HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-21
'!"
FIN A L
August 21, 1991
7:00 P.M.
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 (starts on bottom of this sheet).
6) Public comments will be received at this meeting on the appointment of a
School Board member to represent the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
7) SP-91-28. Emit Kutilek. For a private airport on 46~25 ac zoned RA.
Property on SE side of Rt 810 approx 3/10 mi S of inters of Rts 789/810.
TM40B , P69 . White Hall Dist.
8) SP-91-29. CBC Partners. For a miniature golf course on 1.4 ac zoned HC
& EC. Property on W side of Rt 29 adjacent to Kegler's Bowling. TM45,
P112C1. Charlottesville Dist.
9) An ordinance to vacate a portion of a certain plat of a portion of Phase 1,
Section 1, Mill Creek P. U . D .; this property is shown on a plat recorded in
Jhe office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 944, page 695.
10) SP-90-10. Centel (Deferred from August 14, 1991).
11) Request from the School Board for a transfer of funds to the Hollyrnead
Elementary and the Burley Middle School projects from the Brownsville
Masonry Repair project.
12) Set Meeting Schedule,:with the School Board for 1991-92.
13) Appointments.
14) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
15) Adjourn.
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Memorandum dated July 29, 1991, from V. Wayne Cilimberg re: Tree
Caliper size requirements in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
5.2 Memorandum dated August 12, 1991, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., stating
that the Albemarle County Service Authority's installation of additional
water and sewer lines in the Scottsville area has been reviewed by the
Planning Commission and they have determined that this installation is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
5.3 Resolution to the Planning and Coordination Council (P ACC) designating
PACC Tech as the Regional Coordination Body for Entrance Corridor
Guidelines.
5.4 Letter dated June 7, 1991, from Alvin Edwards, Mayor, addressed to
Fredel'ick R. Bowie, Chairman, re: how the City and County can work
with the University in a partnership of looking to the future and
discussing a community vision, and letter from the Chairman in reply.
5.5 Memorandum dated August 16, 1991, from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development,- re: ZMA-90-19, Glenmore,
Clarification of Proffer.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.6 Copy of letter dated August 9, 1991, from Gary L. McAninch, AIPM
Supervisor, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, addressed
to Taylor Williams, Albemarle County Gypsy Moth Office, stating that
treatment costs in Zone II will be 100 percent funded by the AIPM
Program.
5.7 Memorandum dated August 13, 1991, from Amelia Patterson, Zoning
Administrator, re: Status of the draft Sign Ordinance.
5.8 Monthly Bond Report on Arbor Crest Apartments for the Month of July,
1991.
5.9 Letter dated August 15, 1991, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia
Department of Transportation, noting that roads in Mill Creek, Section 4
were taken into the State Secondary System of Highways effective August
15, 1991.
5.10 Letter dated August 16, 1991, from John G. Milliken, Secretary of
Transportation, in reply to the Chairman's letter of August 1 about the
Route 29 North improvements, etc.
5.11 August, 1991 Superfund Program Fact Sheet from the Environmental
P.l'Otection Agency re: Greenwood Chemical Site.
5.12 Copy of order from the State Corporation Commission dated August 15,
1991, establishing the 1991/92 fuel factor for North Carolina Power.
5.13 Copy of Virginia Employment Commission, Charlottesville VEC Manpower
Bulletin for June, 1991.
----
.
\
Distributed to Board: . ~;, /~. Cf L
Agenda Item No. cJ/"O;;;'/.{.f,)}
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
lo ._.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning/1h\;? .
and Community Development ~Vu~
FROM:
DATE:
July 29, 1991
RE:
Tree Caliper size requirements in the EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District
On April 10, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
adopted the interim design guidelines for the Architectural
Review Board. This action reflected tree caliper measurement
to be taken six inches above ground rather than eighteen
inches as originally proposed. This action, however, did
not adjust minimum caliper sizes to accommodate a lower and
wider caliper area. In response, the Architectural Review
Board now requests that the Board of Supervisors increase
tree caliper sizes by one half inch for all of those
measurement guidelines that were changed from 18" to 6"
above the ground.
VWC/blb
.. .
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 6
Insofar as possible, structures should fit the natural topography and
be oriented to special natural features of the site, or distant views
of the surrounding hills or mountains.
G. Grading:
Requirements
Site grading shall blend with and fit the topographic characteristics
of the site and adjacent properties. Site grading shall not change
the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions. Steep
cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable. Cut and fill slopes
shall be rounded (minimum ten foot (10') radius) to meet adj acent
conditions.
No grading or other earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or
tunnelling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or
tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded
areas designated for preservation or intrude upon any other existing
features designated in the Certificate of Appropriateness for preser-
vation.
Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing
features shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to
conunencement of any grading or other earth-disturbing activity (in-
cluding trenching or tunnelling) and no such disturbing activity or
grading or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within such area.
The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be main-
tained until the completion of development of the site.
RecODIIleIldations
Natural drainage patterns should be incorporated into the finished
site to the extent possible.
H. Trees:
1. Treatment of frontage along EC streets:
Requirements
The EC street shall be clearly defined by large shade trees
conunon to the area which shall be planted to align the entire
frontage of developing parcels along EC streets. In most cases,
a three- or four-board fence typical of the Albemarle area shall
also be required to align this frontage. Where warranted by
existing conditions elsewhere within a designated corridor, low
stone walls may be required instead of fencing. A planting area
ten feet (10') wide to acconunodate such trees, fencing, or walls
and such shrubs, grass, or groundcover as may be required, shall
be established along such frontage, but out of the area of road
rights of way and utility easements.
.". i "
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 7
/'
Frontage trees shall be at least three and one-half inches (3
1/2") minimum caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the ground)
when planted, and shall be spaced no more than thirty-five feet
(35') on center.
Native flowering ornamental trees shall be interspersed among
required shade trees.
2. Treatment of interior roads and pedestrian ways:
Recommendations
Trees should align interior roads spaced no more than forty feet
> (40') on center and measuring at least two and one-half inches (2
1/2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the ground).
Trees spaced no more than twenty-five feet (25') on center and
~ measuring at least two and one-half inches (2 1/2") in caliper
(measured six inches [6"] above the groUI~ should align
pedestrian ways.
3. Treatment of parking areas:
Requirements
Within parking areas, trees shall be planted in planters or
medians protected by curbing and shall be evenly spaced and
planted at the rate of one (1) tree for every ten (10) parking
~ spaces. Such trees shall measure at least two and one-half
/' inches (2 1/2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the
ground).
RecoDmeIldations
Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, spaced forty
-?> feet (40 I) on center and measuring at least two and one-half
inches (2 1/2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the
ground), except for any portion of the perimeter which fronts on
an EC street, in which case the requirements for treatment of
frontage along EC streets shall be complied with instead.
