HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-17
FINAL
7:00 P.M.
February 17 ~ 1993
Room #7, County Office Building
1 Call to Order.
2 Pledge of Allegiance.
3 Moment of Silence.
4 Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5 Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6 Certificates of Appreciation.
7 SP-92-63,:, - - 1 ~81-Proalietiofl.s, -E.ta ,:,-f Beferrea -from - Beeember-9, - 1992':'1
(Applicant requests withdrawal.)
8 Public Hearing to solicit input on local community development and housing
needs and potential projects in relation to Community Development
Block Grant funding for a project in the County.
9 SP-93-01. Trinity Presbyterian Church. Public Hearing to amend condition
of SP-91-16 to allow add'l grading on site. Property of 17.54 acs
zoned Res & EC is located on S sd of Reservoir Rd (Rt 702) approx.
3/10 mi W of inters with Rt29/Rt 250 Bypass. TM76,Ps17C&17Cl.
Samuel Miller Dist. (This property is located in a designated growth
area. )
SP-92-28. Boxwood Lane Farmowners Assoc. Public Hearing for a cemetery
on 22.43 acs zoned RA. Property on E sd of pvt I'd approx 0.87 mi S
of Plank Rd (R t 692). TM85 , P78. Samuel Miller Dist. (This property
is not located in a designated growth area.)
SP-92-65. Dr & Mrs. John K. Youel. Public Hearing to create a 27 lot
rural preservation development on approx 333 ac zoned RA. Property
located at end of Loftlands Dr which is on S sd of Rea's Ford Rd (Rt
660) approx 0.3 mi W of Earlysville Rd (Rt 743). TM31,Ps16A,22,
22A&23F. Charlottesville Dist. (This property is not located in a
designated growth area.)
12) Discussion: Designation of Roads for National Highway System (deferred
from February 3, 1993).
13) Request to adopt resolution supporting Regional Solid Waste Authority.
14) Cable TV Access Center, Request additional funding for equipment costs
for FY 1994.
Appropriation: Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary School.
) Appropriation: Scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment.
Approval of Minutes: February 19, March 11 (A) and November 11, 1992.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
CONSENT
AGENDA
FbR APPROVAL:
5 1 Draft letter dated February 12, 1993, from David P. Bowerman, Chairman,
to Constance R. Kincheloe, Commissioner, Commonwealth Transportation
Board, re: proposed Route 29 road projects.
5 2 Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
wealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for January,
1993.
5 2a Resolution to take Meadowfield Lane and Meadowfield Way in Meadowfield
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
F DR INFORMATION:
5.3 Copy of Piedmont Virginia Community College Annual Report for 1991-92
(on file in Clerk's office).
5.4 Copy of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Annual Report for
the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1992 (on file in Clerk's office).
5.5 Letter dated January 28, 1993, from E. C. Cochran, Jr., State Location
and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, advising that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and major
design features of the Route 691 project (#0691-002-234, C-501) for inter-
section improvements at the intersection of Route 240 and High Street
(Route 1204).
5.~ Letter dated January 25, 1993, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Depart-
ment of Transportation, advising that roads in Willoughby, Section 4, were
added to the Secondary System of Highways, effective January 13, 1993.
5.7 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 26, 1993.
5. B Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Direc-
tors for November 23, 1992.
5.9 Quarterly Report of JAUNT's services and expenditures from October 1
through December 31, 1992.
5. 0 Memorandum dated February 11, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, re: Commission on Population Growth and Development.
5. 1 Memorandum dated February 12, 1993, from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development, re: ZMA-78-15, Airport Indus-
trial Park.
5. 2 Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond and Program Report for the months
of November and December~ 1992 and January~ 1993.
5. 3 Memorandum dated February 17 ~ 1993, from Robert W. Tucker ~ Jr. ~ County
Executive~ re: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
Article.
Edward H. B 'n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scott5ville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning & Community
Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC J~~
February 18, 1993
Board Actions of February 17, 1993
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on February 17, 1993, the following
ions were taken:
Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the North Charlottesville Business Council,
sented a statement concerning the National Highway System (NHS) and the
lusion of the Route 29 North bypass route in the NHS.
Mr. Wayne Ferguson presented the attached petition, on behalf of Langford
ms Subdivision, requesting the Board to fully fund the costs of road
rovements to bring Montgomery Lane and Pippin Lane into the State Secondary
tern of Highways. The Board requested staff to make a report at the March 3
~ing.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Draft letter dated February 12, 1993, from David P.
erman, Chairman, to Constance R. Kincheloe, Commissioner, Commonwealth Trans-
tation Board, re: proposed Route 29 road projects. AUTHORIZED the Chairman
sign the letter and requested a copy of the letter be sent to the City of
rlottesville, University of Virginia, Secretary of Transportation~ John
liken and Jack Hodge, Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 5.2a. Resolution to take Meadowfield Lane and Meadowfield
in Meadowfield Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
PTED the attached resolution.
*
Printed on recycled paper
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
February 18, 1993
Agenda Item No. 5.10. Memorandum dated February 11, 1993, from Robert W.
cker, Jr., County Executive, re: Commission on Population Growth and Develop-
nt. Requested staff to provide an analysis at the April 7~ 1993, meeting.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-92-63. 1781 Productions, Ltd. (Deferred from Decem-
9, 1992.) (Applicant requests withdrawal.) ACCEPTED the applicant's request
withdrawal without prejudice.
Agenda Item No.8. Public Hearing to solicit input on local community
elopment and housing needs and potential projects in relation to Community
elopment Block Grant funding for a project in the County. SUPPORTED
bemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) rehabilitation housing project for
sideration of Virginia Community Development Block Grant funding for public
aring (date for public hearing not determined at this time). As a second pro-
ct, the Board supported pursuing a planning grant for Crozet community
rovements.
The Board requested staff communicate with the Mayor of the Town of
S ottsville to make him aware of grants that are available that the Town may
w'sh to pursue at some time in the future.
Agenda Item No.9. SP-93-01. Trinity Presbyterian Church. Public Hearing
to amend condition of SP-91-16 to allow addll grading on site. Property of
17.54 acs zoned Res & EC is located on S sd of Reservoir Rd (Rt 702) approx.
3/10 mi W of inters with Rt29/Rt 250 Bypass. TM76,Ps17C&17C1. Samuel Miller
Dist.
APPROVED SP-93-0l to modify condition 84 of SP-91-16 as recommended by the
P ing Commission and set out below:
1. Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall not be
larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet;
2. The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on Attachment C
initialed WDF and dated May 6, 1991;
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until connection to
public sewer has been completed; and
4. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that shown on a site plan titled
Trinity Presbyterian Church, revised 1/7/93 and initialed WDF,
1/14/93.
The Board requested staff to address the issue of grading in the Entrance
ridors during site plan review process~ at the April 7~ 1993 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-28. Boxwood Lane Farmowners Assoc. Public
ring for a cemetery on 22.43 acs zoned RA. Property on E sd of pvt rd approx
7 mi S of Plank Rd (Rt 692). TM85,P78. Samuel Miller Dist.
APPROVED SP-92-28 subject to the following conditions recommended by the
ing Commission:
D
P
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
February 18, 1993
1.
Cemetery is to be located as shown on the attached plat showing "A"
Pond Parcel and initialed WDF, 1/7/93; and
Staff approval of access easement to cemetery.
2.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-92-65. Dr & Mrs. John K. Youel. Public Hearing to
c eate a 27 lot rural preservation development on approx 333 ac zoned RA.
P operty located at end of Loftlands Dr which is on S sd of Rea's Ford Rd (Rt
660) approx 0.3 mi W of Earlysville Rd (Rt 743). TM31,Ps16A,22, 22A&23F. Char-
1 ttesville Dist.
APPROVED subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
ission:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the plat titled "Loftlands
Farm" revised January 4, 1993, and initialed WDF, l/11/93;
2. The following revision to the development may be permitted by the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority:
a. Not more than 33.02 acres may be deducted from the Preservation
Tract. Deducted acreage may be added to Lots 25, 26 and/or 27;
and
b. The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed
as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preserva-
tion Tract is added to Lot 25, 26 or 27 resulting in a Preserva-
tion Tract with a minimum acreage of 188.83 acres. This provi-
sion allows for transfer of the Rural Preservation Tract acreage
to only one of the aforementioned lots;
3. Upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III road as
specified in the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision
Manual.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Designation of Roads for National Highway
tem (deferred from February 3, 1993). No action.
Agenda Item No. 14. Cable TV Access Center, Request additional funding for
ipment costs for FY 1994. APPROVED an appropriation of $5000 from IT 1993
tingency funds~ for equipment costs for the citizen cable TV access center.
An appropriation form has been requested from Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item
te Authority.
arded to the
olved.
No. 13. Request to adopt resolution supporting Regional Solid
ADOPTED the attached resolution. A copy of the resolution was
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and each entity
Agenda Item No. 15.
Po'nt Elementary School.
Br eden.
Appropriation: Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment.
AP ROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
o To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
e: February 18, 1993
e 4
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Staff to provide an update on the Crozet Crossing Housing project on
ch 3, 1993.
Consensus of Board that staff work with coordinating radio communication
terns between the Police Department, Sheriff, Joint Security Complex and City
Charlottesville.
Staff to coordinate a tour, to include lunch, of the CA-TEC facility during
a ay meeting.
County Attorney agreed to look at County ordinances relative to hunting
s to see if they can be made more uniform with other counties in the
onwealth.
At achments
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Robert B. Brandenburger
Roxanne White
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
George R. St. John
File
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
ounty, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code section 33.1-229,
he Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
equested to accept for maintenance, subject to final inspection
nd approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
oads in Meadowfield Subdivision:
Meadowfield Lane:
Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline
of State Route 649 thence proceeding in a southerly direction
1l30.26 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station
21+30.26.
Meadowfield Way:
Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline
of Meadowfield lane thence proceeding in a n easterly
direction 243.21 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station
7+56.79; and beginning at station 10+00 a point common with
the centerline of Meadowfield Lane thence proceed in a
westerly direction 777.28 to the center of a cul-de-sac
located at station 17+77.28.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t.hat the Virglnia DcpartllF2nt u;
ransportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
ight-of-way, enlarging to a 55 foot radius at the cul-de-sacs and
rainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by
lats in the Office of the Clerk of the circuit Court of Albemarle
ounty in Deed Book 1045, pages 236, 237; and Deed Book 981, pages
12 to 714.
, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is
true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the
oard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
eeting held on February 17, 1993.
~O~S~
Supervisors
...:5"CAL
----
L~/
~9
'!~~~
J .;r ~.'
I LOT~
~
L,.-;'.r t"
I
,
, i
~
i)
,\
k "
/
"
)
~1
ry
o,e/'c~ ~ O~
/7',/..eA.-</ r=-OReS T.
/".JE'C;> ,c>c:-..e T Y
/~
~ '
" f7,~
03 r
o rr
I V J "J K~,'
~ /1
,\ / I
~ /
o~ , / r
v ~s./-!? SO" ~") ~ / 1
Yv_,?"68.$).:3' ? \9Y) / I
<\ __ 7.5' \ / I
\ ~ _ r
\ V/CO~- -_ / I
4/,::;. --. . "_ /
-~,<'" ,.... -
~ "7 C "< -- ____ _" / I
- 175,
I
.;;j- O~V~LO.P /V1EI,.u;r
R€NfA/A/ FO,Q 'A"
AIVD NATURAL I
TH€ sou-rH' I
I
I
I
I
I
1
r
t
\ \
A;I \
~ \
/)f~:,~ \
/ ." ~
~ \
'. ~ Po ~Q \ I \
'. ' ,,/'
~~-9 ~ ..- ~,-kiNQ '(~hl,t;ol.Al ./'"
~..r- ~ Ar~..J ~.... ~i~~ <tV /
_ _ ~o. ~ 0<:::1.:::::7 roa..<l ,,'-<.I "l. 75'
~ ~.r,",",'1o-'.,..., --€L;J9-C n>c.td "P@
-......-~a.,....t::'.. -- ---"..' '.51 tf
,_ c:?a~0 (I 3!J.tJ
" ~or /c.~~ ~a~ pl;t LC)T ~osrAn!!!"
,ere 6.:f'~
,~,:,,:" ./...:!!J
'"
r;\GC 7. (] 2
Cl;~
n
U '_ >
/' ,.</
,-c-~c/
"
"
tv
\)
\:)
\9
--
/
/
)~()!} L/
I "--.
:(
"
~;
~ (Q
\},
\
Cl
6\
l>t
o \l \9
\. '\
~ '~ ~
(\' ~ ~
\j ~ ~
~: ~ V)
~ kJ/GHTS
POA/.o PA/<CcL
AReA TO
I COt-Lee. T/V€L Y.
i~
liJ
~
~ors o,c-
2/o-"'?
G~E4 TOP
Ac.<E.::> A~c
~;<.E/VfP/
'A" PL;A/D
PA R eEL
!
!
/
/
\
\
d:2. 43/ A.
\
.LoT'T
, . \"</'Ii'-'
, '\ ".))
/'
,/
/
./
..:: (1,/- :..
I
, I
I
I
!
~ _:>~..::,r; '-.".</ /'
~
~
.
~
\~ ~
\ ~ ~
~ ~
\ ~
~ ~~
~ '~~
'- ~ ~
~
vlOf
"1'a.:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and
elson, the city of Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Solid Waste
uthority agree that the disposal of solid waste and the recycling
f recyclable goods are issues of great magnitude for all
overnments and their citizens; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid all recognize the potential economic
enefit to each entity of working together to develop an efficient
ystem; and
WHEREAS, the counties of Fluvanna and Nelson have short
erm disposal needs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville,
Ibemarle, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
he short term need for a disposal site; and
the County of
are able to meet
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Ibemarle agree to accept the solid waste for the ensuing year from
elson and Fluvanna counties; and
WHEREAS, the County of Louisa is interested in an efficient
ong term solution to solid waste management; and
WHEREAS, all
ooperative method of
ssues;
of the entities desire to develop a
resolving both the short term and long term
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of
Ibemarle agrees to appoint a representative who, acting on its
ehalf, will meet in a full faith effort to develop a proposal
nder which localities and the Authority may join together in a new
r expanded organization to manage solid waste; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the counties with short term
isposal needs will pursue the possibility of contracting with the
ivanna Solid Waste Authority for landfilling of solid waste under
utually agreed upon terms; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all proposals put forth by the
esignated group will be discussed with the appointing entity, and
ubject to approval by the governing body.
* * * * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
s a true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the
oard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
eeting held on February 17, 1993. '
nty Supervisors
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920043
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
GENERAL
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
SVILLE SURVEY
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
11010312340 PROF. SERVICES-SURVEY $18,648.00
TOTAL
$18,648.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2100 19000199924
RECOVERED COST-SCOTTSVILLE SURVEY
$18,648.00
TOTAL
$18,648.00
*******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
FINANCE
DATE
BO
OF SUPERVISORS
,.? -/~ -f'Jjr
02 - /P-93
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC:...L YEAR
92/9]
NUMBER
920042
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVE)TISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO X
FUND
SCHOOL
PURPbsE OF APPROPRIATION:
TEAC1ER INCENTIVE GRANT FOR STONY POINT SCHOOL
tXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
1221 61101312500
PROF. SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL
$250.00
TOTAL
$250.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2200(24000240238 TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT $250.00
TOTAL
$250.00
****~*******************************************************************
REQUISTING COST CENTER:
APPRCVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARI OF SUPERVISORS
SCHOOLS
SIGNATURE
~~ /;9~
~ . ~
-. /.{.- IL/ Cd7
DATE
/- .::l/-f,7
,2-/;/- Y3
"
i~/...,. \" i
1,\(:: Cr!.. , ~ c'-
z // ~/ <1',':
NORTH CHARLOTTESVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL
ROUTE 29 NORTH
P.O. BOX 7823
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22906
ress to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
ruary 17, 1993
speaking to you tonight on behalf of the North Charlottesville Business Council.
subject concerns the National Highway System and more specifically, the
sion of the now designated Rt. 29 North By-pass route in the NHS system,
traffic situation is a major issue facing our community, One of the most critical
sol tions is getting the Rt. 29 North By-pass and North Grounds Connector built as
so n as possible, We have talked about and studied this issue to death and now it's
tim to do something
community has decided that the By-pass is needed and is going to be built. The
question is when? And all the while, property owners in the designated pathway,
bot residential and commercial, are in a sad state of limbo and our traffic problems
get worse,
MPO Technical Committee has v,ot~9 to exclude the designated By-pass route
fro the NHS, The MPO policy comrnitteehas yet to vote, but from comments made at
the last meeting, the vote could also be to exclude the By-pass route from the system,
Let s end this fight to stall the By-pass and join together in getting any available
Fe eral funds to go along with the scarce VDOT funds, Let's don't handicap
our elves, We have our legislators in both Richmond and Washington working to help
us purchase the affected property owners' land and get this road built. This NH S
de ignation will help speed up the process, particularly if President Clinton comes
thr ugh with his promised infrastructure money,
F 0 our com munity to exclude the designated By-pass route could exclude us from
bei g eligibile to get any available Federal Funds, This would be a crime to the
co munity, Please study this issue very carefully and direct your appointed
re resentatives on the MPO Policy Committee to vote in the best interest of the
co munity as a whole,
Th critical date for comments to VDOT is February 26th as per Ray Pethel's letter of
De ember 28, 1992 to the MPO, While we realize that there is still limited information
on this issue, we ask that you go directly to the best available sources of information,
Ware sure that Mrs, Connie Kinchloe, our representative on the Commonwealth
Tr nsportation Board. Ray Pethtel in Richmond, and L. F, Payne in Washington will be
gl d to discuss the reasons to include the currently designated Rt. 29 North By-pass
ro te in the National Highway System,
Th nk you for you time and consideration,
(ROil) 978-3711 - Ask for NCBC Representative
Ii:
-- ;/
, l..e <! u vt' L
/ / /~.
c:), I -; /9.3 ;J_1!J /
. /flJ?J
LANGFORD FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
February 17, 1993
PETITION
TO THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FOR RELIEF FROK AN UNFAIR "ROAD TAX"
Ye, the undersigned residents of Langford Farms and members of the Langford
Far s Homeowners Association, Inc., hereby petition the Albemarle County Board
of upervisors to fully fund the costs of such road improvements as may be
neclssary to bring two streets in our subdivision, Montgomery Lane (0.2 mile)
and Pippin Lane (O.l mile) into the state's secondary road system.
By letter of February 2, 1993, County Engineering Director Jo Higgins
adv sed Langford residents that it would cost an estimated $22,000 to make the
req ired improvements. Only $10,000 is available from the proceeds of a bond
def ult provided by the subdivision's developers. According to Ms. Higgins,
COUI ty policy provides for 50-50 cost sharing: Albemarle will pay $6,000 and
res dents must pay the remaining $6,000. An additional letter provided Langford
Homlowners from County Attorney St. John to Director Higgins stated that there
is IO chance of recovering additional monies from the developers.
, ,
Langford Farms residents object to this proposal and suggest that the
COUI ty should assume responsibility for all of the costs for reasons stated
bel< w:
o Virtually everyone who purchased a lot or home in Langford did so after
ascertaining that roads had been constructed to state standards and had
either been taken into the state's secondary road system or were secured
by surety bonds obtained by the subdivision's developers. Thus,
financial responsibility for the road system was clearly established to
be that of the state and the subdivision's developers. Property owners
bought and built without fear of contingent liability for road
maintenance costs.
, .
o County staff was negligent in the performance of its duties and
responsibilities in this matter and that negligence is the sole cause of
an escalation in costs necessary to complete the road work. It is not
reasonable for the county to now seek to pass on part of these costs to
Langford Homeowners. The county Engineering Department asked LFHA to
make certain repairs for which it was responsible (water lines are in
highway right-of-way and certain valves had to be replaced and asphalt
patching performed to produce a smooth surface) in the spring of 1990.
That work was performed in May 1990. After that, Langford Homeowners
expected the remainder of the work to be performed promptly. Almost
three years later, we are still waiting.
o The primary error in this succession of errors was the failure of county
staff to require the subdivision's developers to increase the amount of
the surety bond to keep pace with escalating improvement costs. When
the county staff knew that the face amount of the bond they held was
insufficient to cover present costs (November 1990), and even as they
advised the LFHA, Inc. president that the face amount of the bond would
be increased, they failed to do so. The economic consequences of that
failure have been compounded in the months since then, and the county
now seeks to have Langford Homeowners pay for that mistake.
o LFHA, Inc. does not accept the view of County Attorney St. John that the
subdivision's developers are beyond reach for these monies. Despite the
demise of Langford Farms, Incorporated, as a corporate entity in 1986,
the developers, as individuals, continued to do business on this issue
with county staff, VDOT' engineers, and an insurance company, obtaining
bonding, negotiating over costs and requirements, and even sending
employees to clear and grub the right-of-way and pull ditches next to
the subject streets. These actions continued through the fall of 1992
at which time they ceased negotiations and delivered to the county a
$lO,OOO cashiers check for the face amount of the bond. These failures
to negotiate a good faith solution to the problem should not now be
passed on to Langford Homeowners in the form of an unwarranted "road
tax." It is the contention of LFHA that the continued actions and
negotiations by the developers constituted a voluntary waiver of the
protection offered by a "corporate veil."
o A full chronology of events related to this issue (attached) reveal a
pattern of procrastination, duplicity, and error related to this problem
on the part of both the county staff and the developers for which
Langford Homeowners should bear no responsibility.
Resbectfully submitted,
Joseph Smith, President LFBA, Inc.
Jam e Gibson, Vice President LFBA, Inc.
Bet~ Lipper, Secretary, LFBA, Inc.
LarF,y Shifflett, Treasurer, LFBA, Inc.
Den~is Stokes, Board Kember, LFBA, Inc.
~ ,
Edward H, Ba . Jr,
Samuel Mill
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972.4060
February l7, 1993
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David p, Bow rman
Charlottesvill
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, H mphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Mr . Constance R. Kincheloe
Co issioner, Culpeper District
Co onwealth Transportation Board
Ro te 3, Box 31A
Cu peper, VA 22701
De r Connie:
I njoyed the opportunity of seeing you at the Route 29 North Business Council
ting and sincerely appreciate your taking the time to make that appearance.
hink that it was very helpful to have you discuss the State I s plans and
wer questions and concerns regarding the proposed Route 29 road projects.
re was, however, one matter which you discussed that troubled me. In the
stion and answer session, you seemed to be saying that the only reason the
de-separated interchanges were included in the list of road projects was that
re was an agreement between the City, the County and the University which
T confirmed.
As you are aware, the $3.6 million Sverdrup study found that the building of the
in erchanges would improve the level of service (LOS) on Route 29 to a LOS "B",
wh le the building of a bypass without the interchanges would leave the LOS at
an "F". The VDoT staff recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(C B) set forth the order of priorities, which included the building of the
erchanges in Phase II. The bypass was recommended by VDoT as a Phase III
pr ject, to be constructed "at such time as traffic conditions along the Route
29 corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions permit." In other
ds, the bypass would be built following the completion of Phases I and II, on
as-needed basis, if funds were available. Numerous other documents issued by
T have also confirmed that order of priorities.
er the release of the Sverdrup study, after VDoT' s recommendation for the
sing of projects, and after the approval of those projects by the CTB, the
y, the County and the University signed an agreement concerning the Route 29
ridor projects, including the Meadow Creek Parkway. The agreement between
City, the County and the University parallels exactly the project phasing
ommended by VDoT, approved by the CTB and supported by Sverdrup's study.
ed upon your comments at the meeting and the comments made by Mr. Hodge which
eared in the local newspaper last week, you seem to be suggesting that the
erchanges may be dropped if a number of people show up at a proposed future
*
Printed on recycled paper
Mr!. Constance R. Kincheloe
Feb uary 17, 1993
Pag 2
public hearing and complain. The interchanges were approved in the same CTB
res lutions which approved the conditional construction of a bypass and should
not be relegated to some lesser status, especially when the traffic studies
in icate the interchanges are the key ingredient to successful traffic flow on
Ro e 29 in the urban area. In fact, public hearing comments were obtained on
all of the Route 29 corridor projects in 1990 before the CTB resolutions were
ad pted. As the attached table from the VDoT staff report to CTB dated October 4,
1990 indicates, 205 citizens favored building the interchanges and 16 were
op osed; 5l citizens favored building a bypass and 3212 were opposed. Should we
no tell bypass opponents that, even if all of the preconditions for bypass
co struction contained in the CTB resolutions and our agreement are met, the
b ass w~nlt be built if they complain loud enough?
also mentioned at the meeting that the construction of sidewalks along Route
would not be possible if the interchanges were built. In speaking with my
ff and with members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, it has been
orted to me that VDoT has consistently taken the position that sidewalks are
compatible with Route 29 in the County area without grade-separated inter-
ch nges. In the absence of the interchanges, pedestrian crosswalks and pedes-
tr. an signal delays would cause the LOS to decline significantly. With the
in erchanges, there would be no need for crosswalks or signal delays on the main
ro d. There are overpasses and bridges with sidewalks allover the country,
in luding Albemarle County.
have spent many years dealing with the problems of traffic in the Route 29
ridor and attempting to arrive at an acceptable solution. The County has
n very opposed to a western bypass due to its potential impact upon the
lic water supply, schools, businesses and its neighborhoods. The City and
University had their own concerns, as did the Department of Transportation.
er many years, we finally reached a solution which was acceptable to all
ties, as evidenced by many documents, some of which are attached. Not coin-
entally, our agreement is supported by the State's $3.6 million study.
emarle County intends to adhere to its agreement.
uld you have any questions concerning this letter, I would be happy to dis-
s them with you. And thank you for considering this important matter.
