic yar.
acmai quantity autho
Est/mated quantity Ol
PART E =
TOTAL BASE BID AMOU]
Contract award will be base¢
any properly submitted bid rr
discretion decides ro award.
ADDITIVE BID ITEMS: (W
County of Albemarle Bid Form (Septen
Edited for Monticello Fire and Rescue
County of Albemarle RFQ Number: 201
OF ADDITIONAL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
able mater/al, where author/zed or directed, below or in addition to
br the Work in Parts A and B and backfill with compacted material
?rice per cubic yard.) Final amount shall be adjusted upward o,
actual quantity authorized.
fl50cy@$ lC OO
per cy = '~,/"~. O. o O
OF ROCK MATERIAL
: material, where authorized or directed, and proper stockpiling on-
d, complete per specifications and addenda. (Price per cubic
et by quantity calculations done by the Site Tech Company using
mabel Engineering. Final amount shall be adjusted upward or
actual quantity author/zed.
23,550 cy @ *~ r~
per cy =
Dollars ($
OF ROCK MATERIAL AT TRENCHES
material, where author/zed or directed, proper stockpiling on-site
backfill with compacted trench fill material per specifications.
.) Final amount shall be adjusted upward or downward based on
:ized.
'300 cy @ $
per cy = ~,] O e_xa. <) C
Dollars ($ C~r OC)o. OC) )
4T (For PARTS A, B, C & D) tS:
Dollars ($ ~ ~Oc,2 t' o O )
on the TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT shown above (including
.odifications) plus as many Additive Bid Items as the Owner in its
excluded from the BASE BID above):
Lber 199.8)
ration Number l l
q-I0303-I 1
Page 3 of 4 Pages
ADDITIVE BID ITEM N(
Lump sum price for the su
metal sheet and all gutters
Sheer Metal Roofing.
ADDITIVE BID ITEM N{
Lump sum price for the in:
cast-in-place concrete
Documents:
NO. 02 =
The undersigned understan¢
Completion of the entire pr(
author/zing Work to procee,
achieved within 30 consecm
determined by the A/E.
Acknowledgment is made
tf notice of acceptance of ti2
opening of bids, or any time
.01'
)stitution of terne-coated stainless steel sheet for all pre-finished
md downspouts as specified in specification division 07611 Custom
02:
Dollars (.$
dlation of an embedded hydronic radiant heating system in the
slab of Room 161 (Apparatus Bay) as described in the Contract
Dollars ($ ).
that time is of the essence and agrees that-the date for Substantial
Iject shall be on or before 31 October 2002 based on a Notice
on or before 16 November 2001, and Final Completion shall be
ire calendar days after the date of Substantial Completion as
receipt of the following addenda:
No. i
No. 2
No. 3
bid is given to the undersigned within 60 days after the date of
:hereafter before this bid is withdrawn, the undersigned will
dated 10/08/2001
dated 10/22/2001
dated .10/24/2001
aliens.
DISQUALIFICATION OF (
and Control Act of 1986, which prohibits employment of illegal
DNTRACTORS. By signing this bid or proposal, the
undersigned certifies that thi: Bidder or any officer, director, parrner or owner is nor currentlv
barred from bidding on contacts by any Agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any
public body or agency of another State, or any agency of the federal government, nor is this
Bidder a subsidiary or affilia~ of any firm/corporation that is currently barred from
bidding
on
County of Albemarle Bid Form (Septedber 1998)
1
Edited for Monticello Fire and Rescue ]tat-ion Number I 1
County of Albemarle RFQ Number: 201}I-10303-11
l
execute and deliver a contra~:r in the prescribed form (Countv of Albemarle Contract Between
Owner and Contractor, Forr~ AC-9) within 10 days after thd contract has been presented ro
him for sighiiture. The required payment and performance bonds, on the forms prescribed,
shall be delivered to the owTr along with the signed Contract.
1
Immigration Reform and Co]nrol Act of 1986: The undersianed certifies that it does not and
will not during the performa~me of the Contract for th~s project violate the provisions of the
Federal Immigration Reform
Page 4 of 4 Pages
contracts by any of the sm
and copies of notice(s) of
CERTIFICATION OF N(
with the procurement and
This bid is not the
person engaged in
result of, or affecl
Chapter 12 of Title
et seq.).
The undersigned declares ti
furrn listed and to bind it to
the true and complete nam,
the Commonwealth of Vir~.
perform all Work included
Virginia License No. 270
Contractor Class "A",
Valid Until 07/31/200
FEIN/SSN: 54-1761271
If Partnership (List Partner
County of Albemarle Bid Form (Septe
Edited for Monticello Fire and Rescue
County of Albemarle RFQ Number: 2C
.ae. We have attached an explanation of any previous disbarment(s)
einstatement(s).
COLLUSION: The undersigned does hereby certify in connection
,id to which this Certification of No Collusion is incorporated that:
'esult of, or affected by, any act of collusion w-itl~ another
he same tine of business or commerce; nor is this bid the
by, any act of. fraud punishable under Article 1.1 of
',8.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (18.2-498.1
.at he or shee is fully authorized to sign the proposal on behalf of the
~11 conditions and provisions thereof. The firm name given below is
of the bidder, and the bidder is Iegally qualified and licensed by
~nia, Department of Commerce, State Board for Contractors, to
in the scope of the Contract.
-029923
;ENERAL
3
Names)
nber 1998)
gtation Number
D1-10303-I I
Bidder CRENSttAW CONSTRUCTION CO., iNC.
(Nme of Firm) //7
(Signature) -' ~
RICHARD N. CRENSHAI4
(Typed Name)
Title PRESIDENT
If Corporation, affix Corporate Seal & list
Stare of Incorporation
State: VIRGINIA
(Affix Seal)
Business Address'
129 EAST DAVIS STREET
SUITE 230
CULPEPER~ VA 22701
Telephone No. (540)
Fax No. (540)
829-6916
829-6957
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ?RANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
November 13, 2001
Dear Colleague:
I am pleased to announce the Commonwealth Transportation Board is expected to
approve the tentative Virginia Transportation Development Plan, formerly known as the
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Pro,am on Thursday, November 15.-On that
date, you can easily access the plan in a new. improved format from VDOT's web site,
wx,,~'.VirginiaDOT.org.
I encourage you or one of your staffto download the plan or a portion of it from
the web site. as there will be a very limited number of hard copies available. Like other
organizations, VDOT is moving to an electronic environment.
The new plan is noticeably different from previous'fo~ats'and is divided into
tv.'o sections -., a Feasibility phase and a Capital Improvement phase. The new format is
a direct result of your input to the Governor's Commission on Transportation Policy
requesting a simplified format ofthe plan: · : .
The plan which reflects ~evervthing but secondary roads is scheduled to receive
final approval at the December 20 C'TB meenng. You will have an opportunity to
comment on this plan at one of the two Final Allocation Heanngs that have been
scheduled for December 6. The hearine for the Western part of the state will be held in
Roanoke at the Clarion Hotel located o?f i-581 at Exit 3 W on 3315 Ordway Drive. The
heating begins at 9:00 a.m. The hearine for the Northern, Central and Eastern part of the
state will be held in Richmond at VDO~'s Central Office auditorium, 1221 East Broad
Street~in Richmond. That hearing begins at 2:00 p.m.
Enclosed is a card detailing informalion about VDOT's new web site that recently
was revamped to provide more accessible information. In fact. soon you'll be able to
personalize information that is relevant to ,,'our interest and region through a "My
\"DOT" feature. '
1 hope to see you at one of thc Final Allocation Heatings on December 6.
.. 5~ncerely' :.
Charles D. Nottingham
Enclosure
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Virginia Transportation Development Plan
(This item was scanned separately under Transportation Reports.)
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
James S. Gilmore, III
Governor
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Secretary of Natural Resources
Valley Regional Office
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
November 9, 2001
Dennis H Treacy
Director
R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Valley Regional Director
Ms. Sally Thomas, Chairman
Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0025518, Moores Creek STP
Dear Ms. Thomas:
In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, this is to provide you
with a copy of ~i public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. Public notice of
this' proposed permit action is also being published in a local newspaper, which will establish'a
30-day public comment period for this proposed action. If you wish to comment or if you have
any questions regarding this proposed permit, please contact me at the above address or phone
number within the next 30 days.
Sincerely,
In°tbal Engineer
/OC
Enclosure
cc: Permit Processing File
'
PUBLIC NOTICE
MODIFICATION OF A VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS
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 trader consideration the modification of the following Permit
and State Certificate:
Permit No.: VA0025518
Permittee Name and Address: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, PO Box 18, Charlottesville,
VA, 22902
Facility Name and Location: Moores Creek Regional STP, 200 Franklin Street, Charlottesville,
VA, 22902
Discharge Description: Existing Municipal discharge resulting from the operation of a wastewater
treatment facility; Discharge Flow: 15.0 MGD; 10utfall.
Receiving Stream: Moores Creek; Stream Mile: 0.19; Basin: James (Middle); Subbasin: N/A;
Section: 10; Class: 1II; Special Standards: None.
On the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful standards and regulations, the State
Water Control Board proposes to modify the permit subject to certain conditions. This proposed
permit action is tentative and consists of removing the zinc limit and all associated requirements
and reducing the chlorine monitoring frequency.
This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board.
All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected or copied by contacting Norma C.-Job at
the Department of'Environmental Quality (DEQ), Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, P.O.
Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801; Telephone No. (540) 574-7802; e-mail
ncjob~deq, state.va.us. Persons may comment in writing or by e-mail to DEQ on the proposed
permit action and may request a public heating 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 VPDES 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 heating. Due notice
of any public hearing will be given.
2001
THIRD QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR)
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-582 3
INDEX
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E)
Ill. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart F)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF
SFA
SF/TH
DUP
MF
MHC
AA
Single-Family (includes modular)
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Townhouse
Duplex
Multi-Family
Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
Accessory Apartment
11-21-01 A10:55 IN
-2-
During the third quarter of 2001, 133 building permits were issued for 133 dwelling units. In addition, I permit
was ~ssued for a mobile home in an existing park at an exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $2,500.
I, COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
MONTH 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
JAN 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 52
FEB 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 39
MAR 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 54
APR 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 ' 63 62
MAY 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 196
JUN 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 181
JUL 81 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 46
AUG 1t6 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 55
SEP 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 32
OCT 68 51 42 186 216 61 48 48
NOV 65 60 66 43 49 48 . .42 49
DEC 67 32 48 44 62 48 57 49
TOTAL 805 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 717
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Unit by MonthI
240
220 -
200 -
180
160 -
z
~ 140
w 120
~ 100
8o
,z, 6o
O 40
20
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
JUN JUL AUG
MONTH
I[]1999 []2000
12001
SEP OCT NOV DEC
Pre .ared b _ _the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics. and information Resources (OOMGAIR)
Quarter 3
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
Char~ C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNITTYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
, DISTRICT SF SFA SF/'FH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3%
JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
RIVANNA 19 8 19 0 0 10 0 56 42%
SAMUEL MILLER 20 2 0 0 0 I 0 23 17%
SCOTTSVILLE 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10%
WHITE HALL 32 0 0 0 0 1 2 35 26%
TOTAL 90 t0 19 0 0 12 2 133 100%
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
' I SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 10
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 7
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CROZET COMMUNITY 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 5 8 7 0 0 10 0 30
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 7
RIVANNA VILLAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 39 10 19 0 0 10 0 78
RURAL AREA 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 2 11
RURAL AREA 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
RURAL AREA 3 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 23
RURAL AREA 4
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl
RURAL AREA SUBT~)TAL 51 0 0 0 0 2 2 55
TOTAL 90 10 19 0 0 12 2 133
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping Gra F3hics. and Information Resources (OOMGAIR)
-4-
Quarter. 3
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE [continued)
Chart E~ Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS ·
0 0 0 10 8%
Agnor-Hurt 5 0 5 0
Broadus Wood 5 0 0 0 0 10 2 17 13%
Brownsville 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 16%
Crozet 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7%
Greer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
Hollymead 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14 11%
Medwether Lewis 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 5%
0 0 0 6 5%
Murray 6 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 3%
Red Hill 4 0 0 0
Cale 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 10%,
Scottsville 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
0 0 0 7 5%
Stone Robinson 7 0 0 0
Stony Point 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5%
Woodbrook 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 14 11%
Yancey 3 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 3 2%
TOTAL 90 10 19 0 0 12 2 133 100%
IlL COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial Distdct and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$
RIO 4 $ 551,576 10 $ 273,406 9 $ 750,332 14 906,750 37 $ 2,482,064
JOUETT 2 $ 530,000 11 $ 286,352 I $ t,100,000 2 $ 151,100 16 I $ - 2,067,452
RIVANNA 56 $ 7,199,510 44 $ 1,477,788 6 $ 1,651,890 10 $ 363,120 116 $ I0,692,308
S. MILLER 23 $ 5,381,296 34 $ 1,493,977 I ' $ 15,000 4 $ 126,500 62 $ 7,016,773
SCOTTSVILLE 13 $ 1,063,249 37 $ 2,117,144 2 $ 425,000 5 $ 380,600 57 $ 3,985 993
WHITE HALL 35 $ 5,617,530 29 $ 971,809 3 $ 615,000 3 $ 24,000 70 $ 7,228,339
TOTAL 133 $ 20,343,162 165 $ 6,620,476 22 $ 4,557,222 38 $ 1,952,070 358 $ 33,472,930
Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alt, .gory.
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics. and Information Resources (OOMGAIR)
FAX [434) 9724126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
'FrD (434) 972-4012
November20,2001
Brian S. Ray
Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc.
1717-1 B Allied Street
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE' OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 121, Parcel 70 (Property of Floyd E. Johnson Estate) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Ray:
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 121, Parcel 70 contains four (4) separate parcels. Tract #1, containing 2.4
acres has one (1) development right. Tract #2, containing 88.6 acres has five (5)
development rights. Tract #3, containing 2.56 acres has one (1) development right.
Tract #4, containing 10 acres has five (5) development rights. The basis for this
determination is provided below.
Our records indicate Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 contains 103.962 acres and one dwelling.
The most recent deed reference for this property is found in Will Book 94, page 714.
The parcel is located in the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District. Files in the
Real Estate Department indicate that these four parcels, then identified as 70, 71, 71A
and 73, were combined for the convenience of County in the mid 1970s. The most
recent deeds for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) are as follows.
Deed Book 253, page 467, dated April 10, 1942, conveyed two (2) contiguous tracts
from Edgar L. Bradley & Margaret Post Bradley to Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H.
Johnson. These tracts are described as follows:
(#1) A tract of 2.4 acres conveyed to Margaret Post Bradley from Jettie F. Quick by
deed dated September 29, 1929 and recorded in Deed Book 206, page 267.
DISTRIBUTED TO
h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson .doc
NOV ? 2001
BOSon
1t:27-01 A10:34 N
Floyd E. Johnson Estate
November 20, 2001
Page 2
(#2) An adjoining tract of 88.6 acres conveyed to Margaret Post Bradle~ from
Fairview Farms, Inc. and A.H. McKay by deed dated September 18, 1929 and
recorded in Deed Book 207, page 67.
Deed Book 207, page 68 contains a plat dated November 1929 by Hugh F.
Simms showing 88.6 acres sold by Fairview Farms, Inc. to Margaret Post
Bradley. The plat also shows 2.4 acres located between the road and Totier
Creek contiguous to the 88.6 acres and identified by reference to Deed Book
206, page 267.
(#3) Deed Book 337, page 265, dated December 3, 1957, conveyed 2 acres more or
less from Jack N. Kegley, Special Commissioner to Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H.
Johnson. The deed notes the property is located on the southwest side of Route 20.
Deed Book 426, page 412 contains a plat by Thomas Blue dated December 22,
1966 of a 4.77 acre tract identified as a portion of the Old "Glendower Mill Tract."
The tract is divided by Route 20. The portion located on the southwest side of
Route 20 contains 2.56 acres. The tract is identified by reference to Deed Book
337, page 265.
(#4) Deed Book 466, page 72, dated October 2, 1968 conveyed 10 acres, more or
less from John Rush Webb & Charlotte Louise Webb to Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H.
Johnson. The property is designated as Lot No. 1 on a plat by M.W. VanDoren, dated
1914 and recorded in Deed Book 158, page 69. A copy of that plat is included in this
file.
Deed Book 1091, page 2, dated February 8, 1990 conveyed several tracts from Floyd
E. Johnson & Anne H. Johnson to themselves as tenants in common. These tracts
included the following:
Two certain tracts, being a tract of 2.4 acres and an adjoining tract of 88.6 acres
shown on a plat by Hugh F. Simms recorded in Deed Book 207, page 68. These are
identified as #1 and #2 above.
A certain tract containing 2 acres, more or less conveyed on December 3, 1957 and
recorded in Deed Book 337, page 265. This is identified as #3 above.
All that tract containing 10 acres designated as Lot 1 on a plat dated 1914 and
recorded in Deed Book 158, page 69. This is identified as #4 above.
There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this
history, Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 is determined to be comprised of four (4) separate
h\DEP'RBuilding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson .doc
Floyd E. Johnson Estate
November 20, 2001
Page 3
parcels, as described above. Each is entitled to its associated development rights
based on the acreage of each parcel.
Mr. Johnson died on October 9, 1999. On November 2, 1999 his will was admitted to
probate and Bank of America was appointed Executor for the estate. Mr. Johnson's will
is recorded in Will Book 94, page 714.
These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but'do
represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to
be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may
create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to
make.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
Floyd E. Johnson Estate
C/O Jim Schroering, Assistant Vice President
Bank of America
P.O. Box 25718
Richmond, VA 23261-5718
h\DEP~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson .doc
DECEMBER
· Mission
[] Essential Tasks Assessment
· Construction
· Maintenance
· Planning & Traffic Engineering
· Issues
Mission
The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains
roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory
authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for
Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are:
· focused on public safety
· fiscally and environmentally responsible
· supportive of alternative transportation means
· supportive of neighborhood and regional development
ESSENTIAL TASKS
TASK
MAINTAIN SECONDARY &
PRIMARY ROADS
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
REMARKS
o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim,
guardrail, signs, patrols
o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch
o EMERGENCY OPS
o REPAIR & BUILD BR1DGES
o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
- Many gravel roads remain rough
due to dry conditions
- Large pipe installed in Belair
- Safety patrols over Christmas/New Year's
- PMs completed
Legend:
G~ee~: 90-100% Excellent
:,, :, ~ : 80-90% Good, room for improvement
Red: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
3
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM
o PE Activities
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
REMARKS
o Project Construction
- 29 bridge - final early Dec
- Asphalt & Plant Mix
schedules complete
Legend:
g~,~: 90-100% Excellent
80-90% Good, room for
improvement
Red: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
4
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
[ I I I
Task Assessment
(See legend below)
3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES ~
Remarks
o Issue and review permits
o Review site plans and rezoning request
o Conduct studies and advise
27 land use permits issued; 3 subd
submitted; 6 special use permits reviewed
Transportation Planner position vacant;
6 developments in planning stages
2 traffic studies under review
o Inspect and monitor subdivisions
Legend:
G~'ee~: 90-100% Excellent
~: 80-90% Good, room for
improvement
Red: 70-80o/0 Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
5
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
o Request and advise on signals & signs
o Request and advise on studies & data
o Assist with design
REMARKS
Conducted 14 TE studies
Legend:
Gvce~: 90-100% Excellent
,~; : 80-90%Good, room for improvement
Red: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
6
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
'~ ~ i Primary Projects
December 2001 I Albemarle County Six Year Plan Project Status i ,
PPM L&D Scop- qeld Field
Route S Contact ProjectNumbor Description lng Survey ~cview P.H. insp. R/W Adv. Comments
20 176t9i BAA 0020-002-127,PE10~1 P¥CCtoMontieelloH.S.Eatrance~~ NoAd. Date.Wuitingforfunding
20 52494 BAA 0020.002-128,PEt01 Turalancsatht. Rto.726-Scottsvitle 8coping t0-01
53 18897 BAA 0053-002-101,B601 . 10-03 12-03 ,
250 ;0569 DWS 0250-002-114,115,C5( Bridge R~epl-Ca[oll&Limestone Ck., 10-01 2-02 1-03
Ro ute 616~ 10-02 Waiting for 8 eope approval fo r new date s
250 56869 RDL 0250-002-116,C501 LeftTumhnes~ t ~ ,~, ~
No addate set
29 16160 JAG 6029-002-F22,PEt01 Rte.29Weste,raBypass WaitingforFunding ~,
7
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
December 2001 i '
i Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status Secondary Proiects
PPM L&D Street Name/ Field Field
Route S Designer Pmj~ctNumber, r , Description Scoping Survey Review P.H, Inspect. R/W Adv. r Comments , ,
Akport Road
649 2456 SLM 0649-002-158~C501 4-lanes w/sidewalks &b~e lanes ·
Jarman Gap Road
691 11129 DWS 0691-002~-158,C501 2-lanes w/bike lanes &sidev~ik ~~ 2-02 t0-02 2-04
' ulu June 02
..... Waiting for resolution
52~ Jw~ ~000-002-259,¢~71 co~~s o~4-h~eR/W ~ 120-01 ? ? ? ~ ? e in ons~ed RAN
>roffit Road
, , ~ ~ Gravel Roads , , , ~ , , , ,,
LindsayRd. R.te. 639 ,o Louis a Co. Lithe I ~a
..................................................................................................................... 615 54422 06t5-002-P64,N501 WldenandPave ~ ...................................................... N/A N/A ~/A N/A - ,r vel .
MountainV'mta Rd. Route 6~o 1.2MiE. Rte.6
....................................................................................................................................737 54425 0737-002-P68~NS01 Widen, pave &replace bridge ................................................... N/A N/A N/A lq/A ~ ............. 9~02 ~Favel Road Pro]oct
, RNV not available on 2 parcels
Secmtar~s Road
?05 I 11130 0708-002-P77,NS01 3-02 ~/A ~/A ~/A N/A 6-02 1-03 C~avel Road Pfoiect
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
December 2001 i Greene County SixYear Plan ProjectStatus I- i
Field Field
'Route PPMS Designer Project Description Soope Survey Review P.H. hsp. R/W Adv. Comments
Baoon HollowRoad
627 51022 RDL 0627-039-195,C501 Fr, Rte. 615to Rte632 ? W'denandstra~ghten 2.1aneroadway
Dyke Road
810 2920 DWS i0 10.039,N6,C501 Fr.l.TkmE. Rto. 624 to Rte. 624 7-02
2.hne roadway
Ma~ Road
........................................ 65o 57314 ~ 0650.039.P56,~501 :Fr. Rte.810toRte.615 ~~~~~i 9-O2 W~enandSurfaeeTreat-Gravelroad
624 17072 0624,002-P47,NS02 !~.Rte.623to 0.55 Mi.N. Rte.623
Wats on Ro ad
dE d 8.04
640 2515 0640.039-137,N501 Fr. Rte.633toDea n ,,
9
CONSTRUCTION
PA.VING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
" ' CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ," i~ 12001 i i, ,i Percent
" ' ' ' ~ ID ion
Street Name Project Descriptioni ~ urat
JUNE JULYAUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
~020.002.121,¢502, B69~, Bridge Replacement ...
"'-s'emi~n~'~Tmi['~' ~omments: 'Anticipate completion of pa~ing ~.a!.! !??~? tratlic during first 99
' ' " 0615-002-P64, N50tI Gravel Roadlmprovement
Contractor will likely begin work 0
Li~a¥ [toad Comments: contract to be awar~ in Nove,,,be{. _.
in md,~ spring of 2002 ~pendent upon w~ther.
" 0~%002-10t0, SRO2 I Bridge Replacement
Louisa Road comments: Tm~c reduced to single lane at bddge with signals. Contractorwitl .. ~ ~~~ 10
continue work on Phase I substructure through December weather permitting.
10
CONSTRUCTION
PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
ercent'
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION P '
........................................ ?, .............................................................................. r', ........ ~ ............... ~, ~ Complete
' ' Description ' ~ ; ' Durabon
Street Name Project ~ ~ ,
JUNE,JULY AUGSEPT OCT NOVDEC
Replacement
0637-002.6038, Bridge ,
Dick Woods Road Comments: Replace bridge over l~y Creek. Traflic reduced to single lane at bddge. .. ~ ~~ ~ 15
Vadous PM-TB-01 t Asphalt Oveday
Primaries and Comments: Odginal contract completel 'Anticipate ~rea widenir~g of Rt~. ~9 ~: ~! ~~~~ ~ ~ 99
IGuardrail Replacement
'~i~o~'e~s~'~-o~an(J"~{~ Comments: Guardrail installation at Rte. 29 SBL complete from Madison Co./Green ..... ~ ~ 10
Co. line to intersection Rte. 29/Rte. 33.
11
·
·
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditclv~Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
MAINTENANCE
YANCEY MILLS HQ
NOVEMBER
Finished all secondary mowing
Removed stumps/brush from
two banks on 693; long arm
mowing 745,816,782,F178; cut
bridges I64, 637,635,29; cut limbs
and brush 689
Patched potholes on secondaries
Machined 702,684,682,811,797,633
As scheduled
Traffic control for 633 fire
DECEMBER
Brush cutting I64 bridges; cut
banks; 250 mountain, 6, 750,
692,691
Patch potholes as needed
Slope banks on 693;
machine secondaries
Clean secondary pipes
Per schedule
12
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/
add stone
Ditch/Yipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
MAINTENANCE
FREE UNION HQ
NOVEMBER
Removed trees/brush 1070,839,810
614
601 with grader; 846 project;
pothole patching several locations
Machined/cleaned drains 668, 643,
606, 671; cleaned storm drains 29;
machined/repaired shoulders 676,
743, 601; repair washouts under
guardrail on 250/29 bypass
Cleaned debris from bridges on 810
As scheduled
DECEMBER
Finish guardrail mowing
250 & secondaries; cut brush
671; clean intersections
601, 676, 664, 743
Spot patch as needed
Machine non hard surf rds
Clean tail ditches/drains 614;
repair head wall 756
Per schedule
Emergency Ops
Other
Stocked stone at HQ
Remove dead trees 29
I3
Mowing
Patching
MAINTENANCE
BOYD TAVERN HQ
NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Contract tree removal Cut trees 250, 231; tree
removal by contractor 631,
250, 20
Shoulder repair 250, 231, 20;
patch ramps 250, 616
Grade/machine/add stone
· Ditch/Pipe
· Guardrail
· Equip Maint
· Emergency eps
· Other
Machine routes as needed;
clean bridges
Repair storm drain 631
Per schedule; dry runs
MaChine all routes
Ditching 20;
As scheduled
14
Mowing
MAINTENANCE
KEENE HQ
NOVEMBER
Cut right of way on 29;
cut trees 627,722
DECEMBER
Cut right of way 626,633;
improve sight distance
at intersection of 726120
S
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch~pe
Guardrail
EqUip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
Patching 618
Machined 712, 713, 795, 708,
717, 633, 711, 760
Reshaped ditches 723, 722, 627
Per schedule; dry runs
Stocked salt at Covesville;
cleaned bridges
Machine 774, 630, 721, 722, 723,
703, 735, 617, 716, 627, 737;
haul stone as needed; reshape
ditches 805
As scheduled; clean equip
15
MAINT1L'NANC
STANARDSVILLE HQ
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
NOVEMBER
Long arm mowing 33;
tree/brush removal 29N;
Patching 633,609,617,646,624,654
S. L. Williamson patched on 33
Machine 618,638,629,605,634;
add stone around mailboxes and
entrances.
Replaced pipe 1001; drainage
work 650,656
Completed all due PMs
DECEMBER
Long arm mowing on sec.
tree/brush removal 1105,29
Machine non hard surf rds;
add stone to sec rds
Replace pipe 743, 230;
drainage work on sec rds
Daily PM per schedule
Animal/litter control
16
Loaders 1
G rad~' ;I
~Tractor mower~ 4
Rollers t
Equipment
Tractor mowers 4
ROlI~ 2
Chippe~ I
10
1
0
0
30
30
12O
30
30 0 30.
120 5 ' 11{5~
60 ~ ' ' 0 ' 80.
G~een
Green
Green
--~5.83% Green
'~'oo.ooo/o G~en
-~.33% Green
17
PLANNING
Study ~ Study Plan ~
Project Scoping I Review t Rewew i Current Status
~ .............. ~l'p~ii~r~i-n~;~i-~"~ ~i~f~' ~dy~'~l-I~by-trip analysis complete.
~i~¥~-~ent~-~}' ......... ~ ~Awaiting site plan to r~pond to study ~ommendations.
j~Ohi~M~h'~-~-mon ~it~- ~ .................. ~-~hg M~'~-A~'~nd~'~fi~"~'~'i~O~ ~i{S~d-YmfiYS{~
bo~ ~rd~ to th~ District ~r
l~{eHi'n~" 0~-~mity Housing
North Pointe
Hol~ymo~d
'~-jS~;~-i'i~ii~ review of traffic study complete. Awaiting site plan to
respond to study recommendations. County to revise comprehensive
plan.
Preliminary review of traffic study complete. Awaiting site plan to
respond to study recommendations.
i'~f~-~'{~i~ c~ments have been fo~arded to the County.
18
PLANNING
Project
Albemarle Towne Center (Sperry)
Peter JeffersonlMartha Jefferson Site
Rivanna Village at Glenmore
Traffic
Study
Scoping
sit
d
Stu:y j Plan
Review~ Review
Current Status
, review of traffic study and pass-by trip analysis complete.
site plan to respond to study recommendations,
Zoning Map Amendment, Special Use Permits,and Traffic Study have
been forwarded to the District for review.
Preliminary review of traffic study complete. Awaiting site plan to
respond to study recommendations, County to revise comprehensive
review of traffic study complete, Awaiting site plan to
respond to study recommendations.
Traffic Study comments have been forwarded to the County,
1Awaiting Preliminary Traffic Study Scope to review.
Sterling University Housing
North Pointe
Holtymeacl
18
ISSUES
· None
19
AGENDA TITLE:
Family Support Program Evaluation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information update on the Family Supp¢
Project
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Ralston
BACKGROUND:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
rt Program Evaluation
AGENDA DATE: IT, EM NUMBER,.:
December 5, 2001
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY,: ~
in 1998 the Department of Social Ser~,ices began to pilot an earty intervention program funded with Title IV-E federal dollars.
The Family Support Program provided social workers in each of the county's fifteen elementary schools to work with children
who were at risk of abuse and neglect and thus out of home placement. At.the.time.of in?pi .e~. e?atio ~n~of__th~rO~enr aa~n~hf~mi~
requested that the department conduCt an evaluation of the program in oroer to oe~ermJne ~ne !mpac[ o[~ cm~u .
The department contracted with theWeldon Cooper Center for Public Policy to do the evaluation and they recommended
utilizing the Curry Scheol of Educati~.l~ at UVA. Dr. Bru~e Gansneder was selected as the Principal Investigator for the
evaluation A Steering {3ommittee.. ~ . ai~ A~qlry. ~loard were created to guide the process.
DISCUSSION:
A presentation to the Board is planne
The first phase of the process was a~
on existing programs and evaluatior
information in a standard way. The s,
social worker interventions and famil~
RECOMMENDATION:
This presentation.is provided for info
for December 5, 2001 to provide information on the first two phases of the evaluation.
internal examination of information gathering procedures and a review of the literature
s nationwide. Additionally, a computer database was developed in order to collect
~cond phase has provided information on referral sources, client family characteristics,
stress/concerns.
nation only and does not require any action from the Board at this time.
01.227
Albemarle County Family Support Program
A Collaborative Effort of the Albemarle
County Department of Social Services,
the School System and Community
Agencies Supporting Early Intervention
Services
Family Support Program
Evaluation
Program Overview
Early intervention & prevention
program
Began October 1998
Funded as a pilot by Title IV-E of
the Social Security Act
Provides 10 FT and 5 PT Family
Support Workers (FSW) for K-5
Risk factors include mental or
physical health problems, potential
for abuse and neglect, criminal
activity, emotional & behavioral
problems, substance abuse,
domestic violence and poverty
· Program Goals
Prevent child abuse & neglect
Reduce foster care
placements
Improve school success
Increase parental involvement
in child's education
Provide better communication
between the school & the
home
Improve access to community
services
Family Supp,ort Program
Evaluation
Evaluation Team
° Steering Committee
Conducted by UVA Weldon-
Cooper Center for Public
Policy/Curry School of Education.
Began July 1999
Principal Investigator- Dr. Brace
Gansneder, Professor, Curry
School of Education
Project Coordinator- Jennifer
Nielsen
Research Assistants - Jennifer
Nielsen, David Brewster, Susanne
Croasdaile, Amy Klekotka
Dr. Diane Behrens- Director
of Federal Programs ACS
Charity Haines- FSP
Coordinator
Deborah Chlebnikow- FSW
Michael Holmes - FSW
Kathy Ralston - Director
ACDSS
Nancy Gan~neder- Weldon
Cooper Center
Evaluation Team Members
2
) )
Process & Methodology
· Research Process · Research Methods
Description of program
participants
Description of referral/selection
process
Program implementation within
the schools & the home
Program impact on students and
families
Longitudinal and cross-sectional
data collection & analysis
Data from school records, surveys,
interviews with students, parents,
FSWs, school administrators,
teachers, other school staff & the
Family Support case documents
Review of existing literature on
support services:
) ) )
Evaluation Phases
Phase I
· . Phase II
Internal examination of
information-gathering
procedures
Creation of a
searchable, archived
computer database to
maintain information
in a standard method
across all FSWs
Collection of empirical
evidence to examine
the program's activities
Data collected thus far
includes:
· Referral information
· Client family
characteristics
· FSW interventions
· Family stress/concerns
4
) )
Evaluation Timelines
Fall 2001
· On-line database creation
and collection
· Abuse & neglect data
· Financial data
· Family contact data
· Initial child assessment data
Winter 2002
· Family contact data
· Student school records data
· Review of case files
(narratives, service plans, etc.).
Spring 2002
· Recertification and family
assessment data
· Abuse & neglect data
· Financial data
· Contact with family data
· Child/school assessment
· Review of case files
· Parent survey
· School staff survey
5
Preliminary Data
Data included' in this preliminary analysis are limited to
cases open to services and active on October 1,2001.
This preliminary analysis includes selected data on 93
families with 137 children.