4. Treatment of long exterior walls:
Requirements
Trees shall be planted to relieve the appearance of long exterior
walls. The spacing, size and type of such trees shall depend
upon the length, height and blankness of such walls.
5. Tree species:
Requirements
Tree plantings required shall conform to the "Generic Landscape
Plan Reconunended Species List" adopted by the County of
Albemarle.
INTERIM GUIDELINES
AMENDED 8-21-91
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
The following guidelines are supplemental to the Illlmmum standards found in
Section 32.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and elsewhere in the
Albemarle County Code. Furthermore, where these guidelines specify sizes,
dimensions, or quantities, such specifications are the minimum acceptable for
development in the designated corridors and the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) may, where justified by the nature of the site or proposed development,
require different specifications in order to achieve the objectives set forth in
the General Statement.
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
A. Purpose of architectural review of development in the designated
corridors :
Albemarle County is endowed with a beautiful landscape and a
uniquely significant history. These valuable legacies, renowned
throughout the world, are accessible by a number of transportation
corridors which are also important as sites of commercial and
residential activity. While such activity and the expansion of such
activity is important to the community, the law of the Commonwealth
recognizes that these approaches to Albemarle's significant historic
sites and to the City of Charlottesville are worthy of protection as an
important part of the cultural experience of the many persons who
visit the area annually to enjoy its significant beauty and history.
It is to protect these approaches that the Board of Supervisors
enacted the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District (Sections 30.6 et
seq. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance) and charged the
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) with the
responsibility for reviewing development within the corridors
designated in the ordinance to insure that such development is
compatible with the important historic sites to which these corridors
lead.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has stated the intent of
the EC Overlay District to be as follows:
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to
implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the
county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and
cultural resources including preservation of natural and
scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to
ensure a quality of development compatible with these
resources through architectural control of development; to
stabilize and improve property values; to protect and
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 2
enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other
visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits
accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimu-
late complimentary development appropriate to the promi-
nence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, archi-
tectural or cultural significance, all of the foregoing
being deemed to advance and promote the public health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and
visitors thereto. (Section 30.6.1 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance)
B. Requirement of compatibility with historic structures:
Many of the designated corridors are either undeveloped or only
partially developed. A few are almost completely developed. While
one objective of architectural review might be to require structure
designs which would be compatible with nearby or adjacent existing
structures, that is not the charge to the ARB given by the statute,
or the ordinance. The enabling statute and the ordinance provide
that new development in the designated corridors should be compatible
with the historic structures to which the designated corridors lead
rather than to adjoining structures which mayor may not meet this
standard of compatibility. For this reason, while designs which
demonstrate sensitivity to nearby existing structures are encouraged
by these guidelines, these interim guidelines establish compatibility
with the historic places in this area as the primary standard for
review of designs for new development within the designated
corridors.
This standard of compatibility with local historic places is not
intended to impose a rigid design solution for new development.
Replication of the design of the important historic places in the
Albemarle area is neither intended, nor desired. The standard of
compatibility can be met through building scale, materials, and forms
which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well
as traditional.
C. Requirement of common landscaping elements:
In order to respect the unity implied in the term "corridor" and to
provide visual order, these interim guidelines provide for certain
common elements to be repeated in the landscaping of each individual
parcel. Such repeated common elements allow for more flexibility in
the design of structures because common landscape features tend to
harmonize the appearance of each individual parcel as seen from the
EC street.
D. Structural design and the relation of structure and setting are both
subject to review:
Visitors to the important historical sites in this area experience these
sites not just as free floating structures, but as an ensemble
~
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 3
of structure, land, and vegetation. The EC Overlay District
recognizes this fact and calls upon the ARB to review development
within such districts as an ensemble of structure and setting.
E. General design standards:
New structures and substantial additions to structures shall reflect
the traditions of classical architecture in Albemarle County since the
early 18th century as reflected in the important historical buildings
for which this area is internationally known. Each new building or
structure shall contribute to establishing an overall coherence and
visual order in the designated corridor. It is an important objective
of these guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible architectural
characteristics throughout a designated corridor in order to achieve
unity and coherence while allowing individuality in design to reflect
both varying tastes as well as special functional requirements.
Where a designated corridor is already substantially developed, the
standards contained in the preceding paragraph will require striking
a careful balance between the importance of harmonizing new
structures with existing nearby structures, and the goal of reflecting
the traditional architecture of the area in the design of new
structures.
Supporting structures (e. g., parking areas, mechanical systems,
refuse disposal facilities, lighting, retaining walls and the like) shall
contribute to the objectives of these guidelines.
The landscaping of individual parcels along the edges of EC streets
shall contribute to the establishment of a continuous, unified, and
harmonious corridor. The design of the landscape (meaning the
ensemble of buildings, outdoor spaces, site development, land, and
vegetation) for each parcel shall contribute to the accomplishment of
this goal.
Site development shall be sensitive to the existing natural landscape
and shall contribute to the creation of an organized plan which
supports the unity and harmony of the designated corridor as a
whole: trees and rolling terrain typical of the area shall be
preserved to the extent possible; new trees shall be planted along
streets and pedestrian ways which reflect native forest elements;
grading shall blend new conditions with surrounding topography and
create a continuous landscape; river and stream valleys shall remain
open and unimpeded by development and should be incorporated into
the design of surrounding development; building mass and height
shall be limited to a scale which does not overpower the natural
setting of the site or the entrance corridor itself.
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 4
II. DESIGN SPECIFICS
The specifics which follow are characterized either as "Requirements" or
"Recommendations." This distinction is for the guidance of the applicant
and should not be considered binding upon the ARB. The ARB may,
where justified by the nature of the site or proposed development, waive
some "Requirements" or mandate some "Recommendations."
A. Structure design:
Requirements
The design of structures shall reflect the Albemarle County setting
and shall use forms, shapes, materials, colors, and textures derived
from the architectural tradition embodied in the important historic
buildings for which. the area is known. Structures shall incorporate
elements and details which lend human scale. Large or long buildings
shall be designed with divisions and details which relieve blankness.
Window treatment shall contribute to the human scale requirement.
The predominant character of roof lines shall be sloped or pitched
using gabled, hipped, and shed roof forms. Where such sloping roof
forms are predominant in a roof line, some flat roof segments may be
acceptable. "Trademark buildings" and related features shall be
modified to meet the requirements of these guidelines.
Recommendations
Arcades, colonnades and other architectural connecting devices should
be used between groups of buildings within a development to unify
the overall design. Within the limits allowed by federal or state re-
quirements for handicapped access, accommodations for handicapped
persons should be integrated with the architectural form of the
structures to which those accommodations pertain and should avoid
being overly conspicuous.