Sincerely,
---)
U~U?1~
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DP :ec
At achments
cc: John Milliken, Secretary of Transportation
Jack Hodge, Director of Engineering, Department of Transportation
Thomas Vandever, Mayor, City of Charlottesville
John Casteen, President, University of Virginia
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
Members, Board of Supervisors
'f SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
SUDDort ODDose
156 (1 ) 0
2.037 (2) 3
205 (3) 16
2.829 (4) 2.030 (2)
51 3.212 (5)
10 15
31 47
1 0
3 5
5 0
10 26
3 0
3 0
Meadowcreek Parkway
245 (6)
1
Rio Road/Route 250 Connector
o
4
Western Parkway
129 (1 )
o
( ) Includes 129 signatures on ALERT petition.
( ) Includes 1.961 signatures on Community Planning Coalition petition.
( ) Includes 30 signatures on Residents of Albemarle County petition.
( ) Includes 2.751 signatures on Citizens for Albemarle petition.
( ) Includes 2.751 signatures on Citizens for Albemarle petition and 352
signatures on Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition
(CA TCO) petition.
( ) Includes 129 signatures on ALERT petition and 30 signatures on Residents
of Albemarle County petition.
]
I
I
j A ajor part of the study was the development of a travel demand model based on detailed
Ian use and socioeconomic data, household surveys, roadside surveys, historical traffic data,
I and the existing road network. The model was used to project each alternative's effect on
fu re traffic volumes.
TIt ~esults of the traffic modeling showed that in the design year, 2010, the Base Cas~
I wo d function at level of service F. 1"l!e expressway....alternative also would operate at level
er all of the new location alternatives, assuming Base Case improvements are also
.,' dm lemente te wdtIld.J1ill QP:erat~-aOe.YeLof serviceJ:~~Jf,-in addition-to the Base .. '
f, ','.:>:'Cas im rovements rade seRarated inte,~hanges were builLaUhre~tersections,..Jhe '
'>,~':'ave a~e levelof..s.ernce on Route 29 would~rove to B. (See Table IV-3 in Chapter IV.) . ': ..-'
I a~ er with the.s~ aqgrnonal~ptbyeI!l~!!~.and _construs!~Q!l--9Cone. of_the bypa.SSlLJ:. ',.:';'"
'., alt ,atives, Jevel of service ,'H.~uld improve to A or B .depending on the alternative. >~;:---1,~S;<~~;:./,t;;!>i<:' j
1.'i~f!~;WA~l:~~~;l=:&"~CIlONS IN SAME GEOGRAPmCAREA"i;("~;;~%(,ij;~lii!~iJ~~ !
,,!,'~'~:{.:y':~''':~::;'> ;t'~i;~.~'iX=;::f':> ,T.,'" ' '; '.' ,',> ".>/;.,,;' '/ >. .',.,< ',':;'(' ;/:-:2;:;,?{;,;,;':>7;';?~::/'::p?,~~r~(:~~;'~,:~:' It
I ',:~f 1.,".'; Th ie .are. no known major federal actions in the same geographic area~ "However, a local ,!j\,~<i:.; :;:,J:!~;,/h:;>
,.,~'t .. "lDl ative t~ build a project cal~ed ~e Meadowcre~k Parkway ~ould potentially b,ecome a )::;S{~'-,J~4~;w~~~~r;,
',/Ut.;~~;fed ral action at some future tune. ,'The Parkway, an element of the CharlotteSVIlle Area:,~,;, \:
I ''1i~;~?,~~Tr portation Study (CATS, the 'regional transportation plan) follows the'aIignment of .:~~~,.\;
,:7~~ti~~~A1t rnative 7A discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement. :'The Parkway would be '}{;f~" ?i,f;f
~~;t:~':;~;~ra ~ ur:lane,divided controlled acces~ facility, but wit~ a narrower median than ~at provided ,:i~~~~t~~~\'.tPi',:::~t'
~~i~;'~~,bY'.~i~~~iii~;w~~il~~~:i~~i~f~~1~W~~i~;r~~li~1~~~t~i~~i~?~1~%~~:::~~~lf
I ..,.q~~~,f'\'""~~l~NSID~ ;..!Y,>~:,~~;{f;;:;(\.t::~.{':.:'.t(C;;,...':..:t::;':;i;~f;~\r.(,~i~i0~:1:~~0g~~;X
::~~,,::;;i~I.Be een October, 1987, and June,.1988, many potential byp~s alt:rnatives were examined. i:M~~tJfl~;Hf}~'~~1;~::
I "":~";'t~,::,t,.,~,Th se were screene? based o~ enVIronmental, traffic, and. engmeenng facto~ and those that~,;f,~r?r,',~ir,',:'" ",i.~
,;'.::,~"we e not feasible, dId not satISfy the need, or had severe Impacts were elimmated. In June,";);i;:}i~%,.,:.,.",!; v-
\.1;,"''19 , 27 conceptual alternatives were presented to the public with a recommendation that'.::';"~<?~'ft.~'-;,;:'
, ":"fiv be retained as Candidate Build Alternatives in addition to the Base Case and the '.':\/~':::~,::,,:,':',~:
~~.;'~:~::e e~w~y alternative. Su~sequpntly, two additional 4~f) avoidance alternatives were ad~ed ,Y~s~~};.,-;'~';',;,f~~~:::.:
:~", to VOId nnpacts to McIntIre Park, Pen Park, and RIvanna Park..AlI of the alternatives ',:?,)!~\~;;,;;~i1,~j:.~;.:
I "we e then refi?ed as additional ~ata bec~e available. Figure 5-1 shows" the Candidat,e , ,~:JK~t'~:;i~'~'~:>~;{:,~::;"
B d Alternatives. The alternatIves consIdered are as follows: .. ," ,:, " . , . :' ,":"_0".,
, .
I
1
I
"
~~ "~i1t1~~,,~~"lj}~~=.;""~"""~~'f""~"
, . 't
?A. ES F20E DRAFT ~~JVrrWm,mNTAT.J IIf?lI.C1 S'~'l\'~'EtrS;jT EST1\2~I::;~r=;:G ':T,?,T O;;-LY
cm STRUCTION OF A GRADE SE?ARATED Ii~rl'r:HCHAlJGE lULL nlPHOVE TRA='FIC ON
RO TE 29; THE TERi,l "LOCATION ALTEE1JATIISS" llE,i\NS BYPJI.SS A:r.,TE?~J;,i'IVES.
'l'T_T"R
> d~,
pt for the area north of Charlottesville, controlled access improvements at all urbanized
are along Route 29 through central Virginia, including a portion of Charlottesville, have
bee built or committed. These improvements prevent delays to through traffic.
:1
. 1 ',.1.: '~
" .-..,'
,.: 4'
'. ~, 4
S-2
""'.
, <
[l
11
11
Il
It
.
1!1
.
Ii
III
.
~
II
II
~
.
.
(j
III
. ~.. '.'f . ;
r.""."..... /' ...r,....~. ':
;~,.~....;, _..~~;;:~-.;.l~~...;'.~:'..f.'".~;.,.-
..
?
ervice roads and cross streets. The three .atg~<;lde intersections, Rio Road, Greenbrier
rive and Hydraulic Road;-will operate at LOS E,during peaK_hour~:' With the addition
f through lanes on the service toads,-the Greenbrier Drive intersection is found to attain
S B during peaks but the intersections of Rio Roacrand Hydraulic Road maintain LOS
in the evening peak.
ternative 10. This inner western bypass of Route 29 will carry between 17,400 and 17,900
d in 2010 (Figure IV-7). With Meadowcreek parkwa1 in the east, this alternative ~ll
roduce the greatest impact on Route 29 in terms of t e magnittiae of traffic reduced.
onstruction of Alternative 10 wiltdecreaStfby"alni6sfll,OOO vp<fthe--irafficln the segment
f Route 29 between Rio Road and Hydraulic Road. This reduction in traffic volume
epresents nearly 18 percent of the Base ~e traffic. In spite of the reduction in trips
on.g Route 29, the critical intersections continue to o,eerate at un~~~P!~E..l_e_.l~y~l_s~f..
elVlce.
.
ternative 11. This alternative western bypass will carry between 12,200 and 19,300 vpd
2010 (Figure IV-8). It would bave somewhat less imp_act than ~ternative 10 on Route
9, as shown in Table IV-I. The reduction in traffic does not improve operations of the
ritical intersections.
.
ternativ 12. This will be tbe longest and outermost western alignment. It is expected
o service between 9,500 and 15,100 vpd (Figure IV-9). Compared to eastern alternatives,
't would bej!1or'e eff~ctivf' in~crea5ing Rnntf' ,q traffic. Alternative 12 will produce less
. pact on Route 29 than either Alternatives 10 or 11. As with other alternatives, the
critical intersections do not exhibit LOS better than F except in the case of Woodbrook
Drive.
Further analysis how the intersections along Route 29 would perform if they were made
grade-separated interchanges by the year 2010. The arterial LOS was calculated for Route
29 between the Route 250 Bypass and Woodbrook Drive both with and without grade
separated intersections. The procedures of the Urban and Suburban Arterial analysis
technique as prescriqed by. the Highway Capacity Manual (1985) were applied. Several
technical assumptions were made including the exclusion of Berkmar Drive, Dominion
Drive and Seminole Drive from the analysis. The analysis was done for the direction
carrying the maximum traffic during peak. .~
/, ~~j
Table IV-3 shows the arterial LOS estimated for each alternative under consideration. 1m:.. , -!L,....../ '--
add~ti~n _o(gr~eparated interchanges to the Base Case along Route 29 improves th~ ;,... ---
northbound ev~}!ing,.p_eak -p-e..riod l.os from F to A or IS de.pp.ndiOg:}1porr-the-aIfefhauye /,
cOnSiaered~-The Base Case alone with' ~es, would also improve the LOS from F
t~JlJhe-y-e:auQlO~"--M .-
B. SOCIO-ECONOMlC IMPACTS
Among the socio-economic impacts of the Candidate Build Alternatives would be the
displacements resulting from acquisition of right-of-way for the highway facility. Also
IV-3
f
~ttached are numerous documents establishing the order of
briority for the Route 29 North corridor road projects.
ncluded are:
- resolutions of the Commonwealth Transportation Board,
- letters from VDOT,
- an agreement between the City, County and University, and
- Metropolitan Planning Organization Schedule and Timing of
Improvements.
~he order of priority is identical in each document.
AT'T'ACHE'D IS RESOI.,U':"iON OF Cm~MGN~,.;t:A!.:IH 7i<ANS '-'ORATICN BOARD DATED 11/15/90
A"PPROVf NG ROUTE 29 PROJECTS IN ,r:4~"'~\ ORDER OF PRIORITY
'. I, \{i
~ I':' _:
, ; ,;;r,r'l
~~ '4
"'1~~.g )~-or
~~
Cfl' ,. '-' r
......,-l; I \' It.
John G. Milliken
Secretary 01 TransPOt1allOn
I? :';-- '
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI~'.'-':;c"
.:. I .
I:!! "
; ; ; ~ ...
" .
-'~. ,
Office of the G01J~OT
Richmond 23219
", ~ ~ ~'" : .
December 12, 1990
The Honorable F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Chairman, Board of supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Bowie:
,.
~ ~:'O
-(804t 18&-8032
TOO (804) 786-7765
Thank you for your recent letter regarding Route 29 in
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. I regret that
I will be unable to meet with you on January 9 due to the opening
of the General Assembly.
I am enclosing a copy of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board's resolution of November 15, 1990, which outlines the
position of the Board regarding the many issues involved. Also
being sent is a copy of the "final" staff position paper dated
November 9 and a copy of notification as required pursuant to
section 33.1-18 of the Code of Virqinia which was sent to Mrs.
Shelby J. Marchell, Clerk of the Court, Albemarle County.
Updated aerial photography for the approved location will be
produced in January or February, 1991, and should be available
with the appropriate tentative design in May, 1991. A tentative
schedule of events has been established and a copy will be sent
to you.
I appreciate your interest~~ is matter and look forward
to working with you to resolv this concern.
vf/\.-fv---
iken
JGM/mwc
Attachments
cc: Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
f'
Moved by Mrs. Ki nche loe , Seconded
by Dr. Howlette , that
WHERE~S, in accordance ~ith the statutes of the Common~ealth
of Virginia and policies of the 'Common~ealth Transportation
Board, a Location Public Hearing was held in the Days Inn
Charlottesville Hotel on June 26 and June 27, 1990 and in the
Performing Arts Center on June 28, 1990, for the purpose of
considering the proposed location of Route 29 from Route 29/250
Bypass (City of Charlottesville) to 0.31 mile north of the North
Fork Rivanna River (Albemarle County) in the city of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County, State Project 6029-002-122,
PE-100; and
WHEREAS, proper not ice was given in advance, and all those
present were given a full opportunity to express, their opinions
and recommendations for or against the proposed project as
presented, and their statements being duly recorded; and
WHEREAS, the economic, social, and environmental effects of
the proposed project have been examined and given proper
consideration, and this evidence, along with all other, has been
carefully reviewed; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the location of this project be
approved in accordance with the plan as, proposed and presented at
the said Location Public Hearing by the Department's Engineers in
three phases as indicated:
-2-
.
.'
Phase I - Short Range Recommendations
BE IT RESOLVED, that to construct Route 29 Base Case
improvements from Hydraulic Road to the South Fork Rivanna
River. These improvements will provide six lanes plus continuous
right turn lanes with signalized at-grade intersection.
These
improvements will help satisfy the immediate needs for additional
highway capacity on existing Route 29.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that right of way necessary for the
construction of interchanges as they may be needed at Rio Road,
Greenbrier
Drive,
and Hydraulic Road should be reserved
initially.
" '
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Albemarle County and the ci ty
of Charlottesville should be encouraged to restrict, to the
extent possible, further development on the needed right of _way
in these areas.
BE IT FURTftER RESOLVED, that should it be necessary, we
recommend that the Department acquire any needed right of way
under our advanced acquisition policies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend the North Grounas
access facili ty be developed as soon as possible, along wi th
additional mass transit, to immediately begin to improve traffic
condi tions along Route 29, Emmet Street between the Route 250
Bypass and the university, and free up parking around the grounds
of the university.
-3-
,~ "
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend Alternative 10 be
approved as a corridor for future development and Albemarle
County assist in preserving the necessary right of way
developing local plans to minimize any future adverse impacts
associated with the future development of this corridor.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, refined preliminary plans for
Alternative 10 will be provided to Albemarle County to aid local
officials in the preservation of the corridor and development of
compatible land use plans.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the preservation of the
Alternati ve 10 corridor" will assist the county in a no-growth
position in the watershed. Access to the corridor would only be
provided at the request of the coun~y.
Phase II - Medium Range Recommendations
BE IT RESOLVED, that as traffic continues to increase and
economic conditions allow, we recommend interchanges at Rio Road,
Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road be constructed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend continuation of
the preservation of right of way for recommended Alternative 10
and the advanced acquisition of right of way procedures be
exercised as needed and economics permit.
"
-4-
Phase III - Long Range Recommendations
BE IT ~ESOL.VED, that as such time traffic condi tions along
le Route 2C corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions
~rmit, we ecommend the construction of the preserved corridor -
Lternative 10.
>tion carrie<. Messrs. Wells, l-larner and Smalley voting No.
./15/90
r
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. ETHTEL
COMMIS lONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
Nove~~~~NDt82,19 1990
EARL C. COCHRAN. JR.
STATE LOCATlON AlII) DESIGN ENGINEER
Route 29 Corridor Study
Proj. 6029-002-122, PE-100
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Fr: Route 29/250 Bypass
(City of Charlottesville)
To: 0.31 Hi. N. of N. Fork
Rivanna River (Albemarle
County)
:'"")
-"-.:
Mrs. Shelby J. Marshall
Clerk of the Court, Albemarle
501 E. Jefferson Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901
County
,f
,.,
. .
L
N
L..:...
Dear Mrs. Marshall:
c..,
r..., I
F' u
., I...J
a
CJ :---..:
like to take this opportunity to advise that-" the\f <:
Transportation Board of Virginia at its.meeting on
1990, approved the location of the abov~ project in
...- ~-
I would
Commonwealth
November 15,
phases.
Phase I: construct Route 29 Base Case improvements from
Hydraulic Road to the South Fork Rivanna River which will provide
six lanes plus continuous right turn lanes and signalized at-
grade intersections; reserve necessary right of way for future
construction of interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive,' and
Hydraulic Road; approve Alternative 10; and ,refine preliminary
plans to aid Albemarle County in the preservation of the
ro corridor.
Phase II: construct interchanges as traffic increases and
economic conditions allow; continue preservation of right of way
for Alternative 10; and exercise advanced acquisition of right of
way as needed and economics permit.
Phase III: construct Alternative 10 when traffic conditions
along the Route 29 corridor become unacceptable and economic
conditions permit.
Sincerely,
~..~.
E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E.
State Location and Design Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
~TT~C~ D IS RESOLUTION OF COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORATION BOARD DATED 12/19/91
CONFI MING ORDER OF PRIORITY FROM IMPROVEMENTS
-/""'. '''. ~'.. .... -., ~-.
, . .' ..,
, , '-
. "':,1 '"':
,.-. --- --.
i
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
" --
,-'
". ::'=:S
John . Milliken
Seer ry of T ranSllOnatlOn
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
(804) 786-8032
TOO (804) 7B6-n65
January 13, 1992
The Honorable David P. Bowerman
Chairman, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowerman:
..
--..
This is in response to our previous correspondence from
former Chairman F. R. Bowie concerning the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's intentions regarding the sequencing of the
several projects involving Route 29 in Albemarle County.
On December 19, 1991, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
passed the attached resolution which states the intention of the
Board to adhere to the schedule of improvements as set forth in
its November 15, 1990 resolution.
In the course of discussing the enclosed resolution, and
prior to its approval, the Board agreed to its adoption with the
clarification suggested by Board Member Constance Kincheloe, that
the resolution was a statement of intent on the part of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to follow a particular sequence
of design and construction and that the Board would follow that
sequence to the best of its ability and to the extent that it was
within its power to complete the projt:!cts as scheduled.
I appreciate the cooperation extended by Albemarle County,
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in
attempting to resolve the issues involved with this most
important transportation facil.~'
~
JGM/mwc
Enclosure
cc: Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
4
-
I'
lW
L
---t
Moved by
Seconded by
Mrs. Kincheloe
Mr. Davies
, that
WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the commonwealth
of virginia and policies of the commonwealth Transportation
Board, the COllUllonwealth Transportation Board by resolution dated
-
November 15, 1990, approved the location of project 6029-002-122,
FE-100 in three phases; and
WHEREAS, the three phases provided for short range, medium
range, and long range recommendations for the construction of the
project in conjunction with other projects in tne city of
Charlottesville and Albemarle county; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated August 1, 1991, the Albemarle
county Board of .supervisor's has requested that this Board take
positive steps to commit to the priorities which were set forth
in the Board's resolution of Nov~mber 1S, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the orderly development and
funding of the variouS projects in accordance with the three
phases as set forth in the Board's resolution of November 15,
1990, is in the public interest; and
that state and
local
WHEREAS,
the Board recognizes
transportation priorities should be harmonized where possible,
and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Board that the Department
of Transportation adhere to the schedule of improvements as set
forth in the ,November is, 1990 ,resolution; and
. ,.
~...
-2-
WHEREAS, the Board strongly believes that the Route 29
Bypass should be constructed in concert with the remaininq
construction projects of the CA~S Plan after Phase 1 and Phase 2
recommendations of the Board's-November 15, 1990, resolution has
been completed; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
direct the Department of Transportation to take all steps and
make all efforts to complete the projects approved in its
resolution of November 15, 1990, as more fully set out in a
letter to F. R. Bowie dated November 4, 1991, from John G.
..
Milliken, which is attached hereto and made a part of this
resolution.
Motioo carried.
12/19/91
JOI}T RESOLUTION OF CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND UVA
RESOLUTION
S, the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia
have reviewed the improvements proposed by the Virginia Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) for the 29 North Corridor. AND
.C", the City, County and University believe, a unified and cooperative implementation
agreement with the CTB and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) is
necessary to provide for these improvements in an expeditious and efficient
manner. NOW THEREFORE
BE r~ RESOLVED, that the City, County and University jointly support and request that the GTE
and VDoT implement improvements to the 29 North Corridor in the following
sequence:
o Widen Route 29 North as provided for in 1985 Charlottesville Area
Transportation Study;
o Design the North Grounds connector road facility;
o Address each element of CTB Phase I recommendation of November li, 1990; ,
o Construct the Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 By-pass to U.S. 29 North'
as soon as funding is available;
o Construct grade-separated interchaQges on U.S. 29 North at Hydraulic Road (Rt.
743), Greenbrier Drive (Rt. 866) and Rio Road (Rt. 631) with early acquisition
of right-of-way for these interchanges based upon. hardship (same program being
used for early acquisition for Alternative 10 - Western alignment);
o Construct Alternative 10 after completion of-the above and when traffic on
Route 29 is unacceptab1~ and economic conditions permit, concurrent with
remainder of 1985 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study.
BE ~T FURTHER RESOLVED. that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Virgini
Secretary of Transportation. the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of
Transportation and, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). requesting the MPO to amend the Charlottesville Area
Transportation Study to reflect this resolution's priorities.
F. R. Bowie, Chai~
A1b~rle County
Boa~d of Supervisors
Alvin Edwards, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
John T. Casteen. President
University of Virginia
Date:
Date:
Date:
RW'I,Jr/dbm
91.184
,
RESOLUTION OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING ORDER
OF IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 29
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, traffic congestion in the Route 29 North
corridor is an increasing problem and i~llnediate improvements
~re needed to alleviate local traffic problems and to help
move north-south through traffic; and
WHEREAS, we are in agreement with Albemarle County and
the University of Virginia that all base case improvements
including Meadowcreek Parkway to the 250 Bypass; construction
of three grade separated interchanges at Hydraulic,
Greenbrier and Rio Roads; construction of additional access
to the North Grounds of the University; and traffic reduction
strategy including expanded transit service, park and ride
requirements, bicycle lanes..and some reduction of student
cars should be undertaken to address the Rou~e 29 North
traffic problem; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the DEIS, however, the City of
Charlottesville does not believe these improvements alone
handle all north-south traffic by the year 2010. We believe
the limitations of this solution pointed out in the DEIS will
be compounded by the recent addition of three traffic lights
to the three mile stretch of road under study, and by the
likelihood that population and traffic growth will exceed the
projections contained in the study; and
.
WHEREAS, the DEIS has identified available corridors to
serve as a part of a Route 29 North network. We think it is
critical that a corridor be designated and acquired as soon
as possible. If we delay these corridors will no longer be
available and much of the State's investment in this study
will be lost;
THEREFORE, for these reasons, the City of Charlottesville
requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation
recommend and the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopt the
following phased solution to traffic needs in the Route 29
North corridor:
1. Improvements to Route 29 North. The widening of
Route 29 North to six lanes with two continuous turn lanes is
necessary and should begin as soon as possible.
2. Reservation of a Limited-Access Western Corridor.
Using the data contained in the DEIS the State should
designate and acquire a limited-access corridor west of Route
29 North that will have the least potential impact on the
environment.
.,
.'
-2-
3. Improvements to Rio Road, Hydraulic Road, Georgetown
Road and the Barracks Road/250 Bypass Intersection. These
roads should be widened to four lanes and the intersection
should be upgraded to help reduce local traffic on Route 29
North.
4. Grade Separated Interchanges at Hydraulic,
~eenbrier and Rio Roads. Diamond-shaped grade separated
interchanges should be constructed at these three
intersections.
5. Additional Access to the North Grounds of the
University of Virginia. An additional exit should be
constructed off the 250 Bypass to provide access to the North
Grounds of the University of Virginia.
6. Meadowcreek Parkway. Meadowcreek Parkway should be
constructed as far as the 250 Bypass along with other
remaining base case improvements as part of a comprehensive
north-south road network. This would be a limited access
parkway engineered for 45 m.p.h. and for passenger vehicles
only. The road shall be signed to discourage through traffic
from traveling through the center of Charlottesville.
Neither McIntire Road nor Ridge Street shall be widened
because of the negative impacts on the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. Limited-Access Western Corridor. A limited-access
western corridor should be constructed as the final step in
, the Route 29 North corridor improvements.
Approved by Council
August 6, 1990
~ty ~il
PA~ES' f~ M VnOT REPORT TO COMMONWEALTH TRA~SrORTATION BOARD DATED iO/~/90
2. Recommendations
In view of the above, the
following improvements are
These recommendations are made with the assumption
at oth~r improvements as contained-in the CATS plan, including
e Meadowcreek Parkway, will also be built. It is also assumed
at additional improvements to Route 29 will be built between the
outh Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road to provide six lanes as
ontained in VDOT's Six Year Improvement Program (currently
cheduled for construction in 1995/96).
a) Short Ranae
Construct Route 29 Base Case improvements from Hydraulic Road
o the South Fork Rivanna River. These improvements will provide
ix lanes plus continuous right turn lanes with signalized at-grade
ntersections. These improvements will help satisfy the immediate
additional highway capacity on existing Route 29.
The right of way necessary for the construction of
nterchanges as they may be needed at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive,
d Hydraulic Road should be reserved initially.
-
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville should be
ncouraqed to restrict, to the extent possible, further development
the needed riqht of way in these areas.