The entire sample will include 146 families
children.
with 211
6
Child Characteristics
· 42% Female
· 36% African-American
· 55% Caucasian
· 8% Biracial
· ~1% Hispanic
· 28% have a history of CPS
involvement
· 18% have had CPS
involvement since the FSP
case opened
· 9% have a history of out of
home placement by the courts
· 1% have been placed outside
the home by the courts since
the FSP case opened
7
Referrals to the Program
Referral source (top 5)
· Teacher 18%
· Gm'dance Counselor 8°,/o
· Principal/Assistant Principal 8%
· FSW 7%
· Parent/caregiver 3%
Family-focused reasons for
referral (top 5)
· Parent/caretaker overwhelmed 43%
· Poverty 25%
· Difficulty meeting basic needs 17%
· Illiteracy/limited education 14%
· Physical illness 11%
Child-focused reasons for
referral (top 6)
· Emotional concerns 26%
· Limited social skills 21%
· Behavior prbblems 19%
· Developmental delay 17%
· Health concerns 14%
· Truancy/habitual tardiness 12%
8
Family Characteristics
Primary Caregivers
· 13% are fathers
· 8% are grandmothers
· 10% are between the ages of 18-24
· 38% are between the ages of 25-34
· 34% are between the ages of 35-44
· 14% are between the ages of 45-54
· _4% are 55 years old and older
· 38% have fewer than 12 years of
formal education
Households
· 44% receive food stamps
· 62% rent; 25% own; 7% live with
relatives
· 19% live in Section 8 Housing
· 55% require continuing outside
support for basic needs
· 38% have expenses' that total more
than their resources
· 18% average more than 2 persons per
bedroom
9
Contacts with Families
FSWs had i,054 contacts with
93 families between July and
September, 2001.
Of these contacts,
· 44% were by phone
· 19% were home visits
· 15% were written
correspondence
· 13% were school meetings
· Less than 1% were transports
or other meetings
On average, FSWs had
approximately 11 contacts with
families between July and
September, 2001.
For each family, there was an
average of
' 5 phone contacts
· 2 home visits
' 2 written correspondence _
· 2 school mee[ings
· Transports and other meetings
each averaged to less than one
contact per family.
10
Community Based Services:
Direct Services
From July to September, 2001 FSWs provided
suppo~, intemention, and transpo~ation.
· 92% of the fmilies had one or more services
provided by the FSW
· 25% had 12 or more services provided by the FSW
· 1 family had 38 services provided by the FSW
Of the 92% of families receiving services,
· 72% had one or more interventions provided directly
by the FSW
· 25% had 3 or more interventions provided by the FSW
· 87% had received either information and or support
from the FSW
· 25% received information or support 7 or more times
~' Of the services provided by FSWs,
· 77% of families received services relating to
family relationships
· 67% of families received services relating to
financial issues
· 43% of families received services relating to
the promotion of family literacy
· 42% of families received services relating to
health concerns
· 23% of families received services relating to
employment
· 10% of families received services relating to
legal concems
The most frequently' provided services were in
the areas of:
· social and recreational 13%
· clothing 11%
· food 11%
11
ty '
Communi -Based Services:
Referrals to Other Agencies
Of the services F
families for,
SWs referred
· 46% of families were referred for
financial issues
· 39% of families were referred for
family relationship issues
· 25% of families were referred for
health concerns
· 12% of families were referred for
educational enhancement
· 4% of families were referred for
legal services
Instances of referral
· 66% of families received one or
more referrals to other agencies
· 25% of families received four or
more referrals,to other agencies
12.
School-Based Services
)~ FS Ws worked with 68% of the children
~' Of the services provided by FSWs
on school-related issues. They interacted
with 25% of the children 3 or more times.
} FSWs worked with the families of 77%
of the children on school-related issues.
They interacted with 25% of the families 6
or more times.
)' FSWs worked with school personnel
regarding family or school issues for 83%
of the children. For 25% of the children,
FSWs interacted regarding these issues
four or more times.
in the schools,
· 25% were with the child (e.g.
school behavior issues)
'42% were with the family (e.g.
helping with school paperwork)
'33% were with school personnel
(e.g. informing about problems in
the home)
13
)
Next Steps
Steering Committee/staff continue to build and modify
data base.
Compare available data from previous year
Proceed to Phase III & IV of the process
Maintain communication with Advisory Board &
obtain feedback
14
AGENDA TITLE:
Junior Firefighters Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to establish a Junior Fir,
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Trank, Pumphr
BACKGROUND:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
fighters program.
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
In June, the Fire/Rescue Advisory Boa~
requires that the Board of Supervisor.,
ordinance required to authorize the es
DISCUSSION:
'd (FRAB) first discussed the establishment of a Junior Firefighters program. State law
adopt an ordinance authorizing the establishment of this program. Enclosed is the
!ablishment of such a program.
Adoption of an ordinance strictly follow,lng State Code, allows candidates 16 - 18 years old to 'fully" parbc~pate in all activities
of the volunteer company as Ior~g as th,~y have parental consent and have attained Firefighter I certification. The Fii'e Rescue
Advisory Board has considered ~,hethe~l or not the ordinance should restrict to some degree, the activities of Junior Firefighters.
From staff's understanding, restriction~ haVe been included in some of the Junior Firefighter ordinances adopted by other
localities. Adoption of the ordinance n Its current form would not prohibit each individual station from establishin~ limits on the
activities of the junior firefighters. The d~'aft ordinance was reviewed, accepted and passed by a unanimous vote at the October
24 FRAB meeting. However, the FRAI~ membership believes that some limits should be established system-wide and will
develop a policy to be implemented byl all County fire/rescue agencies to establish such limits.
RECOMMENDATION:
~ ~option of the encllosed ordinance.
01.228
11-29-01 P:)3:36 IN
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
PROTECTION, OF THE CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Boart
Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the
adding a new Section 6-102 (Jun
Sec. 6-102 Junior Firefighter P
Persons sixteen years of age or o.
operate within the County of Alb
Any person sixteen years of age
company, provided that, if such
A. Supply to the chief fire offic
or guardian approval; and
B. Attain certification under Nat
administered by the Department
(Oft 01-6(2), 12-05-01)
State law reference -- V:
This ordinance shall b
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby cerfi]
the Board of Supervisors of Alb,
ORDINANCE NO. 01-6(2)
AND REORDAIN ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF CHAPTER 6, FIRE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
· of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article I, In General of
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby mended and reordained by
.or Firefighter Programs), as follows:
CHAPTER 6. FIRE PROTECTION
ARTICLE L IN GENERAL
rograms.
der are authorized to participate in a volunteer fire company duly authorized to
~nnarle under the following conditions.
~r older may work with or participate fully in all activities of a voluntary fire
erson is less than eighteen years of age, such person shall first:
of the volunteer fire company written confirmation that such person has parental
onal Fire Protection Association 1001, level one, fire fighter standards as
)fFire Programs.
rginia Code § 40.1-79.1.
effeotive upon passage.
that the foregoing writing is a Irue, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
narle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting
held on December 5, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms, Thomas
Aye Nay
x
x
x
x
x
Cler--Y['~Board of County Supervis°r~)'
(Absent)
~A DEPARTMENT
lonroe Building th
,3rth 14th Street, I8 Flo
mond, Virginia 23219
7-1
7-1.1
7-1.2
7-2
7-2. I
7-2.2
State Departmen
30,1981)
The following act
a. Minors, 16 a
b. The term "b
combustible
materials.
c. Minors, 14 ~
activities at tl
burning mate
Regulations.
d. Minors unde:
evolutions rel
NOTE: Rule 17 ap[
the State Departme'~
Code of Virginia,
Exclusions to Rule
to permit by ordinm
the Code of Virginit
old minors as set fo,
Section 40.1-79.1: ~
person sixteen yem
with or participate
person has attaine,
level one, fire figl
Programs.
(Il) Any trainer or
section or any mere
person shall be exe~
VDFP In
OF FIRE PROGRAMS
Dr
FIRE INSTRUCTOR MANUAL
SECTION 7
UNIOR FIREFIGHTER PROGRAMS
of Labor and Industry, Rule No. 17 - Firefighting (Revised June
vities involving firefighting are prohibited:
d 17 years of age, shall not enter a burning structure.
ming structure" as used in this restriction shall not include a non
structure such as an approved bum building which contains burning
~adl5 years of age, shall not participate in Firefighting or support
te fire scene, enter a burning structure, enter a structure which contains
rials, or engage in any other activity prohibited in the Rules and
: 14 years of age shall not participate in any practical training
~ted to firefighting,
lies, as well as other sections of the Rules and Regulations issued by
zt of £abor and Industry, declaring hazardous Occupations.
ection 40.1-79.1
qo. 17: Section 40.1-79.1 of Chapter 5, Title 40.1, authorizes localities
.ce certain children to work for volunteer fire companies. As noted in
'quoted below, this section affects the employment of 16 and 17 year
th in Rule 17 shown above in 7-1.
A) Any county, city or town may authorize by ordinance any
· s of age or older, with parental or guardian approval, to work
fully in all activities of a volunteer fire company, provided such
certification under National Fire Protection Association 1001,
ter standards, as administered by the Department of Fire
instructor of such persons mentioned in subsection (A) of this
>er of a paid or volunteer fire company who supervises any such
~pt from the provisions of Section 40-1-103 (Cruelty and injuries
;tructor Manual, Section 7 ~ Junior Firefighter Program
Page I of 2
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
James Monroe Building
101 North 14~ Street, 18* Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
to children), proviz
county, city or tow:
to or the death of si
7-3 Virginia Departme~
7-3.1 Live fire training ev
are subject to the fol
7-3.2
If the Junior Firefi
Virginia Firefighter
buildings (no acquir,
DOES possess a cu
referenced in Sectio:
are limited to appro~
7-3.3
If the Junior Firefig
Firefighter I certific
Fire Instructor Man~
permitted to particit;
VDFP
'IRE PROGRAMS
FIRE INSTRUCTOR MANUAL
led that the volunteer fire company or governing body of such
has purchased insurance which provides coverage for injuries
tch person in his performance of activities under this section.
~t of Fire Programs Rules for Junior Firefighters
>lutions involving Junior Firefighters (minors 16 & 17 years of age)
Lowing restrictions:
ater (minors 16 & 17 years of age) DOES NOT possess a current
I certification then bum evolutions are limited to approved bum
· .d structures). If the Junior Firefighter (minors 16 & 17 years of age)
:rent Virginia Firefighter I certification BUT the local ordinance as
~ 7-2 of the Fire Instructor Manual is NOT in effect, bum evolutions
ed bum buildings (no acquired structures).
ater (minors 16 & 17 years of age) DOES possess a current Virginia
ation, .AND the local ordinance as referenced in Section 7-2 of the
tai IS in effect, the Junior Firefighter (minors 16 & 17 years of.age) is
ate in all approved live bum evolutions.
Inslructor Manual, Section 7 Junior Firefighter Pro.am
Page 2 of 2
PLEASE
Public hear
Protection,
Article I, In
Firefight
SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
ng on an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire
of the Albemarle County Code by amending
General, to authorize the creation of Junior
~r programs by volunteer fire companies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
NAME (Please print clearly)
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing on ordinance to amen~l Chapter 3,
Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling, Ipertaining to
refuse transpoded in vehicles
/
SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Ordinance to amend Chapter 13, :~olid Waste
Disposal and Recycling, pertainin! to refuse
transported in vehicles
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Kamptner
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County Code § 13-301 m~
constructed or loaded to prevent the re!
to prevent the refuse from escaping "if 1
is designed to not allow sifting, leakag,
found that a person does not technicall
such as an enclosed bag of refuse, es,
DISCUSSION:
Although Albemarle County Code § 1:
escape a vehicle, that section is not vi~
proposed ordinance is intended to elimi
refuse escape a vehicle.
The proposed ordinance is based on V
it is constructed or loaded "to prevent ~
The proposed ordinance would amend
"load" escapes the vehicle. The "load"
ordinance would also amend the condi
comply with Albemarle County Code §
Used, they must be loaded so that the,
also require that containers themselve,,
These latter changes do not impose a n
if containers are used, neither they nor
The proposed ordinance was circulated
the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the proposed ordinance.
01.223
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENT~: Ordin~......~
ikes it unlawful to transport refuse in a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is
use from escaping the vehicle. A vehicle is deemed to be constructed or loaded
~e refuse is transported in a secured covered container within the vehicle which
or the escape of refuse therefrom." Because of this language, the court has
! violate Albemarle County Code § 13-301 when a securely covered container,
:apes from the vehicle.
~-301 makes it unlawful for refuse not within a securely covered container to
)lated when a securely covered container of refuse escapes the vehicle. The
late this deficiency and make it a violation if containers (including bags) holding
rginia Code § 10.1-1424, which prohibits a vehicle from being operated unless
ny of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping therefrom."
Albemarle County Code § 13-301 and make it a violation if any of a vehicle's
would include not only the refuse but also any refuse container. The proposed
:ions under which a vehicle is deemed to be constructed or loaded in order to
13-301. The amendment would require that if secured covered containers are
do not allow refuse to sift, leak or escape the vehicle. The amendment would
; be loaded in a manner so that they cannot drop from or escape the vehicle.
~w requirement that refuse be transl~orted in containers. They only require that
the refuse in them may escape the vehicle.
Io both the Chief of Police and the Commonwealth's Attorney, and they support
1 't-28-0
AN ORDINANCE TO AMI
ARTICLE III, DUMPING,.
WASTE, OF THE CODE (3
BE IT ORDAINED By the [
13, Solid Waste Disposal an~
Disposal of Waste, of the Cc
By Amending:
Sec. 13-301 Transporting
Ch{
Article III. Dumpi
Aye Nay
X
X
x_
X
Sec. 13-301 Transporting r~
It shall be unlawful
highways in the county in a
of the load, consisting of the
otherwise escaping therefron
load from dropping, sifting,
secured covered containers ~
refuse therefrom, and each ct
dropping or otherwise escapi
shall be guilty of a misdemea
(Code4967, § 15-4; 4-17-75:
State law reference - Va. Co
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby c
duly adopted by the Board of
recorded below, at a regular
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
ORDINANCE NO. 01-13(1)
ND CHAPTER 13, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING,
tCCUMULATION, STORAGE, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
)ard of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
1 Recycling, Article lll> Dumping, Accumulation, Storage, Removal and
de of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
refuse in vehicles.
tpter 13. Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling
ng, Accumulation, Storage, Removal and Disposal of Waste
ffuse in vehicles.
)r any person to transport any refuse upon the streets, roads, or
~otor vehicle unless the vehicle is constructed or loaded to prevent any
refuse and refuse containers, from dropping, sifting, leaking or
.. A vehicle may be deemed to be constructed or loaded to prevent the
~aking or otherwise escaping if the refuse is transported in one or more
ithin the vehicle which do not allow sifting, leakage or the escape of
~ntainer is loaded in the vehicle in a manner that prevents it bom
ag from the vehicle. Any person convicted of violating this section
nor punishable as provided in section 1-115 of the Code.
Code 1988, § 16-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 01-13(1), 12-05-01)
§ 10.1-1024.
rtify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 toO, as
aeeting held on December 5, 2001.
Clerk, Board of County Superviso~s~
(Absent)
BOARD -TO -BOA
December 5, 2001 - 10:3~
A Monthly Communications.
the Albemarle County Board
Highlights: School Board
through e-mail.
RECENT
CENTRAL REGIO
Annual Convention
the Central Region C
EQUITY EDUCAT
Board adopted an eqt
footnote that "sexual
opposite sex, same se
is intended to describ,
any conduct prohibite
ANTI-DISCRIMINi
discussion on the addi
policies. At the Nove
policy language whicl
impact students (hara~,
Board reviewed this h
action on these changt
discrimination. Legal
consideration are all lc
a.m.
~eport of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to
~f Supervisors.
Briefs for November 8 and 29, 2001 were provided
N CHAIRMAN: At the November 18-20 VSBA
Williamsburg, Steve Koleszar was appointed as
aairman.
;ON POLICY: At the November 8 meeting, the
ity education policy. The policy will include a
~rientation" is defined as "One's attraction'to the
~: or both sexes, real or perceived. This definition
the status of persons and does not render lawfuI
d by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia."
tTION LANGAUGE: The Board continued its
.tion of"sexual orientation" to anti-discrimination
tuber 8 meeting, the Board asked staff to develop
would add "sexual orientation" to policies that
',sment and discipline). On November 29, the
tnguage. On December 13, the Board will take
:s and on a blanket resolution on anti-
counsel has advised that the changes under
,~gally enforceable.
RECEIVED, AT.T. BOS MEETING
oat.:,,
Agenda Item #:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 2002-03/2006/07: The
CIP has beendiscussed since the October 22 meeting. The CIP was
prepared to reflect the recommendations of the Long-Range Planning
Committee, enrollment changes and current needs. On November 29,
the Board had considerable discussion and public input concerning the
addition of an auditorium at Monticello High School to the CIP. On
December 13, the Board will consider three options for the CIP.
JLARC REPORT: On November 20, several Board members and Dr.
Morgan attended the presentation of the JLARC Report. The report
showed that the State is inadequately funding education. A summary of
the report is attached (Attachment 1). The results of this report will
probably have significant impact on the deliberation of the General
Assembly this year and in the future.
PROGRESS REPORT: On November 29, Volume 2 of the 2001
Annual Progress Report was presented to the SChool Board. Volume 1
was presented on October 22 and addresses the progress of the division
towards meeting the School Board goals and priorities. Volume 2
includes more in-dePth information describing individual schools and
the progress being made towards Board priorities as well as other
important indicators of student performance measUred in the division.
The 2001 Annual Pr, ogress Report will be available on the web site or
copies are available by contacting Kevin Hughes.
SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS: This month the State Board of
Education lowered the minimum passing scores on History SOL tests-
fifth-grade, eighth-grade, World History II and US History. In
Albemarle County both World History II and US History are taken in
the high school. These changes come at the same time that we are
looking at new History tests. The new passing scores bring the History
scores more in l~ine.-~with~ the passing scores already identified for the
other subj.ects. -
FUTURE ITEMS
MID-YEAR REV1]
meeting to review it~,
Board/Superintende~
Reorganization of th
the Board deems it n
OF INTEREST
gW: On December 6, the Board will hold a special
progress toward meeting the School
t Priorities, the Annual Progress Report, and the
~ Human Resources Department. At that time, if
ecessary, adjustments can be made.
SUMMARY
By direction of
Audit and Review Cot
State funding of the V
collected from a variel
Education and all Ioca
The Virginia St,
They establish the mir
Commonwealth for K-
the SOQ. School divi,'
adjusted for the Iocalit
Index. As a rule, schc
example, the SOQ st~
than 30. The actual sl
school divisions exceE
locality.
Since JLARC Ir-
number of concerns h;
by the State to estimal
the SOQ without state
as a measure of a Ioc~
Recommendatit
addresses the: actual ¢
addresses the funding
SOQ and are not su pi0
funding of constructior
provides a framework'
responsibilities for edu
A summary of tt
Tier 1:
The methodoloc
terms of calculi
is appropriately
billion more in s'
F JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, AND REVIEW
:OMMISSION (JLARC) REPORT
bhe 2000 Virginia General Assembly, the Joint Legislative
nmission (JLARC) conducted a 16-month study on the
rrginia Standards of Quality (SOQ). Data for this study was
y of sourCes, including the Virginia Department of
I school divisions in the state.
]ndards of Quality (SOQ) are part of The Code of Virginia.
dmum standards to be met by all school divisions in the
12 education. State funding to school divisions is based on
;~ons receive state funding to meet SOQ requirements,
f's ability to pay based on a measure called the Composite
divisions exceed the requirements of the SOQ. For
ndard for class size in third grade is 24 with no class larger
atewide average class size in third grade is 20. When
the SOQ, all necessary funding is provided by the
st analyzed funding of the SOQ in the mid 1980s, a
~ve surfaced. Major issues include the methodology used
e SOQ costs, the degree to which school divisions exceed
support, and the long-term viability of the Composite Index
~lity's ability to pay.
~ns from the study are divided into three tiers. The first tier
)sts of funding ti~ SOQ requirements, the second tier
of prevailing school division practices that exceed the
orted by state funding, and the third tier addresses the
debt service and teacher salaries. Additionally, the report
:or determining future state and local funding
:ation.
te report's major findings are as follows:
ly used to determine the costs of the SOQ is inadequate in
Iing the actual costs of the standards. If the methodology
adjusted to reflect actual costs, it would require $1.06
:ate funding over the 2002-04 biennium.
Page 2
Tier 2:
SOQ funding does not reflect prevailing practice in areas including class
size, provision for planning periods, funding for resource teachers in areas
such as elementary art, music, and physical education, preschool
programs, principals, and assistant principals. To address these areas
would cost approximately $500 million more in state funding during the
2002-04 biennium.
Tier 3:
State support of local debt service for facility construction and renovation
is relatively limited. To provide up to a 50% state share of these costs
would require up to $291 million more in state funding during the 2002-04
biennium.
Virginia teacher salaries have continued'to lag behind the national
average. To address this are would require up to $394 million more in
state funding during the 2002-04 biennium. The Governor and the
General Assembly may also want to appoint a task force to examine the
issue of a long-term teacher salary goal for the Commonwealth.
In addition to the findings, the report also noted that the Composite Index
remains a viable means to adjust state funding based on a Iocality's ability to
pay. However, the report also identified some possible areas for adjusting the
formula, including population density, the relative weights given to local tax
bases, and the combined use of the median and average Adjusted Gross Income
for localities with skewed income distributions.
The JLARC report will now be considered by the Governor and the
General Assembly for possible future legislative action.
Eteme
Joint Lee
This after~
on State funding
local school diw
the SOQ.
Our analysi~
educational expel
reasons to be col
that they bear. f(
We have der,
the General Asse~
accurate cost est
policy, options s~
presents propose¢
SOQ, based on cu~
estimates. We b~
estimation pract]
results over the
Tier two in¢
operating costs ~
already bear, but
does not fund in
three addresses c
teacher salaries.
in these areas to
policy choice of
I want to en
does not suggest
to appropriate in
That decision, ac
the goals and obi
Education, revisi
those goals~ and
of funding and th
-and the localitie
Introd'uctory Statement of
Philip A. Leone
.tary and Secondary School Funding
islative Audit and Review Commission
Tuesday, November 20, 2001
~on, Mr. Chairman, we present our findings
of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and
sion expenditures above those required by
indicates that localities which have
.ditures beyond the SOQ have some valid
~cerned about the level of responsibility
~r education costs.
~loped a tiered array of cost options for
~ly's consideration, ranging from more
.imates of implementing the SOQ to broad
!pplementing the standards. Tier one
adjustments for estimating costs of the
rent standards and prevailing Gost
lieve that these adjustments in cost
ces should achieve more realistic SOQ cost
long term compared to current practice.
ludes options for funding those additional
hich the majorzty of school divisions
the State does not generally fund, or
full in all of the school divisions. Tier
apital cost or debt service funding and
The extent of the State's participation
go beyond SOQ cost levels zs clearly a
zhe General Assembly.
phasize, Mr. Chairman, that our analysis
how much money the General Assembly ought
support of public education in total.
cording to the Constitution, depends on
ectives proposed by the Board of
Dns the General Assembly might make to
~ legislative determination of the manner
e apportionment of costs between the State
which comprise the school divisions.
Tier One: Meeting S0Q Costs
In this first tier, our analysis examines the costs of
implementing the existing Standards of Quality. The
standards are promulgated by the State Board of Education
in their Standards of Accreditation and other regulations;
they are specified in the Code of Virginia; and they are
addressed by the General Assembly in the Appropriations
Act. These standards constitute what the Board of
Education has determined to be minimum, but high-quality
educational requirements for l~cal school divisions.
In 1985, JLARC deveIoped a methodology for estimating
SOQ costs. This methodology is rooted in the real costs
that have been incurred by school divisions across the
Commonwealth as they have implemented the standards. The
JLARC staff approach was used by the 1986 an~ 1988 General
Assembly. However, since the early 1990s, several changes
have been made in the original JLARC methodology, resulting
in local school divisions assuming more SOQ foundation
costs. Mr. Rotz will describe these changes in his
briefing this afternoon.
For the upcoming biennium (2002-2004), Department of
Education (DOE) estimates indicate that an additional $377
million in State funds will be needed to fund a 55 percent
State share of the SOQ, based on routine updates to the SOQ
cost funding model. The bottom line of our analysis is
that we estimate an increased State cost for the SOQ of
$1.06 billion, or $683 million above DOE's cost estimate of
routine updates to fund the standards.
Tier Two: Enhancing the Recognition of Instructional
Personnel and At-Risk Pre-School Funding
Tier Two presents a range of options for the General
Assembly's consideration. The analysis indicates that
local school divisions may have good reason to believe that
the State should assume more of the costs of implementing'
existing instructional requirements associated with
elementary resource teachers and the required planning
period for secondary grades. These two funding items alone
would cost the State an estimated $386 million during the
2002-2004 biennium.
Another opt
school programs
the next bienniu
addressed by the
ion for expanded State payments for pre-
Would cost between $9 to $83 million over
m, depending on which cost issues are
State.
Tier Three Funding Options: Debt Service to Supplement
Current State FUnds for Capital Projects and Teacher Salary
Costs
The third a
funding and teac
tier present som
has had a limite
but in recent ye
for this purpose
grant funds. Th
area is a policy
With regard
lacks a clear po
salary increases
generally been m
the decade compa
national average
point, the State
salary increases
division practic
report recommend
consider establi
State's goals sh
Current Framewor
Responsibilities
In addition
of Virginia prov
responsibility f
S0Q costs. We f
utilized for der
compatible with
three-quarters o
measure of local
nd final tier addresses capital cost
her salary options. The issues in this
e unique concerns. The State historically
d role in funding locally-built facilities,
ars has substantially increased its funding
with lottery funds and sch6ot construction
e State's degree of participation in this
choice.
to teacher salaries, the State currently
licY or salary goal. State-supported
for teachers during the 1990s have
inimat, and the State lost ground during
~ed to other southeastern states and the
. The report recommends that as a starting
may wish to estimate S0Q costs using
at least equal to the prevailing school
es from recent years. Beyond that, the
that the General Assembly and Governor
~hing a task force to consider what the
Duld be with regard to teacher salaries.
for Determining State and Local
for Paying Education Costs
to determining S0Q costs, the Constitution
[des the General Assembly with the
Dr determining State and local shares for
und that the current framework which is
rmining these shares appears to be
~onstitutional provisions. Further, about
all State funds are distributed using a
ability to pay.
3
However, we do recommend that the General Assembly may
wish to consider adjusting the current composite index to:
(1) provide for a population density adjustment, (2) update
the relative weights that are given to the real property,
.sales tax, and other revenue components, and (3) use a
composite index that takes median adjusted gross income
into account for localities with skewed income
distributions. In addition, if the State continues to
reimburse localities for foregone revenues due to the
phase-out of the local personal property tax, the General
Assembly may wish to consider in the future how the
composite index could be improved to better address this
aspect of local ability to pay.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
Superintendent of pUblic Instruction, Dr. Jo Lynne DeMary,
and her staff for their assistance throughout this study,
especially Mr. Dan Timberlake and Mr. Kent Dickey for
answering our many questions on the education budget and
SOQ funding model issues. Also, a special thanks to local
school divisions for filling out their lengthy and
exhaustive surveys, which were integral to the study's
analysis. We had a 100 percent response.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. Bob
Rotz, Senior Division Chief, who was responsible for
directing this study.
4
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission
of the Virginia General Assembly
Review of Elementary and
c~--~,nnd=r~~ Re, hnnl I=~ndinn
Staff Briefing
November 20, 2001
Presentation Outline
~i~lntroduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
[] SOQ Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
[] Funding Options to Enhance State Support
for Education (Tiers Two and Three)
[] FramewOrk for Determining State and Local
Cost Responsibilities
JLARC Staff for the. Study
Bob Rotz, Division Chief
Kimberly Maluski
Christine Wolfe
Ashley Colvin
f3-P,,~,q Cl~ot ~faff IUlafhn~lnln~i~:f
State Standards of Quality (SOQ)
· Virginia's Standards of Quality (SOQ) provide an
important foundation for the State's role in funding
elementary and secondary education
· The SOQ are minimum requirements for school
divisions to provide a program of high quality for
public elementary and secondary education
General Assembly's
Constitutional Responsibilities
Regarding Public Schools
a "Provide for a system of free publ!,c ele~,e_ntary and
secondary schools for all children and seek to
ensure that an educational program of ~igh quality is
established and Continually maintained
· "Determine the manner in which funds are to be
provided for the cost of malntalnlng an educational
program meeting the prescribed Standards of Quality"
, ,~..~Vl~l~;~ I~..~1 I. IIf~;t appor[ionmen! o! trte cost of such
program between the Commonwealth and the local
units of government..."
'5
Locality Discretionary Expenditures Accounted for
about 24 Percent of Total Operating Costs in FY 2000
State Sales Tax
9.5% ($O.74
Total Expenditures:
State Non-SOQ $7.735 billion
5.9% ($0.45 billion)
Federal
6.2% ($0 48 billion)
Total expenditures for all operations were about $7.735 billion. (In addition, capital faci ity
expenditures were about $743 million). Total local expenditures based on JLARC staff analysis of
DOE spreadsheet on required local e]~pendltUres, and DOE revenue and expenditure data.
Overview of Funding Components
· State and local funding for elementary and secondary
education supports:
· SOQ operating costs (costs for the State's foundation program),
· non-SOQ operating costs, and
· capital facility costs
· The State provides more than half of SOQ funding.
........... I." vv !~ ~ ~ ~JU[!Zy Ol non-~uM operational
funding, and capital facility costs
· Non-SOQ funds are provided to fund objectives which
exceed the requirements of the SOQ
Study Mandate
· Local governments have expressed concerns over
time about the adequacy of State funding support
· Resolutions from 2000 Session called for a study
of funding for elementary and .secondary education
· SJR 232, HJR 173, HJR 195, and HJR 248:
· "many school divisions surpass the minimum requirements of
the Standards of Quality, [and] b~rgeoning educational costs
often exceed the COmmonwealth s share of the cost of public
education, straining local resources"
· called for JLARC study of $OQ funding and local educational
programs and services that exceed the SOQ (last JLARC review
of SOQ costs and funding was in mid,1980s)
Study Mandate
(continued)
· Language requiring the study initially included in
Appropriation Act from 2000 Session; resolutions
not reported as study anticipated through the Act
· Appropriation Act language vetoed April 2000
· Veto sustained, but General Assembly leadership
indicated study would be conducted pursuant to a
charge by the Commission
· At May 2000 meeting, JLARC members
unanimously approved the study
Study Issues
(continued)
1!
· In what ways are localities exceeding SOQ costs?
· If the General Assembly wishes to enhance the level of State
support, what options are available and what are the
associated costs?
[] What factors should be considered in assessing the priority
to give to various options for increasing State support?
Study Issues
· How is the State estimating SOQ costs? Are all
localities fully funding their share of SOQ costs?
· Are there any adjustments to the SOQ
methodology that appear appropriate?
· Are there"funding a s" for
g P State-mandated or
sponsored programs?
· To what extent is funding distributed based o~~
local ability to pay?
Research Activities
12
· Forums to obtain public input on study issues
· eight regions
· two meetings in each' region (a meeting with Superintendents and Finance
Officers, and a public meeting)
· Analysis of Annual School Rep. ort data, survey data collected
by JEARC staff, and other available data
· Review and use of SOQ funding model and calculations
· Consideration of ability to pay issues
· Development of options for the General Assembly to consider
and spreadsheets to estimate option costs
10
Survey of School Divisions
[] JLARC staff developed a survey of school divisions which
was administered from the Fall of 2000 to the Spring of 2001
· Examples of data obtained include:
· FTE classroom teachers, by type of teacher (regular claSSroom,
resource teacher, special edUcation teacher, and other types), by source
of funds, and by grade level as appropriate
· experience levels of teachers, provisionally-licensed teachers,
applicants per teaching vacancy
· salary increases for instructional, administrative, and support staff
· maxim um class sizes by grade at elementary level~ by .~uh?n~ ~
secondary level
[] Major effort by school divisions
[] Final response rate was 100 percent
State Share Assumptions in Options
Study Options Presented in Three Tiers
15
13
Tier One: the estimate for meeting SOQ costs, using cost
estimation principles which are considered to be most
accurate for use over the long term. It is compatible with
State standards, and prevailing division practices where
standards are not quantified
14
Tier Two: enhanced instructional staffing practices and at-
risk pre-school funding
Tier Three: enhanced State support of capital costs based on
- ~--' r-r ......... ~-~,, ~c, v.~, ~,.u u.nanced ~eacher
salaries, including costs of moving toward the national
average teacher sala~
Summary of Study Findings
16
· Options use a 55 percent State share of operating
costs remaining after the deduction of sales tax,
and up to a 50 percent share of debt service costs
· The State's percentage share of costs is a policy
choice that is made by the General Assembly
· There are some valid reasons for local concern about
education funding issues:
· Increasing number of pupils since FY 1985
· Increasing school facility costs
· Relative stagnancy in estimated.true value of real property
· Stat·car tax relief based on 1997 tax rates and policies;:~
· Resource needs related to Standards of Learning (SOL)
· State funding, in constant dollars per-pupil:
· was down during the 1990s from the FY 1990 level, and did not recover
until FY 1998
· showed a brief growth trend beginning in FY 1999, with the onset of
Lottery and school constructiori grants programs
· may begin to trend downward again due to State fiscal difficulties
Summary of Study Findings
(continued)
17
[] In FY 2000, local funding for non-SOQ purposes
exceeded local funding for SOQ purposes
[] Reasons for the size of locality operating cost
expenditures above the SOQ include the following
· Staffin.q: 'State standards for instructional staff recognize fewer
positions than are provided by most school divisions
· Cost Estimation Chan.qes: a number of changes in the State's
costs
· Salaries: some large school divisions, employing a majority of
teachers, pay average teacher salary levels above the typical
level across school divisions, and thereby incur substantial non-
SOQ salary costs
Summary of Study Findings
(continued)
19
Summary of Study Findings
(continued)
[] DOE staff's preliminary estimates are that SOQ
cost payments, stemming from routine updates of
the SOQ cost model, will cOst the State about $377
million in the upcoming biennium
[] Based on recent data corrections, JLARC staff's
current figure for the impact of routine updates to
SOQ costs for the biennium is about $389 million
Summary of Study Findings
(continued)
.= Changes in State budget assumptions, most made
during the early 1990s, have dampened the size of the
SOQ cost estimates which are produced
· JLARC staff sought a more realistic estimate of costs
· JLARC staff estimate the following State cost increases
for the 2002-2004 biennium (a two year cost increase)
over FY 2002 planned allocations, to meet SOQ costs:
· As mentioned, cost for routine
re-basing of the SOQ cost model: $ 389 million
· JLARC staff proposed adjustments
in estimating current SOQ costs + $ 671 million
· Estimated $OQ Costs (Tier One) $1.060 billion
· The study provides additional options for the General
Assembly's consideration, to enhance State support for
public education
· These options address:
· State recognition of elementary resource teachers and the
· secondary planning period requirement in cost calculations
· State recognition of higher instructional staffing levels (for
example, in order to provide smaller class sizes), as provided by
most school divisions
· State funding of at-risk pre-school programs
· State support for capital facility purposes
· teacher salaries, including movement toward the national
average salary
18
2O
Presentation Outline
J~ Introduction and Summary o f indin g---~
=o. roun
[] SOQ ReqUirements and the Funding of
t SOQ Costs (Tier One)
i/ f ° rnEd~l~gc aOt iP°t in°(~' efr( ~r TEv~ °h ~le ~ hSrteaet)e:
~ '/ [] Fr~_m.e:~.,ork fcr D~t~r~ii~h,y Slate an({
Funding Options for Enhanced State Support
23
1,15O,O00
1,125,000
1,100,000
~ 1,075,000
~3~'1,050,000
1,025,000
1,000,00o
975,000
950,000
o
Cost Responsibilities
Local
Rising Number of Pupil in the
Public Schools Since FY 1985
-21
Pressure Upon Local Governments
in Funding Education
--
· Many local governments have long argued that the
State is not a full partner in funding elementary and
secondary education, pointing to differences
between the expenditures that are made, and what
the State recognizes in its standards and funding
· The State's perspective generally has been that its
primary obligation is to fund the State-required
$OQ. not heln d~frn~, th,- ,-,,,..+~ _, _, .....
expenditure decisions
· Several trends, however, have increased the
pressure faced by local governments in eduk:ation
funding.