B. Treatment of accessory structures and equipment:
Requirements
Loading areas, service areas, refuse areas, storage yards, mechanical
equipment, utilities, and the like shall be located or screened with
vegetation (or in the case of equipment located on roofs, hidden by
roof lines) so that they are not visible from the EC street.
Walls, screens, and fencing shall be compatible with historic places in
the area. Chain link fencing, barbed wire, razor wire and similar
security fencing or devices shall not be visible from the EC street.
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 5
Recommendations
Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to
fit into the natural topography so as to avoid the need for the
screening of such structures.
C. Lighting:
Requirements
All exterior lighting shall be incandescent in quality, be shielded or
otherwise designed or located so as not to create glare, and shall not
spill over onto adjacent properties or streets.
D. Signs:
Specific regulations regarding signs are contained in Section 30.6.5 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
E. Preservation of existing features:
Requirements
Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be preserved
except as necessary for location of improvements as described in
Section 32.5.6. n. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Such
improvements shall be located so as to maximize the use of existing
features in screening such improvements from EC streets.
F. Site layout:
Recommendations
Site development should be well related to nearby properties and
should include provisions for connections to pedestrian and vehicular
circulation systems, extension of open spaces and should provide for
overall continuity with adjacent and surrounding conditions.
Where topography permits, a grid pattern of roads, service lanes,
and pedestrian walks should guide the layout of the site. Important
natural features, such as creek valleys, steep slopes, or significant
trees or outcroppings should alter the grid system of organization and
in such cases such natural features should dictate site layout.
Structures should align with the pattern of streets and walkways thus
established, front on roads and streets abutting the site where
possible, and be parallel to or at right angles with the EC street.
There should be variation in building setbacks from the roads or
streets upon which they front.
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 6
Structures should accommodate views and vistas related to the site,
including views across the site from EC streets to surrounding land-
scape features or historic sites and be located to relate visually and
functionally with other structures in the designated corridor to
achieve continuity and a clear hierarchy of circulation, structures and
open spaces.
Insofar as possible, structures should fit the natural topography and
be oriented to special natural features of the site, or distant views of
the surrounding hills or mountains.
G. Grading:
Requirements
Site grading shall blend with and fit the topographic characteristics
of the site and adjacent properties. Site grading shall not change
the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions. Steep
cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable. Cut and fill slopes
shall be rounded (minimum ten foot [10'1 radius) to meet adjacent
conditions.
No grading or other earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or
tunnelling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or
tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded
areas designated for preservation or intrude upon any other existing
features designated in the Certificate of Appropriateness for preser-
vation.
Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing
features shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to
commencement of any grading or other earth-disturbing activity (in-
cluding trenching or tunnelling) and no such disturbing activity or
grading or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within such
area. The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be
maintained until the completion of development of the site.
Recommendations
Natural drainage patterns should be incorporated into the finished
site to the extent possible.
H. Trees:
1. Treatment of frontage along EC streets:
Requirements
The EC street shall be clearly defined by large shade trees
common to the area which shall be planted to align the entire
frontage of developing parcels along EC streets. In most cases,
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 7
a three- or four-board fence typical of the Albemarle area shall
also be required to align this frontage. Where warranted by
existing conditions elsewhere within a designated corridor, low
stone walls may be required instead of fencing. A planting area
ten feet (10') wide to accommodate such trees, fencing, or walls
and such shrubs, grass, or groundcover as may be required,
shall be established along such frontage, but out of the area of
road rights of way and utility easements.
-,
i
~
~
t
f
l
~
~~
Frontage trees
1 /2" ) minimum
ground) when
thirty-five feet
shall be at least three
caliper (measured six
planted, and shall be
(35') on center.
and one-half inches (3
inches [6"] above the
spaced no more than
Native flowering ornamental trees shall be interspersed among
required shade trees.
2. Treatment of interior roads and pedestrian ways:
Recommendations
Trees should align interior roads spaced no more than forty feet
(40') on center and measuring at least two and one-half inches
(2 1/ 2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the ground).
Trees spaced no more than twenty-five feet (25') on center and
measuring at least two and one-half inches (2 1/2") in caliper
(measured six inches [ 6" ] above the ground) should align
pedestrian ways.
3. Treatment of parking areas:
Requirements
Within parking areas, trees shall be planted in planters or
medians protected by curbing and shall be evenly spaced and
planted at the rate of one (1) tree for every ten (10) parking
spaces. Such trees shall measure at least two and one-half
inches (2 1/2") in caliper (measured six inches [ 6"] above the
ground) .
Recommendations
Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, spaced forty
feet (40') on center and measuring at least two and one-half
inches (2 1/2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the
ground), except for any portion of the perimeter which fronts
on an EC street, in which case the requirements for treatment of
frontage along EC streets shall be complied with instead.
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 8
4. Treatment of long exterior walls:
Requirements
Trees shall be planted to relieve the appearance of long exterior
walls. The spacing, size and type of such trees shall depend
upon the length, height and blankness of such walls.
5. Tree species:
Requirements
Tree plantings required shall conform to the "Generic Landscape
Plan Recommended Species List" adopted by the County of
Albemarle.
I. Shrubs:
1. Treatment of parking areas:
Requirements
Parking areas fronting on EC streets shall, in addition to tree
plantings as required for such frontage, be screened by the
planting of shrubs sufficient in quantity and size to minimize the
view of the parking area from the EC street. Parking areas
effectively hidden from view from the EC street by vegetated
earth berms located behind required plantings of frontage trees
shall require no further screening.
2. Treatment of other areas:
Recommendations
Shrubs in other areas should be planted as necessary to
integrate structures properly into the site.
'3. Shrub species:
Requirements
Shrub plantings required shall conform
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List"
County of Albemarle.
to the "Generic
adopted by the
III. ADMINISTRATION
A. Preliminary Conference:
The ARB strongly recommends that persons who will be required to
obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB request a
Preliminary Conference with the ARB prior to undertaking any
substantial
Architectural Review Board
Interim Guidelines
Page 9
work in the formulation of development plans. A list of materials
which should accompany any request for a Preliminary Conference is
attached to these Guidelines.
The Preliminary Conference is an informal discussion between a poten-
tial applicant and the ARB. No participant in such a conference is
bound by the conference. However, a written summary of
suggestions resulting from the conference will be provided to the
potential applicant. An application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness which incorporates such suggestions is more likely to
receive prompt approval and result in the least expense for the
applicant.
B. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness:
An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness must be filed for
any project within a designated EC which requires site plan approval.