Should it be necessary, we recommend that the Department
cquire any needed right of way under our advance acquisition
'" '."
33
".
We recommend that the North Grounds access facility be
developed as soon as possible, along with additional mass transit
to immediately begin to improve traffic conditions along Business
Route 29 (Emmet street) between the-Route 29/250 Bypass and the
University, and free up parking around the grounds of the
University.
We recommend that Alternative 10 be approved as a corridor
for future development and Albemarle County assist in preserving
the necessary right of way - developing local plans to minimize
any future adverse impacts associated with the future development
of this corridor.
Ref~ned preliminary plans for Alternative 10 will be provided
.
to Albemarle County to aid local officials in the preservation of
the corridor and development of compatible land use plans.
The preservation of the Alternative 10 corridor will assist
the County in a no-growth position in the watershed. Access to
the corridor would only be provided at the request of the County.
b) Medium Ranqe
As traffic continues to increase and economic conditions
allow, we recommend interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and
Hydraulic Road be cons~ructed.
We recommend continuation ot the preservation ot right ot way
tor recommended Alternative 10 and advance acquisition of right of
way procedures be exercised as needed and economics permit.
\', .'
34
"
c) Lonq Ranqe
At such time that traffic conditions along the Route 29
corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions permit, we
recommend the construction of the preserved corridor - Alternative
1.0.
3. Additional Discussion
A key ingredient to the successful implementation of
Alternative 10 is the protection the South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir.
Much of the local opposition to western bypass
al ternati ves has centered around the potential impacts on the
reservoir, specifically possible increases in sedimentation and
the possible introduction of hazardous material spills into the
reservoir., Alternative 10 does not cross the reservoir, only the
watershed, and is therefore the least objectionable of the western
al ternati ves with regard to potential impacts to the reservoir and
its watershed.
Effective January 1, 1991, all state projects must comply with
new stormwater Management Requlations being developed by the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
These requlations will require
a
comprehensive stormwater management plan for each highway project
and,compliance with provisions of the state Erosion an~ Sediment
Control law.
These requlations will require such things as
detention basins, infiltration facilities, slope protection and
monitoring' to
ensure
that
the
post-development
runoff
\ .'
,c~aracteristics, including both water quantity and quality, as
35
nearly as practicable, will not worsen from pre-development runoff
characteristics. stormwater management plans developed during the
design phase
should alleviate concerns regarding further
sedimentation of the reservoir resulting from the project.
the water quality of the reservoir.
To further alleviate this
\
,\
The related concern regarding hazardous material spills
reaching the reservoir could also be addressed in the stormwater
management plan development since stormwater management facilities
can be used to reduce the chances of hazardous substances affecting
concern, consideration could be given to prohibiting hazardous
material carriers from using the Alternative 10 route.
These
-
carriers could be restricted to using the existing Route 29.
-
"
\,..... '
36
.' .J
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
John G, illiken
Secretary 0 T ranSpQrlatlon
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
i il..;;";'"7
. ' .- - ,
" -1~T~2
TOO (804).7e&:~
August 16, 1991
. ,
, "
! :'
he Honorable F. R. Bowie, Chairman
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Chairman Bowie:
I have received and read with some care your letter of
ugust 1. I believe it to be a very positive step forward,
ollowing up on the productive meeting that we had at the end of
uly.
I have asked the staff of the Department of Transportation and
he Office of the Attorney General to work with me in an effort to
espond affirmatively to the request that you made in the last
aragraph of your letter. We share the County's commitment to the
CATS Plan and to the se-ence of ro'ects outlined 1n the
Transpor a 10 oard's resolution and summar1ze 1n nc osure II
or your letter.
In the inter im, we are mindful of the importance of the
process now underway to determine a proposed line for a future
Bypass sufficient to address hardship right-of-way issues. In that'
effort and in the formal design process that will follow, we will
be especially sensitive to the protection of the Ivy Creek
Agricultural and Forestal District as well as the often unique
historic resources tha~ are to be found in your county.
> '
We look forward to continuing to work together on these
important matters. I will respond to your August 1 letter in more
detail after I have received comments from the Department and its
lawyers.
with all best wishes.
JGM/cmg
cc: Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Richard L. Walton, Jr., Esquire
-. .-' ~.
--h
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Joh G. Milliken
Seer ry of Transoortatlon
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
(804) 786-8032
TOO (804) 786-7765
November 4, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401'KcIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowie:
This letter is intended to reply in more detail to your
letter of August 1. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
is committed to the sequence of construction as set forth ~n ~e
CTB's November 15, 1990, resolution.
The CATS Plan is an approved Plan for the Charlottesville -
Albemarle county area and it is the intent of the Department and
the CTB to carry out that Plan as funding on the primary system
becomes available. To keep the Plan on schedule, however" it
will be necessary for the City of Charlottesville to keep its
projects at a high priority and for Albemarle County to schedule
the secondary projects in the CATS Plan. '
It was never the intent of the CTB or the Department that
the CATS Plan not be carried out as currently proposed, provided
funding was available. However, the Department and the CTB
believe that a Route 29 Bypass is an integral and important part
of the regional transportation plan and will be needed in the
future, even with the implementation of the CATS Plan.
With those general comments in mind, I would like to-review
the status of the three phases included in the CTB's November 15,
1990, resolution which were also addressed in your letter of
August 1.
Phase Y. Short-ranae Recommendations: The widening of Existing
Route 29 to six lanes with continuous right-turn lanes from the
Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the, Rivanna River will be
accomplished by two projects as sh~wn on Page 38 (Items 3 and 4)
of the 1991-92 Six-Year Improvement Program. The first project
from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is scheduled for
, construction in July 1993 and the second project, from Rio Road
to the river" is scheduled for advertisement in July 1994, all
subject to available funding. The design work is currently
underway.
, -"
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
November 4, 1991
Page Two
~
As additional funding becomes available and scheduling
permits, a design will be prepared for three interchanges to be
added to the Base Case. The design of these interchanges is, ot
course, subject to public hearings and CTB approval. The
preservation and acquisition ot right-at-way tor each element ot
the Plan was part at Phase I. It this Plan is to succeed the
County and the City must do everything possible to preserve the
right-of-way required for the construction at the Base Case, the
three interchanges and the Line 10 Corridor approved by the CTB.
The refinement of Alternative 10 is currently underway, and
a preliminary plan (functional plan) will be provided to
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to assist in the
preservation of right-of-way along that corridor.
..
Atter the design has been approved and right-of-way plans
are prepared, and subject to available funding, VDOT will
consider acquiring property which meets the Department's
requirements for advanced right-of-way acquisition along
Alternative 10~
~
In order to work with the County in the protection of the
watershed, access points on Alternative 10 will be limited to ~
those approved by the. CTB when the corridor was designated, ,< . ' ,
unless additional access is requested by the local government.
1
Phase II. Medium-ranae Recommendations: Three grade-separated
interchanges along Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and HydraUlic Road
will be built when traffic conditions dictate and funding is
available. The construction ot each interchange is subject:- to-
approval of the design after public hearings are held during
Phase I so that right-of-way tor the interchanges can be
preserved.
Phase III. Lona-ranae Recommendations:. It is the intent of the
CTB and the Department to construct Alternative 10 when traffic
on Route 29 becomes unacceptable and funding permits.
You asked us to consider how this commitment to the CATS
Plan and the phasinq of projects might be sOlidified. The
following sequence of activity spells out th~t commitment and I
would be pleased to seek CTB ratification of this specific
sequencing if the Board of Supervisors requests I do so. Of
course, the commitment ot the Board and the City Council to each
do its part is necessary as well.
1. The widening of Route 29 to six lanes, with
continuous right lanes from the Route 250
Bypass to the south fork of the Rivanna
River. This is currently being designed.
" J ~
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
November 4, 1991
Page Three
2. The remainder of Phase I contained in the
CTB's resolution of November 15, 1990.
3. The completion of the Meadowcreek Parkway
from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 north
as urban and secondary road funding becomes
available for the facility's right-of-way
acquisition and construction cost.
4. The construction of the interchanges on Route
29 north at Rio Road, Hydraulic.Road and
Greenbrier Drive as traffic dema~ds and
funding permits.
5. The preservation and acquisition of right-
of-way for Alternative 10. This will be-
accomplished as funding is available for this
established corridor's right-ot-way
acquisition and construction.
....-..
In closing, I trust that this letter assures the County of
the Department's and tbe Commonwealth Transportation Board's
commitment to the construction of the CATS Plan and that the
County will assist the Department in preserving right-at-way for
the approved corridor for the Route 29 Bypass.
It the contents of this letter meet with your approval and
if the County wishes to move torwa~d with the preservation ot
necessary right-at-way, I would be pleased to bring the attached
draft resolution before the CTB to its conc~rence.
JGM/cmg
Attachment
cc: Ms. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Richard L. Walton, Jr., Esquire
~..
_"ll ....
ITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the City Manager
P. O. Box 911 · ChJrlotresville, Virginia · 22902
Telephone 804-971-3101
February 7, 1992
Mr. Robert Tucker
County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
C>
Dear Bob:
You recently wrote me to inquire about the City's position
on the Meadowcreek Parkway. I am attaching ,the resolution which
City Council passed on August 6, 1990. This resolution was sent
to Ray Pethtel on August 10, 1990 and to Secretary Milliken on
January 11, 1991. It was sent again on February 5, 1991 to
Secretary Milliken and every member of the Transportation Board.
City Council's priorities for VDOT funding of projects has
been the same for several years. I have not recently received
any information regarding the proposed VDOT funding cycle for the
Meadowcreek Parkway. If there have been changes, I am not aware
of them.
If you need additional information, please give me a call.
Yours very truly,
CJ
-- -.
ep
Cole Hendrix
City Manager
Enclosure
cc: City Council
Judith Mueller
COUNTI OF AlBEMARLE
......!'I-
... .J
"-
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, traffic congestion in the Route 29 North
corridor is an increasing problem and immediate improvements
are needed to alleviate local traffic problems and to help
move north-south through traffic; and
WHEREAS, we are in agreement with Albemarle County and
the University of Virginia that all base case improvements
including Meadowcreek Parkway to the 250 Bypass; construction
of three grade separated interchanges at Hydraulic,
Greenbrier and Rio Roads; construction of additional access
to the North Grounds of the University; and traffic reduction
strategy including expanded transit service, park and ride
requirements, bicycle lanes and some reduction of student
cars should be undertaken to address the Route 29 North
traffic problem; and p
WHEREAS, after reviewing the DEIS, however, the City of
Charlottesville does not believe these improvements alone
handle all north-south traffic by the year 2010. We believe
the limitations of this solution pointed out in the DEIS will
be compounded by the recent addition of three traffic lights
to the three mile stretch of road under study, and by the
likelihood that population and traffic growth will exceed the
projections contained in the study; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS has identified available corridors to
serve as a part of a Route 29 North network. We think it is
critical that a corridor be designated and acquired as soon
as possible. If we delay these corridors will no longer be
available and much of the State's investment in this study
will be lost;
THEREFORE, for these reasons., the City of Charlottesville
requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation
recommend and the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopt the
following phased solution to traffic needs in the Route 29
North corridor:
1. Improvements to Route 29 North. The widening of
Route 29 North to six lanes with two continuous turn lanes is
necessary and should begin as soon as possible.
2. Reservation of a Limited-Access Western Corridor.
Using the data contained in the DEIS the State should
designate and acquire a limited-access corridor west of Route
29 North that will have the least potential impact on the
environment.
. .
-2-
3. Improvements to Rio Road, Hydraulic Road, Georgetown
Road and the Barracks Road/250 Bypass Intersection. These ..
roads should be widened to four lanes and the intersection
should b~ 'ograded to help reduce local traffic on Route 29
North. -
4. Grade Separated Interchanges at Hydraulic,
Greenbrier and Rio Roads. Diamond-shaped grade separated
interchanges should be constructed at these three
intersections.
5. Additional Access to the North Grounds of the
University of Virginia. An additional exit should be
constructed off the 250 Bypass to provide access to the North
Grounds of the University of Virginia.
6. Meadowcreek Parkway. Meadowcreek Parkway should be
constructed as far as the 250 Bypass along with other
remaining base case improvements as part of a comprehensive
north-south road network. This would be a limited acc~ss
parkway engineered for 45 m.p.h. and for passenger vehicles
only. The road shall be signed to discourage through traffic
from traveling through the center of Charlottesville.
Neither McIntire Road nor Ridge Street shall be widened
because of the negative impacts on the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. Limited-Access Western Corridor. A limited-access
western corridor should be constructed as the final step in
the Route 29 North corridor improvements.
Approved by Council
August 6, 1990
~~off6AfY~il
...: .. ..
Charlo ttesviIl e-Albemarl e
Metropolitan
planning
Organization
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:'
Technical Committee
Nancy K. O'Brien
9/29/92
CATS Preparation; Item for your information
Mr. Bradley plans to bring to the meeting some information
based on their thoroughfare study. Below is a summary of the
upcorning.~aj?r construction requested at the last meeting.
- ' 6:~
Route 29
o Phase I (Hydraulic to Rio): construction 1993-95.
o Phase II (Rio to Airport): construction 1994-96.
o Phase III (Airport to SF Rivanna): construction 1995-97.
,0 Side road widenings/improvements on Rio, Hyd~aulic,
Greebrier, and Airport Roads are scheduled through 1990's.
o Interchanges at Greenbrier, Hydraulic, Rio: Purchase of
right of way for hardship cases; EIS; design/location study;
and location public hearing to be conducted through late
1990's. Construction will probably begin around 2000-03.
o Alt. 10 Bypass: Construction would begin around 2020,
following completion of Route 29 projects and Meadowcreek
Parkway. '
, Meadowcreek Parkway "
o County is currently considering recommended alternatives for
County portion of parkway.-:. Alternatives include: .1) Rio to
.Route 29 extension; 2) parallel road extension to Airport
Road-;and/or 3) connector road' through Hollymead/Forest
Lakes. :. . - .,
o Construction of city portiC?n _begins 1997.
Planninq For Public Involvement ":-' ,
The Committee needs to discuss a plan for public involvement in
the CATS. Should'the MPO appoint a citizen's committee? What
would be their main function and role, and how would they be
appointed? When should they 'be formed?
Maps For Your Information
Enclosed for your information are some maps prepared by
Kellerco for the Southern City/Entrance Corridor Study. Staff
found them not only of interest for the study, but also good
general 'reference'maps concerning road and land.development
plans.
413 East Market Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 972-1720 (voice) 972-1719 (fax)
.; .... '.
..~:'i.~4~':~
t{';'-"-.J,.~""~/~-~
I v 1"'\ ''"'\
:/J \j. ~;':I', '4
(Ii'.. i~~V' ),~
~, (1\. ,\
(-- -,~ ;
\j'~:"!I";~~~'
'v,:>:,,~!f;.~.>r'.,.!.
~y
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
W D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
p, O. BOX 671
CULPEPER. 22701
THOMAS F. FARLEY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
December 17, 1990
Route 29 Corridor Study
Project: 6029-002-122, PE-100
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
FR: Rt. 29/250 Bypass
City of Charlottesville
TO: 0.31 Mi. N. of N. Fork,Rivanna
River (Albemarle County
Hr.
ttesville, Virginia 22901
Dear
would like tQ take this opportunity to advise you that on November 15 the
Commo wealth Transportation Board of Virginia approved ,the location of the above
proje t in the following phases:
Construct the Route 29 Base Case improvements from Hydraulic Road
South Fork Rivanna River. This will provide six lanes plus continuous
turn lanes and signalized at-grade intersections. In addition, reserve
ary right of way for future construction of interchanges at Rio Road,
Green rier Drive, and Hydraulic Road. The approval of Alternative 10 and the
refin ng of preliminary plans to aid Albemarle County in the preservation of the
corri or. -
'"
hase II: Construct interchanges as traffic increases and economic ~
ions allow. Continue the preservation of right of way for Alternative 10
ercise advanced acquisition of right of way as needed and economics
hase III: Construct Alternative 10 when traffic conditions along the
29 corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions permit.
trust that the above information is helpful.
Thomas F. Farley
TFF: d
TRANSPORTATION FOR T~~ 21 ST CENTURY
,
~
.. r~ .
,.:;..,....,...., .
.~:;..~:.J~.-N,-'l :"'\.,
t;lV~' \,' 4 .,...~\
~, . t:>ri:' r.l
p' I"
1<: -l \~\ :~
l,l..... ,.~, ;}
,!,~ ";:r t"';>., ,...., ^:
1~:r:.J,.r}~.~;y';. ,..,
~r......,'T"f"'1'--h
-<:~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RA D. PETHTEL
CpMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P 0, BOX 671
CULPEPER,22701..
THOMAS F, FARLEY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRA TOR
January 17, 1992
Dr. Morton C. Wilhelm, President
Montvue Citizens Association
212 Montvue Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Dr. Wilhelm:
--1E-
In response to your December 30, 1991 letter, I would like to
provide the following information on the Route 29 Bypass project in
Albemarle County. At the present time, the Department of
Transportation has scheduled Phase I activity dates. Advertisement
for bids for the section from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road is scheduled
for July 1993. The section from Rio Road to the river will be
advertised July 1994. We have scheduled tentative target dates for
phase II, with plan design starting in 1994 (Hydraulic Road
interchange), 1996 (Greenbrier interchange), and 1998 (Rio Road
interchange). Construction would begin approximately four years after
[the design work has started. There has been no scheduling for PhaSe]
III at this time. This project is not shown in the Charlottesville
Albemarle Transportation study (CATS) and would not be started until
all other projects in the study are completed.
A design hearing to locate the exact road alignment and right-of-
ways will be held but will be scheduled once Alternative 10 is brought
on line as an active project. At this point, we do not have a
specific date secheduled.
I hope this has addressed your
questi/ons. /
,
.h A J 1 ,," ~
"'! (JVV\ ~{.,
\ThOmaS F. Farley
TFF:lcs
AcC
;J~St
.zzz
.
"s
r/("
gy r'dtS j .
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
'~l F
('1''' .
_c.
/}--, !" 'I i'l ,I
:-L~:~\"~- \..L,~.'...,'
'\ \
\ ;
..
DRAFT
roo <>",/~FT
February 12, 1993
. Constance R. Kincheloe
issioner, Culpeper District
onwealth Transportation Board
te 3, Box 31A
peper, VA 22701
r Connie:
I
opportunity of seeing you at the Route 29 North Business Council
and sincerely appreciate your taking the time to make that appearance.
I think that it was very helpful to have you discuss the State I s plans and
answer questions and concerns regarding the proposed Route 29 road projects.
ere was, however. one matter which you discussed that troubled me.
In the
estion and answer session, you seemed to be saying that the only reason the
ade-separated interchanges were included in the list of road projects was that
ere was an agreement between the City, the County and the University which
OT confirmed.
you are aware, the $3.6 million Sverdrup study found that the building of the
terchanges would improve the level of service (LOS) on Route 29 to a LOS "B",
ile the building of a bypass without the interchanges would leave the LOS at
"F". The VDoT staff recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board
( TB) set forth the order of priori ties, which included the building of the
Mr~. Constance R. Kincheloe
Fepruary 12, 1993
Page 2
in~erchanges in Phase II. The bypass was recommended by VDoT as a Phase III
prpject, to be constructed "at such time as traffic conditions along the Route
29 corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions permit. II
In other
wo~ds, the bypass would be built following the completion of Phases I and II, on
an as-needed basis, if funds were available. Numerous other documents issued by
VDpT have also confirmed that order of priorities.
Af er the release of the Sverdrup study, after VDoT I s recommendation for the
ph~sing of projects, and after the approval of those projects by the CTB, the
Ci y, the County and the University signed an agreement concerning the Route 29
co ridor proj ects, including the Meadow Creek Parkway.
The agreement between
th~ City, the County and the University parallels exactly the project phasing
re~ommended by VDoT, approved by the CTB and supported by Sverdrup's study.
Ba~ed upon your comments at the meeting and the comments made by Mr. Hodge which
appeared in the local newspaper last week, you seem to be suggesting that the
in erchanges may be dropped if a number of people show up at a proposed future
puplic hearing and complain.
The interchanges were approved in t.he same CTB
re~olutions which approved the conditional construction of a bypass and should
no be relegated to some lesser status, especially when the traffic studies
inaicate the interchanges are the key ingredient to successful traffic flow on
Ro~te 29 in the urban area. In fact, public hearing comments were obtained on
& of the Route 29 corridor projects in 1990 before the CTB resolutions were
adppted. As the attached table from the VDoT staff report to CTB dated October 4,
19l10 indicates, 205 citizens favored building the interchanges and 16 were
opposed; 51 citizens favored building a bypass and 3212 were opposed. Should we
Mr~. Constance R. Kincheloe
February 12, 1993
Page 3
no~ tell bypass opponents that, even if all of the preconditions for bypass
construction contained in the CTB resolutions and our agreement are met, the
bypass won't be built if they complain loud enough?
Yo~ also mentioned at the meeting that the construction of sidewalks along Route
29 would not be possible if the interchanges were built.
In speaking with my
st!:1ff and with members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, it has been
reported to me that VDoT has consistently taken the position that sidewalks are
no compatible with Route 29 in the County area without grade-separated inter-
ch~nges. In the absence of the interchanges, pedestrian crosswalks and pedes-
tr an signal delays would cause the LOS to decline significantly.
With the
in erchanges, there would be no need for crosswalks or signal delays on the main
roM.
There are overpasses and bridges with sidewalks allover the country,
in~luding Albemarle County.
We have spent many years dealing with the problems of traffic in the Route 29
co r-ridor and attempting to arrive at an acceptable solution.
The County has
be~n very opposed to a western bypass due to its potential impact upon the
pu I:>lic water supply, schools, businesses and its neighborhoods.
The City and
th~ University had their own concerns, as did the Department of Transportation.
Af er many years, we finally reached a solution which was acceptable to all
pa ties, as evidenced by many documents, some of which are attached. Not coin-
ci entally, our agreement is supported by the State's $3.6 million study.
Alpemarle County intends to adhere to its agreement.
Sh uld you have any questions concerning this letter, I would be happy to dis-
cu s them with you. And thank you for considering this important matter.
.
Mr . Constance R. Kincheloe
Fepruary 12, 1993
Pa e 4
DP ~ : ec
At achments (in Clerk's office)
cc Charlottesville-Albemarle
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Sincerely,
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
f):strib::"C:1 :i
{'''-'' //} rP)
'C' ~A'IA",,:.,')
/)~-, -;';-/', ]'"("; ~ ~.., \
:}~\!~-~"'.,!: L. ~ . ,_~.: .i. X-.1
: ;'.:.. ,~J f . ~ ;,' .
State Compensation Board
Jail L-Id'1 ' 1'1l3
Month of
ST A TEMENT OF EXPENSES
lerk, Circuit Court
- 0 -
7~7 I
7c27,17
N te: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
w ich the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
a e not the total office expenses of these departments.
Edward H Sa n, ,Jr
Snmu\.'i Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Font'')! R Marsh~ll. Jr
Da\.lld P Bow rman
C harlollesvd c
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virgmia 22901.4596
(804) 296~5843 FAX (804) 9724060
Chd.rll!s S M?l.rtIrL
HI\,'Hl'lc'l
Charlotte Y umphris
Jdck Jouett
W"lter F Perkins
\1.,Jhile H,111
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II
Engineering Department
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC CZJ~
February 18, 1993
Meadowfield Subdivision
At its meeting on February l7, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
opted the attached resolution requesting acceptance of Meadowfield
ne and Meadowfield Way in Meadowfield Subdvision into the State
condary System of Highways. Attached 3rc the original ~~d three
c pies of the adopted resolution.
tachrnents (4)
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Cpunty, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
r~quested to accept for maintenance, subject to final inspection
and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
rpads in Meadowfield Subdivision:
Meadowfield Lane:
Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline
of State Route 649 thence proceeding in a southerly direction
1130.26 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station
21+30.26.
Meadowfield Way:
Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline
of Meadowfield lane thence proceeding in a n easterly
direction 243.21 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station
7+56.79; and beginning at station 10+00 a point common with
the centerline of Meadowfield Lane thence proceed in a
westerly direction 777.28 to the center of a cul-de-sac
located at station 17+77.28.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
T~ansportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
r~ght-of-way, enlarging to a 55 foot radius at the cul-de-sacs and
d~ainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by
p~ats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
Cpunty in Deed Book 1045, pages 236, 237; and Deed Book 981, pages
7~2 to 714.
I Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is
a true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Bpard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
m~eting held on February 17, 1993.
0U (JJ C~
Clerk, Board of cou~ Supervisors
"
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code section 33.1-229,
t e Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
r quested to accept for maintenance, subject to final inspection
a d approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
r ads in Meadowfield Subdivision:
Meadowfield Lane:
Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline
of State Route 649 thence proceeding in a southerly direction
1130.26 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station
21+30.26.
Meadowfield Way:
Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline
of Meadowfield lane thence proceeding in a n easterly
direction 243.21 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station
7+56.79; and beginning at station 10+00 a point common with
the centerline of Meadowfield Lane thence proceed in a
westerly direction 777.28 to the center of a cul-de-sac
located at station 17+77.28.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
T ansportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
r'ght-of-way, enlarging to a 55 foot radius at the cul-de-sacs and
d ainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by
pats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
C unty in Deed Book 1045, pages 236, 237; and Deed Book 981, pages
7 2 to 714.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella W. Carey, Board of Supervisors Clerk
Peter Parsons, civil Engineer II 9~~
February 12, 1993
Meadowfield Subdivision Roads (12.397)
elow is a description of roads in the above referenced
ubdivision which are to be accepted by the Virginia Department
f Transportation for maintenance.