School Facility Costs Reached Higher
Levels, Beginning in FY 1986
-24
-22
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
School Year (End Date)
~. $?oo
,- '~ $600
~ o~ $500
= o $400
$300
$1o0
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Fiscal Year
Growth in Local Real Property Tax Base
Was Relatively Slow in 1990s
25
~400
350
_3 ,o. 200
~ ~ 100
~ o
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 O0
Tax Year
School Division
Funds, in Constant FY 2000 Dollars Per Pupil
The 1980e were a time nenetant dollars,
I of rapid growth in State I98 revenues
$3,400 / revenues per pupil,
3,200 i teven in constant dollars.
3,000
Revenues from State-Appropriated
27
2,200
,800
,600
Constru0ti0n Grants
~eginning in
1,000
Soo
600
400 ~ Beginning of State-
I lappropriatnd sales tsxl
~y~98o I
Fiscal Year
State Policies With ~,~
Potential LoCality Fiscal Impacts
26
· State reimbursements to local governments for car
tax relief:
· paid based on local tax policies' in place in 1997
· as a practical matter, and consistent with the relief intended for
taxpayers by State policy, Localities will generally not be raising
this tax to gain higher revenues
· Standards of Learning:
.Stc. tc :-~=..u.~.ng, throL,~h ~_ .c)t=at~ ~urriculum and testina program, _
to challenge pupils and schools to improve student knowledge
and performance, and to promote accountability
· Some costs already incurred; more costs anticipated in the
future for school improvement plans
Presentation Outline
28
[] Introduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
~i~f SO.Q Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
~'ROle of the Board of Education
· State's Estimation of SOQ Costs
· Administration and Oversight of SOQ Funding.
[] Funding Options to Enhance State Support
for Education (Tiers Two and Three)
[] Framework for Determining State and Local
Cost Responsibilities
Constitutional Expectations for the SOQ
[] SOQ framework attempts to promote State and local
government accountability for ensuring adequate
minimum standards and resources for public education
[] Board of Education to prescribe standards (subject
only to revision by the General Assembly)
[] General Assembly is to determine manner in which
funds are to be provided for the cost of maintaining an
educational program meeting the SOQ, and to
· .- ............... · ~,=~vv=~ o[a[e an• localities
[] "Each unit of loCal government shall provide its portion
of such cost by local taxes or from other available
funds."
-29
Standards of Quality to .Be Realistic
--31
· Attorney General's opinion, 1973:
· "Although what items shall comprise the Standards is a
matter for the exercise of sound judgment by the Board of
Education, subject only to revision by the General
Assembly, the Standards cannot be prescribed in a
vacuum but must be realistic in relation to the
Commonwealth's educational needs and practices."
Board of Education Charged With
Prescribing SOQ
· ~ituflonal Revision
(January, 1969):
· "clearly unworkable to enshrine a standard in the
Constitution"
· "language of high quality intended to convey the idea of a
progressively higher statewide standard, achievable under
present conditions, but to be advanced as circumstances
an d resources permit"
* "Therefore, standards of ~lualitv are tn h~ ¢~efakll~,k~d L..
me ~tate Board of Education, the governmental agency
most familiar with the needs of the public school system,
subject to revision only by the General Assembly, which
because of its fiscal responsibility for meeting the
standards, must have ultimate control of them."
Board of Education Needs tO Keep the
SOQ Cur_rent With Prevailing Practice
· Primary area in which Board of Education has set
quantified standards that are part of SOQ funding
framework is in the area of instructor, pupil ratios
and maximum class sizes
· These basic standards have changed little since
the 1980s, and are exceeded in most areas by
current school division practices ~
· The current Board of Education, during the fall of
2001, has acknowledged that it has been relatively
inactive with regard to re-examining SOQ
requirements over the last decade or so
.3o
32
Board of Education Needs to Make Annual Reports
on Condition and Needs of Public Education
33
[] Article V!l!, Section 5 of the Constitution of Virginia:
· "It [the Board] shall make annual reports to the
Governor andthe General Assembly concerning the
condition and needs of public eduCation in the
Commonwealth"
[] The Board of Education began,providing these annual
reports in the 1970s. During the 1980s, thereports
began to focus upon Board and State initiatives, rather
than upon an analysis of condition and needs
Board of Education Needs to Develop Staffing
Standards for TechnolOgy Positions
34
· Section 22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of Virginia
requires the Board of Education to promulgate
regUlations with:
· "requirements and guidelin es for the integration of
educational technology into such instructional programs,
administrative and instructional staffing levels and
positions, including staff positions supporting
educational technology" (amendments enacted at the
2000 General. Assembly Session)
· The Board of Education has not consistently produced
reports during the 1990s with a focus on assessing the
cOnditions and needs of education
· As of October 2001, the Board of Education had not
promulgated such regulations, and DOE staff indicate that
they' have not developed internal draft staffing standards
Board of Education Indicates It Plans
to Be More Active on SOQ Issues
· The Board is considering a proposed amendment
to its bylaws:
· amendment would require the Board to "conduct a review of the
Standards of Quality from time to time, but no less than once
every two years"
· amendment could be a positive step
· Board also has recently begun to plan the
development of the next annual report on the
status of public education. However:
· the constitutional framework anticipates report which comes to
grips with public education's "needs" and "failures"
· DOE staff suggestions to the Board appear to foster a report that
inventories,, categorizes, and publicizes past and present
actions of the Board
35
Recommendations
Recommendation. The Board of Education should review the
adequacy of current quantified standards pertaining to
resource needs, and recommend advances in those
standards to the General Assembly, as appropriate relative to
current education conditions.
· Recommendation. The Board of Education should address
the issue of resource needs for the public school system in
its constitutionally and statutorily-required annual report on
the "condition and needs" of pul~lic ~ducation.
· Recommendation. Pursuant to §22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of
Virginia, the BOard of Education should promulgate
regulations regarding the integration of educati~)n technology
into instructional programs and setting guidelines for staffing
positions supporting educational technology.
36
Presentation Outline Historical View of SOQ Costs
[] Introduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
I~i~SOQ Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
· Role of the Board of Education
~'State's Estimation of SOQ Costs
· Administration and Oversight of SOQ Funding
Funding Options to Enhance State Support
for Education (Tiers Two and Three)
Framework for Determining State and Local
Cost Responsibilities
SOQ Should Be Realistic in Relation to
Current, Prevailing Costs
37
· Constitution of Virginia empowers General ~
Assembly to make final deciSions about SOQ costs
· Adequacy of the costs set by the General
Assembl~f has never been legallY challenged:
· court case on education funding in early 1990s alleged
that substantial disparities exist in school division
resources, but Virginia SuPreme Court held that "while
the elimination of substantial disparity between school
divlslons may be a worthy goal, it simply is not required
by the Constitution"
· court noted that in that particular case, there was "no
contention that the manner of funding prevents the
schools from meeting the standards of quality"
Approaches to Estimating SOQ Costs
"The legislative determination of cost may not be based upon
arbitrary estimates with no reasonable relationshl p to the actual
expense" (Virginia's Attorney General's opinion, February 1983)
[in] estimating the cost of implementing the Standards, the General
Assembly must take into account the actual cost of education rather
than developing cost estimates based on arbitrary figures bearing
no relationship to the actual expense of education prevailing in the
Commonwealth" (Virginia Attorney General's opinion, February
1973)
"... the following guidelines are implicit in the Constitution: (1) the
Standards of Quality must be realistic in relation to Current
education practice. (2) The estimate of the cost of the Standards of
Quality must be realistic in relation to current costs for education."
(From the first and second reports of the Task Force on Financing
the Standards of Quality~ December 1972 and July 1973)
39
· One way to promote the historical objectives in
determining SOQ costs is to use a methodology
with cost estimation principles that are known,
reliable, and independent of factors that are
unrelated to the expense of education, such as the
short-term availability of-funds
· Approaches to-estimate SOQ costs have included:
· the former Task Force / DOE approach
· JLARC staff methodology (1986 and 1988 Sessions)
· More recent apprOach, using JLARC staff methodology,
but with sOme important deviations
38
4O
Former Task Force / DOE
Methodology Assumptions
41
· Instructional positions: Focused on division-wide
Appropriation Act requirements
· Teacher salary base: Statewide average (total salary
compensation divided by total number of teachers)
· Support: Comprehensive inclusion of positions; statewide
average per-pupil cost
· Teacher salary increases: hOE proje~:[u~ ~a;&ry cc, c,t=
forward using percentage increases needed to achieve or
maintain teacher salary goals. Full year salary increases.
· Inflation: Used to move costs from base year to current year,
and to project costs forward for each year of new biennium
Statewide Average Cost Was Not
Funded by the General Assembly
· During the 1970s and first half of the 1980s, the Department
of Education used the methodology to estimate th~ per,pupil
costs of the SOQ
· In the Appropriation Acts, however, the General Assembly
established a lesser SOQ cost than estimated by the
department
· The difference was known as the "funding gap" for the SOQ.
In 1975, the General Assembly funded 82.5 percent of the
SOO cost estimate; in luo,:, ,~ ,u,,u~,, v.v. .......
42
JLARC Staff Methodology
~43
[] In1985, the General Assembly requested that
JLARC staff examine the costs of the SOQ
[] JLARC staff developed a cost methodOlOgy which
had some similarities, but also differences, from
the former Task Force / DOE approach
JLARC Staff Methodology Assumptions
44
· Instructional positions: Used all standards to determine
instructional position needs above 57 per 1,000, where required
· Teacher salary base: Calculated using actual division-by-division
average salaries, with an estimate Of the typical division salary level
using the linear weighted average (see later slides for further
discussion)
· Support costs: ComPrehensive inclusion of positions; linear
weighted average cost
· Teacher salary increases: Proiected forward based on percentages
needed to achieve or maintain teacher salary goals. Full year salary
increases
· Inflation: Used to move costs from base year to current year, and to
project costs forward to each year of new biennium
JLARC Staff Methodology Reduced
Size of SOQ Cost Estimates
in 1985, using the Task Force / DOE methodology,
the Department of Education estimated that $395.9
million in additional State funds would be needed
in the 1986-88 biennium to fully fund the SOQ
m Based on its methodology, JLARC staff estimated
that an addition of only $161.4 million was needed
for full funding of the SOQ
45
Changes in Assumptions During 1990s
Dampened Growth in SOQ Cost Estimates
· Key changes included: ~
· No prospective inflation for sUpport costs
· No teacher salary goal; instead, year-to-year decisions,
usually based on State employee raises
· Salary raises paid by State for half of the year
· Costs for professional administrative staff dropped due to
DOE error; change made permanent
- - h aaoptea Dy
· n , [,'G ui.r'q.l~l%, OtC:ill t.;U~t i:l~r~)aG was
actions of the 1986 and 1988 General Assembly
46
No Prospective Inflation
for Support Costs
Driven by inflation and other factors, school division support
costs statewide almost always increase from year to year
To help account for this, the JLARC staff methodology from the
1980s included the use of inflation factors to help anticipate cost
increases
· The State's approach during the 1990s has assumed no
prospective inflation for support costs
[] Therefore, DOE's estimate of SOQ costs:
· inflates a base year per-pupil cost, to estimate costs forths year prior to
the start of the new biennium (for example, FY 2000 costs are inflated to
obtain an FY 2002 cost)
· the per-pupil cost from the fiscal year preceding the new biennium is
ther~ used to fund costs in both years of the ne~ biennium (for examp e,
a FY 2002 per-pupil cost is used to fund costs for FY 2003 and FY 2004)
47
Teacher Salaries: Big Increases to Fund
Salary Goals Largely Ended in FY 1991
Budget Bill Appropriation Act
Proposed Increase Funded Increase Over Effective Date of
Fiscal Year Over Prior Year Prior Year Salary Increase
1985 10.0% 10.0% 07/01/1984
1986 10.0% 10.0% 07/01/1985
1987 12.80 % 12:80% 07/01/1986
1988 12.80 % 12.80% 07/01/1987
1989 8.00 % 8.00% 07/01/t 988
1990 8.00 % 8.00% 07/01/1989
1991 6.30 % 5.00% 07/01/t 990
1991 Session addresses fiscal shortfall
1992 0.00 % 0.00% --
1993 0.00 % 0.00% --
1994 0.00 % 3.00% 12/01/1993
1995 2.25 % 3.25% 12/01/1994
1996 2.25 % 2.25% 12/01/1995
1997 0.00 % 1.75% 01/01/1996
1998 3.00 % 2.00% 01/01/1997
1999 2.25 % 2.25% 01/01/1998
2000 2.25 % 6.00% 01/04/1999
2001 0.00 % 2.40°/0 12/01/2000
2002 0.00 % 0.00% ..
48
Teacher Salaries:
State Does Not Have a Policy Connecting Salary
Increases to Prevailing Practice
49
· Teacher salary costs are a major component of SOQ
costs
· Teacher salary increase levels are impacted by State
budget decisions, but also by locality decisions about
increases
Based on school division expenditures, average
.... ,- .... ~..~;.~,, ho~,~ nnn~ un in 2fi of the last 27 years
The State does not have a pOlicy to provide salary
increases that are likely necessary to keep pace with
locality decisions
Case Example:
Salary Increases Not Currently Viewed as
Part of State's SOQ Cost Responsibility
The executive branch's December2000 proposed State
budget provided a reduction in State retirement system
contribution rates. Executive branch officials indicated that
the locality cost savings from the rate reduction could and
should be used by local governments to pay for teacher:
salary increases. The State was considered to have
contributed to the end of increasing teacher salaries by
setting the policy that led to the locality savings, and could
use its own savings for other purposes. Under this
perspeCtive, the State was not seen as having a
salary increases. Ultimately~ when a budget impasse
occurred, no State-funded salary increase was assumed in
SOQ costs for FY2002, as had been the executive branch's
position.
5o
Teacher Salary Increase Assumptions
Included in DOE's SOQ Cost Estimate
a DOE's estimate of about $377 million in increased
SOQ costs for FY 2003 and FY 2004 assumes the
following regarding teacher salaries:
· a 2.4 percent increase per State budget in FY 2001
· no increase in FY 2002
· no increase in FY 2003
· no increase in FY 2004
51
Salary Raises Provided for
Half of.the Fiscal Year
[] Beginning in FY 1994, salary increases for school division
personnel have been paid by the State starting in December
or January of 'the fiscal year being funded
[] School divisions typically provide salary increases at the
start of the contract year, typically in July
· Localities must essentially provide: (!) half of the State's
share of the increase (since State funds are provided for half
of the year), and (2) the full local share of the salary increase
· Example: If State provides a 2.4 percent teacher salary
increase effective in January of the fiscal year
· typical composite index locality needs to pay for a 1.74 percent
increase in order to realize a2.4 percent increase
· State share of cost is a 0.66 percent increase
52
Costs for Certain Administrative Staff Were
Not in FY 1993 SOQ Costs Due to DOE Error
53
"Each local school board shall provide those support
services which are necessary for the efficient and cost-
effective operation and maintenance of its public schools
including, but not limited to, administration..."
Historically, the various types of support positions provided
by school divisions, including administrative personnel, have
been included in SOQ costs
· In FY 1993, due to an oversight by DOE staff, costs for
administrative Ders~)nn~.l nfh~r fhnn Intel e~',hnnl h,-,a~-,.I
members, superintendents, and assistant superintendents
were inadvertently missed in SOQ cost estimates
Costs for Certain Administrative Staff
Permanently Dropped from SOQ Costs
54
[] DOE Staff indicate that when it noticed its error the
next year, it notified appropriate officials
[] However, DOE has not been directed t° restore the
dropped costs
· As a result, the State does not currently contribut.e.
toward the prevailing costs of positions providing.
· clerical serviCes
· board and executive administration services
· information services, personnel services, planning services,
fiscal services, purchasing services, reprographics, and data
processing
Locally-Generated Revenues Subtracted
from Costs Before SOQ Costs Finalized
55
The current approach to SOQ costs sUbtracts
locally generated revenues from the costs prior to
the deduction of the sales tax and the calculation
of Basic Aid per-pupil amounts
Locally-generated revenues are local funds
obtained through actiVities suCh as the collection
of fees or rent, sales of supplies, and interest on
interest-bearing accounts.
[] This practice means that a portion of SOQ costs
are not included in the SOQ cost calculations
JLARC Staff Proposed Adjustments to
Keep SOQ Costs Current and Prevailings6
· No deduction of loCally-generated reVenues, before setting
SOQ costs (and no deduction befOre determining State
and local shares)
· Restoration of dropped administrative personnel cost
categories
· Full cost of competing adjustment
· Inflation factors for FY 2003 and FY 2004 for health
insurance premiums and support~costs
· Instructional salary increases based on recent, prevailing
practices (average salary increases achieved in recent
years)
Comparison of State Aid Approach to
Teacher Salaries and Approach Fully
Recognizing Prevailing Salary Levels
(The base year FY 2000 linear weighted average salary was $34,546).
State's
Fiscal Year Assumotion State Budqet
57
Assumption to Full SOQ Cost
Fund Full Cost of Based on
Likely Prevailing Prevailing Cost
~a!arv Al•roach
2001 2.4 percent $35,375 Average salary $35,810
Increase per , levels of school
State Budget divisions
estimated lo
increase 3 66
percent over FY
2000
2002 NO salary $35,375 Average rate of $36,809
increase was instructional
provided salary increase,
~ last five years of
Known dam was
2.79 pement
2003 The SOQ salary $35,375 + ? Same $37,836
cost. estimate will percentage
Increase Jf the Increase as FY
State can afford 2002 (2.79
and decides, percent)
upon an increase
2004 Same as 2003 $35,375 + ? $38,892
Tier One Costs: Based on Proposed
SOQ Cost Adjustments
Biennium Costs of Proposed
Adjustments in CalcUlating SOQ Costs
58
· Increased State costs in FY 2003 plus FY.2004 over
.FY 2002 levels ($389 million is estimated increase
due .to routine updates):
· no deduction of locally-generated revenues = + $51 million
· restore dropped administrative costs = + $138 million
· full cost of competing for support -- + $6 million
· health insurance premium increases = + $54 million
· non-personnel support inflation = + $36 million
; pr~vallln..3 ~uppo~ ~a~ar{e~ kept uu,,u,,[ = ~- $7-3 million
· instructional salaries kept current -- + $307 million
· Total two-year increase, routine increase plus
adjustments: $1.060 billion
Recommendations
The proposed adjustments shown on the previous slide are
included in the JLARC study under Option Tier One (the first
of three option tiers)
The Tier One cost is intended to provide a cost which is
consistent with school division practices where quantified
SOQ are not available, and to keep that cost current for the
years to be funded
It is presented as an estimate of SOQ costs which may be
more realistic than is obtained under the current State
approach:
· makes some adjustments in cost estimation practices which should
yield more realistic cost results over the long term
· seeks to estimate at least the costs which appear likely in the years
to be funded, taking prevailing division practices into account
59
· Recommendation. To fully calculate SOQ costs and improve the
accuracy of Basic Aid cost calculations, the State should
discontinue the practice of deducting locally-generated reverlues
from the cost figures that are used in determining total SOQ Costs
and State and local share responsibility.
· Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish toprovide
sufficient funding in FY 2003 and FY 2004 to provide a State share of
55 percent of the costs of funding th'e SOQ as estimated using
adjustments described in the JLARC staff report, and therefore
provide for a State share based upon the anticipated prevailing
costs in those fiscal years.
· Recommendation.: The General Assembly may wish to direct that
the Department of Education estimate SOQ costs based on
principles consistent with producing a current, prevailing cost. This
cost estimate should be distinguished, as needed, from adjustments
depa~rting from prevailing costs that may be made year-tO.year to
produce the State budget. ~
6o
Presentation Outline
[] Introduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
~f'SOQ Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
· Role of the Board of Education
· State's Estimation of SOQ Costs
~'Administration and Oversight of SOQ Funding
~1 Funding Options to Enhance State Support
for Education (Tiers Two and Three)
[] Framework for Determining State and Local
Cost Responsibilities
State Needs to Ensure That All Localities
Are Consistently Funding the SOQ
Constitution of Virginia requires that "each unit of local
government shall provide its portion of [SOQ costs] by local
taxes or from other available funds"
· Appropriation Act language for 27 years has required that
calculations be performed "in order to determine if a school
division has met its required local expenditure for the
Standards of Quality"
· The language has not specified who is to perform the
calculation. DOE staff check ask for local budgeted amounts
in the fall, but do not review actual expenditures
JLARC staff review of FY 2000 expenditures provides at least
a preliminary indication that three localities may not have met
their required local share in that year
63
Problems With t e SpecIal Education
Child Count Used in SOQ Funding
· Data may not be accurate for all school
divisions
· The data for some localities shows unusually high
proportions of self-contained pupils, which can lead to
over-estimation of costs
· Data may not be reliable in every year
· virginia Beach data for the 2nnn.pnn~ o~h,,,,, .....
originally indicated an extremely~(~,' p-r;l~i~)~';f self-
contained pupils, which can lead to under-estimation of
costs.
Other Issues Regarding the
Administration and Oversight of Funding
· State per-pupil basic aid funding is reduced in the
event of an under-forecast of ADM, which, means
that a component of SOQ cost is not funded in full
· Some issues regarding annual school report data
need to be addressed
· Reliable data needed on locality expenditures for
education outside of lOcal school board budgets
· SOQ cost model could be better documented,
updated and executed annually, and made more
r~adily accessible outside of I~OE
64
62
Recommendations
¸65
· Recommendation. The Department of Education needs to review
and make corrections as appropriate to the special education child
. that are currently being used in the SOQ funding model.
.co~n_t ,d.~tuare DOE staff need to develop checking procedures to
In [Re iu
better ensure the reliability of these data.
· Recommendation. It substantial discrepancies remain tot any
OhS after correcting special education pupil count data,
school divtsi ....... nnd,ct ° r~view of special
the D rtment of Eouca~lon snoulu ~ .... 7-.- .~.LT-.- ,__,.,
educ~P~oan stmm,~ ,,, d .... ~_...=_ w~_th f~.wer total r I =
positions, and fewer FTE teachers, than are calculated by
funding model. DOE may need to assess w. hether there are any
problems with the sufficiency of local staffing levels relative to SOQ
requirements, or whether there are any assumptions of the model
that appear to be producing an over.estimate.
Recommendations
(continued) -~ 66
· endation The General Assembly may wish to consider
Recomm ' ...... ,~-.~,,a-e to exolicitly provide
expanding upo. n AP. pr.op..r~i.a.t_i~[='~;~;~U;r~ cai~ulatio~s annually
that the Department OT r-uuu,uu- ,o - ~'
t° determine if required local expenditures for the SOQ have been
met.
· tion. The Governor and the General Assembly may
Recommenda . ........... *~,,-~1 reduCti°n in Basic
wish to end the requlremem mr u p,u~, ....... "n~mber of pupils
Operation Costs for the SOQ if the statewide
exceeds estimated ADM.
Recommendations
(continued)
. De artment of Education should make
[] c mmendation The.. P :_ · t e Annual School
Re .o.. . 'ts mstrucbons to h
add~tlo, n.al !mp. r0v_e_m_.e..n?,~°= ~onsistencv of data.
Report, to om[er en~u,= -,,~ -
Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to request that
· u ation and the Auditor of Public Accounts
the State B..oar.d of Ed ..c_~_ ~,.~ = ..... of exoenditures that. are...made
wOrk togemer to exam,pu m= ,.=o-- i
ents that are funded fr~ parts of the locality
.by I.oca. I g.?~er.n~_m~ ~,,,,ation, vet have the_ same_ p_ur.p_o_s,e~a_s..~.,
ouaget omer u,-. ~,,,,~ - the Annual ~cnoot
expenditures commonly reported on .
e artment of Education should improve
ecommendation, The _D_~LP~ . .. ' cie.based SOQ cost
I~ t~e documentation and uu~==slbdlty of the Ora
model.
· Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to require that
the Department of Education fully update and execute the SOQ cost
model on an annual basis,
67
Presentation Outline
~68
[] Introduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
[] SOQ Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
~' Funding Options to Enhance State Support
for Education
~f~ier Two: instructional Positions and Pre. School
· Tier Three: Debt Service and Enhanced Teacher Salaries
[] Framework for Determining State and LOcal
Cost Responsibilities
Tier Two Funding Options State SOQ *Costs Do Not Include Costs
· Second of three fundin ~ for. Elementary Resource Teachers
69 ' ' ' ' -- 70
· . . g tmers addresses operating [] Regarding the instrUctional program Jn elementary
costs which are currently considered non-SOQ, but ~'
which may merit enhanced State support schools, State Standards of Accre ' ·
t " . dltatlon state
!_hat' each.sc, hool shall provide instructio '
[] The tier focuses on the following: · . music, an· I~ sica · n In art,
P Y I education and health"
· elementary resource teachers [] SOQ cost estimates have not eXplicitly included
· secondary class size of 25 to one with a planning period elementary resource teachers as a component of
· Other prevailing instructional' Staffing practices the Cost ' .
· added costs fnr,,v~n=.~,~,,d Stste --= lent - - .
programs ........ ~'- y s [or pre-scnoo~ [] The assumption used in estimating SOQ costs has
been that under the standards, divisions may have
the regular classroom teacher provide this
resource instruction
P. rev.ailing Division Practices I clud~_ Art
Uus,c, ",ysica uca ionn
71
[] Music -- 128 of 130 school divisions responding to the
JLARC survey have resource, teachers
[] Physical education .- 128 of 130 school divisions
responding
[] Art -- 115 of 130 school divisions responding
[] A majority of school divisions have reading resource
teachers, but most of these are federally funded
· Foreign lar~guage, technology, and other resource
teachers are on.'J'y employed by a minority of divisions at
the elementary level
State May Need to Consider Present-Day Intent
Regarding Elementary Resource Teachers
· As indicated, most divisions employ elementary music,
physical education, and art resource teachers
· State now has Standards of Learning, applicable to'th
elementary, grades, in the areas nf n~.o~;. · . . e.
- ....... *-, visual arts, aance
arts, theatre arts, 'physical education, and health education
(adopted by the Board of Educationi May 2000)
[] Threre is reason to question whether it is practical for re
class?om teaChers.to routinely have f~ll ..... -_,_,,._,...! .gular
r · - · . , ~ ~pullSlDIIII~
_P OVl?!ng .h. lgh-quahty instruction in theSe re ......... y, t, or.
as Well as the regular curriculum
· Most school divisions appear to have made the judgment that
it is not realistic in music, physicel education, and art
72
Current SOQ Cost Calculations Do Not Provide
for a Secondary Planning Period
[] The SOQ require that instructional staff be assigned in a manner
that produces school-wide ratios of students to FTE teaching
positiOns of 25 to one in middle and high schools
[] SOQ cost calculations have applied the standard as providing
one basic FTE position for every 25 pupils
· The Standards of Accreditation require that one class period per
day shall be available to teachers for instructional planning
73
[] To fund the costs of a 25 to one pupil-teacher ratio an¢l provlae
for the costs of a planning period within the teacher's day, the
State would need to fund a pupil-teacher ratio of about 21 to
one, rather than 25
Prevailing School Division Practices:
Maximum Class Sizes
~ 75
A table in Chapter III of the JLARC report shows data on
largest class sizes reported by school divisions for ~
kindergarten to grade 7 in 1999-2000
Seventy-five percent of school divisions reported having no
class sizes larger than the following:
· kindergarten 23 (State maximum class standard is 30
with an aide, else 25)
· grade one 23 (State standard is 30)
· grade two 24 (State standard is 30)
e grade three 25 (State standard is 30)
~ grade four 26 (State standard is 35)
· grade five 27 (State standard is 35)
· grade six 29 (State standard is 35)
· grade seven 29 (State funding calculations allow up to 35)
Prevailing School Division Practices:
Instructional Staff Other Than Teachers
74
Type of Instruct onal
Position
Prin_ cipals
Assistant
Principals
Guidance
Counselors
Librarians
Number of State
and Locally Funded
Positions
t ,880
1,912
3,311
~063
Number of Positions
Based on SOQ
Standards
1,692
795
~_.___~2 656 __
Percentage Actual
PositiOns Exceed
SOQ Positions
+11.1%
+ 140.5 %
+ 24.7 %
____1.875 ~_ + 10-1°/-° --
Prevailing School Division Practices: Division-
wide Basic Elementary Pupil. Teacher Ratios
· 76
· Kindergarten: 20.0 to one
· Grade one: 19.1 to one
· Grade two: 19.3 to one
· Grade three: 20.0 to one
· Grade four: 21.5 to one
· Grade five: 21.7 to one
· Grade six: 23.0 to one
· Grade seven: 23.1 to one
Recommendations
[] Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to
consider funding a State Share of the cost of the prevailing
levels of elementary resource teachers in the school
divisions, and/or a 21-to.one pupil-teacher ratio at the
secondary school level (to fund an average class' size of 25 to
one, with a teacher planning period).
[] Recommendation. The Board of Education should examine
theStandard of Accreditation provisions for assistant
principals, and the current sufficiency of the re ulreme t
just half-time rin * q ' r~ for
.... P. clpals at elementary schools with
enrollments DelOW 300 nunile
Costs to Keep
Pre-School Initiative Funding Current
· The cost per-pupil that was funded in FY 1996 was
believed to be appropriate for providing quality
programs serving at-risk four-year-olds
· That cost was $5,400 per pupil
· . The. cost per pupil, however, has not been
Increased since FY 1996
· To provide a grant with similar purchasing power
as in FY 1-996, JLARC staff estimate that the per-
pupil cost would be $6,450 in FY 2003 and $6,620 in
FY 2004
-77
- 79
State's At-Risk Pre-School Initiative
· In FY 1996, the State appropriated about $9.2
million for a pre-school initiative to provide a
program to 30 percent of the children not currently
served by Head Start or Title I funds
· Funds are appropriated as direct aid to localities
under the Department of Education's budget
· In FY laQ7 $+..+- ·
.... --_-_~, .;-..~ ,u,,u= ~jrew [o al~out $14.9 million
in =uppor[ oT trte costs of serving up to 60 percent'
of unserved children
- 78
Costs to Fund Up to 100% Participation
in the Pre-School Initiative
· An original goal of the State program was to move
to funding for up to 100 percent of Children
m However, for cost reasons, the percentage has
remained at 60 percent since FY 1997
· The increased cost to both update the per. p~i~pil
amounts and provide the program for up to 100
percent of unserved children would be an
estimated $23.3 million in FY 2003 and $24.5
million in FY 2004 (the increase above the State's
planned allocation level in FY 2002 of $23.5 million)
8O
Costs for State Funding of Pre-Existing
Local Pre-School Programs
81
[] The initial focus of the pre-school initiative has been to
make the program available to children previously
unserved
[] More than 50 school divisions cannot fully access the
program because they had pre-existing programs for
which they chose to use their federal Title I funds
[] These divisions make the equity argument that they are
purposes, as divisions who are just starting pre-school
programs and getting initiative funds can
Added State Costs for Tier Two Options,
2002 to 2004 Biennium
[] Added State cost beyond Tier
One, in each fiscal year:
Millions Millions
FY 2003 FY 2004
$110 $114
$80 $83
$!73 to $283 $179 to $293
$4 to $41 $5 to $42
'. Prevailing elementary
resource teachers
· Secondary class size of
25 to one with planning period
· Enhanced instructional
staffing
· Added costs for pre-school
program
83
Recommendations
Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to
consider funding the Virginia Pre-School Initiative Program
by using an updated per-pupil grant amount.
· Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to
consider expanding the Virginia Pre-School Initiative
Program to provide a State share of the grant amount for up
to 100 percent of the "unserved" at-risk four-year-olds in
localities eligible for the program.
Hecommenclation. The General AsSembly may wish to
consider funding a State share of pre-school programs in the
school divisions that established their programs prior to the
start of the State's Pre-School Initiative Program, enabling
those divisions to use Federal Title I and other funds for
other programs, as currently participating school divisions
can.