Such an application (as opposed to a request for a Preliminary
Conference) cannot be filed until preliminary site plan approval has
been obtained. A list of materials which should accompany any
request for an Application for Certificate of Appropriateness is
attached to these Guidelines.
Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a prerequisite to
obtaining final site plan approval for projects within a designated EC.
C. Who to contact:
Requests for Preliminary Conferences and Applications for Certificates
of Appropriateness should be made to the Albemarle County
Department of Planning and Community Development or, in the case of
sign permits, the Office of the Albemarle County Zoning
Administrator.
D. Appeals:
An applicant for a Certificate of Appropriateness aggrieved by a
decision of the ARB may appeal to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and the Albemarle County Circuit Court in accordance
with Section 30.6.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct
copy of the "Interim Guidelines for the Albemarle County Architectural Review
Board" as originally adopted by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors at a
regular meeting held on April 10, 1991; a as amended n gust 21, 1991.
-~~
Board of ounty
.'
'If"
\.
(OJ ({II \?J \V7
t~ tQJ IJ LI
R. (Rick) Bowie
Ril.',mna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
MEMORANDUM
Charlotte Y Humphns
Ji1.Cv. jout'll
dward H 8am. Jr
Samuel Mdl~r
:avid P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F Perkms
Whit,=, I!all
Peter T. Way
Scoltsville
TO: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Planning and Community Development
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk ~~
DATE: August 22, 1991
FROM:
SUBJECT: Board Actions of August 21, 1991
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 21, 1991, the follow-
ing action was taken:
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC. There was no one present to make a request of the Board.
Agenda Item No. 5.1 Memorandum dated July 29, 1991, from V. Wayne
Cilimberg re: Tree Caliper size requirements in the EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. APPROVED change requested. A revised copy of the Interim
Guidelines of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board is attached.
Agenda Item No. 5.2 Memorandum dated August 12, 1991, from Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., stating that the Albemarle County Service Authority's installa-
tion of additional water and sewer lines in the Scottsville area has been
reviewed by the Planning Commission and they have determined that this
installation is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. RECEIVED memo and
made no comments. .
Agenda Item No. 5.3 Resolution to the Planning and Coordination Council
(PACC) designating PACC Tecll as the Regional Coordination Body for Entrance
Corridor Guidelines. ADOPTED attached resolution approving request.
..,
.
't
..
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Tucker
August 22, 1991
Agenda Item No. 5.4 Letter dated June 7, 1991, from Alvin Edwards,
Mayor, addressed to Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman, re: how the City and
County can work with the University in a partnership of looking to the future
and discussing a community vision, and letter from the Chairman in reply.
RECEIVED.
Agenda Item No. 5.5 Memorandum dated August 16, 1991, from V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, re: ZMA-90-19,
Glenmore, Clarification of Proffer. APPROVED as set out in letter dated
August 2, 1991, from Frank A. Kessler to Ron Keeler. (Copy attached).
Agenda Item No.6. Public comments will be received at this meeting on
the Appointment of a School Board member to represent the Jack Jouett Magis-
terial District. APPOINTMENT to be made September 4, 1991.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-91-28. Emit Kutilek. For a private airport on
46.25 ac zoned RA. Property on SE side of Rt 810 approx 3/10 mi S of inters
of Rts 789/810. TM40B,P69. White Hall Dist. APPROVED with 7 conditions as
set out in full below:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only and airfield is
for usage by the applicant only;
2. Limited to two base aircraft;
3. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to three per week during
daylight hours only, except in emergencies;
4. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of an
emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed building;
5. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be provided
with a reasonably dust free surface;
6. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation Administration
and the Virginia Department of Aviation;
7. Airstrip shall be located no closer than 500 feet to the nearest
residential lot line.
Agenda Item No.8. SP-91-29. CBC Partners. For a miniature golf
course on 1.4 ac zoned HC & EC. Property on W side of Rt 29 adjacent to
Kegler's Bowling. TM45, P112C1. Charlottesville Dist. Since the applicant
did not appear, DEFERRED to September 4, 1991.
~ .
.
Memo To:
Date:
Page 3
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Tucker
August 22, 1991
Agenda Item No.9. An ordinance to vacate a portion of a certain plat
of a portion of Phase 1, Section 1, Mill Creek P.U.D.; this property is shown
on a plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed
Book 944, page 695. At the applicant's request, the hearing was DEFERRED to
September 4, 1991.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-10. Centel. At the applicant's request,
DEFERRED to September 11, 1991.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request from the School Board for a transfer of
funds to the Hollymead Elementary and the Burley Middle School projects from
the Brownsville Masonry Repair project. APPROVED request. Resolution form
sent to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 12. Set Meeting Schedule with the School Board for
1991-92. Decided not to change current schedule, Mr. Bowie will write the
School Board Chairman a letter.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments. Reappointed William C. Thacker to
BOCA Code Board of Appeals. Reappointed Thomas F. Stephens and D. James
Firster to Jordan Development Corporation.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD. Mr. Bowerman brought up the subject of the County's Noise Ordinance
and requested staff to look at wording of the ordinance and suggest some more
effective wording.
The Scottsvi1le Annexation committee will be Mr. Bain and Mr. Way.
LEN:bwh
Attachments (4)
cc: Robert B. Brandenberger
Richard E. Huff, II
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia Patterson
George R. St. John
File
" ..
,;,
,;:.
FRANK A. KESSLER
P O. Box S207
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 2290S
;-~ m?~~~/" .:;Tj~\:0a~
iJ ~i~'...,~; '.;"'~; \qJ . .~
~ "'1..~"~"~,,",:I Qlw,j ~ I. ~'J
.. ' (. II
~-.;~ .
r\uG 2 1991 .
,.
;.
I;
~
~
~
PLANNING DIVISION
~---.. .
. ,"':;ii~
August 2, 1991
Mr. Ron Keeler
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22901
Dear Ron:
Attached is the letter we discussed. The permit has been
issued for the Glenmore Tertiary Plant and I would like this
clarification submitted to the Board of Supervisors to be on
their approved consent agenda as we discussed. .
Thanking you in advance, and with warmest personal regards,
I remain
rs,
~
Frank A. Kessler
..
10
July 18, 1991
I~EWqJ
'WG 2 1991
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
PLANNING DIVISION
Re: Rivanna Growth Area
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership, as successor owner
to Frank A. Kessler of Glenmore, represents to the County of
Albemarle that the sewerage treatment facilities to be built by
Glenmore Associates for the Rivanna growth area will be a tertiary
treatment plant with ultraviolet disinfection. It will be located
on approximately 2 acres ~ and be designed for 381,000 gallons per
day design flow which is the amount of property and flow required
for a plant to serve the presently designated Rivanna growth area.