Meadowfield Lane - Beginning at station 10+00 a point common
with the centerline of State Route 649 thence proceeding in a
southerly direction 1130.26 feet to the center of a cul-de-
sac at station 21+30.26.
Meadowfield Way - Beginning at station 10+00 a point common
with the centerline of Meadowfield Lane thence proceeding in
an easterly direction 243.21 feet to the center of a cul-de-
sac at station 7+56.79; and beginning at station 10+00 a
point common with the centerline of Meadowfield Lane thence
proceeding in a westerly direction 777.28 to the center of a
cul-de-sac located at station 17+77.28.
he above roads have been sUbstantially completed and their
lats are recorded in deed book 1045, pages 236, 237, and deed
ook 981 pages 712 to 714. Road right-of-way widths are 50
eet, enlarging to a 55 foot radius at the cul-de-sacs.
opy: Reading file
BR.L.
eyer
Construction, Inc.
2001 N, ffiNTOPS DRIVE, ASHCROFT
ptember 23, 1991 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
. L. BEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.
. :i(.,~~::S~t
. Lettie Neher, Clerk
bemar1e County Board of Supervisors
01 McIntire Road
ar10ttesvil1e, Virginia 22901
ar Ms. Neher:
would like to request that the Board of SUpervisors adopt a resolution
sking the virginia Department of Transportation accept Meadowfie1d Lane
d Meadowfie1d Way into the public road system.
us at 977-0778 if you have any further questions.
Edward H, Bal , Jr
SamuE'l Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 fAX (804) 979.1281
September 24, 1991
(hadnlt\! Y Humphns
Jde\;. ,Jouell
David P. Bowe man
Charlottesville
Walter F _ Perkins
White Hall
F. R, (Rick) Bo ie
Rivanna
Peter T Way
Sc()llSVlll"
Mr. Richard L. Beyer
Pr sident
R. L. Beyer Construction, Inc.
20 1 N. Pantops Drive, Ashcroft
Ch rlottesville, Virginia 22901
r Mr. Beyer:
Your request to have Meadowfield Lane and Meadowfield Way
en into the State Secondary System of Highways was received
tember 24, 1991 and has now been referred to the County
ineer. When she has certified that all work has been completed
accordance with approved plans, this request will be placed
ore the Board of Supervisors for adoption of the necessary
olution.
Very truly yours,
dphi. ~
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
Board of Supervisors
LE :bh
cc: Mr. Hoyt B. Alford
D:s:r;G"'.'J t"i r-h^rd' {/21'7 93
I".,;. '.'..., .'~ ,,-,.iu'd'~3---' ~::--:..-; - .-:\
"1f,;','~ "::'lil ;,),_L.;_..:._C1J!.ZJ..5,\.~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D, PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
EARL C, COCHRAN. JR,
STATE lOCATION ANb DESIGN ENGINEER
January 28, 1993
Route 691
Proj. 0691-002-234, C-501
Albemarle County
Intersection Improvements at
the Intersection of Route 240
and High street (Route 1204)
Chairman, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
I would like to take this opportunity to advise that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia at its meeting
today approved the location and major design features of the
above project as proposed and presented at the June 16, 1992,
pUblic hearing with modifications that improvements to the
intersection at Route 1204 will be limited to the turning radius
and utilities at the intersections will be placed underground to
minimize the impacts.
Sincerely, ~
~ \
...-. r' ~ - \) '~
<:::-. ___ , ~----'17,,_/~~,.. "
E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E. ~
State Location and Design Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
/'V2 ' r7 ' C}.~
,.Ii;!ltc'~ "; ii l<;,\;, _~:.I,~..:,I.:;:-...,,,4" .,
-, /.-,. n / ~ .r I
, ". " LI~ l;,k--I'l L..J.C,-)
~~:~Ca H~f(1 ; 01:.1. ...!..~i;_ ~.C ,:"J ~ ,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D, PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
January 25, 1993
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Bo rd of Supervisors
Co nty of Albemarle
40l McIntire Road
C rlottesville, VA 2290l
As requested in your resolution dated December 9, 1992, the following
a ditions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
e fective January 2l, 1993.
ERS OF THE BOARD:
LENGTH
SECTION 4
(Fielding Drive) - From Route ll30 to 0.l3 mile East
o . 13 Mi
ll28 (Chandler Court) - From Route ll29 to 0.07 mile North
ll29 0.07 Mi
ll27 (Towler Place) - From Route ll29 to 0.04 mile North
ll29 0.04 Mi
t2 ~
Ut)flV.O-) A\.'
,(,, J
;J.A, 'v
'I .
/X-V~J
p~V~~,\
()
Sincerely,
~~n.i?MJ
Ray D. Pethtel
Conunissioner
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
IA\
AunT K
D' , 'J.,' "/-; ?'),~
}':-lr~t,_!""'r: t"1 r",'"q."'. '-, ....--- . ;' ,-. ~ '-'/-)
::' "..---..,.--.1........'
l.....,:... : J C(j. DZ (7,/5, )
-----~....-....-.....
JAUNT, NC.
104 Ke stone Place
Charla esville, VA 22902
ob Tucker
lbemarle County Executive
Ibemarle County Office Building
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22901-4596
February 8th, 1993
Bob:
As part of our effort to keep local governments abreast of
he services provided in each locality, the JAUNT Board has
irected that a quarterly report of services and expenditures be
ent to each local government that supports JAUNT. Attached you
ill find a report covering the first quarter of JAUNT's fiscal
ear. Please direct copies to the Board of Supervisors if you
eel it is appropriate.
We would welcome comments and questions on these reports.
Yours truly,
/"\
( ,
./
i[h
/ '.,. 0:.i'11/~'1/'v,-
Oonna Shaunesey
Assistant Director
G-' '-,;
FER 9 19q::l
t
L>. .' , '.w.
Phone: ( 04) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT . Operations: (804) 296-6174 (Voice & TDD) . Fax: (804) 296-4269
-
ALBtMARLE COUNTY
Serv ce Provided 10-1-92 to 12-31-92
1st a 2nd a 3rd a 4th a YTD Total
PUBL IC TRIPS
Ur )an area trips for disabled 4,399 4,399
Ru al area (primarily elderly 3,001 3,001
and disabled)
Sc bttsville route 608 608
1 otal Public Trips 8,008 0 0 0 8,008
AGE~ CY TRIPS 6,210 6,210
TOTA L PUBLIC & AGENCY TRIPS 14,218 0 0 0 14,218
Perce Ilt of budgeted funds expended
Fo administrative and ridesharing services: 30%
Fo operating costs of public transportation services: 20%
Local unds are expected to be sufficient for the year at this time.
21-Jan-93
iY
I., p".,.", ~;"l.2:qj
,.1 ,).)u, i., _~;J"^
,,' "!.;, CJ:.?;..I)!dL1{:2JD)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE i,~
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
commission on Population Growth and Development
T e staff has recently received the fourth working draft of the
G owth strategies developed by the Commission on Population Growth
a d Development. We will hopefully receive a copy of their annual
r port in early March and, together with the growth strategies,
w'll review these documents and prepare an analysis for your
r view. The Commission staff welcomes our comments and their plans
a e to hold some type of public forums concerning the Commission's
w rk in early summer of this year. They have also indicated that,
i we chose to, they would be happy have a memb~r of the Commission
m et with you and/or the Planning Commission in April or May to
a swer any questions you may have.
o ce we have completed our analysis, we will review our findings
w'th you and determine our next course of action. Should you have
a y questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
c ntact me.
T,Jr/dbm
.020
c Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
.
[);^~,:...",-,.l '" p-ecrl' (i2-. /-; .(~~:2
'~~)t,;l"J,!.,:~J '.,'i ,.~. ,Ii, __._~....LJ
r,j_,::,'; :. " : :1, ,q,j. O/1/'7/~'). /1)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5823
ORANDUM
i
I
j
e University Real Estate Foundation is pursuing development of the Airport
dustrial Park (now titled North Fork Business Park). During their
eparation of road plans it became evident that agreement 8 (attached) of
-78-15, which rezoned the site to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial
rk, could not be fully complied with due to the entrance road's required
e trance point on Rt. 649. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that
d'sturbance of the buffer on the east side of the property be permitted (see
a tached letters). The preliminary road plans indicate the minimum depth of
e buffer as 20 feet at the entrance road intersection and that the full
ffer can be achieved 295' back into the site.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
(Consent Agenda - Information)
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community J~L~Or
Development
February l2, 1993
ZMA-78-l5 - Airport Industrial Park
aff opinion is that disturbance of this buffer is necessary to establish
a cess on Route 649 because of sight distance requirement. Staff notes that
e plan submitted with ZMA-78-l5 indicated disturbance of the buffer on the
st side of the property (this disturbance will not occur with the
alignment). Agreement 8 of ZMA-78-l5 allows for the requirement of
a ditional plantings by staff.
sed on the entrance location requirements, staff's ability to require
ndscaping and the expected disturbance of the buffer on the west side of the
operty in the approval for ZMA-78-l5, I am able to authorize the
plicant's request as consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 8.5.6.3
riations from Approved Application Plans.
McKEE/CARSON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC1S
PLANNERS
25 January 1993
Mr. Bill Fritz
County of Albemarle
Planning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
PROJECT:
NORTH FORK BUSINESS PARK
(Formerly Airport Industrial Park: ZMA-78-15)
RE:
AIRPORT ROAD (S.R. 649) ENTRANCE LOCATION
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Pursuant to our meeting Friday, we are submitting a request for the location of the above referenced
entrance within the 50' buffer area indicated on the PDIP re-zone comprehensive plan (and specified
in the November 17, 1978 approval conditions, condition no. 8, - attached).
As we discussed in the meeting, the reason for this request is to provide adequate entering sight
distance at the Airport Road connection. Field analysis of the existing conditions (under the
direction of Jim Kesterson) indicate that only one location along the property frontage provides
adequate sight distance without substantial road re-construction.
Therefore, we feel that the following reasons are justification for a decision to approve the entrance
relocation:
a) The Airport Road Corridor is currently included in the state "6-year plan". In all likelihood, any
major improvements to the road alignment for sight distance purposes would not be compatible with
future road alignments generated by a full and inclusive corridor study. Extensive costs associated
with the improvements would therefore be unjustified.
b) The proposed development provides extensive areas of open space and undisturbed buffers
throughout. The proposed encroachment required for this revision is extremely limited and proposed
for a length of less than 400'. Although 50' is not available, we feel that adequate screening is still
obtainable under the proposed location. Final alignments have not been determined, but preliminary
drawings indicate a minimum screening buffer of approximately 15' beyond the proposed RO.W.
Detailed planting plans will be provided with our drawings, and mature screening in this area will
be specifically addressed.
QUEEN CHARLOTTE SQUARE
256 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
804-979-7522
FAX: 804-977-1194
..
Mr. Bill Fritz
25 January 1993
Page 2
We appreciated the opportunity to sit and discuss this specific design concern with you, and for your
suggestion to pursue this alternative. I think that you fully understand the issues which prompt this
request. As I said in the meeting, we anticipate submitting 50% drawings to Albemarle County
Engineering staff and to VDOT early next week. In order to include this entrance for preliminary
review, please continue with your review of this material at your earliest possible convenience.
Sincerely (c.,
IC--J \,~~ ~
<c:.-_. ~~ ~'.-
-------'
Samuel Hemenway, P.E.
SSH:hms
9214
\ \
\, \
~.,-~~
"")
I
//
enclosure
xc: D. Westby
R. Hofrichter
*' .'"'1. .
f--.==:a.
~-r"'{
00
C;
OF
Planning Department
804/296.5823
414 EAST MARKET STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
IlIOBERT ,TUCKER, JR.
DllllECTOIl 0,. "LAHHIHQ
November 17, 1978
RONAL.O S, KEEL.ER
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
OONAL.O A, GASTON
SII:NIOR PLANNER
Wend
Nor
Post
Char
N. MABON CAPERTON
"LAHHlEll
11 W. Wood
Rivanna 1st, 2nd and
Office Box 5548
ottesville, Virginia
3rd Land Trust
22903
Re: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION
ZMA-78-15
Dear Mr. Wood:
The
appr
County Board of Supervisors at its meeting November 15, 1978,
request for ZMA-78-15 with the following conditions:
1-
2.
elete Parcel M;
pproval is for 216.6 acres and a maximum of 21 individual uses ( exclusive of
ccessory uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities);
proval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, I,'J, K, and L with appurtenant open
ace;
arcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Category I; Parcles 1 and J are
o be Category II;
proval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the proposed
axiway on Parcels A, I, and J;
etbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Planning Commission
t the time of final plan approvals consistent with the intensity of speci~ic uses;
o final plan approval shall be given until a master street-tree plan has been
proved by the Planning Commission;
uffer areas on the perimeter of the property shall have a depth of not less than
o feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the Synthesis of
vironmental Factors ma. Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do
t provide adequate buffering, adcitional plantings shall be required by the staff.
uch plantings shall consist of 6'-8' white pines 15' on-center; provided the
plicant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is equivalent
better;
Parcel F, no more than 25% of the land area in slopes of 15% or greater shall be
aded ( This area is identified as "sensitive slope areas" on the Synthesis of
vironmental Factorsma ); public roads are not included in this condition;
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
,. ......J,..
.
Mr.
W. Wood
Page 2
November 17, 1978
10. 11 uses are to be served by public water and public sewer;
11. ire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall be more than
DO' from a major structure. No waterline serving a fire hydrant shall be of
ess than 8" diameter. A minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi shall be
rovided. Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional requirements by state
r local fire officials;
12. Ibemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water
d sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority;
13. ounty Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for
arking areas;
14. rading permit approval;
15. irginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances to existing
oads to include improved sight distance, full channelization far right turn
eceleration lanes, and left turn storage lanes where necessary;
16. irginia Department of Highways approval of road plans for internal roads; internal
oads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength;
17. ull frontage dedication along Route 606 to provide a 60' right-of-way and
provement of the existing road to 24' of pavement width with adequate shoulders;
18. uilding coverage shall be limited to only those areas outside of the sensitive
reas as outlined in the Airport Industrial Park Plan, except for Parcel F;
19. ses permitted shall be governed as to type, height, and performance standards by
e Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan or Article 20 of the Albemarle County
oning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.
Sincerely,
g/
c: File
~OOtc4-~
U~=_~lOeCkner
Planning Department
..
~".
,\ 9::", [:./ ;' ](S~ /c~ )'
/)",,1 cJ-/:7- /-7:3
111 South Calvert Street
Suite 1540
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410)659-7500
;;,~c
F bruary 9, 1993
. Bob Richardson
vran Bank, N.A.
st Office Box 26904
chmond, Virginia 2326l
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
ar Mr. Richardson:
closed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
rsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the months
November, December 1992 and January 1993.
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
4l0-659-7500.
ncerely,
tfuttt '11l1J{ &1fJ1J-N~"<.-
eila H. Moynihan
oject Monitor
hm
'QN~~'f:'~
Cle~k. o.f'the~Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
40l McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 2290l
Effective November 30, 1992
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO Ii
ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE~ Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apartments
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pu suant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restr ictions (the "Deed
Re~trictions.), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Ap~il 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Alpemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
tr~stee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Riphmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser.), hereby certifies with respect to
th~ operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Ch~rlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shpwn below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 51.
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersi~ned has signed this Report as of
December 7, 1992 ~iii..
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~ ~~
Authorized Re resentative
- .. . '-
.' .. SONO PROGRAM ftR;PORT
. .
Month November V.., ~
Property: ~rbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project I: 051-35371
location: Charlottesville. VA Numbe, of Unit. 66
Submitted ~y: Loretta Wyatt December 7, 1992 Effective 11/30/92
M'l'\Age' O.te
Total Occupied 66
LOWf' Bond Occupied 15
I. INCOME
The IOllOw ng units h.~ ~n d~slgnal.d as "lowe' Incom." units
1 1 rbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41 61.
2 4 rbor Crest Dr. 22 Beverly T. Lane 42 62,
3 5 rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 4) 63,
4 9 rbor Crest Dr. 24 Virginia Burton 44 &4,
5 12 \rbor Crest Dr. 25 G. Robert Stone 4~ 6~.
6 14 \rbor Crest Dr. 26 Evelyn Dover 46 ee.
7 . 15 \rbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 41 el.
a 20 /\rbor Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48 63
9 24 ~rbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69,
10 78 ~rbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
11 84 I\rbor Crest Dr. 31 Juanita Boliek ~1 71.
12, 90 I\rbor Crest Dr. 31 Florence Wheeler 52 72
13 94 Arbor Crest Dr. 33 Sarah E. Fischer 53 73,
14 102 ~rbor Crest Dr. 34 Anne Lee Bullard 54 74.
106 Arbor Crest Dr. Katherine T. Nowlen 55 - -
15 35 75,
16 36 ~ 76,
11 37 57, 17,
lIS J8 ~, 78.
19 39 59 78.
~'O 40 60 eo,
The Ctl.n ~s I,om pr~vIOUS '~pnft I..llected in the .bOv. IIshng ".
O.I.lIon. Addl1Sona
't 11 1.' 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3, 13,
I
I 4 14 4. 1..
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 16,
7 17 7 17.
I 1. e, 11.. ,
, 19 , ,..
\0 20 10. 20.
...~/ ..,~
,>.
Effective December 31, 1992
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lanbard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apart1rents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pulrsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Re~trictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Aplril 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Alpemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
tr~stee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Palrtnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
th~ operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Chlarlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shpwn below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15.
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 51 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
January 5, 1993 ~
,~.
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~~---' PI -bJ'a:zz:
Authorized Representative
./ -
~
,.. "-""" BONO PROGRAM REPOR'T
. Y..r~2
Mont" December
Property; rbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project .: 051-35371
lOC.tion: harlottesville, VA Number of Unit. 66
SubmlUed by: Loretta Wyatt January 5, 1993 Effective 12/31/92
M'r\&Qer O.Te
Total Occupied 65
Bond Occupied 15
I. LOWE " INCOME
The 10110'- Ing un.ts h.ve been d~s'gr\Al.d .s "lowe' Income" units
I 1 ~ rbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41 61.
2 4 t rbor Crest Dr. 22 Beverly T. Lane 42 &2,
3 5 1 rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43 G,J,
4 9 rbor Crest Dr. 24 Virginia Burton 44 &4.
5 12 rbor Crest Dr. 25 G. Robert Stone 4~ e~.
6 14 rbor Crest Dr. 26 Evelyn Dover ~ M.
7 . 15 rbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 47 67.
a 20 rbor Crest Dr. 2a Evelyn Mandeville 48 ea
9 24 rbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69,
10 78 ~rbor Crest Dr. :30 Ernest M. Nease ~ 70.
11 84 i\rbor Crest Dr. 31 Juanita Boliek ~, 71.
12, 90 i\rbor Crest Dr. :31 Florence Wheeler 52 72,
13 94 l6"rbor Crest Dr. J) Sarah E. Fischer 53 73,
14 102 lo\rbor Crest Dr. J" Anne Lee Bullard 5-4 74.
106 ~rbor Crest Dr. Katherine T. Nowl en ~5 - -
15 35 75.
16 36 ~ 7&,
11 37 57, 77,
lIS Ja ~, 78.
19 :39 59 78.
~'O 40 60 10,
T I'\e en.n ~s r,om pl~VIOUS'~P()f' rf'lI~eted in th. .bov. hSlIng .,.
O.r.llon. Mdl1lone
't -t1 1: 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3, 13.
4 1.. ... 14.
5 15 5 1$.
6 16 6 16.
7 \7 7 17.
S 18 8, 18..
I 19 9 ".
10 20 10. 20.
'"
-
- ,.
-
Effective January 31, 1993
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apart::rrents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Re~trictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Aplri1 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Alpemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
tr~stee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Ri~hmond-Albemar1e Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Palrtnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
th~ operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Ch~r1ottesvi11e, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shpwn below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15.
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 51
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOFl the unde,~~v~~ned has signed this Report as of
February 5, lY93 ~
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: of~ ?f~~
Authorized Representative
'j
- ... 80NO PROGRAM R~PORT
-,
. .
ManU' January VN( ~
"open)': Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) P'oject .: 051-35371
location: Charlottesville, VA Number 01 Units 66
SubmlUed b~: Loretta Wyatt February 5, 1993 Effective 1/31/93
Mat\A~' OaTe
Total Occupied 66
LOWER NCOME Bond Occupied
I. 15
The 'ollowl' g unIts I'\.~ ~n de$lgn.tled as "Iowet Income" units
1 Al bor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair
1 4' a'.
4 A bor Crest Dr. 22 Beverly T. Lane
2 42 a2,
5 A bor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43
3 63.
4 9 A bor Crest Dr. 24 Virginia Burton 44
&4,
5 12 A bor Crest Dr. 25 G. Robert Stone 45
155.
6 14 A bor Crest Dr. 26 Evelyn Dover 46 6e,
7 . 15 A bor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 47
e7.
a 20 AI--bor Crest Dr. 25 Evelyn Mandeville ~8 6a
9 24 A""bor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49
69,
10 78 Alr-bor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50
70.
\1 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 3t Juanita Boliek
51 71.
'2, 90 A rbor Crest Dr. 32 Florence Wheeler 52
72
13 94 P, rbor Crest Dr. JJ Sarah E. Fischer 53
73,
,.. 102 P, rbor Crest Dr. 34 Anne Lee Bullard 5-4
74,
15 106 P, rbor Crest Dr. 35 Katherine T. Nowlen 55 - -
75,
16 36 !l6 715,
11 :11 51 77.
lIS 38 ~, 78,
19 39 59 78.
~O 40 60 80,
Tne cn.n91 S 'tom ptevlous repatl rf'lIected in the abov. hsllng .,.
O.,.llona Mdt1Son.e
'to H 1.- 1t.
2 '2 2 12.
J 13 3, t),
4 I. 4. 1.,
5 '5 5 '5.
6 '6 6 ,e,
7 17 7 17.
I '8 I, 'I..
, '9 t 'I.
10 20 '0, 20.
~ h . C~ ' /~::;ra
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS q:;, ~1~1'-7
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA \./ . C.l0 / ., 0
REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF J ,<. /?7 iQ9Jy
Xlt--, , I! , ,
Agenda Item No. C? j. ()~ /7. 51 (Note: This number does
not change if this ~tem is deferred to some future date.
This sheet is moved forward with all of the paperwork. )
Item Name tZJf\ ~'(1 tC'l-e :::, 0+ fry] (YU-, C-~ h v\-
Presentor
(For County Executive's information, please note name of
person who will be making presentation to the Board. )
Request Made By
On (Date)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
This form is to be used when scheduling an item for a Board
of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed
to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in
scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this
work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig-
inal of any paperwork you wish to have forwarded to the Board.
For Clerk's Use:
Appointment Confirmed with (name)
On (Date)
By (Name)
Telephone? Mail?
Materials Received with Request? (Yes) (No)
Materials Photocopied?
Note: On appeal of site plans or subdivision plats, be sure
to include Planning Commission minutes with paperwor~.
Form. 2
7/29/86
, "'.'~
I r~,~.vl/
. '" .,:. ',"'" !, -...
" ,,~ Cj, "~"_'_iJ.
D:stno;lt:'l ',,;,1.1+:7' -- ~5g
d " , , rtl/, zt.f.-l,-~lL:l
Agen :A h~m .,,}, :"
:llW~:ll
r.p.J:Z"@<dl'CW.~'l:.~@Im.Sl5~
JL'l:.<dlo
reating an outdoor summer theater for Charlottesville and Jefferson's Country
Drawer G - Free Union, Virginia 22940 -- (804) 973-4859
Nove ber 24, 1992
Mr.
Chai
Albe
401
Char
avid Bowerman
man, Board of Supervisors
arle County Offic Building
cIntire Road
ottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Bowerman,
As president of l781 Productions, Ltd., I request an indefinite
post onement of the Board's review of our application for a Special Cse
Perm't now scheduled for hearing December 9, 1992. This permit is a
site specific request to use the 63-acre site at Milton on Rte. 729 for
our roposed outdoor summer theater.
you
so.
have arisen which require our time to address. We will let
timetable for reconsideration of the theater when we can do
We have enclosed copies of materials we have prepared concerning the
thea er generally and the Milton site specifically, as well as excerpts
from the Institute of Outdoor Drama's Jefferson Country Feasibility
Study. In addition, we have, to date, 369 signatures on a petition in
affi mation of concept of an outdoor summer theater for the
Char ottesville and Albemarle area. We have found that there is a great
deal of support here for this concept -- especially among those with an
all- ounty perspective.
We continue to pursue the theater both as you and we discussed it
and long our own requirements. We will be in touch with you after
Than sgiving to set up an appointment with Mr. Tucker.
Sincerely,
Thank you for your encouragement and support.
Charles McRaven
Lind' McRaven
cc: William A. Edgerton
William Orr
Forest Marshall
.l
,\'
~
,~~
.
~
Summary of the Institute of Outdoor Drama Feasibility Study
-Direct Quotes-
1
1
~
The prospect for success of the Jefferson Country Drama is high.
s merit and potential for artistic, cultural and economic
osperity are stronger than usual, and it is the opinion of the
udy team and the Institute of Outdoor Drama that the project should
aggressively pursued.
1
,'~
'~
~
.
;~
The Institute strongly recommends that drama leaders plan to
ise enough funds initially to completely operate the drama through
s first full year without having to depend on ticket revenue during
e first production season.
A successful outdoor historical drama is not only part of the
ltural life of the community and a feature by which the community
n become widely known. It can also become an integral part of the
onomic life of the area.