Presentation Outline
[] Introduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
[] SOQ Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
I~ Funding OPtions to Enhance State Support
for Education
· Tier Two: Instructional Positions and Pre-School
q~ier Three: Debt Service and Enhanced Teacher Salaries
[] Framework for Determining State and Local
Cost Responsibilities
82
84
Overview of Tier Three
· Tier Three addresses options for enhanced State support for
capital purposes, and for teacher salary levels
· For capital costs, an appr. oach using prevailing debt service
costs per-pupil Was considered, as well as an approach using
building life-cycle costs
· For teacher salaries, several options were considered to go
beyond Tier One costs, but all have some limitations
· The report recommends that the Governor and the General
. - .... · ....... -, ,,,,,,, ~ ~asK force to consider the
future clirection that the State and localities may wish to take
regarding teacher salaries and setting teacher salary goals
Extent of State Participation in Costs for
Local School Buildings Is a Policy Choice
· .Ove.r the yea. rs, the State's primary role in providing support
nas t)een in lowering the financing costs incurred by local
governments
· This has been done through Iow-interest loans
· The State began funding a school construction program in
1998, and also requires that at least half of the lottery fund
proceeds provided to localities since 1998 be used for "non-
recurring expenditures"
· In FY 2000, this resulted in approximately $116 million in
State funding for facility costs, or about 22 percent of the
debt service costs incUrred bY localities in that Year
-85
87
Debt Service Costs
· In addition to operating expenditures, most divisions mak
expenditures to finance n~w school I~ ....... e
~ U,olngs or renovate
and restore existing buildings
· These costs are reported as facility costs, in the years in
which~ the payments are made to the contractors performing
the work
· To extent the payments are made using loan funds, the loan
~_payments ....... that are made each year as'the locality
ri d as oebt service expenditures
· In FY 2000, school divisions expended about $532 million on
debt service (payments for principal and interest that service
the debt of the school divisions)
One Cost Approach:
Useful Life of the Building
· During 2001, the Virginia Consortium for Adequate
Resources for Education (Virginia CAREs), an education
advocacy group, developed recommendations for supporting
education, including a building life cycle approach for facility
funding
· JLARC staff considered the general approach and developed
some costs estimates which assumed a 2§-year, 37.5-year,
and 50-year life cycle for facility costs
Another Cost Approach
89
Estimated Cost Impact to State
If a Prevailing Per-Pupil Debt Service Cost
Had Been Funded in FY 2000
· JLARC staff also considered the use of prevailing
)il
Percent of Facility Funding
on expenditures Total Cost to Be Total Cost to Providedstate GeneralbY the NetcostAdditionalto the
Pa d by the State, FY 2000 State, FY 2000
the current State Fund, FY 2000 -
~e to the cost
life cYCle
50% $221,377,673 $107,000,000 $114,377,673
?roach has at
, nnnrnach:
ii divisions
)out what life-cycle I 33% $147,584,968 107,000,000 $40,584,968
debt service costs
· Based on the prevailing cost for school divisior
in FY 2000, the cost resulting from the use of
prevailing practice of school divisions is
resulting from the assumption of a 37.5 year life
· The prevailing per-pupil debt service cost ap
lea~t .~¢:0 potential benefits over the !ife-c~fcle
· it is responsive to the costs incurred by school
· it does not depend on a subjective deciSion a
length "should" be assumed
9O
Funding Teacher Salaries
91
· The base (or floor) for teacher salaries used by the State in
calculating SOQ costs is a "linear weighted average" of
school division actual costs
· Use of the measure stemmed from the JLARC staff SOQ cost
methodology in the mid-1980s
The linear weighted average is a reflection of the salary level
that is prevailing, or typical, among school divisions, in the
State
The linear weighted average is a lesser figure than the
average salary across all teachers, and is sometimes
criticized for this reason
State Uses Actual School Division Costs
to Define Prevailing Costs
92
· School divisions are required to meet the requirements of the
SOQ
· School divisions are the units which receive funding from the
State
· SOQ costs are to be met in all school divisions
· A 1973 Attorney General opinion indicated that a minimum
teacher salary scale in effect at that time, which was
exceeded by every school division, did not reflect current
educational practices, and indicated that the General
Assembly should take into account the practices of school
divisions
Statewide Average Salary Exceeds
Salary of Most Divisions
Each circle
shows where
one Virginia
school division
falls on the i
salary range.
Avera.qe Elementary Teacher Salary ($Thousands)
93
COMBINED TEACHER SALARIES
" 73-Divisions Pay Below the Linear
f Weighted Average ($35,298)
j- ACCOMA-~-~---K KING GEORGE
/ ALLEGHANY H. KING WILLIAM
~ AMELIA LANCASTER
~ AMHERST LEE
' APPOMATTOX LOUISA
BEDFGRD
LUNENBURG
BLAND LYNCHBURG
BRUNSWICK MADISON
BUCHANAN MARTINSVILLE
BUCKINGHAM MATHEWS
CAMPBELL MECKLENBURG
CAROLINE MIDDLESEX
CARROLL MONTGOMERY
CHARLES CITY CO NELSON
CHARLOTTE NEW KENT
COLONIAL BEACH NEWPORT NEWS
CRAIG NORTHAMPTON
CULPEPER NOTTOWAY
CUMBERLAND PAGE
DICKENSON PATRICK
DINWIDDIE PETERSBURG
FLOYD PITTSYLVANIA
FLUVANNA POWHATAN
FRANKLIN CO PRINCE EDWARD
GALAX RAPPAHANNOCK
GILES .ri!cf IMOND CO
GLOUCESTER ROCKBRIDGE
GRAYSON ROCKINGHAM
GREENE RUSSELL
GREENSVILLE SHENANDOAH
HALIFAX
HAMPTON
HARRISONBURG
HENRY
HIGHLAND
KING AND QUEEN
87 Divisions Pay
Above the LWA But
Below the State
Average ($38,744)
ALBEMARLE
AUGUSTA
BATH
BOTETOURT
BRISTOL
BUENA VISTA
CHARLOTTESVILLE
CHESAPEAKE
CHESTERFIELD
CLARKE
DANVILLE
ESSEX
FRANKLIN CITY
FREDERICK
GOOCHLAND
HANOVER
HOPEWELL
ISLE OF WIGHT
MANASSAS PARK
NORFOLK
NORTHUMBERLAND
NORTON
POQUOSON
PORTSMOUTH
PRINCE GEORGE
laULA~KI
SCOTT
SMYTH
SPOTSYLVANIA
STAFFORD
SOUTHAMPTON SURRY
STAUNTON SUSSEX
SUFFOLK TAZEWELL
WARREN I WAYNESBORO
WASHINGTON WEST POINT
WESTMORELAND WISE
WYTHE YORK
13 Divisions Pay
Above the State
Average But Below
the National
COVINGTON
FAUQUIER
FREDERICKSBURG
HENRICO
MANASSAS
ORANGE
RADFORD
RICHMOND CITY
ROANOKE
ROANOKE CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH
WlLLIAMSBURGJCC
WINCHESTER
8 Divisions Pay
Above the
ALEXANDRIA
ARLINGTON
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
LOUDOUN
PRINCE WILLIAM
SAL[~I
Key Points Regarding
the Linear Weighted Average
· The linear weighted average:
· is not a proxy measure for the statewide average
· is an estimate of the central tendency of the school
division data .- typically it is above the median and below
the mean
· takes into account the actual costs of school divisions
· produces a single estimate with a reasonable relationship
to actual division costs
m changes over time in response to the costs incurred by
school divisions, particularly moderate.cost divisions
95
Use of the Linear Weighted Average or
the Statewide Average in SOQ Funding
· The linear weighted average is used in SOQ cost calculations
to set a salary floor upon which all school divisions are
funded, even if they actually pay a lesser salary:
· recognizes State's responsibility for a prevailing cost
· funding less than the prevailing cost, particularly for divisions with Iow
local ability to pay, would rais~ some funding equity / disparity concerns
· Use of a higher salary figure to set the floor .. such as the
statewide average -- would increase State costs, but would
also increase required local expenditures
· With a majority of school divisions paying less than the linear
weighted average, the use of the linear weighted average
measure for its intended purpose -- to set a minimum unit
costflo°r for all .. doeS n~t appear to be too restrictive
-96
Concerns About the State's
Cost-of-Competing. Adjustment
97
· The State currently adjusts the linear weighted
average salary to take into account cost of
competing differences in Northern Virginia, as it
does for State employees
= Concerns are sometimes raised that this
differential enables those localities to pay higher
salaries, or is a bonus~to some wealthy localities
School Division Competitive Difficulties
99
· Recently, there have been concerns about a teacher shortage
· While the most recently available data do not indicate that
positions are going unfilled to a great extent, there are some
indicators that divisions are experiencing difficulties:
· ten school divisions report that 40 percent or more of their special
education teachers in 1999-2000 were provisionally-licensed
· five school divisions reportedthat over 24 percent of their total teaching
force was provisionally-licensed
· over one-third of divisions reported an average of three or fewer
applicants per teaching position for the 2000-2001 school year that
either held or were eligible for a teaching license
· there is some evidence that factors associated with difficulties in
attracting or retaining staff may include lower relative salary levels~ the
prol3ortion of minority students, proximity to Northern Virginia, and high
local costs of living / housing
Arguments in Support of the
COst-of,Com petin g Adjustment
98
· Concerns about this adjustment do not account for the
following factors:
· the'reality of the regional labor market in that area
· the fact that higher salaries already were, and had to be, paid in
that region of the State, prior to the adjustment
· the cost of competing was adopted at the same time as other
changes which negatively impacted most Northern Virginia
localities, particularly the equalizing of almost all accounts
· localities receive cost of competing funds based on ability to
pay, so nlgn composl[e inoex iocail[les S[lli pay Tor mos[ oT me
cost
· HoWever, this does not mean that other localities do not also
experience competitive difficulties
Teacher Salary Options
100
· Recognize salary up to statewide average whe~e
offered
· Adjust statewide average salary based on survey
of comparable positions
· Strive to achieve parity with the natiOnal average
salary
· Governor and General Assembly may wish to form
a task force on teacher salaries, to address State
and local goals for teacher salaries
Virginia Average Teacher Salary Standing
Compared to Other Southeastern Jurisdictions
101
Percent Change
FY 1990 Salary ~ {FY 1990 to 2000~
$38,402 Washington $48,304 Washington D.C. -~ 53.3 % West Virginia
$36,601 Maryland $43,720 Maryland + 47.0 % Georgia
$31,319 United States
$41,820 United States + 41.3 % North Carolina
,~30,938 Virqinia $41,122 Georgia + 37.9 % Kentucky
$28,803 Florida $39,404 North Carolina + 34.3 % Tennessee
$27,966 Georgia $38~744 Virqinia + 33.5 % United States
$27,883 North Carolina $36,722 Florida + 32.6 % South Carolina
$27,217 South Carolina $36,328 'Tennessee + 27.5 % Florida
$27,052 Tennessee $36,255 ~Kentucky + 25.8 % Washington D.C.
$26.292 K~nt.c~~ --e~=~,0~*, ,~O'~-, C~fuiina .+. :zb.2 % Virqinia
$22,842 West Virginia $35,011 West Virginia + 19.5 % Maryland
Estimated Cost to Achieve the National
Average Teacher Salary by FY 2006
· The estimated State and local cost to move the statewide
average salary to the national average by FY 2006 would
entail an expenditure of aboUt $789 million in FY 2006 beyond
FY 2002 levels ~
· Based on past salary increaSes, school division sa laries may
increase by about $430 million by FY 2006 anyway, unlesS
fiscal conditions remain difficult, leaving an added cost
burden of about $359.5 million per year
· HOwever, the State does' not now pay the statewide average
salary, so the cost for the State m~y need to figure in the cost
between the linear weighted average salary and the statewide
average salary
103
Virginia's Average Per-Teacher Salary Expenditures
Compared to National Average Teacher Salary
---:---- 102
$45,000 __
$30
e4-ss es.e6 86.e? 87.88 ce-e9 89.90 99.91 91.92 92-93 93-94 94.96 95.96 9~97 97-98 98.99 99-00
School Year
Tier Three RecommendationS
104
· Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to continue the
approach of minimizing the extent to which Li{erary Funds are used for
non-construction purp~3ses. In addition, the General Assembly may
wish to consider ending the practice of transferring funds from the
Literary Fund to the General Fund for the School Construction Grants
Program
· Recommendation. The Governor and the General Assembly may wish
tdcreate a Task Force to examine the issue of an appropriate teaCher
salary goal for the Commonwealth of Virginia, to assist in determinino
whett~r and how much of a salary increase should be provided in th~
future, beyond thosesufficient to fund anticipated prevailing school
division salaries
· Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to consider
establishing, in future Appropriation Acts, the teache~ salary goal that it
wishes for the State to pursue, beyond keeping salaries current with the
prevailing salary levels that can be anticipated in the years to be funded
Tier Three Costs Presentation Outline
105
Estimated additional State costs*
during the 2002-2004 biennium
(two-year costs) Millions
· Up to 50 percent State share of
prevailing debt service costs up to $291
· Range in added costs forteacher_
salaries to go beyond tier one (upper
bound is movement to national average
salary by FY 2006) $87 to $394
· State costs shown for the biennium are above and beyond the Tier One cost.
National average salary cost estimate provides State funding increases to move
from the linear weighted average to the national average salary as the basis of
State costs.
State Framework for State and Local
Shares of Costs Appears Appropriate
[] Constitution provides General Assembly with
responsibility for determining State and local
shares of costs for the SOQ
[] State's focus has been on SOQ costs, and paying a
higher share for those costs. This appears
appropriate
[] Localities are expected to provide required local
expenditures
[] Primary issues appear to concern sufficiency of
the SOQ, and adequacy of State funding
107
[] Introduction and Summary of Findings
[] Background
[] SOQ Requirements and the Funding of
SOQ Costs (Tier One)
[] Funding Options to Enhance State Support
for Education (Tiers Two and Three)
~Framework for Determining State and Local
Cost Responsibilities
State Policy Choice Has Been to Pay
55 Percent of Shared SOQ Costs
There is a misperception that the State has a commitment to
fund 55 percent of actual costs, interpreted as school
division expenditures
The State's policy has been to pay 55 percent of shared-SOQ
coSts (after the deduction of sales tax)
State policy to pay 55 percent of shared SOQ costs resulted
from changes to pay more State accounts using a local
ability to pay measure
ApproPriation Acts for FY 1989 to FY 1993 indicated the
State's intent to fund 55 percent of shared SOQ costs, after
deduction of the sales tax
The current composite index reflects this 55 percent share
106
-108
ompos te Index Is State's Measure
of Local Ability to Pay
' - -- 109
ADM Component
.R / [- Local~MTrueValues_ /-1 + 4 l-l-LOc. IAGIADM/'] _Local Taxable RetaiISaIe~
'~'J'l'otalStatewideTrueValues] '--/TotaiS,atew,~e^.,/+ 1 ' Loca, ADS J
· Total StatewideTaxable RetailSales J
L -- St~ J L- Statewide A[~M - J Statewide ADM --
Population Component
r- Local True Values '] J- Local AGI _ -J F Local Tax·bi
~/. Local Population _ [ _ ~l / Local Po"ulation / ., .ocal. l ax,_ble Retail Sales
'" 1T°'ao'~????~?ue~ / ~-' '+/T. ot~, State.~,~e ^~ / +' 1 I", Tn,~, ..,~,.~,,°,?;~.°."..~'2°~n_ ......
............. ~.u,.uun j L Statewide Population_J L S~-;,;;;;;~'-:-~'~.' '.."
e I"OpUlatlon
Local Composite Index
( (.6667 X ADM Component ) + (.3333 X Population Component) ) X 0.45
Population Density Adjustment
to the Composite Index
[] Addresses concept of "municipal overburden"
[] Argument has been that concentrations of people in small areas
contributes to a greater need ~o provide various services
[] As localities with population densities provide services to meet
these needs, they have a diminished ability to pay for education
Statistical analysis for this study indicated that after controlling for
strength of local tax bases, localities with high population densities
do expend more on services such as public safety and human
resources
[] An adjustment to the composite index was developed as a policy
option to address this concern
!11
Adjustments to Composite Index
Considered
· PopulatiOn density
· Update weights given to the tax bases
· Combined use of median and average AGI for
localities with skewed income distributions
Other Adjustments
Discussed in the Report
· Update weights given to the tax bases in the ~index
· The weight given to the tax bases in the composite index
are based on locality reliance on these bases in the !970s
· Local reliance on the tax bases has since changed
· real estate from 50 percent to 44 percent
· sales tax from 12 percent to 8 percent
· other local taxes from 38 percent to 48 percent
· Adjust index for localities with skewed income
levels
· Some localities have a few taxpayers with high incomes
· An adjustment could be made to take into account both average
and median adjusted gross income for such localities
110
112
AR L. onger-Term Issue: Impact.of Car Tax
e mbursements on Local Ability to Pa :
· Measures of local ability to pay assume the amount of funds that can be
locally obtained is proportional to the local tax effort exerted
[] Extent to which localities obtain car tax funds depends on their local effort
from tax year 1997
[] Two localities with equal ability to pay may have differing tax policies in
place in 1997: (1) one locality may have chosen to heavily use this tax, while
(2} another similar locality may not have
[] The composite index assumes that localities with equal income levels and
equal effort can obtain equal revenue
i ne anmty to pay issue is that for an equal local of current tax effort (none),
the first locality obtains substantial funds from the State, but the second
locality does not
In short term, inadequate data are available to adjust the composite index for
this issue, but in the longer term, the issue needs consideration
Recommendations
Recommendation. The General Assemblymay wish to ensure that
the great majority of State funding for education continues to be
distributed using a local ability to pay measure to determine State
and local shams of public education funding
Recommendation. The General Assembly may wish to consider
adjusting the current composite index to: (1) provide for a
population density adjustment, (2) update the relative weights that
are given to the real property, sales tax, a nd other revenue
components, and (3) use a composite index that takes median
adiusted gross income into account for localities with skewed
income distributions, in addition, if the State continues to pay the
local personal property tax, the General Assembly may wish to
consider in the future how the composite index could be improved
to better address this aspect of local ability to pay
115
State Costs for Ability-to-Pay Options
· The population density adjustment'and the
adjustment for skewed income levels both are
used to adjust local shares downward for localities
to which they apply
· Other localities are not penalized by having higher
indexes, as a result
· The State share goes up, however. State costs for
the adjustments in the report for the costs of
meeting the SOQ would be about $35 million per
year
Illustrative Funding Options
· Illustrative funding options are discussed in Chapter VI
of the JLARC report
· There is an option to fund all of the components
contained in Tier One. Additional options provide for
various assumptions from Tiers Two and Three as
discussed in this briefing package
· An appendix to the report provides preliminary
stateside summary sheets with total State and Io~al
impacts of the funding options
· Statewide summary sheets and estimated locality-by-
locality impacts will be available from the JLARC web
site and upon request
114
116
AGENDA TITLE:
Police Department Citizen
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/RE(;
Approve and establish
Committee
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Foley
BACKGROUND:
The County Executive and the ~
the police department operatic
any identified public concerns.
advisory committees necessar~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Jvisory Committee
UEST:
Citizen Advisory
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Draft bylaws for advisory
committee
REVIEWED BY: .~~'"""""'~
Miller
Advisory Committee (PDCAC)
procedures, practices, budgets,
of Supervisors, County Executi~
input and recommendations to
by the Board of Supervisors ar
between the PDCAC and the E
Police in regard to it are set foal
The PDCAC would be a public I:
public. It is not authorized unde~
such as records related to one
specific personnel matters. The~
of records deemed necessary t(
It is envisioned that the PDCAC ~
of the PDCAC would be to priori1
resources will be necessary for
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the B~
?
;hief of Police have discussed with Board members their desire to enhance
is by seeking citizen review of police policies and procedures to address
The State Code authorizes local governing bodies to establish citizen
to address any matter of concern to a locality. The purpose of the citizen
advisory committee would be t() provide for an in dependent citizen review of policy issues and to further
promote the community policing philosophy of the County in a way which advances shared responsibility
and interdependence betweenllhe community and the police department.
DISCUSSION: / ~ .
~ ~~xecutive and thelChief of Police proposed the creation of the Police Department Citizen
. The duties of the PDCAC would be to review policies, programs,
and staffing priorities of the police department upon a request by the Board
'e, or Chief of Police, or in response to a citizen complaint and to provide
:he Chief of Police. It would consist of three citizen members appointed
d an ex-officio member of the Board of Supervisors acting as a liaison
oard. The duties of the PDCAC and the responsibilities of the Chief of
h in the attached draft bylaws.
ody with all meetings and documents of the committee being open to the
· state law to possess or review records which are to remain confidential
oing criminal investigations, internal administrative investigations, and
;fore, its policy reviews will be limited to those matters not requiring review
remain confidential.
/ould be appointed and begin its work early next year. The initial meeting
ize its agenda and work plan with the Chief of Police and determine what
to function effectively.
rd approve the creation of the Police Department Citizens Advisory
Committee and its proposed E ylaws and direct the Clerk to advertise to determine those persons
interested in serving on the committee.
01.221
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
POLICE DEPAR
PURPOSE - To prov
procedures, budget dc
Police Department in
enforcement services
County in a way whic]
between the communi
I. Duties of the PI
Upon request by
Police, or in rest
following reviev
· Review of A
procedures a
traffic enfor¢
interview pr(
· Review of A
· Review of A,
· Review of th.
II. Responsibilities
· The Chief of
appropriate i~
· The Chief of
respond to th~
recommendal
III. Composition of
· The Board of
PDCAC. Thc
educational b~
· ABoardofS~
member of th~
Board of Sup~
DRAFT: 11-26-01
BYLAWS
?MENT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PDCAC)
de for independent review by a citizen committee of policies,
cisions and staffing allocations of the Albemarle County
)rder to improve efficiency and effectiveness of local law
tnd to promote the community policing philosophy of the
advances shared responsibility and interdependence
:y and the Police Department.
)CAC
the Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, or the Chief of
~onse to a citizen complaint, the PDCAC shall undertake the
rs and provide recommendations to the Chief of Police:
lbemarle County Police Department (ACPD) policies, programs,
ad practices. (i.e., community policing, crime fighting initiatives,
ement, monitoring of police vehicle videos, interrogation and
cedures, etc...)
2PD Rules and Regulations and General Orders.
2PD budget and funding priorities.
level of staffing of the ACPD and how staffing is allocated.
}f the Chief of Police
Police will ensure ACPD cooperation with the PDCAC in ail
tquires and studies.
Police will review the recommendations of the PDCAC and will
PDCAC, verbally or in writing, to address the ACPD's
ons.
:he PDCAC
Supervisors shall appoint three (3) citizen members to the
~.y shall be selected on the basis of their professional experience,
~ckground, and history of community service.
tpervisors member will serve as an ex-officio, non-voting
,~ PDCAC and serve as liaison between the PDCAC and the
~rvisors.
IV.
· Each citize~
their date ot
consecutive
PDCAC Chair
· A Chairper~,
serve a term
more than tx
· Ifa Chairpe
County Exe,
· The Chairp{ 1. Scheduli
2. Appropr
3. Assignil~
Removal of a P
· A PDCAC n
Board of Sul
nonfeasance.
PDCAC or
and respons
DRAFT: 11-26-01
member will serve a term of two (2) years commencing from
appointment, and may serve for a maximum of three (3)
terms.
~erson
m will be selected by a vote of the members of the PDCAC to
of one (1) year. A Chairperson may not serve in that capacity for
to (2) consecutive years.
· son cannot be elected by a vote of the PDCAC members, the
:utive will select the Chairperson from the sitting members.
rson will be responsible for:
ng committee meetings.
.ate record keeping of committee activities.
g and coordinating PDCAC duties as defined in this document.
)CAC Member During Term
~ember may be removed from the committee for cause by the
~ervisors upon a determination that the member has committed
misfeasance, or malfeasance in performing the duties of the
otherwise unqualified to continue to exercise the assigned duties
)ilities.
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Funding Request- Midnight Rat
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUI
Supplemental information on the
request for the "Midnight Ramble
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
BACKGROUND:
On February 7-9, 2002, the Chadotl
Communications Associates, will b
showcase black life during the era
age. Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee and
billed as the first of its kind on the
will be shown at local facilities, sL
Auditorium at PVCC and the Count
off event will be held in the Omni b
a scholarship fund for Virginia hi!
Communications Associates, has
At the November 7th meeting, the
Specific information was requested
for ongoing event and funding sup[
DISCUSSION:
nble Festival
November 7th funding
festival.
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2001
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
CTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
and a Saturday night dinner dance
events at $150 each, which will grc
will be set aside to provide a four-yE
for the four year period will not be dE
will be chosen prior to the Festival
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
1-30-01 At1:12 IN
Without the revenue breakdown, it
covered, although film ticket sales,
assumed to make up the remainder
$900. To encourage attendance at
s not clear how the remaining expenses of approximately $180,000 will be
Jonations, advertising revenues and the County and City contributions are
of the needed funds. The Tourism Council has also agreed to contribute
the films, each film venue will be associated with a non-profit organization,
.t the Doubletree Hotel. They anticipate selling 1,075 tickets to these three
~s $161,250 and net approximately $37,000 after expenses. These funds
ar scholarship to four selected students. Therefore, scholarship continuity
pendent on the success of the next year event. The scholarship recipients
~nd will be announced at one of the special functions.
1) The proposed budget (attache() for the festival is $343,387, which includes the costs of printing and
advertising, equipment and building rentals, celebrities, transportation and lodging and other miscellaneous
expenses. Th~ proposed budget al~l~o includes $30,000 for four 4-year scholarships at $2,000 per student per
year (budget attachment states $3c1~,000, but actual cost would be $32,000).
I.
Creative Communications was not able to provide a full breakdown of the projected revenues for the event, but
did indicate in discussion that sch(,larship funds would be raised solely through ticket sales for three main
events, a Thursday night opening .~ception and ball at the Omni, a Friday night dinner dance at Alumni Hall
oard requested additional information prior to making a funding decision.
on 1) the total budget, both proposed revenues and expenditures; 2) plans
,ort; 3) list of advisory committee members.
esville/AIbemade Tribune news paper and its 501 (c)(3) corporation, Creative
'~ng a vintage African-American film festival to the community. The films will
of 1900 - 1950 and many of the black directors, actors and writers of that
-larry Belefonte are scheduled to be guests for the event and the festival,
--ast Coast, is being marketed from Pennsylvania to North Carolina. Films
,~h as Vinegar Hill, the Charlottesville Performing Arts Center, Dickinson
t Office Building. Exhibits will also be shown at various venues and a kick-
allroom on February 7% Proceeds from the event will be used to support
;Ih school and college students. The non-profit organization, Creative
aquested a $5,000 contribution from the county.
AGENDA TITLE:
Funding Request- Midnight Ram
December 5, 2001
Page 2
who will receive a small percenta¢
various film venues are the Mar~
Piedmont Council of the Arts, an¢
2) Plans are for the Midnight Ran
mixture of evening celebrity events
Communications intends to take tt
i.e. Atlanta, Greensboro and Ch~
approximately $30,000 for scholar~
that the festival hopes to be self-s
3) A list of Advisory Board membe
stud ent's applications and essays,
also be responsible for reviewing es
the criteria of maintaining a B or b(
RECOMMENDATION:
There are several options that th(
1)
Fund the total request for $5,0
be from Albemarle County. Thi.,
money for a $5,000 investment
2)
Fund $600 from the Tourism F~
festival days, for a total contri
Council.
3) Waive County Office Building re
of the Festival has been ascert.
Due to thelack of complete informa'
will be met and how County funding
time.
01.229
31e Festival
e of the ticket receipts. Non-profit organizations identified to date with the
Williams Senior Center, Peabody School, Region ×, Delta Sigma Theta,
the Paramount Theater.
lble Festival to be held in Charlottesville every other year with the same
and film showings at different venues in the area. In the off-years, Creative
~e show on the read to other cities in the southeastern part of the country,
~rlotte, etc. These off-year traveling events are also intended to raise
;hips for Virginia students. Festival spokesperson, Agnes White, indicated
~fficient in the future and not dependent on on-going County funds.
s is attached. The role of the Advisory Board will be to, not only review the
but to personally interview and select the scholarship candidates. They will
ch student's grades on an annual basis to ensure that they continue to meet
~tter average.
Board may wish to consider in providing one-time funds for the Festival:
~0 from Tounsm revenues and require that at least one scholarship recipient
would insure that one Albemarle student would receive $8,000 in scholarship
nd and waive the County Office Building rental fees ($276.00) for the three
bution of approximately $900 which matches the grant from the Tourism
ntal fees as a contribution, but do not allocate tourism revenues until viability
~ined.
on on projected revenues for this event, it is unclear to staff how expenditures
will be used. For this reason, staff recommends either option #2 or #3 at this
Mid
The following are estimated co:
and cost provided by potential v
Printing
Program- 19, ,50.00
Invitations------3, 21,00
Commemoratlvo-I 4, 50.00
Book
Miscellaneous .... 2, I00.00
Movie Parchase ......... 2, 41 [.00
Equipment Rental ...... I9, 61::.00
Talent
Ossie Davia/Ruby Dec-25. 000.00
Harry Belafonte~ ........ 22. 000.00
Herb Jcffries ..........12, 000.00
Advertising
Prim -! 3. 250,00
Radio-- .................... 10, 620.00
Galas (5) ........... ~5, 951.00
Scholarships ................... t0, 000.00
Technical Crew ............... 33,750.00
Building Rentals --9, 550.00
Maimenance--- ............. -2, 500.00
Security- ...................... -5, 000.00
PR Director .................... ]4, 000.00
V. Jo.v-ce
Accoumlng/iegal serv[~ es-7, 200.00
Exhibit .................. 4, 200.00
Volunteer uniforms ............... 1,589.00
Videographyo
Aceommodations.
Transportation.
Total
Prices have been rounded offto ff
501 e designation.
Projected Budget
night Ramble,February, 7,9, 2,0,02
: fo~r goods and services required for Midnight Ramble Evenl. They are based on t~es
tudors.
· -1,200.00
--5, 500.00
,-4, I00.00
---3, 330.00
................... $343,387
e nearest number. Some cost are not represented because they will not fall under the
TO
9~
AON
1. Jim Haden-Ms
-2. Jim Kenan-Un
3. Teresa Dowell
4. Mallie Haynes
5. Raehelle Small
6. Maurice Cox- t
7. Cynthia Willial
8. Fred Scott- but
9. Mary Jane Kin
10. EIva Holland-~
11. Lee Catlin-AIb
12. Richard Horo~
13. Chris Wimer=~
14. Peppy Linden.
Advisory Committee
Midnight Ramble
February 7-9, 2001
rtha Jefferson Hospital
~versity of Virginia
Vest- Virginia Foundation for the Humanities
RN/owner Bainbridge Adult Care Home
~-Toney-City of Charlottesville
'.it~ councilor
ns=First Virginia
inessmen/Bundoran Farms
g- Piedmont Virginia College
,ttorney
~marle County
'itz- UVA film Festwal
AARC
)iscovery Museum
I0 9~
CI
I MOVE TH.
SESSION PUR~
THE CODE OF
· UNDER
APPOIN1
COMMIS
UNDER
ACQUISI
FACILITE
December 5, 2001
.OSED SESSION MOTION
AT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED
;UANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711 (A) OF
FIRGINIA
;UBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER
'MENTS TO BOARDS AND
SIONS; and
,~;UBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE
]'ION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC
?o; MembersI ~oard of Supervisors~l/lI
Sub|e~t: Reading Lis for December 5, 200 !
Oate: Novembe? !q, 2001
September 9, 200!
September 27(A), 20,
October I O, 2001:
October 17A, 200 ! i
October 17N, 200!Ii
November 4,20~!
/ewc
)1
Mr, Dorrier
Ms. Thomas
Mr. MartJn
Mr. Perldns
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Humphris
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of
FROM: Laurie BentlE
Senior Depu~
DATE: November
RE: Vacancies on
le Board o~rvisors
y, C.M.C.
Clerk
2001
3oards and Commissions
I have updated the li.~ l of vacancies on boards and commissions through March 31, 2002. To be
of further assistance, ! have a [tached copies of applications you have previously received for these
vacancies (no new applicatior s have been received). In addition; please note that {hers are no_
interviews scheduled for DecEmber 5.
Thank you.
Cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
Chamber of Commerce ist only)
I DISTRICT IF
WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL
NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED?
t application (Perkins)sent on 2/2/01. Daniel Montgomery i2113/00 12/13/02 No
Readvertised; rec'd no new
applic, ations.
1 application (Davidson) sent on James B. Murray, Jr. 1/19/04 Resigned Scottsville
9/28/01. (replacement to complete
his term)
(Advertised; applications due James R. Skove 1t19/03 Resigned Jack Jouett
1/2/02.) (Replacement to complete
his term) .
1/19/02 1/19/06 Yes Rivanna
Dr. Ellora Young
(Have not instructed Clerk to Albert O, Humbertson, Jr. 12/31/01 Resigned White Hall
advertise), (eplacement to complete (12/31/02 if (moved)
his term and/or serve an appointed to
additional term) serve add'l term)
Yes Jack Jouett
George R. Lade 12/31/01 ,12/31/02
C. Marshall Thompson ' 12/31/01 12/31/02 Yes Rio
W. Ivar Mawyar 12/31/01 12131/02 ? (left 2 msgs) Samuel Miller
12131101 12/31/02 No Rivanna
Tracy Corea
I application (Nielsen) sent on Jeff Bialy (Joint (12/31/01) 12/31/03 Resigned
9t28/01. City/County appointee) --
2 applications (Gensic and (Replacement to complete
LaSauce) sent on t 1/2/01, his term and fulfill
AdveKised; no addition~ additional full term)
applications received.
BOARD
(Advertised; applications due
MEMBER
Kathleen T. Cornett
Kathleen Galvin
C, Jared Loewenstein
William D,
Thomas
~ S. Rooker
Martha S. G. Orton
Elizabeth D. Mclvor
Arthur B, Brown, Jr.
11/03/01
12/31/01
-12/31/01
12/31/01
t2/31/01
12/31/01
12/31/01
12/31/01
12/31/01
N~ TERM
EXPIRES
11/03/03
12/31/03
12/31/05
12/31/05
12/31/05
12/31/05
12/31/05
WISH TO BE
RE-
APPOINTED?
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISTRICT iF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Samuel 'Miller
Rio
Jack Jouett
Samuel Miller
Jack Jouett
Rio
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Jr.