The plant will be designed to be capable of producing an effluent
at the end of the discharge pipe of a quality of 14 milligrams 5
day b.o.d. per liter, 30 day average and 14 milligrams of suspended
solids per liter, 30 day average. You will recall that at the time
of your consideration of the application for Glenmore (ZMA-90-19)
it was represented to you that the developer would build a plant
at Glenmore such as that. described above if the requested rezoning
was granted.
<
This letter is, therefore, offered as simply a
clarification of proffer number five as set forth in a memorandum
dated December 10, 1990 from Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, to V. Wayne
Cilimburg regarding Board Actions of December 5, 1990.
.,
July 18, 1991
Page 2
The undersigned asks that this representation be accepted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as a clarification of
said proffer number five, and it is agreed by the undersigned that
the County of albemarle may enforce the representations herein made
against the owner as a part of said proffer number five.
Sincerely,
Glenmore Associated Limited
Partnershi
BAGCM245.LTR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR
91/92
NUMBER
910010
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER X
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER FROM BROWNSVILLE TO HOLLYMEAD AND BURLEY PROJ-ECTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1900060205999999 HOLLYMEAD CONTINGENCY $53,000.00
1900060251999999 BURLEY CONTINGENCY 32,000.00
1900060202800902 BROWNSVILLE MASONRY PROJECT (85,000.00)
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
;JE~-=
9-/.>~9/
/-~~-;;J?/
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
,(
I
t
;
to
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC)
Designating PACC Tech as Regional Coordination Body
for Entrance Corridor Guidelines
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville (City), the County of
Albemarle (County), and the University of Virginia (University)
share a number of roadway corridors leading to places of historic
significance in the region; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University have a common
interest in the visual quality and the consistency in appearance of
these corridors; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University each have review
mechanisms intended to promote and/or preserve the visual quality
and integrity of new development along these corridors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Technical Committee
of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC Tech) is designated
as the regional body responsible for reviewing and coordinating
entrance corridor guidelines in the City, County and University in
an effort to assure that such guidelines are complementary. Such
review and coordination is advisory only and non-binding.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 21, 1991. . (/~
~'0~~
~k, Board of ~untj Supervisors
')d;("..k... L h,,,k rtliz~9 (
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL~rd.'l ::"~H N,^ -~Z/.'P~?-/(~2 J
MEMORANDUM
August 12, 1991
of Supervisors ~
County ExecutiV~/
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
RE: Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
(15.1-456)
The Planning staff and Planning Commission have determined that the
Albemarle County Service Authority's installation of additional
sewer and water lines in the Scottsville area as proposed are in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (see attachment).
In addition to those properties being serviced by the installation,
there are others that adjoin these new lines that are not being
offered service because they are outside the Comprehensive Plan
designated growth area and/or are outside the ACSA's jurisdictional
area. In the event the Board wishes to entertain adding properties
to the jurisdictional area, there are provisions whereby an
individual applicant may request service or the Board of
Supervisors could initiate such amendments. In response to Board
action of August 7,1991, the staff will review proposed amendments
for the properties mentioned by Rev. Way on August 17 and make
appropriate recommendations.
RWT,Jr/RBB/dbm
91.112
Attachments
. \ ~ .... IATTACHMENT CI
~.",~ SCOTTSVILLE UTILITY EXTENSIONS - .
I, , .
\- , ~ "
, \
\ !
'\'
\
~,
'osj
-)
(
I
\. ,
elf ,
T
r
)
SCOTTS -
VILLE
(~ i-
I .
LEGEND TO
O'LLWYN
Growth Area
Sewer Line
Water Line ;
~
.-'
, .
Distributedio Board: f,Cj,.9! _.
9/'~f?/ 'I, VIa
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
and~G
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Community Development
DATE:
July 23, 1991
RE:
Resolution to PACC Designating PACC Tech as
Regional Coordination Body for Entrance Corridor
Guidelines
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has discussed the
attached resolution and can provide the following comments:
1. The ARB is seriously interested in distributing
information about development of its guidelines to
regional interests, receiving their comments and
discussing the guidelines with those interested persons
and organizations. The ARB feels that PACC Tech is an
appropriate body for providing this type of review and
comment and would welcome PACC Tech's input.
2. The ARB has some reservation about the designation of
PACC Tech as responsible for "coordinating entrance
corridor guidelines in the city, County and
University." It feels that each jurisdiction has a
somewhat different perspective in dealing with
corridors--the County under the pressure of new
development, the City with very limited new development
but redevelopment potential, and the University and its
interests as a developer, particularly when UREF is
considered. It is unlikely that guidelines will be the
same in each jurisdiction's case. Therefore, the ARB
feels "coordinating entrance corridor guidelines"
should be a general reference to an attempt to have
complimentary guidelines rather than common guidelines.
4-
y .
Robert W. Tucker, Jr
Page 2
July 23, 1991
3. The ARB feels that PACC Tech's participation should be
advisory and non-binding, as is the case for other
interested persons and organizations.
Please provide this response to the Board of Supervisors.
Let me know if the ARB needs to further address this matter.
VWC/jcw
, .
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION TO PACC DESIGNATING
PACC TECH AS REGIONAL COORDINATION BODY
FOR ENTRANCE CORRIDOR GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville (City), County of
Albemarle (County) and University of Virginia (University)
share a number of roadway corridors leading to places of
historic significance in the Region; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University have a common
interest in the visual quality and the consistency of
appearance of these corridors; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University each have
review mechanisms intended to promote and/or preserve the
visual quality and integrity of new development along these
corridors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Technical
Committee of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC
Tech) requests that the Planning and Coordination Council
(PACC) designate PACC Tech as the regional body responsible
for reviewing and coordinating entrance corridor guidelines
in the City, County and University.
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
to
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC)
Designating PACC Tech as Regional Coordination Body
for Entrance Corridor Guidelines
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville (City), the County of
Albemarle (County), and the University of Virginia (University)
share a number of roadway corridors leading to places of historic
significance in the region; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University have a common
interest in the visual quality and the consistence of appearance of
these corridors; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University each have review
mechanisms intended to promote and/or preserve the visual quality
and integrity of new development along these corridors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Technical Committee
of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC Tech) is designated
as the regional body responsible for reviewing and coordinating
entrance corridor guidelines in the City, County and University in
an effort to assure that such guidelines are complimentary. Such
review and coordination is advisory only and non-binding.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 21, 1991.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
J
1
I
to
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC)
Designating PACC Tech as Regional Coordination Body
for Entrance Corridor Guidelines
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville (City), the County of
Albemarle (County), and the University of Virginia (University)
share a number of roadway corridors leading to places of historic
significance in the region; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University have a common
interest in the visual quality and the consistency in appearance of
these corridors; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and University each have review
mechanisms intended to promote and/or preserve the visual quality
and integrity of new development along these corridors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Technical Committee
of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC Tech) is designated
as the regional body responsible for reviewing and coordinating
entrance corridor guidelines in the City, County and University in
an effort to assure that such guidelines are complementary. Such
review and coordination is advisory only and non-binding.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 2~ .~~
~~k, Board of ~nty Supervisors
t.,>
D;:t;.;:\"~.;~ :
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 911. Charlottesville, Virginia. 22902
Telephone 804-971-3113
i. 1\,;'
June 7,
U-,C
", I'.
Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Dear Rick:
I found it a most interesting discussion last week to
look to the future. It seems to me to be critical that we
seriously look to where we are going as a community. There
are many issues of vital interest to the City, County, and
University that make us all one community.
I hope you will join me in exploring further how the
City can work with the University in a partnership of looking
to the future and discussing a community vision. I would
like to suggest that we appoint a steering committee to
explore how we might go about having a community discussion on
this important issue.
I found the debate last week invigorating, and believe
it is a discussion that we need to have within our community.
I look forward to hearing from you. I will be calling soon
to discuss this further with you.
Sincerely,
rfJtJ ~
Alvin Edwards
Mayor
cc: Walter Perkins
,
,
Distributed to Board: 'lAt,Jf L
Agenda Item No. tJ j,t))/Z/f'S-iS)
- i\l.{\;
-~
, ....'...it.
, -~>J
d
;tl
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
~-- :) ~:rl } i i I;:
I ,I f~'
".~) ~_.~~,~~)I
~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and /?,lA /
Community Development L10y'-/
TO:
DATE:
August 16, 1991
RE:
ZMA-90-19 Glenmore - Clarification of Proffer
The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the
above-referenced rezoning on December 5, 1990. With this
approval, the Board accepted the following proffer:
"5. To provide water and sewer collection,
distribution and treatment facilities at his
expense for the residential lots in Glenmore and
private country club and to dedicate such
facilities to the Albemarle County Service
Authority and/or the Rivanna Service Authority.
These facilities are to be built at no cost to the
taxpayers of Albemarle County or to the customers
of the Albemarle County Service Authority."
Recently, Mr. Frank Kessler has requested that the Board
accept the attached as clarification of the intent of this
proffer.
Staff has reviewed the attached and believes it is totally
consistent with the original proffer, simply providing a
definitive description of the sewerage treatment facilities
to be built. Staff recommends the Board accept this
clarification on its consent agenda. with this acceptance,
staff will include this in the Glenmore file as part of the
approved conditions.
VWC/jcw
ATTACHMENT
,
FRANK A. KESSLER
P O. Box S207
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 2290S
I--~. ~j"-';li/'~' >;;~~ ':0\~
{'...w.... r ~'" ,'., ''.,. r" I .
. < I.. " ... .. "'.'ft! ,'.
~!,~ ' ,',,"r..' .\,.', \".i" ',':'1
~ \'.,~~"~ltt.t..~"~ "1>>4'" ~ '.'~:'1
~"..:~! '
.....~',~ [l.
AUG 2 1991 .
PLANNING DIVISION
...":.~;;.
August 2, 1991
Mr. Ron Keeler
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22901
Dear Ron:
Attached is the letter we discussed. The permit has been
issued for the Glenmore Tertiary Plant and I would like this
clarification submitted to the Board of Supervisors to be on
their approved consent agenda as we discussed.
Thanking you in advance, and with warmest personal regards,
I remain
rs,
Frank A. Kessler
July 18, 1991
i~wq
f"UG 2 1991
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
PLANNING DIVISION
Re: Rivanna Growth Area
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership, as successor owner
to Frank A. Kessler of Glenmore, represents to the County of
Albemarle that the sewerage treatment facilities to be built by
Glenmore Associates for the Rivanna growth area will be a tertiary
treatment plant with ultraviolet disinfection. It will be located
on approximately 2 acres ~ and be designed for 381,000 gallons per
day design flow which is the amount of property and flow required
for a plant to serve the presently designated Rivanna growth area.
The plant will be designed to be capable of producing an effluent
at the end of the discharge pipe of a quality of 14 milligrams 5
day b.o.d. per liter, 30 day average and 14 milligrams of suspended
solids per liter, 30 day average. You will recall that at the time
of your consideration of the application for Glenmore (ZMA-90-19)
it was represented to you that the developer would build a plant
at Glenmore such as that described above if the requested rezoning
was granted.
,
This letter is, therefore, offered as simply a
clarification of proffer number five as set forth in a memorandum
dated December 10, 1990 from Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, to V. Wayne
Cilimburg regarding Board Actions of December 5, 1990.
.. July 18, 1991
, Page 2
The undersigned asks that this representation be accepted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as a clarification of
said proffer number five, and it is agreed by the undersigned that
the County of albemarle may enforce the representations herein made
against the owner as a part of said proffer number five.
Sincerely,
Glenmore Associated Limited
Partnershi
BAGCM245.LTR
C NTY 9F ALBEMARU:.
i..lJStnbuted to Board: ,/. <7.. .
Agenda Item No.
( II"TO'\ \, TlR"FR
COMMISSIONER
COl\:1M,ON\\TE .\LTlil of \TIRGINIAExEcur~.QH.JNAIlI..JR.
.. ;1 DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL TURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Division of Product and Industry Regulation
P. O. Box 1163, Richmond, Virginia 23209
731-0 E. M3r~0~ strpet
Herrisonbur,s. VA. ?>.801
AilgUst q '991
Mr, Taylor' Williams
Albemarle County Gypsy Moth Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virsinia 22901
Dear Taylor:
This letter is to confirm our recent telephone conversation
that the Gypsy Moth AIPM Program will require only Zone I
counties to cost share for treatment expenses during the 1992
treatment season. Treatment costs in Zones II-IV will be
100% funded by the AIPM Program.
Treatment costs will include expenses for contracting of the
spray and observation aircraft and for the purchasing of the
insecticides, The cost share formula requires that
localities in Zone I pay 30% of treatment ce=ts and AIPM pay
70% of the treatment costs, Zone I counties, as described in
the 1991, AIPM Plan of Work include: Greene, Madison, Page,
Rappahannock and Shenandoah,
Sin~er(?ly;
/!~~;: j litt- Cl/v-;v,~(J(
Gary L. McAninch
AIPM Sup,=,rvif'.or
Distributed to Board: t! - It,t:j/
!t;'1'\ L'o. 9/. 092/{~> 7 )
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive
FROM: Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administration ~%~
DATE: August 13, 1991
RE: status of Draft Sign Ordinance
The draft sign ordinance has been written and is currently
under review by other departments. Public worksessions will
begin August 28th. It is expected that formal zoning text
amendment review will begin in early October with the Planning
commission.