$8,829,603 - Estimated one-year economic impact on local and
onomy
All of these activities, coupled with similar efforts in the
sual arts and crafts, create a cultural atmosphere that does much
establish a very high quality of life in Charlottesville and
bemarle County. This presence bodes well for the success of an
tdoor drama in the community.
A play centering on an interesting and key moment during the war
r independence, a moment which includes Jefferson, is therefore
w'se and reasonable choice.
There was particular enthusiasm when it became clear that this
s to be a private venture rather than yet another activity that
uld attempt to raise funds from an already shallow pool. In short,
was clear that a not-for-profit enterprise would not be welcome
re nor would it be likely to get off the ground.
For all of these reasons, the majority of those interviewed
during the study team's visit favored the addition of this project to
the community's tourism offering and their support was truly
enthusiastic.
~
The study team believes that the development of the drama being
posed would be consistent with the recommendations of the County
Co prehensive Plan and would complement actions currently being
taken.
The study team, after reviewing a very rough draft of a possible
y on this subject, believes that this is a viable story with
ong possibilities for success as an outdoor drama. Its value lies
the combination of elements which have served so many other
cessful outdoor dramas. The events of the play concern people who
re prominently known in the area and beyond. The fact that Jack
ouett is known only in this area adds an element of interest to the
atter since people would be attracted by the opportunity to learn
ore about someone who was a local hero. His link with Jefferson
ill serve as a magnet for those who have never heard of Jack Jouett.
· Added to this strong feature is the fact that the incidents of
th play took place within close proximity of the proposed location
for the amphitheatre. This is always an important feature of outdoor
historical dramas and those that are most successful are plays that
would not be very suitably performed in another locale. The dramatic
and emotional impact of experiencing events which actually occurred
within a few hundred yards of the performance space to people with
whom we are familiar is the essence of good outdoor drama. All of
this is possible in this venue.
Roads leading to the theatre must be good with easily followed
directions and signage. The Milton/Orr location is excellent in
lation to these criteria since driving time to the bulk of lOdging
tablishments and restaurants is short over excellent roads that can
easily followed.
The Milton/Orr site is very conveniently reached from downtown
arlottesville and all of Albemarle county, US 250 provides easy
cess from the city, access which will be much, improved with
mpletion of the new Free Bridge. Its junction with Interstate 64,
d its connection with 1-81 to the west and 1-95 to th~ east with US
in the middle increases the accessibility for a large part of the
pulation as well as the visitors who may be coming from any
rection. The drive to the theatre site both on and off these main
utes is pleasant and attractive as well as easily negotiated.
ough there are a few residences near the most likely entrance to
e amphitheatre location the need to pass through a large
r sidential community does not exist.
· The Milton/Orr site appears to be well oriented in relation to
ise. It is well removed from neighboring dwellings though the
proach, and possibly a portion of the parking area, may be visible,
d therefore audible, from one dwelling. The study team believes,
h wever, that this dwelling should not be much influenced by
d.stractions from the production. The woods and ridge at the rear of
t e proposed stage protect the development to the east from any
p oduction noise and vice versa.
The Milton/Orr site is presently beyond water and sewer serVlce
f om the city. It is apparent that a well will be required to serve
w ter needs and some sort of septic treatment system will have to be
d signed and constructed. Under these circumstances a surge tank for
the septic system is the most economical because it takes advantage
of the twenty hours per day that the system is not under load to
distribute the effluent to the drain field which need not be design~d
to dispose of the entire amount in a short period. The design and
permitting process for the septic system should be initiated as early
as possible to assure that all is in place and in good working order
f r the first patrons. There is ample land on the site to
a commodate such a system though it may be necessary to pump effluent
u to a site slightly higher than the sources.
j
I
The Milton/Orr site offers an excellent opportunity for well
aced and attractive parking. The terrain that is best suited to
rking, within five hundred to seven hundred feet of the
phitheatre, is gentle enough to diminish the need for extensive
ading. Parking can be distributed into well spaced areas
rmitting the interspersing of trees and footpaths that will take
e patron to the theatre in a relatively pleasant manner.
commodations can easily be made for the elderly and the disabled
er access lanes that will bring them close to the entrance and to
eir seats. Buses, a critical part of the outdoor drama market, can
brought reasonably close to the theatre and then parked enough
ay to avoid interference either from noisy engines or lights during
e performance.
In addition to the above features, all representing requirements
r satisfactory parking facilities at outdoor historical dramas, it
ould be noted that the parking area can, and should, be located out
sight of the road passing the site. Thus the acreage needed to
commodate 350 to 400 automobiles need not cause a negative visual
pact either when full or empty.
Disturbance of neighbors following a performance should be
nimal since the parking lot can be emptied, again with good
pervision, in fifteen to twenty minutes. (It may be necessary to
ke arrangements with county police to assist in handling traffic,
pecially at the junction with U.S. 250.)
Outdoor historical dramas are unique because of the ways in
ich stories and sites are inextricably intertwined. The stories
e rooted in the land. An historically significant site and the
rtrayal of enduring moral values through the essential sense of
19rimage which transports the visitor to another place and time to
caught up in the actions and emotions of real people. The more
storically significant the land is upon which the amphitheatre will
built, and the more central a role the land plays in the drama,
e stronger will be the drawing powe~ of the play and the greater
e emotional impact on the audience.
I
All of these aspects suggest that this piece of ground was a
rt of the grand stage which saw the unfolding of Virginia history
the last two centuries and will be a powerful venue for the drama.
The drama of the location will be enhanced if the assemblage of
d or replica buildings as part of the entry experience is
corporated. The establishment of these visible historic
nnections has been quite successful at other outdoor dramas and
ould be encouraged in this case. Anything which assists the
dience in stepping back in time as they approach the performance
n only assist in the appreciation of the experience as a whole.
~
. When the characteristics of the Milton/Orr site are evaluated
a ainst the criteria listed above it is clear that it is a very
s tisfactory site upon which to develop an amphitheatre for the
p oduction of an historic drama. The study team finds that the
1 cation is excellent and that the site possesses an attractive
d amatic character and an appropriate terrain rarely found. All
r velant factors favor its selection and the study team can recommend
t e Milton/Orr site without reservation.
Studies which consider total population (urban and rural),
w thin a 200-mile radius of outdoor theatre companies indicate that
o percent of the total population can be expected to attend an
o tdoor historical drama in its first year of production. Results of
t is research are more applicable to the proposed Jefferson Country
D ama.
Average Rainouts (R/O) Per Season = 1.5
19,529,936 - Population within a 200-mile radius of the
p oposed amphitheatre site.
Latest figures on outdoor drama audience expenditures are based
u on travel industry data, as well as on surveys conducted by outdoor
d ama across the country. They indicate that the average spectator
a an outdoor drama spends about $70 per day in the immediate area.
. It should be noted that the most recent research i"dicates that
e ery group that spends the night in an outdoor drama community
s ends an avera'ge of $3,660 per day in the immediate area.
SU
U
ARY of the OUTDOOR
Deve.1opDle:nt for
SUMMER AMPHITHEATER
the A.1beDl~r.1e Are~
drama
will b
and sp
figure
Steven
~ ~~n ~~ plans an outdoor summer theater to produce an historical
n the order of the Outer Bank's The Lost Colony. This pageant-style produclion
performed throughout the summer, 6 nights a week. The story, staged with music
cial effects, concentrates on local Revolutionary War history with legendary
Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Daniel Boone, Dr. Thomas Walker, General
and Jack Jouett.
he play pulls together impressions gathered at Monticello, Ash Lawn, Michie
Montpelier and other historic sights. Instilling pride in country and in
Ie's contribution to her history, the story will catch the audience up in that
and people will leave the show pondering, "Where would we be had the events
ed not occurred?"
he production has been created with community values foremost in mind. We VIew
important element of Albemarle life and hope residents will bring
show often. However, the theatre will actually be targeted toward
which already exists (2500+ visitors per day during in summer).
of this project is multi-fold:
ovide evening entertainment for families and tour groups telling the history of
ur beautiful area with pageantry and music, on a regular, dependable basis
.
-
oaden the artistic, theatrical and educational scope and opportuni ties in lIw
harlottesville area, creating new jobs and educational experiences (internships
nd youth jobs as well as professional positions), in various economic sectors.
I to
I unch a business economically beneficial to the area (with a first year projeclelj
"mpact of $12,000,000 and a full-attendance projected impacl of more than
20,000,000) as well as having a relatively mild environmental impact. The
ourists will come, spend, enjoy their stay and LEAVE.
Ita
g"ve the 300,000+ summer visitors who pass through Charlottesville each summl'r
eason to stay one more night; eat another dinner & breakfast; see another sight,
uy another souvenir, etc. -- changing Charlottesville from a "day trip"
estination to one encompassing a longer stay.
the outdoor summer drama provides Jefferson's Country with /Bany
options and benefi ts.
apport
esearch shows that most visitors leave the area after a day at Monticello and
perhap. attending OIle other attraction. Charlottesville is an in-transit stop on the
way to Williamsburg or Virginia Beach (via Richmond). The theater affords this
community the opportunity to benefit from statistics such as: a single tour bus of 45
people spends $3,660+ a night for dinner, entertainment, a hotel, breakfast; tIle
average tourisl spends 1I0re than $70 per day, etc.
hen an outdoor theatre opens, the economic benefits to an area can be enormous.
For ex pIe, The Lost Colony production claims a 23-million dollar impact each year for
the Out r Banks area. We expect our theatre to eventually match that. At the same
time, it will not overload our schools or other services (unlike manufacluring or other
year-ro nd industry). Tourism is relatively non-pollut,ing and controllable and,
althoug seasonal, will generate an economic "ripple" effect for the whole year.
r this concept to be successful, the site must start out beautiful and stay
1. After an 8-month search and consideration of some 100 si tes in 5 counties,
n~ ~~ ~ chose an excellent site -- 63 acres in historic Milton -- only ~
mile off Rt. 250 East. This site has the many necessary attributes:
. very near a major highway to facilitate safe and quick traffic movement to the site
as well as access and egress from the site, avoiding narrow, twisting roads;
. far from persistent traffic noise, railroads, air flight patterns but close to
motels and restaurants in Charlottesville;
. land configuration which provides a privac;y buffer for both the neighbors and Uw
theater complex while still supporting lhe various specific needs of productiull;
. potential traffic impact minimized by having to pass a total of three houses before
entering the properly;
. as an extra and unexpected bonus, it is the location of the drama's actual e~'ents.
We plan to nestle the amphitheater toward the back of the property and blend with
the natural environment. We are working with local architect William Edgerton to
design a 2,000-seat showcase theatre, with parking for 300+ cars and tour buses. The
theater and parkin~ have been positioned to avoid bein~ seen by nei~hbors at any t~.
The land today supports a cattle operation. We will keep it a working farm year-round.
The theatre needs only 6-9 of the 63 acres during the 3+ summer months.
This investor-owned, tax-paying project will create some 100+ jobs each summer In
the full pay-scale range with several year round. Student internships will be an
important part of our program. We will cast many roles locally. Some highly
specialized jobs or roles might require professionals from outside the area.
The theatre will work with school systems to share this Virginia story In a
format sui led to school assemblies as well as classroom studies.
n'~ ~~u ~~ is guided by The Institute of Outdoor Drama (IOD), a
national research and support organization affiliated with the University of North
Carolina. The IOD counsels 92 summer productions in America including The Lost Colony,
and Unto These Hills (North Carolina), The Lime Kiln Theater, Texas! (Texas), Tecumseh
(Ohio). The IOD has conducted a detailed marketing and feasibility study for us.
Their findings and recommendations cover every aspect of the proposed project and are
based on comparables, site visits and exhaustive economic and tourism data.
Charles McRaven heads 1l.'~ ~~u ~~ He is a published author, histol'ian
and nationally-recognized authority on historic preservation and construction (stonp,
log, post-anti-beam). Mr. McRaven also has a strong background in theatre and has been
a professor of journalism.
Entertainment is America's biggest business, even when the general economy
falters. In fact, outdoor drama had its best year ever during the recession year of
1991. When the proper research, marketing, community support, good theater plus
careful and conscientious management guide outdoor theatre productions, longevity IS
the norm. The Lost COlOllj' is in its 54th season; many others are in thei r thi rd,
fourth or fifth decades.
This outdoor summer theater celebrates Charlottesville-Albemarle history, our
scenery, and our role as an American cultural, artistic and educational center -- OIl
the very site of actual events.
Address any questions, comments or suggestions to Charles or Linda McRaven at
973-4859. n'~ ~~u ~~ -- P.O.Box 108 - Free Union, Virginia 22940.
ducational & Employment Perspectives of the Albemarle Summer Outdoor Theater
!,wa ~~~~ ~~ plans an outdoor summer theatre for the production of an
histoJ ical drama modeled after The Lost Colony in North Carolina. This pageant-style
production will be performed throughout the summer, 6 nights a week. A major purpose
of thE summer outdoor theater is to tell an important story in America's history in an
enter aining format. Staged with music and special effects, the tale concentrates on
local Revolutionary War history highlighting the legendary figures of Thomas Jefferson,
Patri4 k Henry, Daniel Boone, Dr. Thomas Walker, General Stevens and Jack Jouett.
Taver
Insti
will
we be
The play draws together impressions gathered at Monticello, Ash Lawn, Michie
, Montpelier and other historic sites -- making them especially meaningful.
ling pride of country and in Albemarle's contribution to her history, the story
atch the audience up in that spirit and will leave them pondering, "Where would
today if the events portrayed had not occurred?"
Production work runs from May through September, with almost 80 performances June
throu h August. This is the quintessential "summer job" for both young people and
other with summers "ofL" Since all performances will be in the evening, it is
possi~le for this work to be a second job. We will also work with area arts
assoc ations and institutions to develop "for credit" internship programs at many
level~: theater technical creation and production (lights, sound, set, props, etc.);
acting; period music; choreography; theater administration; business training to
opera e ticket sales, concessions, gift shops, traffic control and security; etc.
These positions will range up and down the pay-scale. Most administrative positions
and tpe cast will be filled with local residents. Some highly specialized jobs or
roles may require outside professionals.
In addition to the summer performances, the theatre will cooperate with school
syste~s around the state to share this aspect of Virginia history in a format suited to
schoo assemblies as well as classroom studies. We will provide study guides for in-
class work to complement the special theatrical performances. The 50+ cast, the
speci 1 effects and the horse-oriented action will be re-worked into a more portable
and m~nageable indoor format. The adjunct show will include 4-6 actors whose
perfo~mance will be augmented by slide-show and/or moving picture/video action. The
audiejlce will be invited to become involved and "be part of history."
The drama will become yet another way to encourage student appreciation for
Virgijlia's importance in history. They will understand these events to be a turning
point in the American Revolution, and thereby, how these events changed our world.
Young people enjoy learning through dramatic interpretation in which they are the
activ~ performers as well as seeing a performance. History becomes real and relevant.
Theat~r work encourages cooperation, discourages difficult behavior, gives young people
oppor unities to explore their talents, channels energy in a productive and positive
way e~hancing self-esteem.
!,wa ~~ 1Li~ created the summer outdoor theater with community values
foremost in mind. We view the theatre as an important element of Albemarle life
celeb~atin~ Charlottesville-Albemarle history, our scenery, and our role as an American
cultu ~l, artistic and educational center.
Address any questions, comments or suggestions to Charles or Linda McRaven at
973-4~59 -- PO Box 108 - Free Union, Virginia 22940.
i'"'l
\.
,.
W
I
\D
W
.........
~
..
10'-0'
3'-4'
J
.
-~
J>
r
r
b;I
o
r
-l
V?
J>
;;0
rl
Ul
.........
ro
..
"&
".'.J;~
.
ru z
~O
-l
<J>J> rl
J>zr J>0
(l)t::::Ir r
I r
rl(l)l;;1j (I)
;;0 I 0
~ l> r -l
\)r-l rl
rl
J>r(l) r
r(")(I) n
ZOI 0
CZl> Z
-l-lr (I)
~r I-t
OZl;;1j t::::I
r'1
;;0 rl :;:0
J>J> rl
~ zrJ> t::J
no(/)
j on-l -l 0
0, ^3: 0
I( zl-t '1
Czl> l;;1j
-lC)W r'1 ~
V' ru
- t::J Ul w J>
rl '(1\ -l
<0 ^
1-t;;O (/) fT1
n I-t AJ
f1lV?
J> 3: I--C
"rl I-t J>
'" r z
I-t r
DC) 3:
n;;o c
^Ul ~
~;"
~
f2
r:"'l
l~
l/l
o
n
~
M
l/l
f--'
h.J
o
W
8
;.u
~
'Q
A
M
n
~
~
:>j
o
?.::
"'"
o
F
--
j;
",J
,,..
o
,~
co
------
--.J
CJ
GJ
'-"
--.,
--.,
'v
I
'D
'--"
OJ
o
Ol
~
~~
1;;t<
"':':
<< ~H
o:><~t<
tDgt"~
~~t\l:<l
o-ln:.:
0:'-
t'l"'C'"
:>:lOZH
_ >-3 en
'" ":o-l
N......... M
....'" :>:l
......\O<H
\Of\)H)I
~t"
HO
ZH
Hen
:><>-3
:<l
H
()
o-l
'Jl
~ ~L B~ ~
J\ ~ O'~ ~
-1 -4\}J~ [~ rii
G) ~ [11 ()(~,"[11 ;>0
,,~ - "0
:; ~ h'i ~~ 6'= R
;>: Ql:i: 1l <, ~1 en
/ !J $~~~~~ 2
<0''\( m '~\ 7, r, f -( ~
o ,/,/ ...., [\ I 0' L
/' / / ,)l~~IO t --
(/ /.- ,-:.--,--/ ()'31J;;:: r-'
.- / \).' ~ ~
~ OYJ1~ //::,1 W ! ,"
r;-, ,--.: \ - .--/j'" .--/---
~ m ~-"
"\/' ~ ,/' /!'
cP'.'\,/\ ~- / - /.// --
\f'\,
\t\
('
I I
~~J I
():,I f-
I,
,I .........,
/1
//
Ii
I \
I ',I
'1
! '
~Itf)
~l:j
l11lm
;J\)
C)~r
lit
ii
-,
-<
\l
V'
"\l
r
1>
f)
n'
J\
'-../
1I(J)
[1l -
'L-f)
II I
[]I"
" i'.
'L-r
\J~ r-
~,,-1JJ\J
_, ,n () [~ /J
m~~g~
c lJ F IJ
l} .~ ~
-< ~I)
3: (;
ril
c l>
<:-4
i\5 /
~[
\J ,') /
l_ 1]
J\
~
~
~
~
t:::
h1
C.IJ
n
o ()
\( 0
:c :(
c 'lJ
Z 0
H CIl
n H
6~"l~
:>:l8~0l
'-!: H
en o-l
t\l
>-3
o 'U
~ ~
~()
r> O\J
il ()
~;:
L L
G\C)
I ill
a"
cI
JI "
[]I;l,)
~
---',' ~,
" '
".::; ~ "
''..-'-''-'- (.
..'.,~
',~. ~
" "
"_", ff,<J
'<' ~ ;/'"
,,,,-, ?JY
, ~_, (v'On
~
, ~,
~~~".~
't./,<, ~
:--l\
n1
y
-r----=- 7J
R. :;=.--
0'_
-1
J
/
/
"
_r_~_~_____..f-_~i
\'1
'I
,D
'J
/
/
,
,
j> "
l\ ~
l\Cl
In])
~~
II'
/I)"
0,"
l>~
';").r:
111
I
.,.)
r:.
-4
n
-'l
a
::.
;:--1
C)!" ....
;0
<Jl \) _D .-/
~ / I-J ~~
JI -5' 2~ ~ -~,"'<;,
" '" -,"
:i 1/ ~ ~ "''';~~:\< '-
%~t> <::l ,,~ ," "
{::. M:; \ " ,r, J
I ",. "
, ~ ~; l~~~<:~i:;+;};;,~:L:~;\Zi 1
" ~ :; I' ~""':,., -- ,. ,,'I, ,,' J!f'!<::C '1,00
"" " "" ,,:> i>',~; ";,.,',,, ;.\I.;..//,,:,:'t';)'
~,() ~ ~ -.....J',"- f'f;':. .. --..,,,',' ?,~",:(, "j,\, :\.:\'-~-..-.
,."' ,<'.,,'., ,g.,," ,_" "",;",.",,\:, '''' ;.I;;f/'C" - "",,
" ~ 1~ __---~-~ '-,_' ~.I~I~:': ::;\'(.~;~:> :,:,''':: ,', "1):; ,,\,), :,1:':,:; ::.~:,;,<,~:),::: ~~;I~,'I :'/
::-;1 ~<bO' _:,::::< "~\;i:/:(':\ :/" .' (2' ::;j" :''/7'' ':i';/\~~::::' /:C;'';': ~ ;', "(g;" ': :,,')
__ / 0 ___-;:;"~;'.." ,,)..'}If\':." 1,/ u' ", ',;'"",'" ( ,- -,' 'j,'" I "J..../,100
. "~I.,;: ,;;';j;':'" i": ':/: ';.' '/, :",,:'\' '. - ./-,.:/,<,~,,:-,,;:I ;(;.t~-
l "-::: ,'\':':':'':'S~'':j~;:': :::,'t: ,:r(;(:/(C'::(:;. .::~:;-:.:- :,d::';~:P - ~?:-:_-
~,' .::..::" _,:~;:{,!,,~,;;i~;'3f,,\~'t:'>:'-;}'~";""" "J' ,:::~"Z ,y'
,-"~-7 - ~~", \" .".-'VJ' ",Xc,,-, -' ,;: -'" ." - - "..- '
_,:{~?,-,:;::'2-1~-il'~:- ;:<:' ~'/;;,: I'i',:: ;;,?,,';.<!.~:"'{ ~-'.-., ,~~' ; :-:,'_:,~:"'~.~';b'?b Jl
_- _--" ,,;.-,Z" . ,.",', "',,," ,~. , ' . ' " ,'. '
_ ~_""", ".y.,>~>":";.'; ,::/;,:-,";" g':; .' . :'0 ' ,,' "C" "C ,,'
H ~ ,if,:, :,:' ;Y{;};fS;0{$',ni':;iH ,'f Ii'" ~
~ ~.D i: \ii; ,,:,':;:"\_~~I.;,~,:~~,,)[,:,:,\r,>;'.'W'1~0(;:'-:<~:: :;','>\ ,~ ,I' .D
~ ~ ,r '. .~", ,," ''', ,,,[; ",.', ,. "" "" "
rt>:;:, ~ JI 'C':1""'''''''''~'''"''-''I'''''\:\''''> J.I> (, -,
,.:'; N (\ "''4,;;,: ::::;:,',',:",,;>:,;-.\ ,\ ,'",~",:?" "" ~ " ;:,
() ~"\'> " """," '\5 ,,', ',\,'-.;'" " .'
~ () b,!.. /"'::fj)''>;'"'' I,;"n," :', ,'i':;'" ~\ '''' ~p In >- ~
~ ' i >,,,.,1:' ""J!'ij;::)""j. .') 1 ' ~ ". : ' -, po -
., t.-0p~(~,'~:~r:Ki,)!,/g4<"'~:; ~ ,: r~;;
___ ,-:,0,::,,',',',1;:'/ 7;~:/ I'!' ('5. h (lJll\!,
'. I""" _'"'<~ \'?J Q> n',(I,
(", ",,':,:~~,.--9it \ " r-:' "r\i'
<: ------r- ' ": :, J',1 ,,,' ! r f. Y C
:!! \ k ',i,~,' '" J'I ' (,In IlV
-.t 'r, '\ ",'-\' _'II .j I m '- fliP
", 8 ~It~",:/ ..:l I - - 'J
" '''\'';:' I. ,~i' ".1)
<. " ,,/ J' .,; I [) " \
~ I ~" 'n' N I,
i1 (5 ,/ J~ ~ - .
=1 \}1 oj / NC 1: L ,j "~
,~ ~ . F iii'::; N
'I ..'-< rn r::? JJ
<.:5: i f5 '1>1
-:3 ~ (p. f;n:D
~;, () -<1:'
I> a rn
r ~
N
8
\J
B""
t:~
~
'1J~r)
J: :1
"'-N
,.:~
3'
II
~
",
"j
in
r
,-
z .,T==-
,-
r
l:>
r
r
rn
<:.
....
/If
I
~
.J
w
~; I~
tl'Ut"
~~~Sr.;rJ~;Jo-l
~OtdClH~~~~~
;:u Ht-3H \U()
h1~cigt"~!;1>-3"O
t>Jtltlt\lo-lZ80l~
o t>J.."'<O'l Hn
:>< t>J.. Cl '" N N t'l
:<l t" w..: 0 t\l t" I
t~ ~ --.J --.J t\l ~ i'i" .. :
~)JfQ)~tjt':1Z !
..., .......8t1C)t.J\Dj
HA-O uO-...J1
-...JOLJN~8 \D I'
.. Z":~H~ ~
In_...J -:dttj~~Q\
gCi: ~:>:ls;:>:l :
en'U tlt:it"~:
100 G'lH:><
i3 ~J ~ f.'l[.l';;J
~ o-l \. >-3:><:<l
J ~ .. en ~
''It':i ,... J'
ttj ::u VI ..... I
M- 0 In I
8 .~ - 0 ~-. ..
~r.;O:U:O
o-l ~:>< toJ [~
M;:l;;J;:l"l
tl[.ltl:<ll:J
c; t'lt>J
~~g~~
>< Cl ."