Scotts~e
Charlotte Y. Humphris
· Jack Jou~tt
Mr. Elton J. Oliver
3073 Ellerslie Ln.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Oliver:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Vtrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hail
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 13, 2001
At the Board of Super sors meeting held on December 5, 2001, the Board appointed you to
complete the balance of Mr. J;tmes B. Murray, Jr.'s term as the Scottsville Magisterial District
representative on the Industri~d Development Authority. Your term will run from December 5, 2001
through January 19, 2004. I h~ave enclosed a roster for your convenience.
· On behalf of the Boarfl,| I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the ;ounty in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth Atto
Thomas A. McQueen
ley
~y
P~nted on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
Office of Boaxd of County Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATIO~I TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMI1TEE
I (Please type ot print.)
Applicant's Name
Full Home Address
Magisterial District in which your home
Employer
Business Address 7q/
Occupation/ tle
Years Resident in Albemarle County
Previous Residence
Education (Deg~ ees .and Graduation.
resid~ce is located
Phone
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name
Number of Children
'' bershios in Fraternal Bn.~-ess Chumh and/or Social Groups
~b~ Ci~c and Chafi.ble Office and/or O~er Ac~fi~ or ~t~esm
The i~ p~d&~is ~c~ion trill bJ~ed t/t~ ~b& ~ ~ue~.
Si~e ~
Rein m: Cletg Board of Cou .~ Supe~sots PLEASE RESTRICT ANYA~ACHMENTS
~bem~le Co~ TO ONE PAGE
~1 McIn~e Road
F~: (804y 296-580~
ELTON OLIV~
EDUCATION
1974
Bach~
Univm
EMPLOYMENT
June 197.4 - 1981
Comn
Virgini
Exami
sound
1982
1983
Cresb
Handl
admit
1983,1985
Prest(
Staff
and =
1985 to Present
JWK
Busir
Man~
Resp
Histo
liquk
enga
bree~
carrie
ii3073 Elierslie Lane
!i Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone. (434) 979-9941
Emad. ejo45~aol.com
lot Of Science Degree, Business Administration
sity of Virginia
emial Bank Examiner, Bureau of Financial Institutions, Richmond,
a-
ned state chartered banks for regulatory compliance, liquidity, asset
ness, management quality and adequate capitalization.
,r Bank - Charlottesville, Virginia - Operations Officer
ed wire transfers, private client matters and local accounUng
~istrafion
~n Morris & Company, CPAs
Account - Prepared corporate, pmtnership and individual tax returns
ssisted in financial audits and obtained CPA CerUficate.
=roperUes, Inc. T/A Morven Farms-
tess Manager until June of 1998 and then promoted to position of
~ging Director.
)nsible for overall management of a private Estate operation with
dc Landmarks, Historic Gardens, and an overall staff of 15. Until
lafion dudng 2000 and 2001, responsible for 90 full time employees
~ing in purebred cattle raising, crop production, thoroughbred horse
ling, care and maintenance of pdvate gardens, golf course, private
~ge museum and several commercial grade greenhouses.
David P. Bowerman
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Scot~ville
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Joue~
Dr. EIIora Young
6775 VVildon Grove Rd.
Gordonsville, VA 22942
Dear Dr. Young:
At the Board of Super
as the Rivanna Magisterial Di.,
to run from January 20, 2002 1
convenience.
On behalf of the Boan
your willingness to continue to
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth Attorr
Thomas McQueeney
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 13, 2001
isors meeting held on December 5. 2001, you were reappointed to serve
trict representative on the Industrial Development Authority, with said term
hrough January 19, 2006. I have enclosed an updated roster for your
I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
serve the County in this capacity. ~~ /
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
ey
Printed on recpcled paper
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsa~ G. Don'ier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Jack Joueti
Mr. Thomas A. McQueeney
323 Wood Creek Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. McQueeney:
At the Board of Super
as the Rio Magisterial District r
from January 20, 2002 througt-
convenience.
On behalf of the Boarc
your willingness to continue to
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth Attorn
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire 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
December 13, 2001
sors meeting held on December 5, 2001, you were reappointed to serve
~present'ative on the Industrial Develo pment Authority, with said term to run
January 19, 2006. I have enclosed an updated roster for your
, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
;y
Printed on recgcled paper
D~vid R Bowcrman
P~o
Lindsay G. Dorder, ,Jr.
· Charlotte Y. Humphfis
Jack Jouett
Mr. C. Marshall Thompson
3541 Loftsland Dr.
Earlysville, VA 22936
Dear Mr. Thompson:
At the Board of Supervi
representative to the Board of E~
Duties of this Board are set out ir
3389. The duties are more spec~
In order
in the basic course of instruction
you will receive notice of a meeti
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
December 17, 2001
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Woodzell
Commonwealth's Attorr
ey
I have enclosed an upd
Board, please call Mr. Woodzell
"The Board sh~ dl hear and give consideration to such complaints and equalize
such assessmE~nts and shall moreover, be charged with the especial duty of
increasing as v lell as decreasing assessments, whether specific complaint be
laid or not, if in its judgment, the same be necessary to equalize and accomplish
the end that th,.~ burden of taxation shall rest equally upon on all citizens of such
county or city. The (Director of Finance) of such county .. shall, when
requested .... all the attention of the board to such inequalities in real estate
assessments ]~ his county or city as may be known to him. Every board of
equalization ~y go upon and inspect any real estate subject to equalization by
it."
/
to be eligible fo' appointment, every prospective member of such board shall attend and participate
given by the Department of Taxation under Section 58.1-206. In the near future,
lg from Bruce Woodzell the Real Estate Assessor.
~ted roster for your convenience. If you have any questions about the duties of this
~t 296-5856.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
~rs meeting held on December 5, 2001, you were reappointed as the Rio District
ualization, with term to run from January 1,2002 through December 31, 2002.
the Code of Virginia, Chapter 32, Article 14, Sections 58.1-3370 through 58.1-
fically set.out in Section 58.1-3379 and read as follows:
David R Bowerraan.
Pie
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
· Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Joueii
Mr. William D. Rieley
2375 Taylor's Gap Rd.
North Gap, VA 22959
Dear Mr. Rieley.~, /
At the Board of Super
the Samuel Miller Magisterial
new term will run from Januar
As you know, the Pla
Office Building on Mclntire Ro.
for their services, therefore, W
All future correspondence will
On behalf of the Boan
your willingness to continue to
SliT/lab
Wayne Cilimberg
Kimberly Suyes
James L. Camblos
Larry Davis
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
December 17, 2001
/isors meeting held on December 5, 2001, the Board reappointed you as
)istrict representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Your
1; 2002 through December 31 2005.
wing Commiss'ton meets every Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in the County
~d. Planning Commission members receive $4,100 a year as compensation
-4 slips will have to be filled out and provided to the Personnel Department.
be addressed to you directly from the Planning Department.
I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally Iq. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
].Jndsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Scottsville
· Chaxlotte Y. Humphds
Jack Jouett
Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein
2431 Proffit Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22911-575
Dear Mr. Loewenst. '_~_ ~
At the Board of Super,
the At-Large representative or
January 1, 2002 through Dece
As you know, the Plar
Office Building on Mclntire Ro;
for their services, therefore, W
All future correspondence will
On behalf of the Boar(
your willingness to continue to
SHT/lab
cc:
Wayne Cilimberg
Kimberly Suyes
James L Camblos
Larry Davis
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX I804) 296-5800
December 17, 2001
ning Commission meets every Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in the County
id. Planning Commission members receive $4,100 a year as corn pensation
-4 slips will have to be filled out and provided to the Personnel Department.
be addressed to you directly from the Planning Department.
I, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sal¥ H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
~isors meeting held on December 5, 2001, the Board reappointed you as
the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Your new term will run from
mber 31, 2003.
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Sco~sville
Chm'totte Y. Humphfis
Jac~ J~e~
Mr. Rodney H. Thomas
3411 Indian Springs Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901 /
Dear Mr. Thoma¢~'''// '
At the Board of Supen
the Rio Magisterial District rep
will run from January 1, 2002 t
As you know, the Plar
Office Building on Mclntire Ro;
for their services, therefore, W
All future correspondence will
On behalf of the Boar(
your willingness to continue to
SHT/Iab
Wayne Cilimberg
Kimbedy Suyes
James L. Cambtos
Larry Davis
CC:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
December 17, 2001
ning Commission meets every Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in the County
id. Planning Commission members receive $4,100 a year as compensation
-4 slips will have to be filled out and provided to the Personnel Department.
be addressed to you directly from the Planning Department.
I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
;erve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mill~
sots meeting held on December 5, 2001, the Board reappointed you as
'esentative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Your new term
3rough December 31, 2005.
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
scottsville
Charlotte Y. Humphfis
Jack Jouett
Ms. Martha S. G. Orton
603 Big Oak Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22903 ,
Dear Ms. Orton/~ '/
At the Board of Super
as the Samuel Miller Magisteri
term to run from January 1, 2(
convenience.
On behalf of the Boar~
your willingness to continue tc
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth Attor
Kathy Ralston
COUNTY OF Al .BEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
December 17, 2001
ey
t, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recpcled paper
Charles S. Martin
Ri,,~nna
Walter E Perkins
White H~
Sall~ H. Thomas
Samud Mill~
/~sors meeting held on December 5, 2001, you were reappointed to serve
al Distric[ representative on the Board of Social Services with your new
02 through December 31, 2005. I have enclosed an updated roster for your
David P Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr.
540 Manor Rd.
Earlysville, VA 22936
Dear Mr. Brown:
At the Board of Supel
as the Rio Magisterial District
from January 1, 2002 through
convenience.
On behalf of the Boar,
your willingness to continue tc
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: Commonwealth Attorl
Kathy Ralston
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
December 17, 2001
ley
~, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sall~ H. Thomas
Samuel M/ller
/~sors meeting held on December 5, 2001, you were reappointed to serve
'epresentative on the Board of Social Services, with your new term to run
December 31, 2005. I have enclosed an updated roster for your
November 19, 2001
M. F Gibson. Jr
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
105-109 East High :St
Charlottesville~ VA 22902
RE: SP-2001-031 Orrock
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Plann
recommended approval of th
approval is subject to the foll,
-['he top of [he pole,
above the top Of the
Level (ASL). No antl
above the top of the
The facility shall be
a. The metal
trees;
b. Guy wires si'
c. No lighting si
number nine
d. The ground ~
the pole shal
forth in the a'
e. A g,rounding
exceed one-i
of the pole.
f. Prior to issus
Planning Del
been used to
g. Within one rr
a s!atement 1
in f~et above
h. The pole sha
us~ permit w
i. Th~ diamete~
inches at the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax 1804) 972 -4012
(nTelos): Tax Map 92, Parcel 5A
ing Commission at its meeting on November 13, 2001, unanimously
,_. above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
)wing conditions:
~s measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet
:allest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility as measured Above Sea
;nnas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
~ote.
esigned, constructed and maintained as follows:
le shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the
all not be permitted;
lall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
(9) herein;
~quipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to
be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set
:ached plan entitled "Orrock (CV 327)";
'od, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not
nch diameter at the base and tapering to a point may be installed at the top
nce of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
~artment by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tree that has
justify the height the monopole;
onth after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide
:) the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both
ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL);
II be no taller than the height described in condition number I of this special
thout prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit:
of the pole shal not exceed thirty (30) inches.at its base, and eighteen (18)
top.
Page 2
November 19, 2001
10.
11.
12.
Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV
327)";
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the moncpole;
c. only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However.
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation
of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist,
specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be
removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad. including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the
tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the
permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners, shall submit a report to the zomng administrator by
July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the facility that is a wireless
telecommunications provider.
No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though'the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a
lumina~re is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the
13ower supply.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be permitted.
No slopes associated with construction of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are
steeper than 2~1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the county engineer are employed.
The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to.the Department of Planning and
Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for co nstruction of the facility,
Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the
special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans.
Page 3
November 19. 2001
Please be advised that the
public comment at their me
application must be submitt,
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any que.,
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stephen Waller
Planner
SW/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
Ibemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
:ting on Decem:~er 5, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your
;d to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
tions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
STEPHEN WALLER
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
DECEMBER 5, 2001
SP 01-031 ORROCK (NTELOS PCS)
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicants proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would
include a self-supporting steel monopole, with a top elevation ten feet above the tallest tree
within 25-feet, and a total height of 98 feet (Attachment A). The monopole would be equipped
with two 1.5-foot by 6-foot, flush-mount panel antennas and a lightning rod at the top. Ground-
based equipment would be contained within two metal cabinets six feet in height, on a 10-foot by
16-foot concrete pad. The property, described as Tax Map 92, Parcel 5, contains approximately
17.7 acres on the north side of State Route 53 (Attachment B). This site is zoned RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor in the Scottsvill~ District. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this property as Rural Area 4.
Petition:
As part of a system that is intended to provide wireless service coverage throughout the area, the
applicant, nTelos maintains several personal wireless facility sites in the County of Albemarle.
In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave
transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit which would allow the
construction of a personal wireless services facility. According to the applicant's request, this
facility would assist nTelos with maintaining a wireless communications system that complies
with the requirements of it's FCC license, by helping to increase wireless coverage along State
Route 53, south of Monticello and eliminating the occurrence of a "gap" in the network.
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 01-077 Orrock (Triton PCS) - At its April 25, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors
approved a request to allow the construction of a wireless facihty with an eighty (80) foot tall
metal monopole at a maximum total height of 712.8 feet above-seal level (Attachment C). Those
limits were place on the height because there were no trees within 25 feet. This facility site is
located on abutting property, appr6ximately 170 feet away from the lease area for this proposed
site.
Character of the Area:
The site of the proposed facility is a wooded lease area that is 900 square feet in area and situated
at an elevation between 620 and 625 feet Above Sea Level (ASL) on the side of an incline that
peaks at an elevation of 652 feet ASL. The applicant's petition cites the presence of the tree
identified as number 37 on the construction plans, which has a height of 89 feet and a top
elevation of 711 feet ASL, as the reason for requesting a monopole height of 98 feet (721 feet
ASL). The average height of all of the trees shown on the construction plans is 699 feet ASL.
The approximate location of the proposed facility site has been indicated on a topographic map
(Attachment D). Access
an existing, paved road ~
side of Route 53.
Areas directly south and
trees and dense underbr[
with the exception of the
exists in its naturally wo
the lease area and is the:
which is under the same
communications, facility
approximately 170 east ¢
approximately 420 feet '~
which is owned by the T
parcel is more than 120
been recognized as havir
During one of three balk
proposed height of the tn
location. This was a parl
Route 53. Based on the]
monopole at the request¢
draw additional attention
result of staff's concerns.
an alternate set of plans ~,
applicant also performed
Village (Attachment E).
COMPREHENSI~ PI
Staff notes that construct
require a substantial amo
the recommendations of'
result from the presence' ~
The Personal Wireless S
that provides specific gui
Space Plan and Chapter
Assets, provide staffwitt
resources, and for the pre
environment for: future
Personal Wireless Servi
The guidelines set forth
reducing the visual impa(
Wireless Policy recomm¢
criteria related to the sifir
to the facility;S lea§'~'a~eh'~ild 1~e Pfohded by 19-foot extension off of
nd its 16-foot wide private access easement, Which starts on the north
east of the facility site are vegetated with a mixture of large, mature
sr. A heavily wooded tree line lies just west of the private road and,
clearings for the house and nearby utility lines, most of the property
>der state. The nearest property line is approximately 20 feet north of
;bared boundary with property identified as Tax Map 92/Parcel 5A,
ownership as the subject parcel. The lease area for the existing wireless
and 80-foot tall monopole is also located on that adjacent property,
,fthe proposed facility site. The nearest dwelling is located
;est of the facility site on an adjacent parcel (Tax Map 92/Parcel 3),
aomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, and the property line for that
eet away. All nearby properties are zoned Rural Areas, and several have
g structures or sites of historic significance.
,on test field visits, staff observed that a red balloon floated at the
onopole was visible above the treetops on the ridgeline from a single
ring lot at Jefferson Vineyards which is located south of the site, off of
)alloon test, it is staff's opinion that approval of a facility employing a
d height would introduce an objectionable feature in the ridgeline and
to a marginally visible facility that exists on the adjacent parcel. As a
the applicant also flew a balloon at a height of 95 feet, and submitted
howing a monopole at that height. Upon staff's suggestion, the
an additional balloon test at 98 feet for representative at Jefferson
[on of the proposed facility and its service road extension would not
ant of clearing. Therefore, this request is reviewed for compliance with
:he Comprehensive Plan that mainly focus on the impacts .that could
>fthe tower and new ground-based equipment in the proposed location.
ervice Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan
clelines for the siting and review of wireless facilities. Both the Open
, of the Comprehensive planfentitled Natural Resources and Cultural
guidance for managing the C0untv's natural, scenic and historic
servation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the
e.
e Facilities Policy:
the Personal Wireless Service Facilities are focused largely on
s of wireless facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The
nds the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to address
g and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the
development of"stealth" facilities that can be completely concealed within existing structures, or
attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that can designed to blend in
with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts. The standard
conditions of approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown, treetop
monopoles that are no more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground
equipment that is painted brown. Although the applicant's proposal for a monopole at the
maximum height allowed under Tier Two is not favorable, it is staff's opinion that a facility with
a lower monopole height more comparable to the tops of the nearby trees would have less visual
impact in the proposed location.
With respect for other relevant components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Wireless Policy has
also identified various "Avoidance Areas" which are locations where the unwise siting of
personal wireless facilities could result in adversely impacting important resources. Except when
strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural
landscape, personal wireless facilities should not be located within "Avoidance Areas" such as
mountains and historic sites. AlthOugh this site is located on property that is adjacent Monticello
and Patterson Mountain, the proposed facility site is located below Mountain Resource Areas and
completely outside of the historic sites that have been surveyed on those and all other nearby
properties.
Open Space Plan and Chapter 2:
Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets,
provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the
goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use.
The Open Space-Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the
critical resources are present throughout the County. The Comprehensive Plan designates
mountains as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and
wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas.
The proposed facility site is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for Route 53.
As stated in the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is in part,
"to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and
historic, architectural arid cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic
resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, ''to protect the County's attractiveness to
tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County
from tourism." The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impacts of all
development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. However, the Design Planner has
determined that ARB review is not required for this proposal because the balloon tests
demonstrated that the facility and its monopole would not be visible from the Route 53 Entrance
Corridor.
Another one of the open space resources that is present on the subject parcel is the forest on
surrounding this site. Staff recognizes that when existing structures are not available, the
recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy favor the practice of
locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles and ground equipment can be designed
to blend well into the natural surroundings. This includes the preference'for using structures that
are no taller than the nat
as.to alter the ridgelines.
to establish this facility,
impact the naturally fore
area. Additionally, one
establishment ora tree c
can be removed, prior to
The Open Space Conce
property. This includes ~
Nationally Registered Hi
incline of the hill where ]
equipment within the fac
elevation. As indicated i
was contacted to observe
objections to the facility
RECOMMENDATIOi~
canopy so that they ~e not skyhghted agamst the horizon so
Because of the limited amount of disturbance that would be necessary
is staff' s opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly
~ted state of the subject parcel, or any of the nearby properties within the
~f the standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities requires the
~nservation area where no trees within a certain distance of the facility
~pproval by the Director of Planning and Community Development~
t Map identifies several historic sites that are adjacent to the subject
'.trucmres at Simeon that are Surveyed Historic Sites, as well as the
storic Properties of Monticello. Due to the presence of the trees on the
he lease area would be located, view of the monopole and other
ility site would be obscured from Simeon, which is situated at a lower
n the applicant's request, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation
balloon height tests, and has provided a statement that they have no
md monopole at the proposed location and height (Attachment F).
As stated before, staffs qbservafion of balloon tests do not favor a monopole at the proposed
height of 98 feet. Howeqer, because the balloons were onlY visible from a single nearby
property, staff could support a facility with a shorter monopole at this site. Therefore, staffs
recommendation includeq a condition that wouldlimit the monopole to maximum height of
seven (7) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet to limit visibility, while at the same time
provide necessary servic~.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the iss~
1. Section 31
2. Section 7(
1. Staff will addres~
The Board of Supervisor~,
permitted hereunder. Spe
upon a finding by the Bo~
adjacent property_,
In an attempt to address s
second monopole, the apl~
Vineyards and submitted
monopole at that height.
Staff notes that a concern
vicinity has been brought
.es of this request in four sections:
.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
4 (a)(7)(b)(I)(ll) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
cial use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
.rd of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
:affs concerns with the possible cumulative effects of adding the
,licant performed a balloon test at 98 feet for evaluation by Jefferson
letter from their representative stating that there is no objection to a
for the proliferation of multiple wireless facilities within the same
forth in the review of past proposals. It is staffs opinion that the
existing facility and its 80-foot monopole that extends slightly above the tops of the trees are not
obtrusive features that draw attention to the facility or impose any substantial detriment to
adjacent properties. However, balloon height tests have demonstrated that the newly proposed
98-foot tall monopole,'~which would be visible from the parking lot of Jefferson Vineyards, could
act to draw attention to both sites. The basis for this concern is further demonstrated in the fact
that the propoSed monopole would be nearly 10 feet taller in total height above sea level than the
existing 80-foot tall monopole. Conversely, the lease area of existing monopole is situated at a
ground level elevation that is approximately 10 feet higher than lease area for the proposed
facility.
The applicant's request indicates that nTelos service personnel would normally travel to the site
once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is anticipated that some unscheduled
visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather
or other unexpected factors. However, once the tower has been constructed and is fully
operational, staff does not expect that the scheduled site visits would create a significant'increase
in activity or traffic within the area. Together the two facilities would only generate an average
of four vehicular trips per month.
With consideration for the limited amount of disturbance that would be required, staff finds that
the proposed facility would not impose significant physical disturbance upon the subject parcel
or any detriment to adjacent properties. However, due to concerns with the increased visibility of
the existing site resulting from the visibility of the proPosed monopole at 10 feet above the tallest
tree, staff would only support the proposed facility if a monopole were installed at a lower height.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district include preservation of the agricultural and
forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources. Uses
allowed by right in the in the Rural Areas are residential} and those related to agriculture and
forestal activities, while uses allowed by special use permit are most often those that provide
services in support of the by-right activities. Staff recognizes that support of locating facilities
that comply with the Wireless PoliCy in the Rural Areas zoning district is not uncommon. This is
because the key purpose of the County's Wireless Design Policy is to site tower facilities in
locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the surrounding areas.
In addition to being located within a wooded area and the proposed facility would be accessed by
extending an existing private driveway, both of which have be favored approaches in the
County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they have limited physical visual
impact upon the natural surroundings. With the exception of the top portion of the tower, which
would be visible above the surrounding tree canopy, equipment would be obscured from views
outside of the lease area effectively. Therefore, staff's opinion is that approval this facility will
not result in a changing in the character of the Rural Areas district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Sections 1.5 and 1.6.
Section 1.4.3 states, "To
community," as an inten
use, mobile telephones c
facilities expands the av~
wireless phone technolo~
visual appearance of the
ensure that equipment fo
resources that promote ti
if approved with the recc
the purpose and intent ot
Section 1.5 (Relation to ]
which are similarly situa~
consideration for the exi,,
suitability of property fo~
agricultural and forestal 1
encouragement of the mc
second wireless facility v
the level of services that
that these types of uses c~
set forth for the Rural Ar,
with the uses perr
Aside for restrictions on
proposal would not act t¢
other property within the
with additional rel
health, safety and
Section 5.1.12a of the O~
manner "will no~ endange
and will not impair or pro
amc. In the event of en
opportunities is Clearly co
general welfare. The Fede
significant concerns for p~
has attempted to address t
throughout this staff repro
At its meeting on October
Personal Wireless Service
will identify several ofth~
Prior to the adoption of ti
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
: of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in
[early provide a public service, and the establishment of wireless service
dlability of communications oppommities and cOnvenience for users of
,,y. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the
surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless pohcy are intended to
r those facilities are not responsible for intruding upon the important
[e attractiveness of the community. Therefore, it is staff's opinion is that
mmended conditions this request could be approved in harmony with
the Ordinance.
~nvironment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands
ed and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable
ting use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the
various use...; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of
and, the conservation of properties and their values and the
st appropriate use 0fland throughout the County." By introducing the
dthin the immediate area approval of this request would clearly increase
u'e available in the Rural Areas. However, it has not been determined
~nflict with any of the other objectives agricultural and forestal that are
~as.
fitted by right in the districL
ree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this
restrict the current uses on the subject parcel, orby-right uses on any
Rural Areas district.
,,ulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public
~eneral Welfare.
linance contains regulations for locating public utility structures in a
r the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community
ye detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of the
ergencies, the increased access to wireless communication
asistent with the accepted principles of public health, safety and
ral Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations address the most
~blic health and safety regarding wireless telecommunications, and staff
ae concern for possible impacts on neighboring in the vicinity
t and in the recommended conditions.
10, 2001 the Board of Supervisors adopted Section 5.1.40, entitled
Facilities, as the first phase in implementing the wireless policy. Staff
se new regulations that are applicable to this request below.
Zoning Ordinance text amendments, Section 4.10.3.1 required
Planning Commission approval of waivers to allow telecommunications facilities to be sited
closer to lot lines than the towers and similar mounting structures. Section 5.1.40b(2) repealed
that requirement and now authorizes the Director of Planning and Community Development to
allow a wireless facilitym be located at a distance that is closer a lot line than the height of its
mounting structure. However, this allowance can only be made if.the applicant obtains an
easement acceptable to the county attorney prohibiting development on the parts of abutting
properties sharing common lot lines within .the facility's fall zone. This application was
submitted prior to the adoption of this requirement, so staff's recommendation includes a
condition requiring the applicant to obtain an easement on the abutting parcel located to the north
before beginning construction. Because that abutting parcel, is under the same ownership as the
property subject to this request, staff does not anticipate any problems in obtaining the easement.
In accordance with Section 32:3.10, past applicants were required to request Planning
Commission approval of waivers as relief from the process and some requirements of site plan
submittal. Because of the relatively small area that is impacted, the :Site Review Committee
endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment and expansion of personal wireless
communication facilities. Section 5.1.40b(5) of the Ordinance now relieves applicants for
wireless facilities from the requirement to request a site plan waiver, provided that the.facility is
designed subject to the requirements of Section 32 as approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Development. Staff's recommendation includes a condition that requires the
applicant to submit a set of plans that demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the
special use permit as well as the provisions of Section 5.1.40 prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(lI) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless
facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or
have the effect of. prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following
language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions' regulations concerning-such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the
applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These
requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal
wireless service. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design
of wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the availability,
or lack thereof, for any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with the new
antennas at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the fc
1. Themonopole at
2. The facility woul,
3. The facility woul.
Staff has identified the fc
Observations oft]
proposed height c
.skylighted".
The following factors are
1. There are existing
property.
2. The applicant con
in locating the prc
proposal.
3. The owners of Jef
monopole.
4. There is an existi~
RECOMMENDED AC~
Staff has reviewed this re
Zoning Ordinance and rec
received support from the
be visible, it is still staff's
inconsistent with the guid
facility with a monopole t
existing trees. Therefoie,
(In the event that the Bom
In order to comply with th
direction from the Board
to return to the Board witt
Recommended conditiog
1. The top of thc pole
feet above thc top
Above Sea Level i
rod, shall be locate
llowing factors, which are favorable to this request:
the facility would only be visible fi:om one nearby property;
not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties;
take access fi:om an extension off of an existing driveway.
llowing factor, which is unfavorable to this request:
~e balloon test demonstrated that a monopole in this location at the
f98 feet, and 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet would be
relevant to this consideration:
and reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject
5ulted with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation for assistance
)osed facility site, and the Foundation has no objections to this
[erson Village have no objections to the proposed facility and its
g wireless facility within 200 feet of the proposed site.
ION:
luest for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
ommends apl~roval with conditions. Although the applicant has
owners of the only property fi:om which the proposed monopole would
opinion that approval of the proposed 98-foot tall structure would be
flines of the Wireless Policy. However, because staff could support a
aat is restricted to lower height and more consistent with the heights of
staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
:l chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
e provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus
egarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff
a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
of approval:
as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7)
ffthe tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility as measured
~SL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding
above the top of the pole.
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the
bark of the trees;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by
condition number nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment
attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the
specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "OrroCk (CV 327)";
e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall
not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point may be installed
at the top of the pole:
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to
the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tree
that has been used to justify the height the monopole;
g. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole,
measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL);
h. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this
special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use
permit.
The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV 327)"
Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock
(CV 327)";
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out
fi.om the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be
permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more
than 12 inches.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or
installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a
certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any
existing trees to be removed on. the site both inside and outside the access easement and
lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development
for apprOval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad,
including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with
this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the
Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove
existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use
permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-
foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
9
the date its use fi
The applicant, or
by July 1 of each
telecommunicati~
o
No slopes associ~
are steeper than 2
acceptable to the
Outdoor lighting
shall be fully shi¢
running though ti
purposes of this c
lamps together w:
lamps, and to con
10.
The permittee sh,
lease area shall n(
11.
No slopes associa
that are sleeper th
acceptable to the
12.
The applicant sha
and Community
of the faqility, Pla
conditions of the
construction plan~
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Special Use Perm
B - Tax Map
C - Topographic Mag
D - Approval Letter f(
E - Letter from Thom.
F - Letter from Jeffer:
r wireless telecommumcat~ons purposes is discontinued.
any subsequent owners, shall submit a report to the zoning administrator
year. The report shall identify each user of the facility that is a wireless
~ns provider.
Lted with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that
: 1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures
County Engineer are employed.
shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire
lded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
e lowest pan of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the
ondition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
th the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
nect the lamps to the power supply.
11 comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zon. ing Ordinance. Fencing of the
~t be permitted.
ted with construction of the facility and accessory uses shall be created
an 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures
:ounty engineer are employed.
submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning
~velopment. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction
aning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate
)ecial use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the
Application and submittal Packet
,r Existing Tower
~s Jefferson Memorial Foundation
on Vineyards
10
JOHN K. T^GGART, III
M.E. GIBSON. JR.
THOMAS E. ALBRO
PATRICI^ D. MCGRAw
R. LEE LIVINGSTON
LAw OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1585
CHARLOTI'ESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585
105-109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (434) 977-4455
FACSIMILE (434) 979-1221
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 1
~JEIDt H. PARKER
RACHEL L. RUST
CHRISTOPHER J. ROB1NEI~-E
PETER]. CARAMANIS
RETIRED
E. GERALD TREMBLAY
LLOYD T. SMITH, ].R.
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
October 23, 2001
Mr. 'Stephen Waller, Planner
Albemarle County Department df Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE:
nTelos/Orrock Property
SP2001-031
Tax Map 92, Parcel 5
Dear Stephen:
,L;-2Z-Ol A';2:4g I
Please find enclosed the following:
An amended SP application for the captioned project. The parcel number,
applicant's contact information, the landoWner's adjacent parcel information, the
proposed pole height, balloon test results and project description were all
amended.
Two revised site plans showing the correct pole height of 98'.
October 12, 2001 letter from Michael Merriam of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation confirming that he observed the 95' balloon test, and, I~ased on that
test, the Foundation would not be opposed to the proposed 98' pole.
Copy of the October 9, 2001 letter from Yvonne Lingenfelder of Jefferson
Vineyards, confirming that she observed the 99' balloon test, and that Jefferson
Vineyards has no objections to a 99' pole.
Note that at both the September 25 and October 9 balloon tests the balloon test crew did
not factor in the ground elevation of the site and flew the balloon 1' higher than they should have.
As I explain in the revised application, the tallest tree within 25' of the proposed site is 89' tall with
an above sea level ground elevation of 622' (overall elevation of 711'), and the proposed pole site
has a ground elevation of 623'. Therefore, if the ground elevation at the pole site is 623' the pole
must be 98' (not 99') to achieve an overall height of 721'. Because the balloon was flown at 99'
instead of 98', the photos Debbie Balser submitted to you from the October 9, 2001 balloon test
show a balloon that is actually 1' higher than the proposed pole, and the letter from Jefferson
Vineyards references a 99' pole instead of a 98' pole.
Il
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
Mr. Stephen Waller
October 23, 2001
Page 2
As I indicated in m
Board of Supe~isors will
in their information packet
application and site plan.
Last, when you an~
that this application will nc
from Route 53. CoUld yot
Thanks for all your
Best regards.
H H P/ees
Enclosures
cc: Debbie Balser (via
44\nTelos\O11022Waller.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 2
I voicemail to you, I am concerned that the Planning Commission and
e confused if they receive both the original and amended applications
s. Therefore, I respectfully request that you only give them the revised
I spoke last week you said Margaret was drafting a letter confirming
Ibe reviewed by the ARB because the proposed pole will not be visible
please fax me a copy of her letter?.
help. Please call me if you need anything else.
Very Truly Yours,
Heidi H. Parker
~x)
County of Albemarle · Department of Building Code and z_ATTACHMENT A
-' PAGE 3 '_
OFFICE USE ONLY
Sign# ' - 5'< '. Mag. Dist.
Staff Date
AppliCation for Special Use Permit
- as a~ended
10/22/2001 ~._~f
Proje~tNamei~w~,,~=~ea,,,~-7) ORROCK PROPERTY (nTelos PCS)
.Er~sfing Use Residential and Agriculture Proposed Use Wireless Telecomm, mications Facility
*Zoning D~Sct RA. *Zoning Ordinance Section number re.quested 10.2, 2.6
(*staff will assist you with these items) 15.61 acres
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (u
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Usc Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
Fl Ye. g2 No
FI YesFl No
Cort~act~rson.(W.llonl~.hpuld_wec~a~ll/writcconccrningthisproj¢ct?): R'o-lr]'{ l~ Pm',-lro~'.