Our intern began full-time work on the new ordinance as of
July 1st. We met to go over the extensive work and research
compiled on the draft sign ordinance. He has since reviewed all
of this material and reviewed key issues with George st. John.
On August 7th, we sent out 250 surveys to related "design
professionals" asking their quantitative opinions on 13 physical
issues dealing with signs, such as height, sign area, setbacks,
etc. This group included all locally listed advertising
consultants, architects, graphic designers, landscape architects,
and sign contractors, as well as the design faculty of the school
of architecture at UVA (which comprised some 55 members) and the
Southern Environmental Law Center. At this time, we invited
these members of the community to a public information-gathering
meeting on August 28th at 7 pm.
This meeting will have three basic purposes: first, it
serves as a good public relations medium to express our good
intent. Second, it gives us the opportunity to inform the public
at an early stage in the process, and with a less formal format
than an official work session. Third, it gives the public a
chance to address issues which we may not have considered. Other
localities have experienced significant concern and confusion by
the public that I feel we will avoid through this approach.
Following a final "in-house" work session pursuant to the
draft sign ordinance, copies will be made available to the public
one week prior to the August 28th meeting for their perusal. We
will meet with the ARB and Planning Commission at a subsequent
working meeting, prepared with the survey results, public input,
and the efforts of the administrative Zoning staff throughout a
dozen work sessions.
It
SER:ll(:~:S, It.~C.
.It..
"..
300 East Lombard Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
3 0 l...h.$,Q"'7 7 ')()f) ", . r'/ L. J 9
Llr;:)dit'~..,.;m-ro ijOafd: J...: ~.!
Agenda I~i~rt! r;o, _:lL,oi 21{~,g_)
August 13, 1991
, ,
,.,1'
I'
.
1'1
!~ ;
; t.' L2,~',
i:
j'
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
of July 1991.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 301-659-7500.
Sincerely,
dlQJ.~ 1,1\, -11( &.tVVU-~,
Sheila H. MoynihaJ'
Project Monitor
jshm
enclosures
cc: Ms. Lettie Neher
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
,oJ qo
It
BONO PROGRAM fl~PORT
Month
July
Year 1991
p'openy: Arbor Crest Apartments
loution: Charlottesville, VA
Loretta Wyatt
M.nager
(Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Pro~t .:
Number of Units
August 5, 1991 Effective July 31, 1991
O.T.
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
051-35371
66
SubmlUtl2 by:
66
I. LOWER INCOME
15
The lollowlng units ".~ be'en d~slgnaled as "tower Income" units
1 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 4t et.
1 4 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Margaret Q. Sandford42 62,
3 5 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43 63,
4 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. BArnett 44 &4,
5 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 45 6S,
6 12 Arbor Crest Dr. 16 G. Robert Stone 46 68,
7 , 15 Arbor Crest Dr. 27 Jane Wood 47. 67,
8 20 Arbor Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn MAndeville 48 ea
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69,
10 78 Arbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
" 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 31 Juanita Boliek ~1 71.
12. 86 Arbor Crest Dr. 31 Mary A. Hoxie 52. 72.
13 90 Arbor Crest Dr. J) Florence Wheeler 53 73.
14 94 Arbor Crest Dr. J4 Sarah E. Fischer 54 74.
15 106 Arbor Crest Dr. 35 Katherine T. Nowlen ~5 75,
-
16 36 ~ 76.
11 37 ~7. 77,
lit 38 sa.. 78.
19 39 - ~9 ]8,
~IO 40 60 80.
T ne c"anges 'rom p'~v.ous r~pOfl 'f'f\~cled in th. above Iisllng .re
Deletion. Mdl1Sont
,. H 1.' 11.
2 12 2 12,
3 13 3. 13,
4 14 4, 14.
5 15 5 15.
6 '6 6 16.
7 17 7 17.
S '8 8. la..
t t9 9 11.
10 20 10. 20,
~
~
Effective July 31, 1991
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 Apa.rt:ments
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
l} 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~?ed has signed this Report as of
August 5, 1991 , iiw
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~~/~ 74~dL .
Authorized Rep esentative
Oii.TRi':,U";':':D TO 1.)0.'\1;;0 Ni8t,\3~~l:?
,?>-1..-1-9/
ON, ,
CO!\-fMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
August 15, 1991
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated August 7, 1991, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are
hereby approved, effective August 15, 1991.
ADDITIONS
LENGTH
MILL CREEK - SECTION 4
Route 1157 (Gristmill Drive) - From Route 1158 to
0.27 mile Southwest Route 1158
0.27 Mi
Route 1161 (Alpine Court) - From Route 1157 to 0.03
mile Southeast Route 1157
0.03 Mi
Route 1162 (Flagstone Terrace) - From Route 1157 to
Route 1163
0.08 Mi
"
Route 1163 (Timberbranch Court) - From 0.11 mile North-
east Route 1162 to 0.09 mile Southwest Route 1162 0.20 Mi
/, (I: /)/o.l1fl/'''1J
,Ju k1/tc / k.r
/.3(;L):>c/-l:.< -flLhfX-
L ) 'tJLA.-( .(./l-... HU
Sincerely,
~ ~;&;tM
a J? ~ethtel
OmInl.SSl.oner
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
[::,-- ~ !~:=U"~.L,:'\ T;.,,2. ~~\.\,',;'p i\~rJA~,OL~~~
ON -~-L=~;/ -?/ ~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
John G, Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
August 16, 1991
,~;Lj ;\J.r\.' ('
,.
:. ::'{ijo'44 t~Q32
TOO (604J7~ttBs
, ,
! i
't~
;' .' \ ;.~ ~ ; :., 1 .-'
The Honorable F. R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Cha~lottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowie:
I have received and read with some care your letter of
August 1. I believe it to be a very positive step forward,
following up on the productive meeting that we had at the end of
July.
I have asked the staff of the Department of Transportation and
the Office of the Attorney General to work with me in an effort to
respond affirmatively to the request that you made in the last
paragraph of your letter. We share the County's commitment to the
CATS Plan and to the sequence of projects outlined in the
Transportation Board's resolution and summarized in Enclosure II
of your letter.
In the interim, 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
his~oric resources that are ~o 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. ///) /1
C. . I 12/'
Slnc~rely, /
;/A.I1/}ll~~~
JGMjcmg
cc: Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Richard L. Walton, Jr., Esquire
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA
,_.~ ~. "',,'''0 !.\iOA\U:;I'\S
';';.."~..~~-.:t;J:",1 1'--, ~'"."~, .,,, ..,
G.""". .';7~2'/ -5'1_
ON __ ,,)-,.~~~~-
Region III
Superfund Program
Fact Sheet
August 1991
, ,
(
Greenwood Chemical Site
Albemarle County, Virginia
Introduction'. .