,...g;~CiCi
~~~~~
~ ~..-.J" ~
:>:l enn
":,...HO
~~~:I:
s;:~ ;g
o-l 'Uen
b1 ~~
..: -
>-3 tD'U
~ ).OS;:
t"o-l
N_
M
:<lCl
CIl
~g
o
;>In
CIl~
rnM
Oen
n<:
HH
;>II:"
8 t"
"''''
CIl
- 10
C
H).O
Ztl
n,
'"
:<l
t~
n
o
:<l
tl
en
CIl
~
c
Z
tl
t>J
:<l
...
--.J
o
CIl
z
n
.J
(<',If.::.
"')..?::~>-
,~
:...
....
,~
::
n>
.),
<:
~
~
"- -.
A Z l(j
0, W W"
IL.W I-IL.O ~""j::l
I-Z W(I) w5Btb
<r: 0> I .JO.... A>OWW
> ",0 I- ,::\0 o I- zO~~lXl x~U<[
~ ldU 1%l.J~ <(I-@5~.J I- <[....
,...-- I-lXl ~W A:3W I-~'::\
w CO Z-<I W::r: L:)>-UO<E :!: lXl
Z ~ U WA '" SI- ZZI- ZlXl U OW*~
I- IW <[ <(<[V) .... >-(1):1:
0 U .... WI- (l)1L. A:EW I-A z.... (I) ~::r:...L:)
V? Z 1...1- Z
0 ~ ~'" A 50 .. I- (l)w<('::\ (~;o~<(
-I ~ <r: w ........ W ~u<[ .... L:).
5-l Ck: u>- ~ ti IL. W iiS'
-I P=l :E ~ -l(l)-l W ..-dl:: Ck: . WI- \D
W W :r: w,::\ wI- w....... wa.. <(W~ ~~:i~
w -I W J: ~~ ..... ~.... ~<[z o <[M
(L <( (1)- <(U ......08 ~V)l.:i"~w I-Z:I:
, l- I :L W U WA zZ: <( <(~zl-....1-
:t: (/.) ~ C\J .. Z IZ o=> ",a..e;; VII-I- '" ~w~~ wi5(1)x
::E <r: 0 C\J C\J ~ 1-<( u~ z<(~ z:Eg xl-~C\J
J'J U If1 0 , 0 ",I- Z OUw 8~~ zZw ~zB I-zw,-
- C\J " - z .J.... ....wlXl Elljw~w
( ti 1-'" <[I I-XI 1-01- ....eqZ_I-~ IL.<(N-'
W ~ A A W :f Wz .... ul-W UlL.V) DW::i....
>- ~ G ~ ~ u CJ wl:J "'-I ~ ::I: WZZ U t3!:;lL.....
~ .... .... '--- :E.... WW zoo ~bz-l02~ <[>~x
'" [J CI) V) I-W za..L:) zuu W<C<[
::l z .... ZW <[I- oDZ 0 zw<[~w '" > I- C\J .
l- I <( > L:)O IV) U-l.... U:!Gi Ck: :!:[k:....
I- W .... WI- Wwl-~wlL. <(a"':I:~
Z CI) Cll: (I)~~ -I\D -I>U -I<(W ~>~~~~ W~:EI-<C
W -1M -IwW .J :I: I- D<[~lXlO~ ~s:~:;~
U ~ w,::\w <(<( -<I,::\z <((I) V) 1-:l:~<(1-
W l- N M .f
a ... iii \ti
z
~
W
V? I-
::l
r >-V?Z P=l
i I-V?D 1-1
j en en ......w...... ~
i , , U -.1- I-
Ilu If) If) <r:6<r: V?
~ en (LV?> 1-1
i~
--,
^ ^ In
N(v)
'\J '\J _
V?
L
~
<r:
, ,
I . \0
., I
I(J N~ V?
......
:r: . ~
\-- :L-I
'-' 0-1 ~
oW I-
row (/.)
I
,?~' ..
~f; ">
^^~
~ ~IS
00 d
[("'I,l,) ,,<,;.!
~1' : ',-C .... ~ I
J. ,-~~-,---L-.t._L_-, i.
r
r
\D
W '
I- 0
a (V)
z -
W
W
(I)
<r:::lW
Ulrl-l^
-Iu...WW
<r::r:~tj
Z::lWV?
D'~
......u.........W
1-:r:::lZ
1-1>0......
~ L.J..J
'3 .O:::(::l
.....U W
V?V?WW
<(~~u...
I^ ::E
0::: VI-:::::>
W'\J<r:~
~I-V?X
DZ<I:<r:
I-::lZ:L
DZ
(/.) :L W ..
...... 1-00
1: ,
.. C1 Z 1'-..
.. t- ' <( '-.../
~
.11
t
~,
I
I
r=l
>-
-I.
-IV?
<r:W
::lU
O<r:
Wu...
wO:::
lrlW
~
-10
-II-
<r:
:r:W
V?W
0:::
V?I
WI-
Z
......-1
-1-1
s::l<t:
W
W-;.r
I.... ~
r:
--,
- "-r ......-- . ru I "';
I , I (J\' .
1 i I j ~!
--1 . .1 ~ i~ I
I :";;1 0 I
iV)/ I '... .....
,-I 1-, <1: -
-f WI W --' '
- W - I-
I~ ~ w :
,I V? ~ I
<r: !f a..;
~ f52i~ II
~ W OM
~~lr;~ V?
0::: ~G~ I Di
~ we; "'t2 ~',
~ ~ ;.' I ~ ~~~\Oi ::.; i
~ ~ ,~-, . '. ~z~\O 1:J !
'... I II ll,oJr-..<t"'Z i
I~ ',)l ~ >- t1 '
It::g ,."
c_: I li::l
~. ..'----
0:::
D
I
( ~
'"J' <1:'
~ 0)
.....
~
r...-i
::l.
L:lD
WZ
I- C.
W'2
Ck: I -;
U-'
Z<.'
Drx
U~
)
.i
(J
J
I
--I_
"-
"
-l-
e
~'I
w
(/.)
<C
P=l
lrl
~(Y)
W...-i
~:::
D.
1-0
Z
W
I-L:J
WZ
0:::......
U~
:~ <C
::J~
~O
8/1 X 2/t 1 X 2 3l9N\i
9t/8 X 2/1 T X 2 3l9N\i
31\ild lN3H ,8/8 X ,vi! L
'_O"--'--;r-__' '._
kIS>lS'=:) 'ZI~OH
GS>l9C '~:Wla
(IS~:f::~ 93~
, ..
.r
I
\0'
"
..
1::o"r'\-'''"''''" r>~^"...1, CJlft2~
!,~'~',' "":',q~1o:ill~ifl
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
J.J 1>P
David B. Benish, Chief of Community Developmentj,21
February 10, 1993
Community Development Block Grant Projects
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Enclosed is a staff analysis of possible Community
Development Block Grant projects which could be eligible for
funding. Staff will be available to discuss these with the
Board of Supervisors and members of the public at their
meeting on February 17, 1993.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
DBB/jcw
ENCLOSURES
cc: Bob Brandenburger
~
Alternative Albemarle county proiects For Consideration of
Virainia Community DeveloDment Block Grant Fundinq
The goal of the Virginia Community Block Grant Program
(VCDBG) is to improve the economic and physical environment
in Virginia's Communities and neighborhoods, benefiting
persons of low and moderate-income; thus preventing and
eliminating slums and blight, and meeting urgent community
development needs posing a serious and immediate threat to
the health, safety and welfare of Virginia citizens. There
exist fourteen (14) broad project types which may be
considered for grant application in the VCDBG program. Two
types of grants will be funded on a competitive basis:
1. Community Improvement Grants (construction grants) -
$21,520,350 in grants are available in two rounds, with
a maximum $700,000 grant per project, or maximum
$500,000 for housing rehabilitation project; and,
2. Planning Grants - An amount up to two (2) percent of
available CDBG money ($453,060) is reserved for
Planning Grants. Maximum $25,000 grant per project,
except for a regional infrastructure planning grant
recipient which can receive a maximum of $40,000.
Virtually all CDBG applications must demonstrate that the
project provides primary benefit to low-and moderate income
persons. Low to moderate persons are defined as individuals
whose family income is less than 80% of the median family
income for like size families within the same area. Such
VCDBG proposal must demonstrate that: (1) 51% or more of
project beneficiaries are low and moderate income residents,
or, (2) the project serves an area where 51% or more of
residents are low and moderate income, or, (3) 51% or more
of the jobs created are available to low and moderate income
residents. Documentation of benefit to low and moderate
income persons must be provided by one of four
methodologies: (1) participation in the project is limited
to low and moderate income persons based on eligibility
criteria, or (2) the project facility is designed for use by
protected groups, or, (3) the project service area
eligibility is based on low/moderate income data from the
1980 U.S. Census, or (4) an income survey for the project
service area.
The following is a list of VDDBG eligible projects that have
been identified for Albemarle County by the Planning staff.
The only request for County sponsorship that has been
received to date is from the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program (AHIP).
proiect 1: Housina Rehabilitation-Albemarle Housing
ImDrovement proaram (AHIP).
proiect DescriDtion: A rehabilitation housing grant would
focus on upgrading substandard owner occupied and/or rental
units. AHIP received a Community Improvement Grant in 1991
for a housing rehabilitation program which will be completed
by the summer of 1993. with this previous program, thirty-
six previously substandard homes were rehabilitated.
Securing another grant would permit AHIP to continue to
focus on upgrading existing substandard housing in the
County. The maximum grant amount for a housing
rehabilitation program is $500,000.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: All AHIP projects recipients
must be low and moderate income persons. AHIP maintains a
waiting list of such families and individuals who desire
rehabilitation assistance. The current waiting list exceeds
200 applicants. Income for all potential participants is
verified.
Relative Priorities: The upgrading of the county's housing
stock is a high priority in Albemarle County as evidenced in
the Comprehensive Plan, past CDBG projects, the social
program review funding process, and the County priorities
identified for the Regional Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CRAS). The Housing Advisory
Committee report also recommends increasing efforts to
rehabilitate substandard houses. Housing Rehabilitation
efforts also rank in the highest priority group for both the
region and the state.
other Proiect Fundinq Sources:
1. The County provides administrative funding for AHIP.
2. The Charlottesville Housing Foundation provides low
interest loans to families for housing rehabilitation.
3. Other potential sources include the Farmers Home
Administration Rural Housing Preservation Grant
program, the Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Community Services Discretionary Grant
Program and HOME funds.
Other Information:
AHIP has an ongoing program of housing rehabilitation for
qualifying families and units in Albemarle County, and has
utilized CDBG in the past, receiving Community Improvement
Grants in 1987 and 1991. Continued use of CDBG monies will
be important if AHIP is to increase its efforts to
rehabilitate homes in the County.
proiect 2: Crozet Community ImDrovements.
Project Description: The improvement project for the
Community of Crozet could be designed as multi-purpose grant
for:
· Housing Rehabilitation (51% - 80% of total grant)
· Sewer line and lateral extension
· Flood and drainage facilities
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would need to
be performed to determine qualifying target areas for such a
project.
Relative Priorities: Residential improvement projects would
rank in the highest priority group according to last year's
state and regional priorities.
other Information: Crozet is designated as a growth area in
the County Comprehensive Plan. It is important to not only
encourage growth there, but also maintain the quality of the
existing community for the benefit of its residents. Such
improvements could encourage further investment and growth
in the community. A needs assessment would have to be
conducted to determine specific improvement needs and
benefits to low and moderate income families. The limited
time frame for application submittal at this time may be
prohibitive. This project does hold promise for future
requests. A Planning Grant could be pursued this year for
project analysis and development in lieu of a Community
Improvement Grant (CIG). This would improve the opportunity
for making application for a construction grant next year.
proiect 3: Emeraencv Medical Service in scottsville.
Project DescriDtion: This would be for land acquisition and
development for a new rescue squad facility in the
scottsville Area.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: The facility would serve the
Town of scottsville (including the proposed scottsville
School elderly housing project) and most of Rural Area 4.
The 1980 Census reported a median family income in 1979 of
$16,498 in this area (or 80% or the median family income for
the County). A further survey of the income of the rescue
squad service area may be necessary to determine need and
benefit. This would be a difficult undertaking considering
the size of the service area and the likelihood of meeting
VCDBF criteria adequately enough to qualify for funding.
Relative Priorities: Emergency public facilities would
rank in the next to lowest priority group of the state
priorities and priority group of regional priorities based
on last year's ranking.
other Information: Due to low regional and state priority
and verifying benefit to low-moderate individuals, this
project holds marginal opportunity for funding at this time.
project 4: Possible proiect: Agricultural Center/Farmer's
Market.
Project DescriDtion: Purchase and develop a facility to
serve as an agricultural center including use as a farmers
market to accommodate local farmers to market their goods to
the public. other uses of this facility may include the
option of allowing farmers to sell wholesale to local retail
businesses; and/or incorporating a produce packing area for
commercial distribution. An agricultural center would serve
to support and encourage agricultural related activities as
well as to draw other economic/tourist activities to the
County.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would likely
need to be conducted to document a 51% benefit to
low/moderate income persons. It is widely known that the
cost of land and farm production expenses are generally not
recovered from the sales of agricultural products. This
cost-benefit disparity is especially great for cropland
farmers. The enhancement of a marketplace for local
products may encourage:
· A diversification of the agricultural economy and
related industries
· New jobs in the sector
· Retention of existing jobs and farm operations
Wages paid in Albemarle County in the agricultural sector
(as reported by Virginia Employment Commission) are 84.5% of
the average for Virginia. However, it may be difficult to
verify primary benefit to low/moderate income persons with
this project.
Relative Priorities: "other economic activities" would rank
in the lowest priority group of state priorities and next to
highest priority group for regional priorities based on last
year's ranking.
other Information: Due to difficulty in identifying benefit
to low and moderate income individuals and its ranking based
on state and local priorities, this project holds a marginal
opportunity for funding at this time. The
Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee is now in
the process of evaluating the need for an agricultural
center, and the type of facility that would be needed to
serve the County. This project may hold promise for future
request depending on the recommendations of the Committee's
work and ultimate Board of Supervisor's decision on that
recommendation.
proiect 5: scottsville Community ImDrovements.
proiect Description: This project could extend water and
sewer facilities north to the scottsville Shopping Center,
undeveloped property designated for industrial service use,
and/or to existing low/moderate income residential areas.
There is a history of water quantity and quality problems at
the shopping center and Stony Point Subdivision. The site
lacks adequate facilities for support development.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: Such a project would provide
utilities to existing and potential residential, commercial,
and industrial development. Additional expansion of
commercial activity and development of industrial uses could
provide jobs targeted for low/moderate income persons. An
income survey would need to be performed to determine
qualifying residential target areas.
Relative Priorities: Sewer and water facilities would rank
in the highest priority group in both the state and regional
priorities according to last year's ranking.
other Information:
Commitment from an industry proposing to develop at the
industrial site, businesses wishing to develop at the
shopping center or other commercial sites, or from a
developer to construct low/moderate income housing would be
necessary before making grant application. Such development
must target additional employment opportunities or services
for low-moderate income persons to receive VCDBG funding.
Staff has had discussion recently with a developer who has
shown interest in providing affordable housing in the
scottsville growth area. However, due to the types of
commitments necessary to provide a competitive CDBG
application and the current time frame for applications, a
request for VCDBG at this time may be prohibitive. However,
this project holds promise for next year's round of CDBG
applications should the developer interest remain. A
Planning Grant could be pursued this year for project
analysis and development. This would improve the
opportunity for making application for a construction grant
next year.
. ..
The project area is within that area being annexed to the
Town of scottsville. Pursuit of this grant should be
initiated by the Town.
SUMMARY:
It is not anticipated at this point that any of the projects
list above will necessitate displacement of County
residents. The County's use of VCDBG funds over the last
five years has been dedicated to housing rehabilitation
projects either through the Thomas Jefferson Housing
Improvement Corporation or AHIP and, most recently, to the
development of the new affordable housing construction. The
VCDBG citizen participation process requires that the Board
of Supervisors, at this public hearing, receive comments
from the public before making a decision on which project,
if any, it wishes to pursue for funding. Staff is prepared
to provide its priorities and recommendations followinq the
close of the public hearinq.
Distrltwtd to BG3d: .9Z:..IZ '~i3
q3.Q~~ll:Ltj)
t .."
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
J nuary 28, 1993
T inity Presbyterian Church
P O. Box 5102
C arlottesville, VA 22905
R
SP-93-01 Trinity Presbytrian Church
Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C and 17C1
D ar Sir:
T e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
J nuary 26, 1993, unanimously recommmended approval of the above-
n ted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
T e most appropriate method for action on this request is to
dify condition #4 of SP-91-l6 with the wording contained below:
1 Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall
not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet;
2 The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on
Attachment C initialed WDF and dated May 6, 1991;
3 A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
connection to public sewer has been completed;
4 Clearing of trees shall be limited to that neceoo~ry for the
inot~ll~tion of the modul~r clao3room3 shown on a site plan
titled Trinitv Presbyterian Church revised 1/7/93 and
initialed WDF 1/14/93.
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
w'll review this petition and receive public comment at their
meting on Februarv 17, 1993.. Any new or additional information
r garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
Bard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
h aring date.
1
TAFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION:
OARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JANUARY 26, 1993
FEBRUARY 17, 1993
P-93-01 - TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Proposal to amend a condition of SP-91-16 to allow
dditional grading to occur on-site. Property, described as Tax
ap 76, Parcels 17C and 17C1, is located on the south side of
eservoir Road (Route 702) approximately 3/10 of a mile west of
'ts intersection with the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass in the Samuel
iller Magisterial District. This site consists of 17.54 acres
oned R-1, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
istrict. This site is located in a designated growth area
Neighborhood 6) and is recommended for Low Density Residential
1-4 dwelling units per acre).
Residential properties are located to the
orth and west of the church site. Route 702 provides the
orther boundary. The Jefferson Lodge Retirement property
recently reviewed for the Old 29 Office Place Preliminary Site
Ian) and the Chinese Dragon Restaurant are located on the west
ide of old U.S. Route 29 north of Route 702. The Virginia
epartment of Forestry property lies on the east side of old U.S.
oute 29 across from this site. The property itself is occupied
y a church and related improvements.
1icant'8 Pro 08a1: The applicant is proposing to amend
ondition #4 of SP-91-16 which states "Clearing of trees shall be
imited to that necessary for the installation of the modular
lassrooms." SP-91-16 was a request to allow 2 modular
lassrooms at the rear of the church building (Attachment C).
he purpose of this amendment is to allow for the grading of a
ortion of the site behind the church.
he applicant has provided a description and justification for
he proposed grading stating "To provide an area to be used as a
laying field and future parking area if church expansion occurs.
n addition, a permanent stormwater detention basin will be
onstructed in order to control this site. The church currently
as very little space adequate for any outdoor activities. The
illing in of this swale will provide for a playing field as well
s eliminate a potential dangerous area adjacent to the
hildren's playground." (Please note that stormwater detention
lans have been reviewed and approved for the various phases of
evelopment on this site).
Staff has reviewed this request for
3
onsistency with the conditions of SP-91-16 and recommendations
pproval.
and Zonin
arch 19, 1981 - The Planning Commission approved a site plan for
rinity Presbyterian Church. This was a request for a 20,000
quare foot building.
une 22, 1982 - The Planning Commission approved a revised site
Ian for a 20,000 square foot building served by 294 parking
paces.
anuary 20, 1987 - site plan for 15,800 square foot education
ing is administratively approved.
ay 2, 1988 - Site plan amending parking areas is approved
dministratively. This increased total parking on-site to 386
paces.
ebruary 21, 1990 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-89-97, a
to operate a preschool for up to 60 children.
1991 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-91-16, a
for two modular classrooms.
he intent of the condition limiting the amount of clearing
llowed for installation of the modular classrooms was to
inimize visibility from adjacent properties and the entrance
orridor. The Design Planner has commented on the proposed
rading (Attachment D). The site plan submitted by the applicant
'ndicates screening trees along Route 702 to be interspersed with
xisting vegetation. The banks of the detention basin will be
evegetated with cedar seedlings.
taff opinion is that the changes to the site plan will not
'ncrease dramatically the visibility of the church due to the
ank around the detention basin and the proposed revegetation.
he proposed grading will not adversely impact adjacent
roperties.
his site has limited areas available for outdoor activities.
he proposed grading will not expand available recreation area to
n extent that would adversely impact adjacent properties. The
plicant has stated that the area proposed for grading may be
sed as a future parking area. This would be subject to further
site plan review. Approval of this request does not imply that
any church expansion will be authorized.
4
f ummarv
~his activity should have limited impact on adjacent areas, and
~ill provide for limited recreational areas. staff is able to
fupport this request and recommends approval. The most
cppropriate method for action on this request is to modify
condition #4 of SP-91-16 with the wording contained below:
.
Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall
not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet;
~ -
The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on
Attachment C initialed WOF and dated May 6, 1991;
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
connection to public sewer has been completed;
~ . Clearing of trees shall be limited to that ncocooary for the
inotallation of the modular ola3orooms shown on a site plan
titled Trinitv Presbyterian Church revised 1/7/93 and
initialed WOF 1/14/93.
-------------------
JTTACHMENTS:
}, - Tax Map
I - Action Letter from SP-91-016
( - Memo from ARB Oesign Planner
5
I
. ALBEMARLE COUNT~
60
~ F;%:; ('~ ~~_\:'.~> ;/ '''''-J~~_
~) /'VA/./- ~ I ~?/X,. \ ..07 ~ /~
SECTION 76C:::::% ----.- .J ---yr Ifl 1\' / '"
.",,,, 1\- _"~ ;;;;,1' - ~-J< ~ ~. f /\ U '1
~ ::V/--P'/......%'\ 10"", V \'):;_ \'\ _. ) _ ,
'''<, r/L//A- { ~ ,,,,,,,'" ;::...\-.................. J"--../ ,./ ~
~ --\, ~// X \' ~ -l- 1. J I ...........,
~J--f-L.~ t-x~ 'OEe" .-/' \~' I I "
1 fA ~ '\ -- / l\..~ r"- / I I A'
" ~ ... "{ '01<21 · ,--: ';/............. A r J I f ~ v
/ 'oc r! LI~~~~~~7~:l ~ 'I n /v"" "'j. --./ -- I I "'7
/l'/"'/-;%://. 'OF ~ \ \ '"{-T --r _
I' - jj" ~/0 i./ I -...- -,.J~
~omT:); V/////~ f"53 ~U' --. ~ II L . ~
11''S: ~'O.~ f I 'I:' ~;J hI~ / I
' ' N/'" .~ ,I- 0; ~ ~ !',;, ,,# 'I' 1 I
;' .""1';:' V~<2J\ 10.HI3I ~ f ~ I::: I \ I ( o/~~:y / I / /
,;3 I. r~l, ~ ~; 7/ -I, 'ell '" jlY I l~~ II
~t',~l '20 '\X /16CO''/-: 'I J ~l .1 5 li.3:I. ,I.- -::: ./ / j_~ ~ I;
~v\11 ::lC.~;l ,,~i;J}i;/''/J 1/ / 8 ~ -.....~~~~~I u
~" ,,~'\~ A ,I'.' ~--- __ ".~~ -: ~_-:,\_'L
' 06 "A' 16 ". );I ~ SP-93-01 -~~ -- '1--
~ 12 l)j ~'I
~' ',~'C / - Trini ty Presbyterian ~ ~__---'\'____ _=~
.'\, IA " ~ / Church -J __ ~\____ __\
'" 1 __ ./ ~___'
':';, ,/~ \ 178 ) ~~ ____~, ~~
~ ~ ~~~&~,. ~ F II CHARLOTTESVILLE ,,,,"-
~~.~~r h ,,. ~: "" \' __\ "
75 J \( ~ ~~ ~~~,. HCTION;~ ~.3 7' _\
.J "- \ ,. 7//..?~ HILL / _
~ :..'- ~ ~ // "1 r " \
~"~~~~~ -~ ~:8;'/ }\ \" ___
~~~_:8 2A 2AA ~ ~w2~\ // \ "'---'_
~~~22~- ,1" r I' ./ ...........
r;o/~~~ :"'$\~A'> \<0 ./ '-~ ........ .'~
~~~::--=~~ ~ ~ .. \" '1 ---r ......... oV/
.- ~10"--76"~ ~ I \ / :/ " 77"'-
0~ ~'6 \ (Sr r ,'L
0rx---= ~ ~... J , 0' II
~,2" ~ ~,.~ .,)....")" ,,-;;;;7 ,}, ~
o ~ " -9$)-4 ,/ 7 I //2 ,~ts=-=l
~ SECTION 7 ~:1 V ~,.~ 468 ., ~~' //// ~
VZSHE"WOOO FA.S ~ ,~ ' i l-j/~ ~/'l/ ~
1:W~~ >- ~------~ ~ ~~ '6C --d're ",,,,/' ~o~p;~_.~
~ //:::----..... ~', """'~ 0/ 5 ,~
~ //; ~----:::?- -_~____ ../21 bC~' ~~~' 5 ~~~ =~-iC=-}:
;<~;/ ':>~~ // ~%0~,_ ------:______ "r.;, co . '''''' SSE ~~'C~-=-=-~
'/ ,////;,,/,////: -. " -::.-::::::-~=..... (/~7h/ - Flourt' == // ,>c -- _==-~
'1//://,0//// / ~ -~~~/,46c "1'Hp "" - -...., 7--........:.-
~/;:/"""~-' ~ 46F \ ~J/ 64 ~
W ~ - Q' 54 / ... '~5~ ') u
l;cr;--;'. 76" .----' , ~ 46E · 46, ,,'If J /' 1:;,c.-=.~~;;'f ~
~,,-~~ ~ "' /' j~~~ "f' /,t==-= =
~ ----- '>;;/. ' _ 4" A _" '/ _ __ =
\~~~~ ,,,"',, <'.! '" j ,,,' :" "A' '~ 1//'"", . ~
\~f~ ( (--- --- \ f~'" '~'~ " . ,,'~ ,!9ilfi-;'" ~~ .--
~ '-><r'''l.~-f{~~''~\~~~~'';:''~~~~%o.~,~" ,/~~,>;.,,~",,':t
.--- --..... / ''\ % /'/.//~, (/ '^'''''' "'" "'" ~~
',-- /''V' \ <E' $,<) /, '//. f)\ r/////, (/"",,-, ILL C Ef;.t
SCALE IN FEET
.00 "00 ..00 '_00
90
SAMUEL MILLER, SCOTTSVILLE
AND JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 76
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
July 15, 1991
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Thomas Gilliam, Jr., Etal
P. O. Box 5102
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: SP-91-16 Trinity Presbyterian Church
Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C and 17C1
Dear Mr. Gilliam:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
July 3, 1991, approved the above-noted request to add two
modular classrooms to an existing church on 17.54 acres
zoned R-1, Residential. Property located on the south side
of Rt. 701 approximately three-tenths of a mile west of
intersection with Rts. 29/250 Bypass. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1)
Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which
shall not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet;
2)
The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on
Attachment C initialed WDP & dated May 6, 1991;
\ 3)
U.Q t,
~ll~\j/a\ '->~~~
4)
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
connection to ~ubljc sewer has been completed;
Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary
for the installation of the modular classrooms.