-rrenm±ay ~ ~m_~.tn, LL&' ' --
Address 105-109 E. High St. City Charlottesville StateVA Zi~v 22902
hei i~. parker@
[ Daytime Phone (434) 977-4455 Fax #434-979-1221 - E-mail tremblaysmith.com
Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): . Jeanett.e E. Orrock
Address 1240 Thomas Jefferson Parkway City Charl°ttdsvill$tate VA
Daytime Phone ( 434 ) 977-5340 Fax # .E-mail
Zip22902
nTelos. PCS, cio Debbie Balser
Ap p licaqt~<~W~o i~.th¢ contact.~:~2n re~pr~?ting~Whois requ~ti,,g the sp<ial use?): II3U bnenanaoah valAey Drive
Address P.O. Box 1328 Cit~ayn'esb°Jr° StatJA
22980
Zip__
Daytime Phone( 540 ) 946-1851
Fax # 540-932-2210 E mailbalserd@ntel°s'c°~
]Taxx ~m. ap and p~arc,el 92-00-_00-005 Physiml Address tiC.signed) 1240 Th~s
jetrerson ~ar~ay, Charlottesville, ~irgin±a"22902
Location of property (landmarks, intcrmaio~,orothcr) Take 1-64 West to Exit #121 (SR 20). Go left
onto SR 20 South. Continue until SR 53. Go left on SR 53. Go about 1 mile past
past Monticello to ~1240 (driveway on left). Follow driveway to near top of hill.
Does the owner of this prope~y own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting prop~.
thosetax mapand parcelnumbers Tax Map 92, parcels 004, 005A
OFFICE USE ONLY
Fcc amount $
History: Fl Special Usc Pcl-mits:
Date Paid Check # Receipt # By:
Fl ZMAs and Proffers:
ff_.l Variances:
Concurrent rcvicw of Site Dcvclopmcnl Plan?
El ~ttcr of Authori~tion
Fl Yes D No
401 Mclntire Road -:- Charlottesville. VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 + Fax: 972-4126
Section 31.2.4. i of the
hereby reserves unto its
permits for us~s as provi
that such use will not be
will not be changed the~
ordinance, with the uses
5.0 of this ordinance',' an,
The items which folloW"
this form and provide ad
If you need assistance fil
What is the Comprehensive PI
How will tile proposed special
How wi 11 tile proposed speck
How is the use in harmony wi:
How is the use in harmony wit
What additional regulations pr,
How will this use promote thc
AT'rACHM£NT A
PAOE 4
Albemarle Corn Ordinance states that, "The board. of supervisors
glf the right to issue al. use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
ded in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors
of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
eby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
>ermitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section
with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Jill be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
:litional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
ling out these items, staff is available.
~n designation for this p'ropeny?
usc affect adjaccnt property ?
SEE ATTACHI~
SEE ATT_AC'NEB
tile purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? SEE A~TACNEB
thc uses permitted by right in the district?
SEE ATTACNEB
)vidcd in Sccti on 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? SEE ATTA671ED
mblic health, safety, and gencral welfare of the community? SEE ATTACHED
use affect Lhc character of the district surrounding the property? SEE AIT~ACllE~
PAGE 5
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in'the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: SEE ATTACltED
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or PI at Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit .only fc~r a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy. bf the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, parmership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be ~
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen~t acce~ptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
ltEIDI H. PARLOR
Printed Name
Date
434-977-/,455
Daytime phone number of Signatory
ORR
What is the comprehensi
How will the proposed s
The proposed 98' fi
monopole and related equJ
obscure the facility from a
Balloon tests condu
of the brown monopole wo~
from properties located to !
slope with mature trees be[
camouflaging it, only the t(
south and west. Therefore,
view of the ridge line l~eyor
Because installation
construction of a long acces
parcel or adjacent propertie,,
Once the facility is c
site once a month for routin~
be necessary if there are ele(
factors: As a result, the prol
activity in the area.
Another monopole
constructed by Triton. Alth(
the subject property, it woul4
both sites are only slightly v:
approximately 200' wide thk
other or combine to create a
How will the proposed spe(
property?
The proposed facility
because it will be located wit
ATTACH MENT A
PAGE 6
NTELOS CV 327 - SP-2001-31
SP Application Attachment - Amended 10/22/2001
Page 1
UK PROPERTY (NTELOS - CV327)
7e plan designation for this property? Rural/Agricultural
ecial use affect adjacent property?
ot monopole will not adversely affect adjacent property because the
)ment will be located within a heavily wooded area, which will
adjacent properties.
:ted on September 25 and October 9, 2001 derrionstrated that the top
lld not be visible from Rt. 53, and would I~e only minimally visible
~e south and west of the site. Because/he p01e would be located on a
[nd it providing a backdrop, and mature trees in front of it
p portion of the tower would be visible from certain properties to the
the pole would not draw attention to the facility or compromiSe the
.d Rt. 53.
of this facility will not require the removal of any tall trees or the
road, there will not be significant physical disturbance to the subject
perational, nTelos's service personnel will typically only visit the
; maintenance purposes. Additional unscheduled visits would only
:trical problems caused by adverse weather, or other unexpected
tosed facility will not create a significant increase in traffic or other
gated approximately 200' northeast of the proposed site was recently
.ugh nTelos's facility, if approved, would be the second facility on
t not have a negative cumulative effect in terms of visibility because
sible above the tree canopy, and they are separated by an
.kly wooded buffer. Indeed, neither site would draw attention to the
~ingle visual distraction.
iai use affect the character of the district surrounding the
will not affect the character of the district surrounding the property
bin a heavily wooded area that is accessed from Route 53 by an
ATTACH MENT A
PAGE 7
NTELOS CV 327 - SP-2001-31
Sp Application Attachment - Amended 10/22/2001
Page 2
existing private driveway. As a result, the facility will be obscured from surrounding properties.
and not change the character of the area.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Wireless telecommunications sites such as the one proposed provide an important public
service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community,'.'
consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Moreover, by utilizing a brown monopote
that will extend slightly above the treetops within a heavily wooded area applicant's proposal is
consistent with the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the district?
The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses on the subject
parcel or any other property within the district.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance apply to this
use?
Section 5.1.12, which relates to public utility structures and uses.
How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of this community?
The proposed facility will provide improved wireless telecommunications services to this
area of Albemarle County.
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as numberg'of
persons involved in the use, operating hours, and unique features of the use:
Description of Request
nTelos, Inc. ("nTelos") requests a special use permit to construct, maintain and operate a
personal wireless service facility on property owned by Jeanette E. Orrock located at 1240
Thomas Jefferson Parkway (TM# 92-5).
Description of Facility
The proposed facility consists of a 98' steel monopole with two flush-mounted panel
antennas and a lightning rod attached. One flush-mounted antenna will measure 60"H x 12"W x
7"D, and the other 56"H x 8"W x 2.75"D. The ground~based equipment will be contained in two
72"H x 56"H x 32"D metal equipment cabinets, which will be placed on a 10' by 16' concrete
/7
pad. All ofthe proposed
The pole, antennas and gr
concrete pad will be tinted
The facility will be
short distance to reach the
The proposed pole
results. The tallest tree witl
of 622', which results in an
proposes a 98' pole with an
confirmed that a pole exten
visible from select nearby t
Service Facilities Policy gu
Applicant recognize
elevation than Triton's nero
by Triton's existing pole.
determined by a tree within
Triton's site, the proposed s
applicant's understanding ti
Triton's pole was fixed at a
site is surrounded by matun
within 25' in determining ar
Board also consider tree hei
Because an approxin
Triton's, the proposed site
be treated as other horizonta
have been required to have
an ASL elevation of71Y, a
another nearby tree, which
Once the facility is ol
site once a month for routine
be necessary if there are elec
factors.
The facility will not {
reception in the surrounding
ATTACHMENT A
NTELOS CV 327 - SP-2001-31
SP Application Attachment - Amended 10/22/2001
Page 3
~provements will be located within a 30' x 30' unfenced lease area.
,und equipment will be painted a flat, dark brown color, and the
an earthtone brown so it blends in with the surrounding area.
accessed by an existing gravel driveway that nTelos will extend a
[ease area.
height of 98' was determined by tree measurement and balloon test
tin 25' of the proposed pole site is 89' tall and has a ground elevation
above sea level ("ASL") elevation of 711'. Therefore applicant
overall ASL elevation of 721'. As discussed below, the balloon tests
ding 10' above the tallest tree within 25' would-be only minimally
,roperties and therefore appropriate pursuant to' the Personal Wireless
idelines and the County's Comprehensive' Plan.
s that a pole with an ASL elevation of 721' is 8' higher in overall
by pole; however, applicant's pole height should not be determined
irst, unlike the proposed pole, Triton's pole height was not
25'. Second, because of the distance between the proposed site and
itc is not a horizontal collocation that might require uniformity. It is
mt because of certain existing conditions at Triton's site, the height of
specific height not relative to a tree within 25'~ Because the proposed
trees, however, applicant was able to use the height of the tallest tree
appropriate pole height. Applicant respectfully requests that the
~ht to be a determining factor when reviewing this application.
lately 200' heavily wooded buffer separates the proposed pole from
not a horizontal collocation. Therefore, this application should not
[ collocations in the County where poles located next to each other
ne same ASL elevation. Indeed, if applicant's pole were limited to
phcant s pole would extend only 2 above the 89' tree and 6' above
~ not enough clearance for the pole to transmit signal effectively.
eranonal, nTelos s service personnel wall typically only visit the
maintenance purposes. Additional unscheduled visits should only
~rical problems caused by adverse weather or other unexpected
mit noise, odor or glare; nor will it interfere with television or radio
~rea. The facility will not be lit, unless required by the FAA.
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 9
NTELOS CV 327 - SP-2001-31
SP Application Attachment - Amended 10/22/2001
Page 4
Need for Facility
To provide wireless coverage to the Albemarle County region in accordance with its FCC
license, nTelos has designed a network consisting of small geographic sections called cells.
Pdatenna sites within each cell must be precisely located relative to other antenna facilities to
ensure nTelos provides adequate wireless coverage and complies with the terms of its FCC
license. Currently, there is a gap in nTelos's coverage in the area along Rt. 53 south of
Monticello. To eliminate this gap, nTelos has investigated several possible locations for an
antenna site in this area, and has determined that the proposed site is ideal because not only will
it function adequately within nTelos's existing cell network, it will meet or exceed the guidelines
outlined in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy.
Proposed Location of Facility
In addition to the proposed site, applicant considered several other site candidates along
Rt. 53 south of Monticello; however, the other site candidates were eliminated because either
they would not work within applicant's network, or a lease could not be negotiated.
The proposed site was selected because:
1) It will eliminate applicant's gap in coverage along Rt. 53 south of Monticello and
therefore enable applicant to provide adequate wireless coverage that complies with the terms of
its FCC license.
2) It preserves the 200' dense buffer of trees located separating the Triton site and the
proposed site; in fact, no mature trees will need to be removed to construct this site.
3) It is surrounded by mature trees that will provide both a backdrop and screen for
the proposed monopole.
4) It is located a short distance from the existing driveway, so no mature trees need
to be removed to provide access to the site.
5) The balloon test confirmed that a 98' monopole at this location will not be visible
from Route 53, and or~y minimally visible from nearby properties, including Monticello and
Jefferson Vineyards.
Balloon Tests
Applicant conduct~
September 25 test a baIloc
53. Before the balloon wa
to 95'. A representative ot
observed the balloon at 95
2001 letter, which states t
Triton pole, the Foundati,
another balloon test so the
the test was necessary.
On October 9, 200
of the proposed 98' pole.
at the site and flew the ball
height. Therefore, the ball,
Notwithstanding this incre~
Vineyards parking lot. Re'
test, and, as indicated in th
objections to a 99' po16.
It is important to no
constructed to ensure the pi
in the photos taken at the b~
the two sites provides ampi
or combine to create a singl
Involvement & Approva'l ~
Because the propose
viewsheds, applicant and its
Vineyards in determining tl:
from the Foundation and Jel
441n Telos ~SPapp-amend wpd
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 10
NTELOS CV 327 - SP-2001-31
SP Application Attachment- Amended 10/22/2001
Page 5
;d balloon tests on September 25 and October 9, 2001. At the
n was flown at 99' and 95'. The 99' balloon was not visible from Rt.
s viewed from Monticello, Staff requested that the balloon be lowered
the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (the "Foundation")
and, based on that observation, drafted the enclosed October 12,
tt so long as the proposed pole is the same diameter and color as the
~ is not opposed to a 98' pole. Although applicant offered to conduct
Foundation could view the balloon at 98', the Foundation did not think
, applicant conducted another balloon test to d~termine the visibility
ly accident, the balloon test crew did not factor in the ground elevation
oon at 99' instead of 98'. The photos' submitted to Staff show the 99'
)on in those photos is one foot higher than the proposed pole.
csed height, the balloon was only minimally visible from the Jefferson
~resentatives of Jefferson Vineyards observed the October 9 balloon
',ir October 9, 2001 letter enclosed with this application, they have no
te that both balloon tests were conducted after Triton's pole was
oposed site will not have a negative cumulative effect. As evidenced
dloon tests, the approx)mately 200' heavily wooded buffer between
e distance between them so they do not draw attention to each other
visual distraction.
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation & Jefferson Vineyards
d pole is located within the Monticello and Jefferson Vineyards
representatives have worked with the Foundation and Jefferson
e height of the proposed pole. As evidenced in the enclosed letters
~ferson Vineyards, neither object to the proposed 98' pole.
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 11
LINE TABLE ·
LINE LENGTH BEARING
L1 40.88' N45'57'35"E
L2 42.48' N20'55'46"E
L3 363.10' NOD'O3'57"E
L4 .103.04' N20'48'25"E
L5 68.28' N14'O9'10"E
L6 64.29' NO3'59'32"E
L7 177.02' NOS'O9'56"W
L8 50.99' N11 '51'5,9"E
L9 54.76' N32'26'57"E
LIO '; 1'53.01' N47'59'15"E
L11 53.71' N68'21'46"E
L12 63.53' S80'32'28"E
L13 30.00' S89'$0'36"E
L14 30.00' S00'29'24"W
L15 30.00' N89'30'36"W
L16 30.00' NOO'29'24"E
L17 6.47' N73'31'59"E
L18 18.54' S00'29'24"W
PROPOSED MONOPOLE
LAT. 37'59'50.2' NAD 83
LONG. 78'26'55.0" NAD 83
GROUND ELEV. 622.0:1: NArD 88
/~7"r/-~ ACCESS EASEMENT
/1/~/JEANNiIVER AN EXISTING RoAD
TTE S 70(RROCK
II W.~. 80 P~i .67
TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 5
ZONED RA /
/~"// JEANNETTE S. ORROCK
D.B. 1491 PG. 495
TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 5A
/ ZONED RA
PLA'F OF
SITE SURVEY
CROWN COMM. SITE
ORROCK
No. CV 327
LOCATED OFF STATE RTE. 53
NEAR SIMEON
([ON THE LANDS OF JEANNETTE
S. ORROCK)
SCOTrSVILLE DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DATE: JULY 3, 2001 SCALE: 1' = 100'
Patton Harris Rust & A~eoci&tem.pe ~v,.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO ALL
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
2. THIS PARCEL IS NOT IN A F.E.M.A,
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE 'A" OR "B".
3, TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WAS
TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY PERFORMED BY PHR&A ON
6/12/01. NO BOUNDARY SURVEY
WAS PERFORMED BY PHR&A.
4. SURVEYED TO 2C SPECIFICATIONS.
SHEET 1 OF 2
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 12
// 1 '"M,~2 L,17 .~.~'~ D LE
PROPOSE MONOPO~ I ,~--
~x/~ [/-L,5 LO,G. 78'26'5~.0' NAD 8~
LS~ PRC
-TOWE
tl/l~ 900
JE~
TA
~lL~
PLAT OF
SITE SURVEY
CROWN CG
ORROCK
No. CV 327 '
LOCATED OFF STATE RTE.
NEAR SIMEON
(ON THE LANDS OF
S. ORROCK)
SCO~SVILLE DIS~ICT
ALBEMAR~ COUNt,
DATE: JULY 3, 2001
30SED \
:R SITE \
SQ. FT.
NNETTE $. ORROCK
W.B. 80 PG. 767
MAP 92 PARCEL 5
ZONED RA
GROUND ELEV. 622.0:1: NAVD 88
JEANNETTE S. ORROCK
D.B. 1491 PG. 495
TA~ MAP ~Z PARCEL ~A
ZONED RA
M. SITE
JEANNETTE
,,/'
GINIA
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Patton Harris Rust & Asso~tates,pc
CERTIFICATE:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE COORDINATE
LOCATION OF THE REFERENCED TOWER SITE
IS ACCURATE TO WITHIN 50' HORIZONTALLY
AND THE ELEVATION IS ACCURATE WITHIN 10'
VERTICALLY. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM
(COORDINATES) ARE IN TERMS OF THE NORTH
AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83) AND ARE
EXPRESSED AS DEGREES, MINUTES, AND
SECONDS. THE VERTICAL DATUM (ELEVATIONS)
ARE BASED ON NGVD 88 AND ARE DETERMINED
TO THE NEAREST FOOT.
SHEET 2 OF 2
16'-0"
JUNCllON 80X FOR DC POWER
6' X 6' X 4.' DEEP
CONDUII FOR DC POWER
CONOUIT FOR TELCD
CONDUIT FOR SPAR~ '"SEE CONDUIT LISTING FOR
CONDUIT SIZE AND
CONDUIT FOR AC POWER
STRANOEED GREEN
6 ROW
PlP~ 12" TO SUPPORT 611 CABINET, G°S ANO
LIGHT TOP e 7'-0" ABOVE CONC. PAO (GALVJ
3'-10"
CONDUIT STUB UP FOR
INCOMING PO~ER
_)
NOI'E: 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR ACTUAL ORIENTATION
2, ALIGN FOUR (4) CONDUITS WITH 4' MOUNTING PIPE, CENTER JUNCTION
BOX ON 1' CONDUITS. JUNCTION BOX FLUSH WI~ PAD.
CONCRETE PAD LAYOUT SCHEMATIC
SCALE:
GPS
LIGHT
SC611 CABINET MOUNTED ON
STEEL PIPE. ATTACH PER
IaFOR, S
NOTE: CONCRETE PAD TO 8E TINTED EARTH TONE.
ALL EOUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED BROWN.
/-.-PAD SURF ACE SHALL RECEIVE
4X4 W4XW4 WWF-- lA SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH
1" CHAIdF[R ~ / r-6-MIN. CONC. SLAB
~, ,~s'(wP)-~ ~ / / r- 2' (CL..)
UNO~S~RBED SUBGRADE
(BEDROCK OR STRUC~RAL FILL)~ ~6" CRU~ED STONE
CONCRETE PAD SECTION
SCALE: N.T.S.
DIA. STD. PIPE (GALV.)-~
CONC.
(~ SUPPORT POST FOR SC611
SCALE: N,T.S,
**CONDUIT USTING FROu L£FT TO
~GHT FOR POV~R CABINET
1' C~IT F~
1' C~UIT F~ AC ~R
TO SC611
1' C~II F~ ~LCO
TO ~611
2' C~DUlT FOR ~ PO~ TO
TO ~611~R
2' CON.IT F~ INCHING ~LCO
3'-#2A LIMESTONE
COMPACTED/ROLLED,-~ /--CLASS 4 GEOTEXTILE
4'-~2 COURSE AGO, & J2 OF ~ / PROOF ROLL &
EXlS ADE
(~ G~VEL ROAD SECTION DETAIL
SCALE: N.T.5.
07/10/01
mTtC~T 1~ I,K1'~ P~ESSCg OF ~£ OMaR
ORAWN BY: A. MOYER
C,~C~ED BY: J, RENO
ORROOK
CV 327
FSITE AOI~SS
1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON
PARKWAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22g0~
ISHEET TITL~
SECTIONS
AND DETAILS
\ JEANNETTE S. ORROCK
~ TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 4
~ W.B. 79, PG. 510 ~,~-- .,,,
~ D.B. 550, PG. 57
~ ZONED: RA
JEANNETTE S. ORROCK
JEANNETTE S. ORROCK ~* TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 5A ~- THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL
TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 5 ~ W.B. 80, PG. 767 ~ FOUNDATION, INC.
W.B. 80, PG. 767 ~' D.B. 1~91, PG. 495 . , TAX MAP 92 PARCEL
ZONED: RA 15.61 AC. ~ , D.B. 690, PG. 46.5 '
~"' ' x. ZONED: RA
~.~:::~..~;:~:::;:;.... ZONED: RA
~ /~ PROPOSED TOWER SITE
/i
//
1/
~' , STANLEY WOODWARD, JR
~ / /' TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 6 ~ t ~)ORROCK PROPERTY JOINERS
i D.B. 664, PO. 525
i~ ZONED: RA
~ JEANNETTE S. ORROCK
TAX MAP 92 PARCEL 5
W.B. 80, PG. 767
ZONED: RA
I)RAWl BY: A.MOYER
CHECKED BY." J. R,~NO
ORROOK
CV ,"-127
1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON
PARKWAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
PROPERTY
JOINERS
LSHI~:'T NUMBER
P J-1
PLOT 5rd~LE:
.)
98'-0" MONOPOLE TOWER EXTENDING 10' ABOVE TREELINE
611 BTS CABINET
AIR CONOIT'ION~NC
AOJUST~LE
ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
AWG ~ERICAN WiRE GAUGE
E E~T
ELECT ELECTRI~
EO EQU~
FLUOR FLUORE$C[NT
FOOT
~v~tZE(D} TOR
NO OEN[~ CON ~
GYP BD CY~UM ~ED
~D'WO ~0~O
POUNO(5)
M~
MGR MANAGER
~4IN MINIMUM
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
ANGLE
AND
CENTER LINE
PROPER~rY LINE
NUMBER
~ KEY NOTE ~ ELEVATION REFERENCE
BBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
pATTON, HARRIB, RUST & ~OCIATES
P.O BOY 46
116 N. M~N STREET
BRIDGEWATER. VA 228t2
CONSULTANT TEAM
SS- t
SS-2
S-2
TITLE SHEET
BITE B U R"VEY
SITE SURVI[Y
PROPERTY JOINERS
0['TAIL SITE PLAN
SITE ELEVATION
TOWER ELEVATION AND DETAILS
SECTIONS reNO DETAILS
BECTION~ AND 0~TAILS
~HEET INDEx
P~OJECl MANAGER:
CONSTRUCTION ~ER:
NETWORK OPERATIONS MAN~ER~
NATIONAL 01RECTOR MAN~ER~
APPROVED BY
ORROCK
CV 327
1.240 THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
ALBEMARLE CO., VA
4N D. RENO
NO,
SITE NA~
~ARCEL NUMBER
T M. 92 PARCEL 5
SITE NUMBER .T~~
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CV 527
1240 THOMA~ JEFFERSON pARKWAYRA
CHARCOTTE~VILLE, vd 22DQ2
ALBEMARLE CO. VA
~FF1) BOOK ,~ PAGE
JEANEll'E E. ORROCK WB B0 PO 767
AppU~NT
CROWN COMMUNIO~TIONB
920 BHEN~,,IDOAH ~LLAGE OR~E
WAYNESBORO, vJ 22980
(B40) 932-2375 - PHONE
(540) g52-2381 rAY
375 SOU'rHPOtNT BLVO
CANONSBURG, PA 15317
(72~) 416-2000 - Phone
(724~ 416-2200 - =~
LATITUDE-N 37' 59' 50.2" NAD 27
LONGITUDE -w 7~' 25' 55.0" N~O 27
ELEVATION - 623 3: NAVO 88
PROJECT SUMMARY ,, -
LANDOWNER APPROVAL
~OJFCT DF~C, RIPTIO N
THE PROJECT INCLUDES:
NSTALLATION OF A gB' MONOPOLE TOWER (PAtNTEO BROWN)
iNSTALLATION OF FOUR (4) ANTENNA (PNNTED GROWN)
INSI~TION 0F ~ [QUIPMEN~ P~ W~H ~
NO WA~ER SUPPLY OR S~E RUN 70 SITE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SIGNATURE
MUNICIPAL APPROVAL
FROM COUNTY 0¢FICE 0UIL01NO, TURN LEFT ONTO MONTIRE ROAD.
D-'~-'~.CTIONS TO SITE
IN--N'~.CTOR APPROVAL
ALS. ORA~ ~ ~RI11T}~ ~laAL 00NINNE)
HE~:~V N~[~ 'IHI~ ~IY DIr Pt41~ ~ A ~
~IAT NOT K lY~I~IC~I), ~ (~ ~lSl:tO~l)
MTi,iOUI ~ WRfllTN DONSD4'T ~ N ~ A
ORROCK
CV 327
1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON
PARKWAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
{~HEET TITL[
TITLE
SHEET
[~H~'T NUMBER
T-1
1-20
PLOT SCALE;
DESIGN DATA
1. LIVE LOADS
WIND LOADS:
ICE LOADS:
SEISMIC LOADS:
PER TIA/EIA 222-F BASIC WIND SPEED 70 M.P.H.
'I/2" RADIAL ON ALL COMPONENTS AND CABLES
PER ASCE 7-95 MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR
BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES.
LEGEND:
PROPERTY LINE
LEASE LINE
EXISTING 1' COUNTOURS
EXISTING 5' COUNTOURS
PROPOSED 1" COUNTOURS
PROPOSED 5' COUNTOURS
LEGEND:
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
EXISTING TREE LINE
LIMIT OF CLEARING
EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD
O O
/ pR, CPOSED
, ,~ARD
/
/ / /
'/ / LINE PR¢OSED ~°'~ TRE
, /
/ / //
/ /
' / /
/ / /
(WOODlD AREA)
EX. ACCESS ROAD
ME
/ ' ~ 40
/ ,/
PROP. 15" CMP
PROPOSi GRAVEL
ACCESS
TEE .TREE BASE TOP DIST. FROM
HEIGHT ELEVATION ELEVATION TOWER CENTER
36 8~"--' 622' - 707' _~17.80'
37 . 89' 622'~~~
38 78' 622' 700' 20.50'
40 86' 621' 707' ~5.90'
41 77' 620' 897' 18.50'
42 52' 62~' 675' 19,75'
43 77' ..I ~24'. 7D1' J 75'
17
TRI~E PROTECTION
FENCING
IROPOSED lO' x 16'
PAD
PROPOSED 98' '
//¢.,.._(~ ~ONCRETE E1UIPMENT
t .
(WOODED ARE~)
25
GRAPHIC SCALE
O 5 10 20
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 10 ft.
ATTACHMENT A
.'~ PAGE
.o
) ~-~5
DIMt~'~ ~ ~M~"~ MA~R/A,L C~TAJ~
H~c~l ARE 'll"lE I~I(~I~'I~'Pt 0¢ PHI~ kAN, iD
NOT BE DIZ~.IC~T[~. US[D ~ ~
ORROCK
CV 327
/$11'[ ADORES$
1240THOMAS JEFFERSON
PARKWAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902
[SH£~ T~E
DETAIL SITE
PLAN
ISHEET NUMBER,
PLOT 5CALE;
TOP OF TOWER+
ELEVATION 721'+
89' OAK @ TOP ELEV. 711.0'
86' OAK 0 TOP ELEV. 707.0'
PROPOSED CLUSTER
MOUNT ANTENNAS
85' OAK @ TOP ELEV, 707.0'
TOP ELEV. 700.0'
TREE
37
38
40
42
TREE
HEIGHT
85'
89'
78'
86'
77'
52'
BASE
ELEVATION
622'
622'
622'
62t'
620'
623'
fi24'
TOP
ELEVATION
707'
711'
700'
707'
__ 697'
675'
701'
DIST, FROM
TOWER. CENTER
17. B0'
16.50'
20.50'
35,90'
18.50'
19.75'
17_25'
GRAPHIC SCALE
ATTACH MENT A
PAGE 16 !~
(SqO) 032-23~
(~40) ~32-~3~1 FAX
~T NOT ~ OJ. FUCA'~I), USEI) ~ D~CtO~)
1lilY'OUT 1HE IR~TIDd COk, SE#T ~ pHR & A
NOTE: COMPOUND SURROUNDED
BY TREES IN WOODED AREA
PROPOSED SUPPORT CABINET PAINTED BROWN
~, 78 OAK @ BASE ELEV. 624.0'
89' OAK @ BASE ELEV. 622.0'
85' @ BASE ELEV. 622,0'
~_gB.' POLE 0 BASE ELEV. 622.0'
SITE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 15'
0 15 30
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 15' ft.
ORROCK
CV 327
1240 THOMAs JEFFERSON
PARKWAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 229~
i '~MEET TITL~
SITE
ELEVATION
s-2 '~-
HIGHEST POINT WlTH
ELEVATION 721':t:
PROPOSED CLUSTER
MOUNT ANTENNAS PAINTED BROWN
DRIP LINE
PROTECTIVE DEVlCE-~
MAXIMUM LIMITS
CLEARING AND
PROPOSED COAX CABLES ON POLE
UP TO ANTENNAS. ALL CABLES PAINTED BROWN
PROPOSED CB' HIGH POLE
EXPOSED FOUNDATION TO
BE TINTED EARTHTONE ~
)TOWER ELEVATION
SCALE: N.T,S.
IS LESS IHAN * *
NOTES:
1. PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEOITATION:
AT THE START OF C~ADING iNVOLVING THE LOWERING OF
EXISTING GRADE AROUND A TREE OR STRIPPING OF TOPSOIL
A CLEAN SHARP, VERTICAL CUT SHALL BE MADE AT THE
EDGE OF THE TREE SAVE AREA AT THE SAME TIME AS OTHER
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE INSTALLED. THE TREE
PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE SIDE
OF THE CUl FARTHEST AWAY FROM THE TREE TRUNK AND .
SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
VICINITY OF THE TREES IS C(~IPLETE, NO STORAGE OF
MATERIALS, FILL, OR EQUIPMENT AND NO TRESPASSING SHALL
BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PROTECTED AREA.
2, CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL AT A DISTANCE EQUAL TO TREE
DRIP LINE OR 5' WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
~ ~NCE POST MAT BE 4' PINE OR 2' OAK
..... 0000000 r ORANG UV-REStSTANT HIGH-TENSILE
Uuuuu ~ / STRENGTH POLY BARRICADE FABRIC
00000000000000000-'"%_/
0000000000000000000"%
oooooooooooooooooooo~
ooooooooooooooooooooo\
oooooooooooooooooooooo\
00000000000000000999999\
ooooooooooooooooooooooo\
ooooooooooooooooooooooo~
ooooooooooooo66b00oooooo\
0ooooo000oo0o000o000o00o~
ooooo~ooooooo~0Ooooooooo~
5'-0' O,C, MAX.
TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL
SCALE: N,T,$.
~.TTACHMENT A
PAGE '~7 "!~'!~,:-
~, VA. )~
OT/'m/o~
CH£CK£O BY: J. RENO
ORROCK
CV 327
srr[
1240 ~OM~ JEFFERSON
P~AY
CH~LO~ESVILLE, VA
ELEVATION SECT.
AND DETAILS
NUMB~
PLOT
POLE
BRO~q
DOWN
RACKET
MICROFLECT TRI-BRACKET
PART NUM. B1B2B OR EOJAL
~IICROR. ECT PIPE MOUNT
PART NUM. B1832 OR EQUAL
NOTE:
1 ANTENNA EOUIPMENT TO
BE PAINTED BROWN
2. DIST. BETWEEN PIPE blouNT AND
AND POLE NOT TO EXCEED 12'
(~ TRI-BRACKET ELEVATION
SCALE:
12' MAX
BAR
STRAPPED TO
TOWER
4'-6' O,C. MAX
COAX CABLE
iCEBRIDGE--%.
SUPPORT
CALDWELO GROUND LEAD
TO ICE BRIDGE SUPPORT
POS% $'-12" ABOVE
GRAVEL GRADE
(T~.)
-.-CABLE GUARD SHEATH
LOCATE AT EACH END OF'
ICEBRDG[ (TYP.)
JUMPER
CABLE ENTRY
PORT (TYP)
EQUIPMENT <
CABINET
611 BTS SKID
I
24' CLEAR
~-CONC. FOOTING TO
BE BELOW GRADE
SIDE ELEVATION
TINNED LEADS TO
ORCXJNDING RING (TYP.)
ICE BRIDGE DETAIL
SCALE: N.T.S,
ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE
SECTOR A1 B1
AZIMUTH 130' 330'
ANTENNA EMS RR 33-20-00DP EMS RR-g0-17--00DP
MOUNTING BRACKET MTG-DIO-20 UTG-D10-20
MECHANICAL DOWNTILT 1" 1'
COAXIAL CABLE 7/8' 7/8'
NOTE: SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL
I "i ' - 21X
BL-1 R~I
H LCOAXIAL CABLE
~,,,,,.~ W/ STA!NLESS STEEL
- u 51'ANDARD CABLE HANGER
~.......,--$/8' DIA. THREADED
ROD W/ NUTS'AND
OVERHEAD WASHERS
/-CABLE SUPPORT
// ~ 4-U U.~. MAX.
~ROD TO EXTEND 1/2' MAX.
BELOW CABLE SUPPORT
NOTE: VIEW-BACK TO EQUIPMENT LOOKING AT TOWER
SECTION
SCALE: N.T.S.
F B
RID~ CHANNEL
ElY MICR[~"L,ECT
/-1/2' ALLTHREAO
.--'COAX ,SUPPORT; 20' UNISTRUT W/NUT
AND WASHER EACH SIDE/ EACH LEVEL
USE ANDREW COAX HANGERS
'"'---COAX TERMINATOR FRAME PER
PRO. CT MANAGER'S INSTRUCTIONS
HEAD BY MICROFLECT
· ~-3 1/2'I GN_V., SCHED 40 POST;
/--CROWN TO DRAIN;, TYPICAL
.~'_/--12 e x 36 DEEP CONCRETE
"" FOOTING; TYPICAL
FRONT ELEVATION
TABULATION DIM.
'A' 9'
"B" + 7'-6'
'C' ::t: 6'-6·
** NOTES:
IF THE ICE BRIDGE (DIM. *A') IS 20' OR LESS. TWO (2)
GROUNDING POINTS ARE REQUIRED AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF
THE ICE BRIDGE. CALDWELD TO THE ICE BRIDGE SUPPORT
POST.
IF THE ICE BRIDGE (DIM. 'A') IS 20' OR CREATER, THREE
(3) GROUNDING POINTS ARE REOUlRED, ONE (1) EACH AT
oPpOSITE ENDS AND ONE (1) NEAR THE CENTER OF THE
ICE BRIDGE, CALDWELD TO THE CE BRDGE SUPPORT POST.
NOTE: ENTIRE ICE BRIDGE TO BE
PAINTED BROWN.
ATTACHMENT A
~'m[sso~o, VA. 2~
(~)
K]m~lX)~llON OR USE OF
l~ )NR)RtMll0N CGIET~ N IT IS FOR~F.N
IllitO0? ll~ llWlliN ~ OF T~ 0MI~.
(~AWN BY: A, MOYI~cl
CHECKED ~ J. RENO
ORROCK '
CV 327
1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON
PARKqNAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
I g~IE[T Tl/!.E
SECTIONS
AND DETAILS
PLOT SCARE: 1-20
6OO 0
6OO
1200
f
/J
/
× 49..q
ATTACHMENT D
9~
64C
64A
5A
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
78
SP 01-031 ORROCK (NTELOS PCS) '
/
\ ·
43
ATTACHMENT B
64
59
~04
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION
92
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
May 16. 2001
ValerieW. Long, Esquire
P O Box 1288
Charlottesville. VA 22902
RE:
SP-2000-77 Orrock Property (Triton)
Tax Ma I~ 92. Parcel 5A
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April 25, 2001, unanimously approved the
above-noted request. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of
eighty (80) feet, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 712.8 feet, as measured Above Sea Level
(ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole:
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the
trees:
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted:
c. - No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein:
d. The ground ~quipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to
the pole shall be dark brown ~n color and shall be no larger than the specifications set
forth in the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)";
e. A groUnding rod. whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not
exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two (2) trees
that have been used to justify the height of the monopole;
g. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole,
measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); and
h. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number one (1) of this
special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit.
3. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)";
Page 2
May 16, 2001
Equipment shall
a. Antennas sh
PCS)";
b. No satellite c
c. Only flush m,
pole beyond
in no case st
Prior to beginning col
of access for vehicle.~
specifying tree protec
removed on the site b
submitted to the Dire(
or installations associ
construction or install;
tree rem oval expressl
permittee shall not ret
pad. A special use pE
hundred (200)-foot bu
The pole shall be disa
use for wireless telec¢
The permittee shall su
than July 1 of that yea
user that is a wireless
No slopes associated
steeper than 2:1 unles
the County Engineer
Outdoor lighting shall
fully shielded such tha
lowest part of the shiel
lumina~re is a complete
designed to distribute
power supply;
10.
The permittee shall co
area shall not be perm;
11.
The applicant shall sub
Community DevelopmE
Planning staff shall rev
special use permit hay{
In the event that the use, struct
commenced within eighteen (1t
abandoned and the authority gr
the term "commenced" shall be
necessary to [he use of such pE
thereafter completed within on,
ATTACHMENTC
PAGE2
[tached to the pole only as follows:
Ill be limited to the sizes, shown on the attach ed plan entitled "Orrock (Triton
r microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; and
~unted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
:he minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted However,
all the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches.
~struction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation
or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist,
tion methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be
oth inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be
',tor of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
~ted with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
~tion, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the
! authorized by the Director of Planning and Comn'{unity Development, the
hove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
,rmit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
rfer, after the installation of the subject facility;
ssembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
mmunications purposes is discontinued;
bmit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no Pater
· The report sl~all identify each user of the pole and shall identify each
:elecommunication service provider;
vith construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are
s retaining walls, revetments, or other stabiliZation measures acceptable to
re employed:
~e limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be
all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the
:1 or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this bondition a
lighting unit consisting Of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
he light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the
nply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
tted; and
mit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and
~nt. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for cons[ruction of the facility,
ew the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of [he
been addressed in the final rewsions of the construction plans.
~re or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be
I) months after the issuance of such permit the same shall be deemed
anted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section,
construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure
rmit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is
(1) year.
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 3
Page 3
May 16, 2001
Before beginning this use, you must obtai~-~ ~.o~ing clearance from the Zoning Department: Before the
Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further
information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875.
If you'should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Director of Planning & Co~ Deve opmen[
VWC/jcf
Cc:
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve AIIshouse
Bob Ball, VDOT
Ms. Dd)bie Balser
Siie Acquisnion Mar
nT¢,~os Corporation
PO. Box 1328
MONTICELLO
October 9, 2001
ager
W;tyn¢::boro, VirginiI 22980
Dear Ma. Babc~'.
/
Iarn writing c[n behalf of tho Thomas Jefferson Foundation to th~nk you for your
involving us M the mhtter of locating a c~ll tower near Monticello. On Tuesday,
SerAember 2.5, I obse:-ged a balloon flow~ just above the treetops on th~ property of
leanette Orrock By ':Iris test it was apparent that a cell tower in this to.c. ation, provided it
i~ of app~ oxima*.ely tlte same si.z=, color a~d ~levation as the odst'mg tower, would have
littl~ or no impact when view~J fi.om Monticello,
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT F
Oclober 9, 2001
Mr. Sicphon Fi. Waller
Pi:tuner
Comity o1' Alht:mnrle
Dqmrtment ul' Planning and Community Dt:vclopment
401 Mefntirt~ Road
Charlmte~villc, Virginia 22902
Re: NTELO$ (Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C.) PCS Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Om.,ck Prup~=riy
TNt P 92-00-00-005A
Dear Mr, Waller:
-I.'h¢ purpose of this letter is to inform you that we have viewed thc balloon test pcrfo'rmed by NTff. LOS
personnel on '['uc.sday, October 9, 2001, The balloon w~s flown at a hci ght'of ten (10) fcc£ above tile tallcst
trt:;: which is eighty-nine (89) feet in height, We have no objections to the proposed PCS Wireless
'Feiecommunicadon.~ Facility at a total height of ninety-nine (99) l'ect.
,qillccre]y, "
The facility.shl dl be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the dat~: its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning .~ ~dministrator determines at any time that surety is required to
guarantee that'~he facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish
to the Zoning ~ idmimstrator ............. ,1., .~,~ o a certified check, a bond
with surety sat: sfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the
County, in an ~ mount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the
facility. The t3 >e of surety ~uarantee shall be to the satisfactiOn of the Zoning
Administrator ~
md the County Attome¥.
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: ......
DEPARTMEN'
CH
November 19, 2001
Malcolm Meistrell
The Kessler Group
P O Box 5207
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA-2001-003 Rio ~
Dear Mr. Meistrell:
The Albemarle County Plann
unanimously recommended
Please note that this approw
of the attached proffers must
scheduled hearing date.
Please be advised that the A;
receive public comment at th,
information regarding your a[
Supervisors at least seven df
If you should have any questi
hesitate to contact me.
Michae~
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
401 MCINTIRE ROAD, ROOM 218
ARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-4596
uare; Tax Map 62A1, Parcels 2-4, 2-5; 204A and 2B-13
~g Commission, at its meeting on November 13, 2001,
Ipproval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
I is subject to the attached proffers dated 11/06/01. A signed copy
be submitted to our office at least seven days prior to your
bemarle CoUnty Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
;ir meeting on December 5, 2001. Any new or additional
,plication must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
~ys prior to your scheduled hearing date.
ons or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
PROFFER FORM
Date: 11/20/01
ZMA # 01-003
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): TMP 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2(B)13
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer x
(Amendment# 6 )
3.15 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 and R-6 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent,hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The development on Tax Map 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, and 2 (B) 13 shall be in general accord with the plan
produced by Daggett and Grigg Architects, rifled "Rio Square Preliminary Site Plan" (title sheets and sheets C-l, C-
2, C-3, C4, L-l, and A-l), dated July 16, 2001 and last revised on August 20, 2001. On Sheet A-l, the relative
location and massing of the structures, landscaping, the building roof lines, and roof pitches are proffered as part of
the Application Plan for ZMA 01-03. Final design details such as materials, j ack arches, types of windows and first
floor master bedrooms are not proffered. No building construction shall begin unless and until the Design Planner
determines that the architecture is in general accord with sheet A-1 of the Application plan..
2. The owner may vary the square footage of office use or the number of townhouse units on the Application Plan;
however, footprints of the buildings and uses within the buildings shall be in general accord with the Application
Plan and the parking provided for the office use shall be not less than 90% of the parking spaces required for that
use, and the parking provided for the town_house dwelling units shall be not less than 40% of the parking spaces
required for that use, as these uses are de£med in Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect
on December 5t~, 2001.
3. In order to limit office uses with high parking demands, permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by
special use permit, shall include only those uses allowed in Section 23 Commercial Office of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 5th, 2001, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto, except the
following:
a. Dentist offices (a portion of 23.2.1.2);
b. Churches; and
c. Businesses whose sole purpose or primary activity is providing:
i) Data entry and/or storage, subscription and/or credit card transaction processing; or,
ii) Solicitation of sales and/or order processing by telephone, mail order, internet, catalog sales or other
similar medium; or,
iii) Mailing list preparation.
Signatures of All Owners
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
Printed Names of All Owners
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
Date
OR
DEPARTME
TO'.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CC:
Planni~
Michae
Rio Sq
11/07/(
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission
At that t me, staff could not
remained outstanding (See
these 10 items through the
willingness to accept a coo
Commission signaled their
arrangement as was propo
The applicant submitted a
Review committee has sin~
pending the Planning Coml
waiver request and special
DISCUSSION:
At the June 5th public heari
before staff could recomm(
applicant's efforts to seek ~
lO Outstandin.q Items
1. Clarify the proffer,,
A discussion of the
2. Define the design
Attachment A, pag(
Staff feels that the ~
Road. The applic~
(Attachment B).
3. Define the intend~
Staff has consisten
applicant has show
the townhouses an~
provided landscapi~
from: the nearby re.~
iT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
401 MCINTIRE ROAD, ROOM 218
tARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-4596
MEMORANDUM
Lg Commission
1 Barnes, Planner ~[/~,~¢
~are Rezoning Update (ZMA 01-03)
eld a public hearing on this rezoning application on June 5, 2001.
recommend approval because staff had identified 10 items that
Staff Report - Attachment C). The applicant was willing to address
preliminary site plan process, if the Planning Commission signaled a
)erative parking arrangement for the project. The Planning
willingness to review an Application Plan with a cooperative parking
zed.
~reliminary site plan on July 16, 2001. The County's Site Plan
e reviewed the preliminary site plan and is willing to grant approval
nission's approval of the rezoning application, cooperative parking
use permit for the office uses (Attachment A, page C-1 ).
lg, staff provided 10 outstanding items that needed further attention
nd approval. Below are those 10 items and a discussion of the
resolution to the items.
proffers follows this section.
or appearance of the buildings along Rio Road.
A-1 provides elevations for the proposed buildings along Rio Road.
;levations shown would be appropriate along this stretch of Rio
nt has proffered the form and massing for these buildings
d uses in the recreational area.
:ly requested that a defined recreational amenity be provided. The
a swing set and bench in the proposed recreational area between
single-family houses (Attachment A, page C-1). They have also
[I around the recreational area in an attempt to set this area apart
idences. However, the applicant is not willing to proffer the specific
type of amenity at this time because they may change the amenity to correspond with
the target market for the townhouses at the time of construction.
Staff believes that, since an amenity is shown on the plan, the applicant can be obligated
to provide the amenity. If the applicant decides to provide an amenity different than the
one shown on the plan, 7the Director of Planning and Community Development can
grant it if it is considered to be equivalent to that shown on the Application Plan. Thus,
staff is confident that an appropriate amenity will be provided and the applicant has the
flexibility as to what type .of amenity will be provided.
Provide pedestrian path from the recreation area to the west, behind the
townhomes, to the parking area.
The applicant has linked the western part of the parking lot area to the recreation area
with a pedestrian path as requested (Attachment A, page C-1 ).
Provide a means of access down the 2:1 slopes from the single-family detached
homes to the recreation area.
Attachment A, page C-1 shows pedestrian access on either side of the slope that is
situated between the recreational area and the single-family homes. Originally, staff had
asked for a set of stairs which would traverse this slope. The applicant has declined to
provide the stairs and has instead argued that a set of stairs would invite too much
access between the recreation area and the homes/Wakefield Drive and a reduced
sense of privacy for the hOmes. Staff has agreed to drop this issue as a requirement
since it appears that the occupants of the single-family homes can access the recreation
area through a short detour around the slope.
Provide a sidewalk between the office buildings and Rio Road.
The applicant has provided multiple connections between the office buildings and Rio
Road.
The applicant needs to demonstrate the proposed Setback lines between the
single-family detached homes and the other building allow for the subdivision of
this home off at a later date.
Attachment A, page C-4 shows the proposed subdivision for the single-family homes.
The proposed lot lines for all of the buildings, except for the proposed parcel at the
corner of Wakefield and Rio, appear to be sufficient. The existing house on this corner
parcel, at its closest point, is twenty feet from the proposed office building.
The typical side yard setback in an R-1 district is 15 feet. The proposed rear yard
setback for this home will be approximately 14 feet. As for the office building, the typical
setback in a commercial district is 50 feet from a residential district. The proposed
setback for the office building is 6 feet at its closest point to the house.
While the proposed setbacks are significantly less than the current setback standards,
staff supports the proposed plan for the following reasons. First, the current setback
standards were developed under a more suburban construct. The Neighborhood Model
calls for mixing uses within developments and often within buildings themselves.
Secondly, there is an attempt to "separate~ the buildings through landscape, grading,
and design. The applicant has proposed a row of trees along the retaining wall
separating the two structures (Attachment A, page L-l). Thirdly, the to pography slopes
away from the house and the office is built into the hillside. This reduces the massing of
the office building relative to the house (Attachment A, page A-l). Furthermore, the
gabled roofs of the office buildings (Attachment A, page L-1 ) are oriented so that the
mass of the buiidin
owns the entire par(
will clearly understa
Thus, the occupant
stated above, Staff t
8. Demonstrate and !
The applicant has p
total 40,566 square
9. Provide landscapi~
On the proffered pl~
While the specific It
site plan, staff feels
slopes (Attachment
10. Provide a buffer b~
Condominiums.
The planting of 8 to
boundary with Four'
townhouses and the
Proffers
The applicant and staff ha~
objectives: 1) Ensure that t
that the parking provided is
or activities that might crea
Attachment B COntains the
Proffer #2 meets the secor
residential requirement an(
parking demand associatet
satisfied and are in agreerr
Regarding Proffers 3 and ,~
Zoning Services Staff as tc
from the cooperative parkir
shown on Attachment B, b~
within these two proffers. ,'
operations (e.g., the closur
fi4, staff would like the folk
footage of any given estab
square feet open to the pu
the requested clauses will
residents and office users.
during non-business hours
hours.
The staff's requests have I
details. On the conceptual
altogether or not modified'
's roofline is shifted away from the home. Finally, the applicant
;el. When either renting or selling the home, the potential occupant
3d spatial-orientation impacts related to the adjacent office building.
~,ill have a full understanding of any ramifications. However, as
~elieves that these impacts will be minimal.
eserve the 2.5% open space required under Section 19.6,1.
rovided documentation showing that the common open' space will
feet or approximately 30% of the Site (Attachment A, page C-4).
~g on all 2:1 slopes,
n, the applicant has provided landscaping on all the 2:1 slopes.
ndscape requirements of the Ordinance will be reviewed at the final
that the applicant has provided sufficient landscaping on these steep
A, page L-l).'
;tween the proposed townhomes and the Fountain Court
10-foot tall Japanese Black Pines on 20-foot centers along the
rain Court will help offset the impacts between the proposed
neighboring condos (Attachment A, page L-l).
e been working on a set of proffers with the goal of reaching three
3e built project is functionally similar to the proposed plan; 2) Ensure
sufficient; 3) Limit the parking demand associated with certain uses
Ie parking conflicts.
pdroffers. Proffer #1 meets the first objective by proffering the plan.
objective by defining the cooperative parking ratio at 40% of the
1 90% of the office requirement. Proffers 3, 4,and 5 seek to limit the
t with certain uses or activities. Both staff and the applicant are
~ent On Proffers 1, 2 and 5.
, there s a difference between the applicant and Building Code and
what is necessary to adequately address potential conflicts arising
~g arrangement. The applicant has offered Proffers 3 and 4 as
At has resisted staff's requests for the inclusion of additional clauses
~taff has asked that Proffer #3 define and limit the hours of business
~ of the building to all'personnel from 10 p.m. to 7 a,m.). On Proffer
wing clause added,: "['l'he mitation shall apply to the total square
ishment (i.e., a 6,000 square foot business cannot have 3,000
)lic after 5 p.m.).]." Staff's reasoning is that these two proffers and
imit the potential for parking conflicts between the townhouse
Staff hopes to limit conflicts by limiting access to the general public
and precluding employees using the offices during the nighttime
.~ad to a difference in opinion on two levels: conceptual and specific
level, the applicant argues that the proffers should be dropped
:rom their proposed form for four reasons:
3
A. The parking study demonstrates sufficient parking for the project. Therefore, there is no real
need for Proffers 3 and 4, if Proffer #5 limits the most intensive parking users (as identified
by the County).
B. Shared parking arrangements are an integral component of Neighborhood Model. When
multiple uses share parking, conflicts will arise occasionally. However, if a parking study
shows that the conflicts are the exception and not the rule, the County policy should be to
accept a Iow level of parking conflicts. Proffers 3 and 4 are seeking to completely eliminate
any conflict. Elimination of potential conflicts should not be the rule driving the development
process. Therefore, the County should accept the conclusions of the parking space study
and not attach any addition restrictions on the uses.
C. Enforcement of the Proffers 3 and 4 will be very difficult. For example, how does the Zoning
Department ensure that the office buildings are vacated by a certain hour?.
D. As proposed, the project has 18 townhouse units requiring 36 spaces. There is a total of 78
parking spaces. This leaves 42 spaces.or 10,500 square feet of office not in conflict with the
residential parking needs. At a minimum~ the applicant feels that the 10,500 square feet
should be free of additional restrictions.
The staff on the other hand remains cautious about the parking study's conclusions. While staff
accepts the study's conclusions in theory, staff wants the Commission to realize that practically
the mixture of parking Cannot be guaranteed to be free of conflicts between the users. For this
reason, staff has requested Proffers 3 and 4 as a cushion against any resulting parking not
anticipated by the parking study. There are differences on specific details between the
applicant and staff. An example canbe noted from Proffer fl4. The applicant attempted to
appease staff's concerns by proffering to limit the hours that the businesses were open to the
general public for 7,000 of the 17,500 square feet. Staff requested an additional 3,000 square
feet as an additional cushion and a clause restricting an entire business and not to a portion of
the one. The applicant agreed to the additional'3,000 square feet, but refused to accept the
additional restriction.
At this point, staff and the applicant have agreed to let the Commission/Board of Supervisors
decide whether and/how to restrict the office use. In general, there are three options: 1) Agree
entirely with the applicant's argument and recommend that Proffers 3 and 4 be dropped; 2)
Accept the applicant's proffers "as is"; or, 3) Seek proffers that include the clauses requested by
staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the outstanding items discussed on June 5, 2001 have been substantially
addressed and supports the rezoning application (ZMA 01-03) and Proffers 1, 2, and 5. Staff
requests that the Commission and Board of Supervisors determine the appropriateness of
Proffers 3 and 4. If determined to be appropriate, the degree to which the office uses Should be
restricted needs to be determined.
I
ATTAOHMENT
A
·
ALBEMARLE: COUN DAGGETf
) RIO SQU E
:
' RGINIA
.~'~,, DE. LOPER:
GROUP
FAX:
8~/296=~040
. .....
' T~ ~ 6 922 P~EL
· ~ ~ ~T~ ~ ~4~. P~ ZONI~: R-8
~ :. : D.B.6~ P.
MAP :: - T~ ,}-2. P~EL 4A {RIO.-OF'WAY)
~ ' D.B.285 P~ 0.11 ~, 5P~R ZONI~: R-8
VICINITY
, , D.B~7~ P,~ 1,82 ~, ~R ZONI~: R-6 I
., . NO SCALE -; D:e.~ ~.~ o.~ ~. P~ zo~l~:
~cKs: 2~' r~ ~ ,
15' ~E S~ !
' ~ ;ENE~ ~ON N~S 20' R~ '
-- L PR~R m ~U~ ~H!N ~ m~ "I~'OF'wAY' iNcLUDI~ CONN[~N TO ~ I~ ~O , '
EX~ ~, A ~ ~b BE O~NN~ ~M ~E ~IN~ ~ OF ~ATION ~C~: ~ ~S
~. THIS P~ ~ ~ ~Y NOT ~LY ~E~ ~E ~I~E~ OF ~E PERM,. ·
~RE ~ OI~E~CI~ ~CUR.~E ~U~ OF ~E PE~ff SH~L G~N. j
· * 2~ ~L PA~NO, ~ ~O ~TER~ ~O ~N~R~ U~ ~L CONFO~ ~
~. . CUR~ S~O~S ~0 ~ OF ~ UNL~ O~E~SE NO~D. . ~ L~TION: "~ ~ ~ER~ ~ ~, ~ ~' 29, AT I~E~ON
3. E~ ~0 51LTA~N ~ U~HO~ S~ BE PR~D~ ~ ~E ~ THE ~ COUP,
O~ER C~. ' 2~7 C~ ~
~ ~ IS 2:1 (~IZ~). ~[~ ~Y ~, ~R SLO~ EX~I~ ; :
~' OF 4t OR ~ ~ TO ~ ~HI~. . : ~S: ~E ~.~ ~, ~ O~N Y~D ~ ~RED TR~S
~E:~~ ~RE~ ~ ~OlNEERI~, ~ ~E ~RE~'S ~NEE, ~lS DE~ED
'~: 236 ~.
7. ~ ~S~ ~O ~ ~N~ PI~ ~ ~ R~ ~:HpE (~p). ~LOPM~: T~N~, SlN~ F~ILY R~IDENC~ ~ O~CES
; : lB T~HOU~S ~;
, ~ ~VA~ ~R ~UNB PI~ i~ MU~ ~Y ~ ~ ~ FOR : ~ ~
, ' TH~ C~ ~NDU~ (29 cm P~ 192e).
~ ~E: E~!~ BUI~: 2,7
: N~ ~I~NGS: 24315
,. WA~R ~0 ~ C~N Nm~ : PA~: 29,262 s,L* 20.0x~ ' ~ ' ''
., L ~ ~ BE ~ ~ i~pE~ ~ ~LE c~ ~CE ~ ~KS: 8.7~ S.F.* 6.0X~
I~. ~E ~OR ~L 8E RES~SI~ F~ ~ ~E P~ S~E ~N: ' 1.71 ~. 5~.4~ I
~ T~E: - 1.969 5.F.
~ · 2; ~E L~ ~ ~NG ~m ~ ~ UNE OF ~E P~ED ~ ~ ~T ; ; L~ *: i~LU~S ~X; 4,924 S~FIN ~T RIo~-OF~WAY
.. ~C~y ~ ~ ~E P~ ~O ~ S~, ~E O~Y ~X~LY ~CT. ~E
, , C~ S~ ON ~ ~ IN~ L~ ~ U~ND UNES ~O ~ ~ R~OE~ ~ ~o57 S.F. 03 UN~/~.)
' C~M~ OPEN Sp~E: ~.~8 &F. (~ ~ ~ ~ ~) .~ :
~ ' 4. ~U FOR ~ E~ATI~S SH~IN ~ OEO~ SU~. :: ' [MP~[S: 43 ~. (1/~ Sr ~ N~
, 5. ~ ~ S~ ~ RES~sIBLE F~ ~ ~1~ ~1~ (i'~:552,7~}; P~KIN~: : REQBiRE~ 15 ~ (~ ~ 2~S. U~ X 18 UN~)
: ~ ~ ~g~ OF 1/2~ S.F. N~ ~ ~0;8X17,~) ~ROdEGT N~.~' ' DAT~:
' 6. ~ WA~ ~D ~ ~PES S~ ~ A MINIMUM ~ :3 N. ~ ~R M~O ~ THE 78 ~ES T~ R~IR~
: T~ ~:.~:~R ?~ ~ ~PE. mS ~ m n~ ~T~rUN~, SE~C~ '~n, 0084 07-16-01
~ ~O WA~R UN~, ~C. - :'(~[~ 2 V~ ~1~[ ~ES) DRAWING NUMBER: ....
' 7. AL WAT~ ~O S~ ~PU~Es ~E TO~ L~D ~ ~ ~05!~ D~B, : L~ m 0~ ~1~ ea ~ E~lP~ ~H A ~P ~ICH
' 8. V~S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~~ RE~: F~ ~E V~ : LUM~ OR A ~ LUMI~
DU~A~~~ : ; ~ ~,
10-19-01 - OPEN SPACE RE'SION
9
0~'0~-96~;/i,08 : X¥_-I
9k89- I.; 6/'i,08:3;310^
¥^ "~'T'IIA$31.LO'I ~JYH D
S.L03/I
99E[9
J lDDV(I
¥ £N~HOV£-LV
&I,N~I~II~OD IOOg '9 'D/IV - IO'Og-80
\
~ ' ~Z'~Og=~Ul
~t '~l g=do2
'ONicldYJ.\~t( )3 J.f'lO /
J.N]PI':tAYd 'I¥I,~INIF~ '~31^O~d /
'(]~o~ o~ ~.V~N'~/
3NII~3J.VM M31~ 3~08-w
NIS¥8 ~
g8 ~
- t~g:.LS I, -'
9L'cj:CIN~
'9NIq'tln8
30t2,-10"
dRV~
g~g:l~S8
z~g::L$1. ~o~ :IH 'X¥~-
.6'~g:aN~
.ssoao ~s_ oecd~ . -
ONIO~IR8
3 3 3V.'~']g 3d
/
DVAH'
S3~OH
:3d0'lS
.)
AT RADIUS
(~S~IPING PLAN
,_$CALF~ 1'-40'
CONCRETE
I W/ WWF RDNFORCEMENT7
/ 1/4" PER FT, SLOPE /
~,.'~ ,,% ~N. '4 'l ' - %., ' -.~
~xzfXz/X~:''
VDOT CG-2 (OR CG-6) CURB
LSEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS
, ,y DOT s.- A
' ..~:?~..~\?~;.~?~?~)~?`.?(.[(;=;:~.:!(~:~:;.?~`~.`:~;(~!:~.~.T?~:~`.:~ 6" VDOT 21A
SIDEvVALK& PAVEMENT
DETAII.
$C~LE: NONE
SLOPE _ 2% SLOPE
4%± SLOPE
(~TURN LANE SECTION
SCALE: NONE
I~0~.,: HYDRANT MUST
KF..NNgOY ~UAROIAN (K-BIA) EQUIPP~ ya~ ~ARLO~S-
MU~ ~RI~ (A-423) ~E ~IREADS ~l~ IS
~ ~ APPRO~D E~AL ~ ~E L~AL sr~o~o.
I ~~% ~ wt~
BASE AND ~T
~H~R~T l$ L~A~ IN A ~ ~ M~ IN A~ INSTA~
~ VAL~
~REAO~ R~S IN AODi~ ~ P~RING OR AS~ALT COA~O
CON~
SHALl, 8~
NOTE_:
·( [NCLUOIN~ DITCHES' ) ~M~ MAIN TO TH~ FtR~ HYDRANT
~ ~E ~A~ YAL~ iS ALLO~ N ~0ULD~ OR B~HINO ~ DIT~,
IT I$ NOT A~O~ IN ~g o)~.
STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
I.~O. I siA~us I rfPE ILENO~I TOP l S1-0~1 NV, IN I I~ 0uf I NOTES
II ."g ~:' J ,~.
I.~ l."~, ",
J6 INEW I iQ" J 46 l- li,0%1506.60 . [50&14 JCt~$Slg~p
I? INto I DI-39 J - IS14.~~ I. S0a.~4 t~79,~ |4D~.PR~cASrV~HOL~
!'o[~; I ,,-
· , ~ I I I I .' I, I
NO'I~rAmSl ~ laNG~ITOP/St0P[I ~. N IJNV. OUTIN0~S
!.~_ iNN
IA-U INEW J
9 NEW J
le-C la~ 1
c J ~s~J ~,,-1 - so* ~ - J ae.~(a~)I ~ge.o~ t
SERVICE LATERAL DETAIL
SCALF.~ NONE ~ t
HYDRANT ASSEMBLY DETAIl.
SCALg: NONE -
T
ATTACHMENT
6-2. A
DAGGETr
& GRIGG
ARCH ITECTS
1OO1 E. MARKET ST.
CHARbO'FFESVILLE. VA
VOICE: 804/971-8848
FAX: 804/296-.3040
I~ROJ ECT NO.: DATE:
0034 07-16-01
D~AW1NG NUMBER:
C-2 7
REV: 08:20-01 -AUG, 6, 2001 COMM_-~-~' '~
I0'9I-£0
:3.LVO :'ON .LO3PO~d
~ GEORGE A. &r GRAC£ BULt.
TM. S2A(1)~2-A
\ \ PARCEL t5
· D,R, 385p. 157(plot)
- '~ PRESENT USE: RESIDENCE
· LOUIS B. ~ ~ O,B, 365 p, 157(ploO
, MA~ARET PROFFI~ ZONIN D,~. 401 p 250
~ TM. 62A(1)-2-A G: 2
PARCEL I 1
D.B. 585 p. 157(pl~f) ~: .,-
~N CAO PRESENT USE: RESIDENCE
TM.
PARCEL I0
385 p,~57(plo~) .....
D,B, 1428 p, 156 '
· ZONING: E2
~ PRESERff~J S]L': RESIDENCE
WAKEFIELD ~ . -
TM. 62A(1)-2-A
PARCEL 14
D.B, 385 p, 157(plof)
ZONING: R2
GRETCHEN M. STELLING
TM, 62A(1)-2-A
PARCEL 15
D.B. 385 p~157(plof)
184.78
I
\
~ ~ MARY LOU MORRIS
~" ~ PARCEL I'2
~ - (PARCEL 12A PER P~T)
?~ .. D.~, 412 p.326
~'~ ~ D.B, 444 p
~WRENCE CASSADA ~
RANDALL L. ROLLEN
~.
PARCEL
O.B. 412 p,326(pfot)
' D.B, 1791 ~.~7
LOT 23
59 SF
WAKEFIELD
SUBDIVt$10N
D.D. 385 p. 157
25~ SLOPE~'
PARCELS 835-900
D.8. 504 p,587(ptot)
CHARLO]TESVILLE CHURCH
OF' THE BRETHREN
TM, 62A(1)
PARCEL 1
ZONING: R2
PRESENI USE: CHURCH
_/
REV: 08-20-01 . AUG. 6, 2001 COMM ,IhNTS
1 O- 19-01 - OPEN SPACE REVISION
ATTACHMENT A
DAGGETf
& GPdGG
ARCHITECTS
1OO1 E, MARKET ST.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
v01oE; 804/971-8848
VAX: 804/296-3040
[1
0034 07-16-0!
C-4
01,
:~l,~nN ONIM'v'~O
I0-9I'£0 f~00
:3/~'O :'ON zo~roa,~
IZ
SJ~XI~tI~I~IOD I00g '9 'DFIV' 10'0~'80 :A~tI
SA~ON
./-¥0 ~£-J
\
\
~lU.qgNNI
~II'I1AHdOQ L~'l~ HrlN~riStA
VlqO~INIV ~dH~qO
.,L3Nb'~D .AUNSH. VINt0UL~ V3,U
3~IIdSJJ~t3ALS .IDNb'VO A~N3H
.GDO~GOO'IB,, VI"IOJIIL,-~IVX StllCfJ.'¢ld
39nO3HOS ONIdVOSC]NV-I
I
I
I
t
' ATTACHMENT A
R'I
DAGGETI'
ARCHITECTS
1001 ~". MARKET ST:
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA
VOICE: 804/97t-8848
FAX: 804/296-,3040
~--ROJEcT NO.: DATE:
0034 07~16,01
I~ RAwING NUMBER;
A-1
Date: 11/20/01
ZMA # 01-003
Tax Map and Parcel Numbert
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of th
agent, hereby voluntarily prof
rezoned. These conditions art
rezoning itself gives rise to th,
to the rezoning request.
PROFFER FORM
Original Proffer __
Amended Proffer x
(Amendment# 6 )
}: TMP 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2(B)13
Acres to be rezoned from R-2 and R-6 to PRD
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
brs the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation
Map 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, and 2 (B) 13 shall be in g__eneral acco_rd
' Daggett and Grigg Architects, titled "Rio Square Preliminary Site Plan"
1, C-2, C-3, C-4, L-l, and A-l), dated July 16, 2001 and last revised on
eet A-l, the relative location and massing of the structures, landscaping, the
of pitches are proffered as part of the Applicatiofl Plan for ZMA 01-03.
is materials, jack arches, types of windows and first floor master bedrooms
ting construction shall begin unless and until the Design Planner determines
general accord with sheet A-1 of the Application plan..
quare footage of office use or the nmber of townhouse units on the
r, footprints of the buildings and uses within the buildings shall be in general
)n Plan and the parking provided for the office use shall be not less than 90%
tired for that use, and the parking provided for the townhouse dwelling units
, of the parking spaces required for that use, as these uses are defined in
arle COunty Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 5t~, 2001.
~ with high parking demands, permitted uses of the property, and/or uses
permit, shall include only those uses allowed in Section 23 Commercial
ounty_Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 5th, 2001, a copy of the
~ereto, except the following:
ion of 23.2.1.2);
; purpose or primary activity is providing:
ad/or storage, subscription and/or credit card transaction processing; or,
ff sales and/or order processing by telephone, mail order, internet, catalog
r similar medium; or,
TM 62A1, Parcel 2-4, 2-4A
Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Printed Name of Owner
TM 62Ai, Parcel 2-4, 2-4A
Patricia E. Wood
TM 62A1, Parcel 2-b-13
Dale R. Sadler
1. The development on Tax
with the plan produced bi
(title sheets and sheets C-
August 20, 2001. On Sh
building roof lines, and r{
Final design details such
are not proffered. No buil
that the architecture is in
2. The owner may vary the ~,
Application Plan; howeve
accord with the Applicati,
of the parking spaces req~
shall be not less than 40~
Section 4.12 of the Albe~
3. In order to limit office u~
authorized by special use
Office of the Albemarle £
section(s) being attached
a. Dentist offices (a pot
b. Churches; and
c. Businesses whose sol
i) Data entry a
ii) Solicitation
sales or othe
iii) Mailing list ?re,~aration.