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Page 2
July 15, 1991
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
P~lr:!:::
Director of Plann'ng
Community Development
VWC/jcw
cc: Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Douglas Lowe
. '
lr'jE("I:lFH '7~=n
rri .n~ ' ~!l t~ ~ ~jr ,;: tJ'
uc;",l i~, 1~~;~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
Planningj Dept
MEMORANDUM
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Marcia Joseph, Design Planner ~
December 14, 1992
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Tax Map 76 Parcels 17C, and 17C1
T ere are significant hardwood trees within the area designated for grading in the
n rthwestem portion of this site, (the rear of the existing building). If any revegetation is
r uired in this area, I suggest that species similar to the existing vegetation is used. The
ar regraded to form a detention basin should be revegetated; I am specifically referring to
th banks of fill forming the exterior support of the detention basin. This can be
a omplished by using the seedling method as proposed on the lower area of the site;
h wever, the seedlings should be interspersed with some hardwood plantings measuring 1
3/ II caliper. The area surrounding the area proposed for a more gentle grade should be
ri ged in hardwoods. So often the trees along the edges of newly graded sites can not
w thstand the stress of standing alone and do not survive. The addition of some new
h dwoods will also replace some of the trees that will be lost to the abuse they sustain
d ring the grading.
If you have any questions please call me.
/J /r;'," .
u""
'Op
2'
.1' ..
, <..;
.~
0'0
..
~
,-,/' {,,-./" - -\
,)~
~[illJ
\
"-
~
I
'"
d'
OJ
,,\ ;>-'"
~
~
}
Ii
'll
-l..
I
/
.....
~
-.)
o
G
/
\>-
~
~
.' It'
D~~~;{r~b'.~~j""
OJ_:. Q~?~_.::l .c]:)
,~:.q:1cr.1l2:./p I
Age;:: .~,:~
January 28, 1993
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
The Boxwood Lane Farmowners Association
Attention: Mary Beth Merschel
P. O. Box 45
Batesville, VA 22924
RE: The Boxwood Lane Farmowners Association
Tax Map 85, Parcel 78,
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1993,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Cemetery is to be located as shown on the attached plat showing "A" Pond
Parcel and initialed WDF 1/7/93;
2. Staff approval of access easement to cemetery.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review
this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on Februarv 17,
1993. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior
to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,.
/7 ,/,/ r7 . 'c;//
N;/l;;,;/l/' ~m
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
...., ..
ST FF PERSON:
PL NING CO~~ISSION:
BO RD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JANUARY 26, 1993
FEBRUARY 17, 1993
P-92-28 - THE BOXWOOD LANK FARMOWNKRS ASSOCIATION
.etition: The applicant proposes to establish a cemetery [10.2.2(32)] on
2.43 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 85, Parcel
8, is located on the east side of a private road approximately 0.87 miles
outh of Plank Road (Route 692) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
his site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
racter of the Area: The proposed site for the cemetery is wooded and is
pen space in Miran Forest. The cemetery is to be located in the Miran Forest
ubdivision.
Pro osa1: The proposed cemetery is for bodies and cremated
is meant for only Miran Forest homeowners.
ith the provisions
pproval.
reviewed this request for compliance
of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends
and Zonin
in 1978.
6, 1984.
Risto Miran Forest has had several plats approved
The plat creating the open space parcel was signed on
cemetery is for use by Miran Forest homeowners only and is located on an
space parcel. The proposed use will not affect adjacent properties and
ill not change the character of the district. Staff recommends approval of
P-92-28 subject to the following conditions:
Cemetery is for Miran Forest homeowners only;
. Cemetery is to be located as shown on the attached plat showing "A" Pond
Parcel and initialed WDF 1/7/93;
Staff approval of access easement to cemetery.
- Tax Map
- Plat
.. ~
~
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
,--"
"",
;<.,
SP-92-28
45 - BoX\\OOd Lane
" F
~~II
\ ~" I
) \ i +
~r;: 47~ I (
V ) I ~ 48
.".\\ \ \ r
\,j / \ .I
'1'''- "I
, ',,- /
I ""--
97
'CALl .. 'UT
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
SECTION 85
- :;
u: g;
'" ;:;
0 ~
...
'" s
...
;;
'" ~
'"
":
0
;;
~ ~
~ ~
" ;;
'" ~
"
= Of
.- N
'" '"
'" .:.
'"
'" '"
'" '"
'" ..
W ..
W '"
0
~
~
'"
::;,
D
::;,
~
1 1"
~l.
/ >
~.~. 0,
~I
~'
I
[,/J
r
,
GIBSON
MOUNTAIN
'(}el
i
o
i::
~
~y'-'~"c
,/
Mountf8..'. ~1;V~~-,/
~', ~ J- < ~....J-'~.r">Y
I ~/ II.
.;<"
[7i~,)
,~ /I.'
"""',,' :;8'
\
[iF'
r '..,..
.~/
~
:;
Q76i6611
~,
o ..
. ~
Ol2.~-"
~'" '
'<Jo
."
, .
.),.,
w
U
"
w
...
c..I!lo
l6C;;l" "
"'I
~",
"0",
~
~
o
~
~....
~1-
u
<JI
" ~@] ~
il llliJ
- HIGH
;\ TOP
IillJ
~"-
<'
o
CASTLE ROCK
SP-92-28
Farrrowners Association
\H..rd,i ~~
\ .pi;-~"~-s~-- :I..r
1";\~!Ell COlts v;ji' "'0..
wi e -....::... (,;
BOAl ~, ../
MOUNTAIN =.
... l~"
....
("\
..
\_.
""
-"
D~strib',.!t;~d 1:.
M:J.:L~?
Ae':/...;, "', ,.
~ .---.------..----
January 28, 1993
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
McKee/Carson
ATTN: Bob McKee
256 East High street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-92-65 Dr. & Mrs. John K. Youel
Tax Map 31, Parcels l6A, 22, 22A, and 23F
Dear Mr. McKee:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1993,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the plat titled "Loftlands
Farm" revised January 4, 1993 and initialed WDF 1/11/93;
The following revision to the development may be permitted by the
Recreational Facilities Authority:
a. Not more than 33.02 acres may be deducted from the Preservation
Tract. Deducted acreage may be added to Lots 25, 26 and/or 27.
b. The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed
as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preservation
Tract is added to Lot 25, 26 or 27 resulting in a Preservation
Tract with a minimum acreage of 188.83 acres. This provision
allows for transfer of the RPT acreage to only one of the
aforementioned lots.
Upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III road as
specified in the Virginia Department of Tra~sportation Subdivision
Manual.
I
..
!1cKee/Carson
Page 2
~anuary 28, 1993
~lease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review
his petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 17.
993. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be
ubmitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior
o your scheduled hearing date.
f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action,
Dlease do not hesitate to contact me.
incerely,
l/l /. / / /J'/
'<<dc/~~ f/ 'F
, illiam D. Fritz
enior Planner
1 DF/jcw
( c: vtlla Carey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Dr. & Mrs. John K. Youel
.
TAFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION:
OARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JANUARY 26, 1993
FEBRUARY 17, 1993
P-92-65 DR. AND MRS. JOHN K. YOUEL
UB-92-l68 LOFTLANDS FARM PRELIMINARY PLAT
& Mrs. John K. Youel - Proposal to create a 27 lot rural
development [10.3.3.3(b)] on approximately 333 acres zoned RA,
ural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcels l6A, 22, 22A, and 23F
is located at the end of Loftlands Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial
istrict [Loftlands Drive is located on the south side of Rea's Ford Road (Rt.
660) approximately 0.3 miles west of Earlysville Road (Rt. 743)]. This site
is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
SUB-92-l68 - Loftlands Farm Preliminar Plat - Proposal to create 23
lustered development lots, averaging 2.87 acres,
hree additional development lots averaging 6.1 acres around three existing
ouses, and one rural preservation tract of 221.85 acres from four parcels
otalling 333 acres. The lots are proposed to be served through the existing
oftlands subdivision by a private road extension off Loftlands Drive (Route
555). Property described as Tax Map 31, Parcels l6A, 22, 22A and 23F, is
ocated on the south side of Rea's Ford Road (Route 660) approximately 0.3
ile west of Earlysville Road (Route 743). Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the
harlottesville Magisterial District. This property is not located in a
esignated growth area (RA I).
Three existing dwellings are on this site. A complete
escription of this site is contained in the information submitted by the
pplicant. titled "Application Plan and Development Summary" Attachment C. The
rea proposed for development is in a wooded area adjacent to the existing
oftlands Development. Access to this site is through existing public roads
in Loftlands. Agricultural/Forestal Districts are adjacent to the east, south
nd north.
licant's Pro osal: This application is for a Rural Preservation
evelopment consisting of 26 lots and one preservation tract to be served by
rivate roads. This development requires a special use permit as it proposes
ore than 20 development lots.
UMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance
ith the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, particularly Section 31.2.4.1 of
he Zoning Ordinance, and recommends approval of this request subject to
onditions.
1
- .
and Zonin
ctober 20, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-76-l4 which rezoned
he existing Loftlands subdivision to A-l/RPN. The area currently under
eview was shown for future development similar in nature to the existing
oftlands subdivision.
- The plat creating the existing Loftlands subdivision was
om rehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area I, and within the
outh Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Watershed. The proposal meets the
bjectives of the Comprehensive Plan for rural development. The application
lan emphasizes protection of the reservoir watershed and preservation of
gricultural areas. The proposed development area is located adjacent to a
urrent agricultural forestal district. The application plan provides
dequate buffering to minimize impact on that district.
he applicant has provided a detailed package of information titled
'Application Plan and Development Summary" (Attachment C). This package is
repared in a format similar to that used by staff in its preparation of
eports. The applicant has consulted with staff over a substantial time
eriod and has provided the information requested. Staff will not repeat the
nformation contained in the applicant's packet as staff is in agreement with
he facts contained therein, but will summarize items addressed by the
pplicant and appropriate to review of this request.
he four major elements for all decisions on rural development contained in
he Comprehensive Plan [(1) Preservation of agricultural and forestal
ctivities; (2) water supply protection; (3) limited service delivery to rural
reas; and (4) conservation of scenic and historical resources] have in the
pinion of staff, been successfully addressed by the design features of the
roposed development.
ection 10.3.3.2 contains design standards for Rural Preservation
evelopments. The applicant addresses each of these provisions on pages 8
hrough 10 of the information packet. Staff opinion is that the design of the
evelopment is such that resources which can be protected by the RPD option
re protected. The applicant's design does preserve agricultural land and
rovides for water supply protection through lot design and setbacks greater
han required by the ordinance. The development lots are located adjacent to
he existing Loftlands development and to properties located within a
gricultural/Forestal district. The preservation tract is also adjacent to
and within a Agricultural/Forestal district. The design of this development
rovides for buffers between the development lots and agricultural/forestal
and. The concentration of the development potential of this site adjacent to
he existing Loftlands development may tend to increase the potential village
haracteristics of the area. However, by utilizing the RPD option no
dditional lots are obtained and substantial area is included in permanent
2
asement. The improvement in design offered by the RPD option in the op~n~on
f staff offsets the potential village scale appearance of the development.
ection 10.5.2.1 contains items for consideration for PRD's of over 20
evelopment lots. The applicant addresses each of these items on pages 10
hrough 14 of information packet. The information provided indicates that
his site has agricultural value which has been used for a number of years.
he design of the RPT preserves the agricultural value and use of the site.
s stated previously this development concentrates the development potential
f this site adjacent to an existing subdivision. The main areas of existing
evelopment within a mile of this site are Loftlands's and the Village of
arlsyville (Staff considers developments to be in proximity to Villages when
hey are within ~ mile. This site is over ~ mile by roads from Earlysville).
ther residential areas are also present within a mile of this site. The
ajority of land adjacent to this site and to the RPT is agricultural/forestal
and, much of which is within an Agricultural/Forestal district.
taff concurs with the opinions stated by the applicant. On page 20 the
pplicant discusses "Special Provisions". The applicant propose the
econfiguration of the Rural Preservation Tract (RPT) in the future. Staff
otes that the proposed revisions to the RPT would meet all acreage limits of
he Rural Preservation Development Option. Staff opinion is that the intended
urpose of this RPD will not be violated by a revision to the RPT as proposed
y the applicant. (The intent of this RPD as viewed by staff is preservation
f agricultural land and water supply protection.) Staff has recommended that
he RPT easement be worded prior to final plat approval to allow the requested
odifications to the RPT in the future.
has identified the following items which are favorable to this request:
Preservation of significant agricultural areas;
Protection of water supply through the use of setbacks greater than that
required by the ordinance;
Concentration of development lots adjacent to existing residential
development;
The Preservation Tract is largely adjacent to properties within
Agricultural/Forestal district and buffers have been provided where
development lots are adjacent to Agricultural/Forestal properties.
taff has identified the following items which are unfavorable to this
equest:
Due to the residential nature (i.e-concentrated small lot subdivision)
it is reasonable to assume increased demands for services and
regulations of an urban type. (Staff notes that residential development
in rural areas have from time to time attempted to regulate adjacent
agricultural/forestal activities.)
3
~he layout of the proposed development makes use of access through the
Existing Loftlands subdivision resulting in no new entrance on a state road
end no change to any existing properties by the creation of a new road. The
Existing road in Loftlands must be upgraded. This need for upgrading for
edditional development was noted and agreed to by the applicant at the time of
the development of the existing Loftlands subdivision. The area proposed for
the development lots was shown for development during the initial review of
loftlands in 1976. In addition, lots were shown in what is now the
I reservation tract.
he applicant is proposing the use of private roads to serve the development.
~he Engineering Department has recommended approval of this request due to the
eduction of potential grading when compared to the construction of public
oads.
~taff opinion is that this request, on balance, provides a favorable design
clternative to conventional development and does comply with the intent of the
(omprehensive Plan and provisions of Section 10.3.3.2. Therefore, staff
ecommends approval of SP-92-65 and SUB-92-l68 subject to the following
( onditions:
lecommended Conditions of Annrova1 of 8P-92-65 Dr. and Mrs. John K. Youel
Development shall be in general accord with the plat titled "Loftlands
Farm" revised January 4, 1993 and initialed WDF 1/11/93;
~ . The following revision to the development may be permitted by the
Recreational Facilities Authority:
a. Not more than 33.02 acres may be deducted from the Preservation
Tract. Deducted acreage may be added to Lots 25, 26 and/or 27.
b. The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed
as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preservation
Tract is added to Lot 25,
26 or 27 resulting in a Preservation Tract with a m~n~mum acreage
of 188.83 acres. This provision allows for transfer of the RPT
acreage to only one of the aforementioned lots.
Upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III road as
specified in the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision
Manual.
] ecommended Conditions of Annrova1 of 8U8-92-168 Loft1ands Farm Pre1iminarv
"~
The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be
signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
4
b. Department of Engineering approval of roads and associated
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
associated drainage plans and calculations for the upgrading of
Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III road as specified in
the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Manual;
f. Health Department approval;
g. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of a Rural
Preservation Easement to include standard water supply protection
language. In addition approval will be required for the revisions
to the Rural Preservation Easement as permitted by condition #2 of
SP-92-65.
Administrative approval of final plat.
TTACHMENTS:
- Location Map
- Tax Map
- Applicant's Information Packet
- Table Comparihg RPD's
5
, '-~"\..
("" ...~
"',- J '
I'. r~
~'~/'" -
-~ :;1, I"
"~\J\ ~,T AI~.
f
~-....
., / <....,
fr-"cr")'] r-,-.:,-,,~(
~~ , J,J.J,
- '--.'----..
"'-':~"",!a'7
"" ' ,', :,,~ (cli5J
~(;fij) .... J'...-.
> -~ /...............
b ,1' . ....
tv
ATTACHMENT
A
-,
~
---
1
c
..
---
o
......
.~
I
,.
'J
,
I
,
t c 0,
,.,\
I
---
c.' 'y' . c 1"____ 114',1
L~!2::j, ..... ....~.
, ,
h. I IVf!rft;:~ '\ f,,0;0
- ( ----
. \ ~
(;
EARLYSVI
(OUIl TiMfS
, forA
J'~1~
-^
, ~X:"i "..---
... .
, BUf"jfl~
Of?
"1t\.-
,
,
':r:x:
.yI
0./
\
(~:;.-[)1,
\ .
I
J (; I I t}(l , ~
A""'-,.r"W//
-J
I\l'
\"1,\
,\,
\
...
(,
\"
, 1'1' ~ JG~~g]
I ',,, '\
...
'"
.'c"
"7[;,.
I
,
{--
,5'
--!-'O
[f.i
,f,",FJII
~ '....
....
...
i"
)~
V.....':...'.....[I{r.J
[-,',,]
_ ,. .,' ..... r.... _ _ \
...
, '\
~-' " ,L,f'&J
\
I
\
)
0;'
.,'
,,'"
#
\~/
,,/~
-~//" " , .Y
.~
C8mp~1I
... ~;:QJ
\
(~v
....c.'
",
I'
CS' ';'/"
.l
. [9TI~
, /
TO ZION
'c,
'---
r
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
.
19
.--1
I
l-
I
A'ITACHMENT B
-
--
..,
II
II
i!
II
I
V
32
),- \ /"':x'"
\ Y, "-
I>X--
T
.... AGrllCULTUrlA a. FOrlESTAL DI:,T~ICT
SCALE IN FEET
WHITE HALL AND
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS
SECTION
31
I
.
~
~
'"
~
3
:;
~
;;
~
~
N
'"
~
-<>
....
u
5i
~
'"
:':
N
~ ~
"
~
"
....,
] ~
no
~
o
~
~
'"
:0,
'"
1
IT
'<
."
n
;;;
:;;
~
'"
"
'-
~
'"
IT
:s
....
iJ
C,
~
~
a.
v
C
IT
N
N
....
N
<:>
N
~
<:>
~
N
<:>
;:j
><
."
,
'"
3
E:
,
'<
~
o
~
'"
a.
??
~
,
N
<:>
:s
N
~
~
n
~
'"
'"
1<'
'"
."
,
~
;;
N
-D
CD
N
<:>
~
>C
5i ~
-<> ~
:': ....
~ -<>
:;:
"
~
:J ~
'" ><
U
'"
:;:
:;
'"
~,
"
'"
,
'<
~
o
~
o
n
~
.'"
~
,
1<'
'"
~
"
~
0;
."
C
2:
....,
N
",..
....
<:>
....
....
~
~
'"
....,
CD
><
."
,
no
~,
"
'"
,
'<
~
o
~
'"
'"
~
~
N
N
~
~
~
~
..,
'"
~
~
1
~
'"
~
~
~
:<
:s
N
z
~
,
~
"
'i
no
'"
~
~
'"
o
:J
g.
~
no
~
;;
g-
:i:
~
;;
o
'"
~
,.
i
o
~
Z-
....
~
n
~
~
<
o
"
~
"
:;
;;;
no
~
.....
(,.
-<>
0,
>C
5i
....,
'"
:': ....
~ N
:;:
"
~
:J
~ ~
."
~
"
'"
'" ~
'" -.
l~
, "
rt
"
'"
.V> ~
:8 ~
N Z-
IT
'<
,.
~
o
~
"
c
[
n
,
no
'"
1<'
."
&-
~
:0
c:
...
"1J
5i
::
~
:"
'"
~ ~
~ ~
:;:
~
....
><
:J
~ ....
" CD
><
~
no
:8 ;;'
, il..
o -,
~ "
'" '"
3
"
'"
i.
'"
'"
o
:J
or
no
'"
~
'"
."
,
;;;
no
'l:
N
~
....
~
E:
.:
'"
;;
o
:J
;;,
o
~
'"
~
....
....
N
~
....
<:>
~
<:>
V>
"1J
5i
....
....
~ ~
no
'"
:J
~
:J ~
o
i H
no
:8 ;;'
, il..
o -,
~ :J
'" '"
~
m
~
:J
5:
;:j
~
....
....
....
-;;.~
~ ~
~
....
CD N
'"
~ ~
no "
" ~
'" '"
N
~
~
i
o
!
~
!;
~
;...
v
,
;;;
no
N
-g
0,
o
'"
CD
....
'"
'"
.ci
CD
-<>
><
m
><
~,
i
~
"
~
"
:J
:;
;;;
;;
~
:-"
N
'"
~
....
....
....
V>
'"
><
i
o
~
Z-
;;;
~
!;
~
"
C
no
rt
c
R
'"
5:
<:>
N
~
<:>
o
V>
V>
<:>
><
m
><
~.
i
g
."
~
z z
o
."
~ ~
~
~
'"
~
~
~
~
s
~
,.
~
~
~
;;i
~
o Z
." 0
~
~ ;;
~
8
'"
~ ~
;;i '"
o ,.
." n
~ ~
~ ~
m
9 ~
'"
'"
."
~
,.
E
,.
~
v
~ m
~ ~
~
,.
'" ~
~ ~
~
~
~
-A'ITACH'1ENT T)
..
'"
~
'"
."
~
:;:
no
,
~
o
:J
<:>
no
<
"
~
;;
'"
'"
c
'"
R
'"
"
~
'"
:J
C
'"
,
'<
'"
~
....
. .
(II ,,'7 (,,1')
Distributed to B::~~d: ~::L~f~.J2
{I,2" .; ,:,Cj..;?f)/d{?:~.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
EMORANDUM
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development~
February 12, 1993
National Highway System - MPO Technical Committee
Review
T e Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Technical Committee,
,a its meeting on Thursday, February 11, 1993, reviewed the
p oposed National Highway System (NHS). After extensive
d'scussion, on a motion by Dennis Rooker and seconded by Kenneth
S ith, the Committee recommended approval of the proposed map
w'th the exclusion of the Route 29 North Bypass (see maps with
J nuary 28, 1993 staff reports attached). The proposed bypass,
a staff and the Committee understands it, is not required to be
rt of NHS. The basis for the Committee's recommendation was to
ximize the opportunity for local input on and control of the
sign and character of the bypass.
Bjj cw
TACHMENT
- .
ME ORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
TO:
Robert Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
David B. Benish~ief of Planning
FR M:
DA E:
January 28, 1993
RE:
National Highway System
This is to provide comments on Virginia Department of Transportation's
(VD T's) proposal for roads for the National Highway System (NHS). The
att ched information provides a basic explanation of the NHS. To expand on
thi , the only type of roads which qualify for the NHS are interstates and
pri ciple arterials. All interstates and those high priority corridors
ide tified by Congress in the ISTEA legislation are required to be part of the
NHS. Congress designated twenty-one high priority corridors nationwide.
Rou e 29, from Washington to Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of those
idors (the only one identified in Virginia).
proposed Route 29 Bypass is recommended by VDOT to be designated as part
he NHS because it would ultimately become the route for through traffic
ment. Its designation as part of the system would permit NHS funds to be
for planning/engineering and ultimate construction. Route 250 from the
interchange at Shadwell to the Route 29 interchange and 1-64 are the only
r area roads designated for the NHS.
In erms of the impact to the County, NHS roads will likely be subject to
hig er design standar~s. NHS roads are intended to function in a manner
sim'lar to interstates; that is, designed for higher speeds and limited
acc ss. Under the ISTEA legislation there will be greater local input/control
ove transportation projects. However, for the NHS there will be less
fle ibility, particularly in terms of level of improvements and timing of
tho e improvements. As far as can be determined, there will be no significant
aff ct to the amount of funds available to the County based on roads
des gnated for the NHS. Therefore, there is no significant benefit to having
roa s designated for NHS. In fact, local input, discretion and flexibility in
des gn would be lost on those roads.