S1 ~,gna~of Owner '/ '
TM 62A1, Parcel 2-b-13
Florence Sadler
Date
12-03-01 A09:38 IN
l-ferbert L. I2Ia~low, Att°t
ney-in-Fact
TM 62A1, Parcel 2-5
Herbert L. Harlow
TM 62A1, Parcel 2-5
Mary E. Harlow
TM 62A1, Parcel 2-5
Russell L. Harlow
Tax Map #62A1-02-00-00500
KNOW ALL ~v
of Fayetteville, Georgia, make,
Charlottesville, Virgin/a, as my
stead, to do all things and acts
necessary, incidental, or retatet
to the appropriate governmentz
governmental approvals of, or
and made a part hereof, and in
of said property, to sign any co
documents or papers; to pay an
instrument; to pay off and relea
incidental to said transaction; tc
foregoing transaction; to perfo~
any contract for the sale, or ex¢
things in relation to all or any p
acting personally.
This Power ofg
incapacity and all acts done by
disability, incompetence, or inc
disability. I hereby ratify and c(
PECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
:~N BY THESE PRESENTS: That I, RUSSELL L. HARLOW,
:onstitute and appoint HERBERT L. HARLOW, of the City of
true and lawful attorney-in-fact, for me and in my name, place and
ahich I might or could do if acting personally, which are
in any way to the sale, rezoning (including the makj. ng of proffers ·
authority), and t_he seeking and obtaining of. any and all
'elated to the property described on Schedule A attached hereto,
."urtherance of the foregoing, to negotiate on my behalf for the sale
2tract, deed, certificate, license, application, and/or other
y fees required for the recordation or other filing of any
se any lien encumbering the property and to pay any other costs
endorse any checks which may be payable in connection with the
n any act necessary for the final closing under or performance of
range of said property; and to do all such other acts, matters and
~rt of or interest in said property as I '"~'" ' ~
m5 o¢,~ rmght, or could do if
ttorney shall not terminate on my disability, incompetence or
ny attorney-in-fact pursuant to this Power of attorney during such
pacity shall bind me as fully as if I were not subject to such
nfirm all lawful acts done by my said attorney-in-fact by
(This document prepared by Fefl. Pertit & Williams. ] ZL.C.)
virtue hereof. This Power of)
of the Commonwealth of¥!rgi
W'[TNES S the
2001.
STATE OF GEORGIA,
The foregoing S
L. Hartow on this,~7 day of_'
My Commission Expires: No
.(SEAL)
ttorney shall be governed by and construed according to the laws
aia
bllowing signature and seal this .,7 '7 day of.
.:_-.. ~ .. ,,. -f,;~_~:r,~,(SEXL)
RUSSELL L. HARI_flW
'e_.'~ ~z~t~rl4u , to-wit:
I 1
~ecial Power of Attorney was acknowledged before me by Russell
~v~ 4..0 ', 2001
Public, Fay~tt~ County, ~i~
Notary Pubic ~
SCHEDULI
All that certain
appurtenances thereto
identified as County T~
1.824 acres, more or le~,
R. O. Snow, CLS, entit
(Rio Road) about 1.0 rr
2-2-84, a copy of whicl
A TO SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY OF
RUSSELL L. HARLOW
:act or parcel of land, with improvements thereon and
elonging, located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
Map and Parcel Number 62A1-02-00-00500, containing
and more particularly shown on plat of a survey made by
ed "Plat of 1.824 Acre Parcel Located on State Route 31-
i. south of U.S. Rt. 29, Albemarle County, Vir~nia, dated
plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Ext~ibit
PLA?' OF
f 824 ACRE t?.qRC.r:jL
LOCATED ON S'F RT 631 - (RIO ,r?O.4D )
ABOUT I 0 MI SOUTH OF US /7, T 29
ALBEivlARLE CO[INTY', VIRGINIA
SCALE '1 "= 50' DATE / 2- 2 - 84
824 ACRES TOTAL
/
z'flF~ C.)URT ~SSO¢¢4rE'$
Z' B 504' 58r ~'k4r
Date: 11/06/01
ZMA # 0t-003
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s):
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the 3
voluntarily proffers the condition
proffered as a part of the requeste
conditions; and (2) such conditic
1. The development on Tax M~
produced by Daggett and Ca
PROFFER FORM
MP 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2(B)13
3.15 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 and R-6 to PRD
ATTACHMENT B
Original Proffer __
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # 5
X
,bemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
; listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are
d rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
ns have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
p 62A1 Parcels 2-4, .2-4A, 2-5, and 2 (B) 13 shall be in general accord with the plan
gg Architects, tared R~o Square Prelmunary S~te Plan (title sheets and sheets C-I, C-
2, C-3, C-4, L-l: and A-l), dated July 16, 2001 and last revised on August 20, 2001. On Sheet A-l, the relative
location and massing of the ~ ,tmcmres, landscaping, the building roof lines, and roof pitches are proffered as part of
the Application Plan for ZI~. A 01-03. Final design details such as materials, jack arches, types of windows and first
floor master bedrooms are r' t proffered. No building construction shah begin unless and until the Design Planner
determines that the architect
2. The owner may vary the squ
however, footprints of the b~
Plan and the parking provid,
use, and the parking provide
required for'that use, as thcs
on December 5~, 2001.
3. The office uses shall not ha~
4. A minimum of 10,000 squa~
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monr
stated hours of operation.
5. In order to limit office uses
special use permit, shall inc
Zoning Ordinance in effect
following:
a. Dentist offices (a portk
b. Churches; and
c. Businesses whose sole
i) Data entry am
ii) Solicitation ot
similar mediu
iii) Mailing list pi
re is in general accord with sheet A-1 of the Application plan..
ire footage of office use or the number of townhouse units on the Application Plan;
ildings and uses within the buildings shall be in general accord with the Application
~d for the office use shall be not less than 90% of the parking spaces required for that
d for the townhouse dwelling units shall be not less than 40% of the parking spaces
uses are defined in Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect
'e 24-hour operations.
e feet of office use shall limit hours, during which they are open to the general public,
ay through Friday. "Open to the general public" shall be defined as the business's
~th high parking demands, permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by
adc only those uses allowed in Section 23 Commercial Office of the Albemarle County
m Dece~nber 5th, 2001, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto, except the
of 23.2.1.2);
purpose or primary activity is providing:
L/or storage, subscription and/or credit card transaction processing; or,
sales and/or order processing by telephone, mail order, internet, catalog sales or other
I1; or,
eparation.
Printed Names of All Owners
Printed Name of Attomey-in-Fact
Date
OR
Signatures of All Owners
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
12
ATTACHMENT C '
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
ZMA 01-03 RIO SQUARE
SP FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN PRD
REQUEST FOR COOPERATIVE PARKING WAIVER
MICHAEL BARNES
JUNE 5, 2001
JUNE 20, 2001
Ar~olicant's Proposal:
The applicant, The Kessler Group, has proposed a mixed office-residential development for three
properties at the comer of Wakefield Road and East Rio Road. A Special Use Permit is required
for the office use in the residential district.
The development would retain the two homes currently on Wakefield Road and add an
additional home between them. It would also add two office buildings along Rio Road. The
smaller office building would be two stories. The larger building would be three stories.
Combined, the two buildings would, have an approximate total of 18,000 square feet. Behind the
offices, the proposal calls for three townhome blocks with an approximate total of 22 units.
Including the three homes along Wakefield, the development would have a maximum of 25
dwelling units (see conceptual plan- Attachment A).
This proposal represents the maximum number of dwelling units and office square footage that
the applicant would build. The applicant has stated they may reduce either the number of units or
office square footage at the site plan stage depending on the market and the amount of parking
that the Planning Commission allows to be held cooperatively (see Applicant Letter -
Attachment B. Their intention is to retain the general footprint and location of the buildings as
proposed on the concept plan.
Petition for Rezoning and Special Use Permit:
The applicant requests to rezone 3.04 acres from Residential R-6 and R-2 to Planned Residential
District to allow for townhomes, single family detached homes, and offices. The properties,
described as Tax Map 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-5, and 2 (B) 13, are located in the Rio Magisterial
District on Rio Road [Route 631 ] at its intersection with Wakefield Road. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Urban Density (6 to 34 units per acre) in Neighborhood 2.
The applicant also requests a special use permit for professional offices in a PRD district under
Section 19.3.2 (9).
Request for a Cooperative Parking Waiver:
Under Section 4.12.4, the applicant has requested a waiver to the required number of off-street
parking spaces required under Section 4.12.6.6.
Character of the Area:
The properties are on Rio Road East, which in this location has four travel lanes and a center
turning lane. The Church of the Brethren is situated across Rio from the project site. The
entrance for the project will line up with the Church's entrance. To the east, the Fountain Court
Condominiums back up to the proposed townhomes. At present, there is a row of white pines
separating the proposed townhomes from the condominiums. The southern and western sides of
the project site are a part of
The project includes the firs
slopes down from Wakefiel
Zoning and Subdivisior
There is no recent history o:
Bv-ri.~ht Use of the Prol
T~ Map 62A1 2 (B)13 is:
conventional dwelling unit;
dwelling unit is possible.
Tax Map 62A1 Parcels 2-4
an additional 14 dwelling u
dwelling units are possible.
In total, the three properfie~,
for a total of 25 dwelling tn
Applicant's Oustificatio
The applicant has stated th~
Development Area to achi¢
developments.
Recommendation:
Although this project has
due to the need for additim
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan d
proposal is for 25 units on
the recommended density.
The Comprehensive Plan ~
recommehd that sidewalks
proposal includes sidewal~
Staff has also analyzed thi~
Plan as well as with the 12
identified below and highl
12 principles of the Neighl
· Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendl'
· Interconnected Streets'
· Parks and Open Space
· Neighborhood Centers
· Buildings and Spaces,
· Relegated Parking
he Wakefield subdivision. This subdivision contains brick ranchers.
t two houses on the southern side of Wakefield Road. The entire site
Road toward the condominiums.
History:
?rezonings or subdivisions for these properties.
3erty:
:oned R-2 and is 0.382 acres. The property is too small for another
however, using the Ordinance's bonus provisions, an additional
and 2-5 are zoned R-6. Together, they are 2.77 acres and could have
aits. Using the Ordinance's bonus provisions, an additional 5
could have 23 dwelling units under current zoning. This request is
fits, plus the professional offices.
n for the Request:
Lt the project will redevelop under-utilized land within the
ve the County's goal of creating higher density, mixed-use
tany positive aspects, staff cannot recommend approval at this time
information.
esignates this area as Urban Density (6-34 dwelling units/acre). The
3.01 acres or 8.3 units/acre. The project is within the lower range of
ocs not directly address this property or stretch of Rio Road. It does
be provided in conjunction with all major road improvements. The
.s along Rio Road as well as sidewalks internally.
~ proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive
~rir~ciples of the Neighborhood Model. These principles are
ighted within this section for context within th~ Land Use Plan. The
)orhood Model are as. follows:
~ Streets and Paths
and Transportation Networks
)f Human Scale
14
· Mixture of Uses
· Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
· Redevelopment
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Clear Edges
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20
- 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section)
1. Deve~~pment sh~u~d be c~ncentrated and c~ustered t~ pr~tect envir~nmenta~ features. (Parks
and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain).
The site does not contain any sensitive environmental features such as springs, critical slopes,
streams, etc.; however, there is a steep gradient falling away from Wakefield Drive towards
the Fountain CoUrt Condominiums. This slope affects how the site can be developed. The
concept plan attempts to reconcile the goal of high density with the need for a recreation area
by utilizing 2:1 slopes to carve out a flat area between the 6-unit townhome and the single-
family detached dwellings. Staff's preference would be for slopes flatter than 2:1; however,
without either using retaining wall or reducing the density, this cannot be achieved. Staff
believes that the applicant should increase the amount and quality of the plantings proposed
so that all 2:1 slopes are heavily vegetated. This will protect the slopes from erosion and
provided for buffering between the buildings.
2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions.
The applicant has not proposed retaining many of the trees along the boundary with the
Fountain Court Condominiums. The developer will need to grade the area to install the
sewer connections to an off-site line. Staff recognizes that screening between two similar
uses is not a requirement in the Ordinance. However, to create privacy between the backyard
of the developments, the applicant should either retain as much of the vegetation as possible
or replant trees and/or a hedge line on the slope between the condominiums and the
proposed townhomes. If the applicant fails to do this, the residents of the townhomes and
condominiums will have a direct view into each other's homes.
3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads.
The applicant has pro.vided a single entrance offofRio Road and a turning lane. These two
measures will minimize the impacts to Rio.
4. A sense of community should be maximized by providing connections between developments;
such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space
area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to
schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets
and Transportation Networks)
The applicant has demonstrated that the creation of a second vehicular entrance off of
Wakefield Road into the bulk of thc development would be difficult. The slope and the
County's limitation ora 5% grade within the parking lot and 10% grade for travelways
severely limits the layout possibilities.
Sidewalks are provided both intemally and along the public roads. Staff does recommend
that the applicant provide addition walking paths internally. Staff has three specific
recommendations. The first is a set of stairs leading down from the single family detached
homes to the recreation;
second is a path leading
back along the proper~
connecting the front of
These paths will increa~
Finally, the applicant h;
the unifying feature to 1
with defined amenities.
which specifies that Ph
space. The applicant h:
5. Provide for ultimate fui
reservation of adequat~
consistent with planner
pedestrian modes (Ped
Networks).
Rio Road is already fo~
foresee the need for im
project should ease its
sidewalks along Rio R,
6. Underground utilities
Underground utilities'
7. Features to prevent im
The project ~tas propoi
quality:
8. Building orientation sJ
exclusively in front of,
Parking)
On the plan, there are'
has not provided a co~
more d~tails as well as
on the concept plan an
10.
Staff has suggested th:
would be facing Rio 1~
facing the parking lot.
suits their needs becat
building will have a sl
Where site illuminatic
Any illumination of ti
Ordinance (Section 4.
Historic buildings shr
Abandonment)
.1 area. These stairs could be as simple as landscape timbers. The
west from the recreational area across the 2:1 slopes and looping
line to the back of the parking lot. The third is a sidewalk
he "L-shaped" office building to the sidewalk along Rio Road.
e the connectivity of the site and sense of unity.
ts shown a recreational area on the plan. It appears to be offered as
he development, but is not well articulated either through access or
The recreational area also appears designed to meet Section 19.6.1,
nned Residential Developments must have a minimum of 25% open
is failed to demonstrate that they meet this requirement.
ure transportation improvements and new road locations through the
right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner
transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and
estrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation
' lanes wide with a center turning lane.and bike lanes. Staff does not
.,reased right-of-way along Rio. The addition of a turning lane to the
impacts on traffic flow along Rio. The applicant is also providing
lad.
hould be provided in new developments.
rill be provided to all new buildings.
,act from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided.
fl stormwater management structures to alleviate its impact on water
~ould be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located
5uildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated
,wo office buildings that will be seen from Rio Road. The applicant
cept for the buildings' fagades. However, they are willing to provide
building elevations if the Planning Commission signals a willingness
d the cooperative parking waiver.
tt the "L-shaped" office building be "flipped" so that its longest edge
.oad. This would allow the applicant to provide an interior green space
However, the applicant has argued that the proposed orientationbest
.se of site constrains and topography. They have stated that the
feet fagade and an entrance in the "crotch of the L-shape."
n is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used.
~e site will have to meet the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting
17).
uld be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than
The project proposes to renovate the two homes along Wakefield. The third home, interior to
the three parcels, will be removed.
11. The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and
capacity.
Water and sewer service is available to serve this development.
12. Overall development density shouM be as high a level as is practical.
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Urban Density (6 to 34 units per acre) 3 - 6
dwellings per acre. At slightly over 8 dwelling units per acre, the development is in the
lower end of the range. The 18,000 square feet of professional office diversity and intensity
of uses on the site.
13.'The integrity of adjacent residential areas shouM be maintained through use of buffering,
screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses.
In this mixed-use development, the ability to meet this objective is difficult. However, while
non-residential, the proposed office use in not necessarily incompatible. If the applicant
provides building elevations, it will be easier to assess if the office component is aesthetically
compatible with the townhomes.
14. Developments shouM be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and
avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. (Buildings and spaces of Iluman Scale)
While the developer has indicated that the offices will provide a street fagade onto Rio, the
development's primary activities will be internal to the project.' The parking is relegated to
the interior and most of the activity will be associated with the vehicles. The plan could
benefit from a centrally located green space instead of providing a recreational area behind
the townhomes. However, the grade restrictions on travelways and parking lots combined
with the slope limit the ability to move buildings to in such a manner that would allow for a
large, centralized green area.
15. Provisions shouM be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability
with Dignity)
No information is provided regarding design of the development in a way that reduces
housing costs. However, this development, because of the townhomes, represents an
excellent opportunity to provide for affordable housing.
16. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects
topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or
counteract those features. (Site Planning that Respects Terrain)
The plan does proposed several areas of2:1 slopes. The 2:1 slopes dominate the area
between the 6-unit townhome and the single-family houses. There is also a 2:1 slope behind
the 8-unit townhome buildings. However, the site plan must contend with a significant slope.
Staff feels that the plan manages the sloping site without long 2:1 slopes. Staff has also
requested that the 2:1 slopes be heavily vegetated. Staffbelieves that these two measures
will mitigate any negative aesthetic or water quality impacts resulting from these slopes.
Finally, there is a degree of trade-off in intensely developing this site. It is located on a
major road artery and the office uses are well suited along this stretch of road. The increased
density is also well suited for this stretch of road. If the site's slope is major controlling
factor in design, then th~
significant way.
Specific Standards for Re
Densities and Relationships
In rezoning deliberations, tJ
development, contain most j
rural development pressure
rezoning to the upper end o
should favore i even if ti
The proposed development,
increases the residential de~
Maintenance of the integrit.
screening, and physical se£
Neighborhood Model sugg~
not mandatory. Architectu~
compatibility.]
The appIicant is using the
For larger developments, l~
setback, dwelling unit type,
should be employed as a d~
within the larger developm
developments. (Buildings:
The plan provides most of
slope is a limiting constrah
green space. :To remedy th
pedestrian connections to.t
proposed amenities for thh
Specific standards for eo~
These standards are as fc
A. Commercial zoning di.~
and the Urban Area.
Areas should be inclua
This~rezoning is propo;
B. Highway-oriented corn
access points. Highwc
should utilize service r
intersections on highe~
commercial developm~
topography to allow u~
The office component
parking and limits the
C. Rezoning to a commer
accomplished under a
density might have to be reduced in order to minimize the 2:1 in a
idential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Residential
to Other Land Uses; Residential Development Design, pp. 22-23)
~e county should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill
itture growth within the designated Development Areas, and avoid
Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential
C the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density ranges
e density exceeds that of surrounding developments.
although it is at the lower end of the density range, significantly
Lsity and diversifies the uses.
~ of residential areas should be accomplished using buffering,
aration of adjacent nonresidential uses. (Mix of Uses) [No~-e: The
~sts that a major separation of residential and nonresidential uses is
· al and landscape features can and should be used to achieve
~ce buildings to screen the dwellings from Rio Road
tyout and design should provide for varying building orientation and
facade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space
.sign feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas
vnts. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger
tnd Spaces of Human Scale)
:he open space to behind the buildings. However, as stated above, the
tt to a more creative design, which would allow increased interior
is lack of centralize open space, the applicant needs to provide more
.~e proposed recreational space. They also need to better define the
recreational area.
nmercial development in the Land Use Plan also apply to this site.
llows:
tricts should be permitted only in designated Villages, Communities
)nly limited supporting commercial uses-appropriate to the Rural
ed in the Rural Areas zoning provisions. (Clear Edges)
~ed for Neighborhood 2 that is part of the Urban Area.
mercial development should be located in clusters with common
y-oriented commercial development not located in such clusters
aads or shared access with adjoining sites to minimize the number of
volume roads. To encourage this approach, areas designated for
[t should not be less than three acres and should be of reasonable
,ified access.
is not of a highway-orientated nature. The plan also relegates the
~otential for a "strip" appearance.
'.ial designation for sites of three acres or more should be
~lanned approach accompanied by traffic analysis.
A traffic analysis was not performed. VDOT and the County staff have agreed that the mm-
and-taper lane and a single entrance will limit the impacts to Rio Road.
D. Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in
accordance with zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed.
as transitional areas between residential development and heavier commercial or industrial
areas. Any uses (including commercial office uses) allowed adjacent to residential areas
should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects
should be adequately addressed at rezoning.
The applicant is willing to provide building elevations if the Planning Commission signals a
willingness to accept the site layout and the cooperative parking arrangement. Staff will be
able to coordinate these elevations with the plan to determine any potentially objectionable
aspects between the offices and the dwelling units.
E. Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings should be
encouraged as land and energy-efficient developments, along with infill of existing
commercial areas. (Mixture of Uses and Centers)
The proposal provides a good, general development concept for a mixed-use, in.fill project.
F. Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to
support such uses. Upgrading'and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone,
natural gas systems, and community facilities should be considered in review of a
commercial rezoning request.
Utilities are adequate to support this proposal~
STAFF COMMENT'
Analysis of the Rezoning
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district
The PRD district is intended to promote economical and efficient land usc, an improved level
of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development and creative design. Staff
believes that the high density proposed in this development is consistent with the district's
intent. The applicant has also creatively used the office building to shield the dwelling units
from Rio Road. They have also sought minimize the amount of parking through a
cooperative parking waiver and proposed proffers.
However, the applicant needs to further define the amenities in the recreational area and open
space. It is important to understand what amenities that can be expected for future residents.
Public need and justification for the change
The Neighborhood Model calls fOr increased density and high quality design on infill sites.
This proposal takes the right approach by defining the specifics at the rezoning stage. Many
of these specifics meet the goals of the Model.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer service is available to the property.
Roads - The traffic impact will bc minimized by the turning lane and use of a single
entrance.
19
Stormwater man~
this proposal. The~
residential develop~
Anticipated impact on
No impact is expected ¢
Anticipated impact on
The developer has wor~
maintaining single fami
If the applicant can sho'
they have the possibiliV.
to'ames backing up
between the two sites.
two developments.
Analysis of the'Special
Ordinance:
The Board qf Supervisors ]
pei,nitted hereunder. Spec
upon a finding bY the Boar
adiacent propertv,
The proposed offices shot/
street is buffered from the
even augment the streetsca
that the character of the &
The project will dramatica
and Rio Roads. However,
and has made attempts (e.l
and that such use will be.i
The offices will have a 25.
across Rio Road. This wil
required under Section 21
believes that the reduction
Model by bringing the bui
with the uses permitted bY
An office component is a
with additional regulatior
No regulations of Section
and with the public healtt
This project does not app,
_~ement - Stormwater management plans were submitted as part of
' appear to be feasible at this conceptual'stage.
[ fiscal analysis has been performed (Attachment C). As with most
nents, the model shows a negative return to the Cotmty.
natural, cultural, and historic resourees
nnatural, cultural or historic resources.
nearby and surroundin~ properties
.ed to meet the concerns of the residents along Wakefield Drive. By
ly detached units on this street, the impacts will be greatly mitigated.
~, that the building fagades along Rio will be pleasing and compatible,
~ of augmenting Rio streetscape. Staff remains concerned that the
so'closely to the condomimums could present a visual problem
.a~gain, staff recommends some sort of vegetated buffer between the
Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
ereb¥ reserves unto itsel_f the right to issue all special use permits
ial use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
t of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
t not adversely affect adjacent properties. The church across the
uildings bY the width of Rio Road. The three-story building may
~e along Rio by providing more of a presence along the road.
trict will not be changed thereby,
[ly increase the density and intensity of use at the comer of Wakefield
the project is in line with the principles of the Neighborhood Model
,~., street trees, walls, sidewalks, etc.) to soften its impact~
~ harmony with the purpose and intent qfthis ordinancej
.foot setback to match the setback of the adjacent residential setback
1 be less than the normal 30-foot setback for Commercial developments
7.1. This reduction is in line with Section 19.9.1. Furthermore, staff
will have no ill effect and will be more in line with the Neighborhood
ldings closer to the road.
right in the district,
:omplement to the residential use in the area.
~ provided in Section 5. 0 qfthis ordinance,
5.0 have a bearing on the office or residential components proposed.
, sa_fetv and general welfare.
,~ar to adversely effect the public health, safety and general welfare.
2O
Cooperative Parking Waiver Analysis:
The applicant has requested a waiver, under Section 4.12.4, to the required number of off-street
parking spaces required under Section 4;I2.6.6. The applicant has proposed a maximum 22
townhomes and 18,000 square feet of office .space. The parking ordinance requires 2 spaces for
each townhome and one space per 250 square feet of office space. Thus, under the ordinance,
this development would be required to provide 44 spaces for the residences and 72 spaces for the
office component for a total of 116 spaces. The applicant has proposed 78 spaces. Staff
supports the waiver for two reasons: a parking survey (explained below) and the apphcant's
proposed proffers that will prohibit users with larger parking needs.
The applicant, under direction from both the Zoning and Planning Departments, performed a
non-scientific survey of four townhome developments and four office parks. The applicant
counted the number of cars in these developments and compared them against the number of
spaces required by.the ordinance. Their observations were broken down into five categories
according to time of day and day. The categories are as follows: weekday morning, weekday
lunch, weekday afternoon, weekday after 5 p.m., and weekend.
Results from the survey focused on weekday, normal business hour parking space utilization
because staff recognized this time period as having the greatest potential for over utilization by
both use categories. Data from the survey shows that for townhomes the highest weekday,
normal business hour utilization was on average 39% during the morning period (see Exhibit 1
below). This average for parking utilization in townhome developments is close to the highest,
individual observation for a weekday, normal bUSiness hour utilization - 43%.
Exhibit 1 -Average Parking Utilization broken down by Normal Business
vs. Non-Business Hour
Normal Business Hours (8-5)
Weekday
8AM - 10AM
Weekday
10AM - 1PM
Townhomes 39% 29%
Commercial 44% 62%
Weekday Work Day
2PM - 5PMi Average
29% i 33%
64% ' 57%
Non Business Hours
Weekday Weekend
5PM-8AM
49% 44%
14% 6%
The averages of commercial weekday, daytime utilization in Exhibit 1 is misleading. The
average does not get above 64%. However, an examination of the individual observations shows
that out of the 95 observations, there were 3 times when the more than 90% of the commercial
parking was being taken up and 12 times when utilization was equal to or greater than 80%.
Based on the data, the Zoning and Planning Departments recommend a reduction of the
minimum parking to the Planning Commission for this development. Staff feels that the
applicant should provide a minimum of 40% of their townhome parking requirements and 90%
of their commercial parking for the offices.
If the 40%/90% rule is applied to the current proposal of 22 townhomes and 18,000 sq. ft. of
office, then the development would not meet the parking requirements suggested by staff
because 82 parking spaces would be required. The plan proposes 78 spaces. The developer in
his letter to staff has recognized this problem (see Attachment B). To solve the problem, he is
willing to either cut the office square footage to 16,500 or cut the number of townhomes down to
21
14 or provide for a smaller
rule, he estimates that the e'
and 17,500 square feet of c,
buildings will roughly rem~
To add an additional layer
utilization, the developer hl
commerc, ial uses that the Z,
parking-intensive uses are
Businesses that hay
Dentists
Service industry b~
that sell, service, o~
mail. Examples of
SUMMARY:
:ut from both the office and residential uses. Using the 40%/90%
~entually composition of the development will be 18 residential units
)mmercial office. Please note that the footprints and location of the
~in the same.
>fprotection against parking conflicts that could arise from over
ts proposed a proffer. This proffer would prohibit some of the
ming Department has identified as "parking-intensiVe." These
ts follows:
company vehicles parked overnight on-site.
sinesses that have a high number of employees, such as companies
process the sale of goods and services via the telephone, interact or
this would be Value America.
Staff looks favorably on th is project. It offers a mixed office-residential project that maximizes
the site and minimizes the provided parking. Our reservations for a r.eco~.endatio.n, s of., ~
approval at this time fall il{tO three main categories. The first is a senes of discrete hems mat
siaould be added to the pla~a: These items are listed in the Recommended Action SecU.on..T.h.e
proposed, but undefined, l~roffers represent the second reservation; The final reservation is me
exterior appearance of buildings. The applicant has suggested that they are willing to provide
most if not all of the infon nation required to settle staff concerns if the Planning Commission
signals a willingness to ac,:ept the concept plan and the cooperative parking arrangement. If the
Commission gives directk,n on these two issues, then the staff and the applicant will work out
the details and remm to th Commission for final comment and conformation.
Staff has' identified the fol
1. The project provid
2. The applicant has,
density and mixtm
3. The applicant has
maintained the ch~
4. The density range
Staff has identified the
1. The applicant has
2. The applicant has
3. The applicant has
have not been full
revision pending
)wing factors that are favorable to this request:
es for a mixed-use, high-density, infill development.
temonstrated that they can provide parking for a development of this
e of uses.
>een sensitive to the Wakefield Neighborhood's concerns and has
~racter of the street.
is within the range proposed by the Comprehensive Plan.
lowing factors that are unfavorable to this request:
not define the design or appearance of the buildings along Rio Road.
not fully addressed a number of.design issues.
proposed proffers; however, they have are not in a final format and
~ reviewed by staff. Furthermore, the proffers may need further
~lanning Commission feedback.
22
RECOMMENDED ACTI ON
Staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time because of outstanding issues.
recommended that the Commission ask the applicant to address the following issues:
1. Clarify the proffers.
It is
Define the design or appearance of the buildings along Rio Road.
Define the intended uses in the recreational area.
Provide pedestrian path from the recreation area to the west, behind the townhomes, to
the parking area.
Provide a means of access down the 2:1 slopes from the single-family detached homes to
the recreation area.
Provide a sidewalk between the large office building on Rio Road.
The applicant needs to demonstrate the proposed setback lines between the single-family
detached homes and the other building if they wish to subdivide this home off at a later
date.
9.
10.
Demonstrate and reserve the 25% open space required under Section 19.6.1.
Provide landscaping on all 2:1 slopes.
Provide a buffer between the proposed townhomes and the Fountain Court
Condominiums.
If the Planning Commission approves the rezoning of the Rio Square proposal, Staff
recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow for Professional Offices in a Planned
Residential Development in accordance with Section 19.3.2(9) of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff is supportive of the waiver for cooperative parking waiver in accordance with Section
4.12.6.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. If the Planning Commission approves the
rezoning for the Rio Square proposal, staff recommends approval of the cooperative parking with
the following condition:
1. The applicant shall meet 40% of the required parking for the townhome units and
90% of the required parking for the offices.
Attachments:
A - Application Plan
B - Applicant's Proposed Proffers
C - Fiscal Analysis
23 ~P
APPROX., '6 TOWNHoti~S .- . ''
13.200 ~ GROSS
ATFACHlV~NT
DAGGETF
& GRIGG
ARCHITECTS
tOO1 ~:, b~ARKI~' ST,
CHAP, LOTTES'VI ~,L~, VA
VOICE: B~/971-B~B
FAX~ ~/29~3040
PROJECT NO,: DATE:
0034 05-10-01
DRAWING N Ul,,/l[I ER:
Mr. Michael D. Barnes
Planner
Department of Planning and
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Dear Michael:
As I understand our most re
proffer or otherwise, regardi
1. You would lik
2. You would Ilk
3. You would lik
allowed to lea,
primary busin~
telephone, mai
America and
We would be happy to spe,
discussed of 40% of the nor
Net of the three detached lo
square feet of office space.
the detached lots:
22 residential un
Total spaces
Reserved for:
Available for
Gross office s
14 residential uni
Total spaces
Reserved for
Available for
Gross office
Therefore, net of the detacln
office space the shared par}
units and 17,500 gross squa
With respect to the limitati~
should take into account th:
still remains parking space
for 100% of the residential
With respect to limiting ty[
as Value America and Qual
most likely would use som~
your definition. Based on fl
generate a parking problem
I hope the above addresses
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT B
Community Development
ent conversation relative to Rio Square, you want some agreement, whether by
ng the below listed items:
a density range specified for the residential and office components.
a limitation on hours of operation for the office use of 8 AM to 5 PM.
to specifically prohibit dentist as an office use, require that office users not be
company vehicles on site overnight, and specify that "Businesses whose
~ss function is service or sales or processing of goods and/or services via
or interact" not be allowed as office users. Specifically you referenced Value
}ualchoice as types ofnsers that would fit that description.
? a range of density conforming to the shared parking arrangement we
xml residential requirement plus 90% of the normal office requirements.
:s, the plan submitted shows 78 parking spaces, 22 residential units and 18,000
Ne would propose the following density ranges, or range in mix of uses net of
,s/16,500 gross square feet of office
= 78
· esidential during weekdays (44 spaces x 40%) = 18
office use during weekdays = 60
quare feet (1 space/250 square feet/90%) = 16,667
:s/18,000 gross square feet of office
= 78
· esidential during weekdays (28 spaces x 40%) = 12
office use during weekdays = 66
quare feet (1 space/250 square feet/90%) = 18,333
ed lots, we could have between 14 and 22 residential units and the amount of
ing agreement would allow. My current expectation would be 18 residential
re feet of office space.
~n on office hours, we would be willing to agree to some limitation, but feel it
Lt even with 100% of the residential spaces occupied for residential use there
For office use. We feel a more appropriate limitation would be one that provides
~arking requirement being available before 8 AM and after 5 PM.
.~s of users, we would be happy to exclude dentists and high parking users such
choice, but we are reluctant to agree to the specific language you propose. We
~ of the space for real estate sales and are concerned this use may fall within
te data we provided you we are confident a real estate sales use would not
l~e issues you raised. If not, please advise.
October 25, 2001
Malcolm Meistrell
The Kessler Group
P O Box 5207
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA-2001-003 Rio
Dear Mr. Meistrell:
The Albemarle County Pla1
above-noted petition. Ther(
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLi
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BO
If you have any questions,
Sincerely,
Planner
//
MB/jcf
Cc: El y
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
epartment of Plann ing& Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
;quare; Tax Map 62A1 Section 2, Parcel 4
ling Commission, at its meeting on October 16, 2001 deferred the
~fore, this item is scheduled for review as follows:
iNNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 13, 2001
qRD OF SUPERVISORS - DECEMBER 5, 2001
lease do not hesitate to contact me.
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey_
10-25-01 P04:22 IN