Brandenburger
e 2
uary 28, 1993
not recommend that any other roads be added to the NHS.
cc: Dan Roosevelt
.:.>~~"~"\\~.., .
e;'~"l,\"'~/}oI/~'~~
) :1;,;..,.. 'i.}~
~. II.l...,.k. n
~\ ;; ('~'r' "
I "1 0) ~"
,.- ;1 ',Ii r-. /-
. <1i' w' > ~ ~~J ,,;,
"it-'..: .;; ...'':.:tIr
r:~"PJ,TY'-~~t..p-
"~:.i.'\:-
oj
jl\\o\ Q.\ '9~
COMMONWEALTI-i of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETH El
COMMISSIONE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
December 28, 1992
National Highway System
Ms Nancy O'Brien
Ex cutive Director
Th mas Jefferson Planning Dist. Commission
41 East Market Street, Suite 102
Ch rlottesville, VA 22901
De r Ms. O'Brien:
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
19 1, authorized the development of a National Highway System
(N S) to ".. .provide an interconnected system of principal
ar erial routes which will serve major population centers,
international border crossings, ports, airports, public
transportation facilities, and other intermodal
transportation facilities and other major travel
destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve
int rstate and interregional travel."
Due to the significance of the NHS, we believe it is
ically important to have the involvement of federal,
e, regional, and local planning officials in its
lopment. The proposed NHS needs to be submitted to the
ral Highway Administration by April 30, 1993.
Please find attached a statewide map, any specialty maps
app icable to you and a table describing the preliminary
Nat onal Highway System as identified by the Department of
Tra sportation. Please review the attached material and
sub it any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no
lat r than February 26, 1993, to:
Richard C. Lockwood
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 E. Broad Street
RiChmond, VA 23219
The NHS mileage target established by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) for Virginia is 2,967 miles
consisting of 2,076 rural miles and 891 urban miles. The
targets are recognized by FHWA to provide a starting point
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
, . .
I
PRELIMINARY STATEWIDE
N H S MILEAGE SUMMARY
RURAL
URBAN
F H W A TARGET MILEAGE
2.076
891
INT"SRSTATE ROUTES
722
390
Nor~ - INTERSTATE
CONGRESSIONAL
HIGH PRIORITY ROUTES
193
80
NO~ - INTERSTATE
STR~HNET ROUTES
398
68
STR~HNET MAJOR
CON NECTOR ROUTES
37
51
=0-
TOT ~L REQUIRED MILEAGE
1.349
588
OTH ~R PRINCIPAL
ARTE RIAL ROUTES
NON - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
ACCI SS ROUTES TO MAJOR
INTERMODAL FACILITIES
808
650
3
5
TOTAL PRELIMINARY
L___ N H ~ MILEAGE
2,160 1.242
--~----- ~---~--I.-_--------------~--- _.
12/22/92
TOTAL
. 2,967
1.112
272
465
88
'~
1,937
==
1,458
-- n - -'=-==1
I
7
.---- --~-
- ..--.---......
n'_-l
._. -----,-
3,403
I
)
NATIONAL
LEGEND
URBANIZED BOUNDARY
111111111 REQUIRED NHS FACiliTIES
~~ OTHER NHS FACILITIES
SC"LE
ot~
~-oE
eCe ,
'0
1 MILES
,
~
/'
:!
w
I-
~
CJ)
~
3=
::J:
"
-
::J:
...J
<C
Z
o
-
ti
z
~-.
~
~
..
~ ~
~ ~
... 9~
o &\)
&
()
tn
W
- tn
I-
- W
..J -
- t::
~ ..J
-
C ~ ~
w tn
Q a: :x:: ~
z c Z tn,
W Q C :E:
Cl w w z
W N a: a:
-
..J Z - W
::;)
~ 0 :E:
a: w b
::) a:
I' . i
.
.
.
.
!! ~
-1t b- ~
':;0
v/.(
-1t b- ~
, .( b-
..--
::-:-'..n:::-' T ~ 2=~j~';) :;\G1A3ER:i
,,/ :07:..<2-.---
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
System (NHS)
February 3, 1993
<13- 0;( ()c9 ' ~ '7
ACTION:~
INFORMATION:
of roads
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF C
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
~
Brandenburger, Benish.
BACKGRO
The 199 rntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act authorized a National
Highway System (NHS) to "...provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes
which w'll serve major population centers,.. . and major travel destinations,.. .and serve
intersta e and interregional travel." VDOT is proposing Route 29 North, the proposed Route
29 By-pa s, 1-64 and the Route 250 By-pass for NHS designation and request localities support
and/or c mments/recommendations on this proposal.
DISCUSSI
As outli ed in the attached staff report, the NHS designation should provide greater access
to feder 1 road funds for these roads but NHS designation also has the following implications
for the e roads: (1) limited access highways, (2) higher speeds, (3) higher design
standard, and (4) little or no local input/control of these roads.
The road proposed for NHS are compatible with these uses and staff supports the recommended
designat'ons but that no additional roads be included at this time.
NHS designation and authorize the County Executive to respond
RECO
Support the
accordin ly.
93.016
-, ~-
EMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Robert Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
David B. Benish~ief of Planning
January 28, 1993
National Highway System
is is to provide comments on Virginia Department of Transportation's
DOT's) proposal for roads for the National Highway System (NHS). The
a tached information provides a basic explanation of the NHS. To expand on
is, the only type of roads which qualify for the NHS are interstates and
incip1e arterials. All interstates and those high priority corridors
entified by Congress in the ISTEA legislation are required to be part of the
S. Congress designated twenty-one high priority corridors nationwide.
ute 29, from Washington to Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of those
c rridors (the only one identified in Virginia).
e proposed Route 29 Bypass is recommended by VDOT to be designated as part
the NHS because it would ultimately become the route for through traffic
vement. Its designation as part of the system would permit NHS funds to be
ed for planning/engineering and ultimate construction. Route 250 from the
64 interchange at Shadwell to the Route 29 interchange and 1-64 are the only
o her area roads designated for the NHS.
terms of the impact to the County, NHS roads will likely be subject to
gher design standards. NHS roads are intended to function in a manner
milar to interstates; that is, designed for higher speeds and limited
cess. Under the ISTEA legislation there will be greater local input/control
o er transportation projects. However, for the NHS there will be less
exibi1ity, particularly in terms of level of improvements and timing of
ose improvements. As far as can be determined, there will be no significant
a fect to the amount of funds available to the County based on roads
signated for the NHS. Therefore, there is no significant benefit to having
ads designated for NHS. In fact, local input, discretion and flexibility in
sign would be lost on those roads.
. .
ob Brandenburger
age 2
anuary 28, 1993
taff does not recommend that any other roads be added to the NHS.
Dan Roosevelt
1 ' ~.
,DEe 81 1992
'" -
[)\ ~._.;./..; , t:~ t.... 10..,;. r' t v~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
December 28, 1992
National Highway System
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, virginia 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991, authorized the development of a National Highway System
(NHS) to "...provide an interconnected system of principal
arterial routes which will serve major population centers,
international border crossings, ports, airports, public
transportation facilities, and other intermodal
transportation facilities and other major travel
destinations; meet national defense requirements;~~erve
interstate and interregional travel." ~g
Due to the significance of the NHS, we believe it is
critically important to have the involvement of federal,
State, regional, and local planning officials in its
development. The proposed NHS needs to be submitted to the
Federal Highway Administration by April 30, 1993.
please find attached a statewide map, any specialty maps
applicable to you and a table describing the preliminary
National Highway System as identified by the Department of
Transportation. Please review the attached material and
submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no
later than February 26, 1993, to:
Richard C. Lockwood
virginia Department of Transportation
1401 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
The NHS mileage target established by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) for virginia is 2,967 miles
consisting of 2,076 rural miles and 891 urban miles. The
targets are recognized by FHWA to provide a starting point
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
December 28, 1992
page 2
for developing the proposed NHS. FHWA anticipates that some
states will propose a system that is larger than the target;
however, the mileage for additional routes should not exceed
15 percent of the total mileage target for the state. In
order to provide flexibility in developing the proposed NHS,
the states are also permitted to transfer up to 15 percent
between the rural and urban mileage targets. As you can see,
we propose to exceed the target mileage by 14.7 percent and
transfer approximately 9.3 percent from the rural to the
urban system.
As indicated on the maps, certain facilities are
required to be included in the final NHS. Those required
components consist of interstate routes, congressional high
priority routes, strategic highway network (STRAHNET) routes,
and major STRAHNET connector routes. All other proposed
routes are functionally classified as principal arterials or
provide access to intermodal transportation facilities.
If you should have any questions, please call Mr. W. R.
Mustain, II, at (804) 786-7458. Thank you for your
assistance in this matter of mutual concern.
erely,
~.
. Pet
Attachments
cc: The Honorable John G. Milliken
Mr. Oscar K. Mabry
12/22/92
PRELIMINARY STATEWIDE
N H S MILEAGE SUMMARY
RURAL
URBAN
TOTAL
F I~ W A TARGET MILEAGE
2,076
891
. 2,967
IN ....ERSTATE ROUTES 722 390 1,112
.
NC N - INTERSTATE
CC NGRESSIONAL 193 80 272
HIC~H PRIORITY ROUTES
NC N - INTERSTATE 398 68 465
STRAHNET ROUTES
STRAHNET MAJOR 37 51 88
CCNNECTOR ROUTES
I TOIrAL REQUIRED
MILEAGE 1 ,349 588 1 ,937
OTHER PRINCIPAL 808 650 1,458 I
AR fERIAL ROUTES I
NON - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL . '==l
I
I
ACCESS ROUTES TO MAJOR 3 5 7 I
I
INl ERMODAL FACILITIES
!
TOIr-AL PRELIMINARY 2, 160 1,242 3,4031
l NI-S MILEAGE I
I
The attached letter was sent to the following:
National Highway System Advisory Committee Members
County Administrators
City/Town Managers (greater than 5,000 population)
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Chairmen
Planning District Commission (PDC) Executive Directors
Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC)
Department of Rail and Public Transportation
Department of Aviation
Virginia Port Authority
~
w
...
~
en
~
::
:I:
"
-
J:
...J
<
z
o
-
t;:
z
~-$=
~
~
..
~ ~
~ ~
.... 9~
o 6)"
~
()
(f)
w
~ (f)
- W
...J i=
-
u -
Lf ...J
-
< u
w (f) Lf
Q a: :x:
z < z (f)
w c C :J:
" w w z
W N a: a:
-
...J Z - W
< ::> :J:
CD 0 5
a: w
::> a:
I' . ~
.
.
.
.
!! ~
I1f b- .,;>
Vo
V/-I
-1' b- 7
-Ib-
NATIONAL
HIGHWAY
SYSTEM
LEGEND
t'
o t - 'I. 9J9J'l-
~~,
>>0~
C 0'((\
00
111111111
",.~
URBANIZED BOUNDARY
REQUIRED NHS FACILITIES
OTHER NHS FACILITIES
~
-+-
SCALE
, MILES
.
CHARLOTTESVILLE URBANI'ZED AREA
..
Edward H, Ba n, Jr
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R Marshall, Jr
SC0!tsvllle
David P. ROWrrndt1
Charlolles\!lll
C:hdrlp'i S Martlll
Rlvalln<'J
Charlotte Y umphns
Jack Jouett
Walter F Perkins
White Hall
February 18, 1993
M . Nancy O'Brien
E ecutive Director
Tomas Jefferson Planning District
4 3 E Market Street, Suite 102
C arlottesville, VA 22901-5213
D ar Ms. O'Brien:
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on February 17, 1993, the
Bard adopted the attached resolution supporting a Regional Solid
W ste Authority. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding the
r solution to the Counties of Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson, the City
o Charlottesville and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, and
a king that each entity let us know of action taken by its b~dy an
t e resolution.
Sincerely,
/~~, 'i /
( - I;,' 1/ ,,/ J I I / - . l
Y/ .Uf/v/tvC. CLcLC"
./kia W. Carey, Clerk, /~, C
,
E C:rruns
j
tachment
c Charles W. Burgess, Jr., County Administrator, Fluvanna County
William C. Porter, Jr., County Administrator, Louisa County
Ralph H. Moore, County Administrator, Nelson County
Thomas J. Vandever, Mayor, City of Charlottesville
George W. Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water &
Sewer Authority
F. A. Iachetta, Chairman, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
*
Printed on recycled paper
..
RESOLUTION
VVHEJUEAS, the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and
N lson, the City of Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Solid Waste
A thority agree that the disposal of solid waste and the recycling
o recyclable goods are issues of great magnitude for all
g vernments and their citizens; and
VVHEJUEAS, the aforesaid all recognize the potential economic
nefit to each entity of working together to develop an efficient
stem; and
VVHEJUEAS, the counties of Fluvanna and Nelson have short
disposal needs; and
VVHEJUEAS, the City of Charlottesville, the County of
bemarle, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority are able to meet
e short term need for a disposal site; and
VVHEJUEAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of
bemarle agree to accept the solid waste for the ensuing year from
lson and Fluvanna counties; and
VVHEJUEAS, the County of Louisa is interested in an eff icient
term solution to solid waste management; and
VVHEJUEAS, all of the entities desire to develop a
operative method of resolving both the short term and long term
sues;
NOVV, THEJUEFOJUE, BE IT JUESOL VED that the County of
bemarle agrees to appoint a representative who, acting on its
half, will meet in a full faith effort to develop a proposal
der which localities and the Authority may join together in a new
expanded organization to manage solid waste; and
BE IT FURTHER JUESOLVED that the counties with short term
d sposal needs will pursue the possibility of contracting with the
R vanna Solid Waste Authority for landfilling of solid waste under
m tually agreed upon terms; and
BElT FURTHERJUESOLVED that all proposals put forth by the
d signated group will be discussed with the appointing entity, and
s bject to approval by the governing body.
* * * * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
i a true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Bard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meting held on February 17, 1993. .
nty Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
, ~>, ,~C/,'I, /'?/-lJ
I,) -",c"h..,,,.A. ,
, /)/? "'/11: J
. , . l..... I~ / / /,~
1','.'n'".. ";'>",' "" )(.1"-1 ,,J..-- .
I"\.(:).\';,.UI/.. ,~'_,!l, :i') l...::;:.._~.__.::::..__~.,~"---=-~ ,_~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive
DATE: February 9, 1993
RE: Regional Solid Waste Resolution
A some of you know, Mr. Bain and I have been meeting with
r presentatives of the City of Charlottesville and surrounding
c unties and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to discuss
t e feasibility of either expanding the RSWA or creating a new
r gional solid waste authority that would encompass more localities
t an just Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. The attached
d aft resolution is the first step in determining those localities
w 0 are interested in pursuing further discussion on this matter.
M . Bain and I support and recommend your adopting the attached
r solution.
T is resolution will simply identify those localities who are
s rious about pursuing further discussion regarding a larger
r gional solid waste authority. It is anticipated that some
d cision regarding a regional agreement would be made within the
n xt eight to twel ve months. Should you have any questions
c ncerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bain
o me.
R T,Jrjdbm
9 .019
A tachment
., " I
DRAFT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Counties of Albemarle, glf&&I.&, Fluvanna, Louisa,
and Nelson, the City of Charlottesville, and the
Rivanna soaid Waste Authority agree that the disposal
of solid waste and the recycling of recyclable goods
are issues of great magnitude for all governments and
their citizens, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid all recognize the potential economic
benefit to each entity of working together to develop
an efficient system, and 4
the Counties of Greene, Fluvanna, and Nelson have
short term disposal needs, and
the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle,
and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority are able to meet
the short term need for a disposal site, and
the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle agree to accept the solid waste for the
ensuing year from~~ Nelson, and Fluvanna
Counties, and ; d"
EREAS, the County of Louisa is interested in an efficient
long term solution to solid waste management, and
EREAS, all of the entities desire to develop a cooperative
method of resolving both the short term and long term
issues,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County/City/Authority of
agrees to appoint a representative who,
acting on their behalf, will meet in a full faith
effort to develop a proposal under which localities
and the Authority may join together in a new or
expanded organization to manage solid waste, and
E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the counties with short term
disposal needs will pursue the possibility of
contracting with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for
landfilling of solid waste under mutually agreed upon
terms, and
E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all proposals put forth by the
designated group will be discussed with the appointing
entity, and subject to approval by the governing body.
ile:\ht\bill\swres2-S.wpf
,
Edward H Bill, Jr
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr
Scotlsville
David P. Bow rnli'Hl
ChMI,)ttesvi I"
Charles S. Martin
Rlvallna
Charlotte Y umphns
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
February 18, 1993
M . Gary B. O'Connell
D puty City Manager
C ty of Charlottesville
P Box 911
C arlottesville, VA 22902
D ar Mr. O'Connell:
At its meeting on February 17, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
a propriated an additional $5000 for cable access center equipment
a d some ongoing equipment costs.
Sincerely,
Ef~~C~;~~f,frk' CMC
\ I
'_/
E C:rruns
c Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Richard E. Huff, II
(i)
Printed on recycled paper
., '. .....
(/7 . t. /) . ~/ -:,
,^ c""' -,.',......
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA
Cable TV Access Center
AGENDA DATE:
February 17, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
c;c.,I'~ ,1"'0 ,I /(~ k"
~. \..-"/1 / II~._.J
ACTION: ---X..-
INFORMATION:
to
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF C
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
BACK ROUND:
Earl'er this fiscal year, the Board approved a $2,000 appropriation to the City to assist
with equipment purchases for citizen cable TV access.
SSION:
ttached letter requests an additional $5,000 in FY 94 for equipment and some ongoing
ment costs.
NDATION:
recommends that the Board use FY 93 contingency funds should it choose to support
equest.
jbt
93.0 0
Office of the City Manager
P. O. Box 911- Charlottesville, Virginia - 22902
Telephone 804.971-3101
ITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
1 February 1993
M . Robert Tucker
C unty Executive
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, Va 22901
D
Bob:
The purpose of this letter is to followup our recent
t lephone conversation in regards to the cable access center
e uipment budget request for next year.
The City of Charlottesville Cable Committee is formally
r questing from Albemarle County $5,000 for the FY '94 budget for
t e cable equipment budget. As you are aware the City has
mmitted $55,000 to an equipment budget this fiscal year, with
bemarle County having approved an additional $2,000. This
ditional request for $5,000 is for cable access center equipment
r next year and some ongoing equipment costs.
This request is the result of a discussion that City
uncilor David Toscano recently had with several members of the
ard of Supervisors. We are encouraged that Albemarle County is
terested in participation in this community cable television
cess center, and in the possibilities for community productions.
Let me know if you need any additional information. We look
f rward to Albemarle's continued financial participation in this
rthwhile community project.
Since(};~ ()~
~B. ~
~~y City Manager
CCi\JNTY Of }\L8[rIL\;'~:U:~
cc: Linda Peacock, Budget Administrator
David Toscano, City Council
FER }! 1993
~
r";.',' "
r_~"'. ,'_ =....... '. i. i i- '",. _ : j "'.....
Edward H, Bai . Jr,
Samuel Mille
David p, Bowe man
Charlottesvill
Charlotte y, H mphris
Jack Jouett
T
F
D
S JECT:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr,
Scottsville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Melvin Breeden, Director
Finance Department
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~
March 8, 1993
Appropriation for Cable TV Access Center
At its meeting on February 17, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
proved an appropriation of $5000 from the Board's FY 1993
ntingency Fund for equipment costs for the citizen cable TV
cess center. Attached is the signed appropriation form.
tachment (1)
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
cc,! I.'~": r, ~ . r
'., ! . I !.~, /- ,:~,' r:; t: "1; il R L I--
rf~': ;-,:~.; ,-;~~ ;:.-~ ~.~_~~i ~~l<' ~! r--;
., ;" __:"d" ,9.2,QQJ4 97.. i ;-'[ J'
I j ;' ~.. - -. -.,.~,:"' i!, I
J J.. l. " /' I
j- ,1 CF~ ');') le93 \; j i i
I'X' 'd'" (.....", 1/ 'I' II
I';', '- J;' II
Ii' \ --" -' ,I , I
. " , r_" ...~~ ...-..";1'-..--.."......- ~ I I
U U '_'c ,",.'.:. '.:., U U I'-.!:.J I
.-....-..0 \ ~
BOp;';; (,;: c:~ 'f)rOIlI('(';~':'
. .' ',' ,J r ,..; \ \I ,) ) "\ 0
FISC L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
FUND
GENERAL
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
OVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CABLE TELEVISION STUDIO.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
79000567305 CABLE TV-PUBLIC ACCESS $5,000.00
11010999999 BOS-CONTINGENCY (5,000.00)
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
TOTAL
$0.00
*******************************************************************
COST CENTER:
BD OF SUPV
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF FINANCE
~~~~.i~L~_
,.-. I"
t, It.L.- to &J,(A_ti.- J
~ -~-z. -?.#'
OF SUPERVISORS
3 {3 /73
Edward H. Bam, Jr,
Samuel Mille
Davld P f30\A.' rJllan
ChMloltes\:dl)
Charlotte Y Humphns
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R Marshall. Jr
Scottsville
Charles S Martin
Rlvanna
\^/alter F. Perkllls
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Melvin Breeden, Director
Finance Department
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
February 18, 1993
Appropriation Requests
At its meeting on February 17, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved the
llowing appropriation requests:
Agenda Item No. 1'4. Cable, TV Access CenU"L, Request additional funding for
e uipment costs for FY 1994. APPROVED an appropriation of $5000 from the
ard's FY 1993 Contingency Fund, for equipment costs for the citizen cable TV
cess center. Please provide the necessary appropriation form.
Agenda Item No. 15.
int Elementary School.
Appropriation: Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony
APPROVED. Attached is the signed appropriation form.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment.
PROVED. Attached is the signed appropriation form.
tachments (2)
Richard E. Huff, II
Robert B. Brandenburger
Roxanne White
Robert W. Paskel
Tracy Holt
Jo Higgins
File
*
Printed on recycled paper
--
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920043
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
GENERAL
PURP SE OF APPROPRIATION:
SCOT SVILLE SURVEY
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
1100 11010312340 PROF. SERVICES-SURVEY $18,648.00
TOTAL
$18,648.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2100 19000199924 RECOVERED COST-SCOTTSVILLE SURVEY $18,648.00
TOTAL
$18,648.00
**** *******************************************************************
REQU
DIRE
COST CENTER:
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPR VALS:
OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
~~~/~
!Jh.lh ~,
DATE
K-/;e-?5
D2 - IF-93
OF SUPERVISORS
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920042
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
YES
NO X
SCHOOL
PURP
TEAC
OF APPROPRIATION:
INCENTIVE GRANT FOR STONY POINT SCHOOL
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
1221 61101312500
PROF. SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL
$250.00
TOTAL
$250.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2200024000240238
TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT
$250.00
TOTAL
$250.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
SCHOOLS
OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
~~~~
~/ ,/'
~'V~A',<' -< K'" ( ;;;7
DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
/- .2,/-,?.7
~'-/f- Y3
D;r;f.~'if
'~) Doed: t7- '/2.93
, c; - --"-J.} '.
,; -? (J "I In.
r-! -~L.1.:...fp(.f)
ALBEMARLE COUN'lY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
D
January 27, 1993
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert W. Paskel, Division Superintendent ~~
Request for Appropriation
At its meeting on January 11, 1993 the School Board approved
Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary School.
e Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Stony Point
ementary School a Teacher Incentive Grant in the amount of
50.00. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program has been
tablished to help strengthen the quality of arts education in
e schools and to encourage innovative projects which integrate
e arts into the basic curriculum of the classroom.
It is requested the Board of Supervisors amend the
propriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as
llows:
NUE
2-2000-24000-240238
Teacher Incentive Grant
$250.00
PENDITURE
1-2211-61101-312500
Prof. Services Instructional
$250.00
Melvin Breeden
Ed Koonce
Ella Carey
Tracy Holt
C:._i:"; ~ t~~r'~{
F~~. . ~_d
~__L-
.11'd\1 ~)9 100':l
.. <$.'
il. "
sa ~;
I,
'.
(>~ ~.~~....
; ;'; L ;_:C;.~C:
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Appropr'ation - Scottsville Boundary Line
Adjustm nt
February 17, 1993
SUBJECT
Request
ACTION:-2L-
INFORMATION:
the proposed
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes (1)
STAFF C
Messrs.
Brandenburger, Ms. Higgins
REVIEWED BY:
BACK OUND:
The 'oint County/Town of scottsville selection committee has selected the firm of
Rouda ush, Gale & Associates to perform the survey of the proposed Scottsville Boundary
Line t a cost of $18,648. The County and Town will enter a joint contract with the
Town of Scottsville funding this survey and the contract to be administered by the
Count Engineer. The survey should be completed within 100 days.
ENDATION:
e the requested appropriation of $18,648.
D;d.;f.,b.-' j... B"'rd' (JZ [1 c13
,~,)~\:JJtJ......J.'>.I v~ . ........___"'._~~..___......."
0"~ /,,117 (f' 1'7
Age;. j ~ : !'~ _1 r h '1..(-'...I-:!:.:1!..._,'_,:,::
Edward H, Ba n, Jr,
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr,
ScottsviJle
David p, Bow rman
Charlottesvil
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
f3A) ~
February 12, 1993
Reading List for February 17, 1993
bruary 19, 1992 - pages 11 - 22 - Mr. Bain k{<< i
n
rch 11, 1992 (A) - All - Mrs. Hurnphris (Lc t.L j
f& G< )I
') r
(LC ~ c~
vember 11, 1992 - pages 1 - 15 - Mr. Marshall
pages 16 - 25 - Mr. Perkins
*
Printed on recycled paper
I
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: February 17, 1993
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
Supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meeting was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Bain.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
/:. (i
7/ 1^ 'I Ji
\ /;/ {!j ~ tLl CCc0
Clerk, Albemarle County ~ard
Supervisors U
of