, . -.----.--- ..'.."......-.,..--,.---.---..,.---.---.-....--.-.-.-',-,','-'--.-.,.-..--......
....---...',',':--:-::-:-:-:-:.-:-:-:.-:::-.<-.,.-----------..--.-..--'-.',-...,.,.-....,--:.,',,------.-.-,-------.-,',..-.---..,',..-.---..-,',.,',.........,.,..-..
The u.s. Environmental Prot~on;Agency
.(F;P A}iscontinlJing>itscleanup of the ..
Greenwood Chemical Site. .. Because. the
problems at the Green-w-ood Chemical Site
weremariy years in the making, Site cleanup
. is along, complicated process. As part ofits
effort tokeep residerits informed ofitsactivities
at the Site, EP A has prepared this fact sheet.
This fact sheet will tell you:
" . ------. -- .-....--...,...,',.-,-"....'....'.-.'-.---....-..- -.., ....
. ::.:....-:...-.-._-:::. :::':'::.-:-','--.-.-..'..----.-..':.---....-:..-.,.,.., ..... ..... .,..... ---...... . ",.
c..............-..._......'.'........_._._-.-...._....._.___...__-.._..-_-_--_..'_..._............._.. ,. .....
..',.,'..,.,','.'.'.'....-,....-.---_...,'_._----,-._-_._...---..---...,....,..-.
., '..'....,'-.-..'.'-.-..-.----.....-.--......----.---.---.--'_..'.-'.'.'.-."" .
: - -: -. -.'.' ,',',', .'. '-: -, -:-: -: -: -' ~ - - - - -, -," -',',,'. . -. - - . - -' -.' - - - - - -' - . - - - -' . - , " ", . " '.'
' -.- .-..,',..'.-.,.,'...,.,.-.".,...-..-..,..--....-,..----..-.----...'.,..'-..---','-',..." ......',.,...,.--.---.-....-..-...".
.. ......Whathashappenedat the Siteinthe past
.. · What willhapp~n Ilext. .. ...... ... ..
.. EP A answers to your questions ..
· How to get more information.
Site Background
The Greenwood Chemical Site, located in the village of
Newtown, Albemarle County, is a former chemical
manufacturing facility. For nearly forty years, the facility
produced chemicals used in industrial, agricultural,
pharmaceutical, and photographic processes. During
these years, many wastes generated by the facility were
released onto soils on the property. Manufacturing ceased
at the Site in April 1985, following an explosion and fire
that destroyed a facility building and killed four workers.
EP A first became involved in the Site in May 1985 when,
at the request of the State of Virginia, EP A performed
some preliminary Site sampling. Following another
request by Virginia, the Site was placed on the National
Priorities List, making it eligible to receive Federal funds
for cleanup under the Superfund program.
EPA's Superfund activities at the Site began in 1987 with
an emergency action to remove some of the most dangerous
sources of contamination. This action included removing
drums and smaller containers of chemicals and removing
lagoon sludges.
After performing this short-term, emergency removal
action, EPA began work on a long-term, remedial action
to eliminate Site-related soil, lagoon water, and ground
water contamination. The first part of this long-term
cleanup involves removing, treating, and disposing of
contaminated soil and of containers of chemicals stored
in Site buildings. Prior to removing the soil, onsite process
buildings will also have to be removed. The second part
involves pumping and treating contaminated ground water
and lagoon water.
What Has Happened Recently?
Residential Well Testing. To ensure that Site
contamination has not affected residential wells, EP A
sampled ten residential wells near the Site in April. This
is the fifth round of residential well sampling conducted
by EPA. EPA is currently analyzing the most recent
results. Based on its review of available sample results,
EPA has no evidence at this time of Site-related
contamination of residential wells. EP A will continue to
monitor residential wells on a periodic basis.
Water Treatment. EPA intends to treat contaminated
ground water and lagoon water in a water treatment
building to be constructed onsite. In June and July of this
year, a contractor hired by EPA performed onsite tests of
key elements of the water treatment process. The initial
mobile laboratory results of this testing were very
encouraging. EP A expects to have the official laboratory
results of the testing this fall. If these results confirm the
initial data, EP A expects to begin its design of the water
treatment building as early as the fall.
r"
- ,._~..'. 2'.>..<~'..: .,
Soil Treatment. On July 24, EP A issued a document
called an Explanation of Significant Differences. This
document explains how EP A is planning to expand its
original soil cleanup plans to address additional
contaminated soil onsite. The Explanation of Significant
Differences authorizes EPA to:
· remove three Site process buildings
. incorporate new soil data into its cleanup plans
EP A also plans to expand the soil cleanup to include soils
in a fonner drum disposal area and areas around the
process buildings. Once completed, these plans will be
presented to the public.
Enforcement Action. EP A is pursuing enforcement action
against companies and institutions who might be partly
responsible for contamination at the Site. EP A will send
letters to these Potentially Responsible Parties soon
requesting their assistance in conducting or paying for the
water treatment. The Potentially Responsible Parties have
sixty days to respond. If they respond favorably, EP A will
then enter into negotiations with these parties. If not, EP A
will go ahead and begin its remedial design with Federal
Superfund money. In addition, EPA will likely request
that the Potentially Responsible Parties conduct the soil
cleanup after EP A completes the Remedial Design for this
work.
~
~~
~~
~
What Will Happen Next?
When it issued its Explanation of Significant Differences,
EPA also opened a thirty-day public comment period to
give residents a chance to review and comment on the
document. Following the close of the public comment
period, EP A will prepare a responsiveness summary which
will be added to the Site's Administrative Record. In the
fall, EP A expects to begin dismantling the three process
buildings. Soil excavation and removal is expected to
begin after the extent of soil contamination is identified
and incorporated into the soil cleanup plan or Remedial
Design. The soils will be taken offsite forthennal treatment
stabilization and/or disposal.
EP A expects that the design ofits water treatment building
will take approximately six months. This means that the
construction of the facility will start, at the earliest, in late
spring. Water treatment operations, once they begin, will
last for at least five years. Ground water downhill of the
Site will be pumped out of the ground, piped to the
treatment plant, and treated onsite. After treatment, the
water will be discharged into an unnamed tributary of
Stockton Creek.
EPA Answers Your Questions
In June, Amy Barnett (the EPA Community Relations
Coordinator for the Site) and Keith Vida (a representative
from the Virginia Department of Waste Management)
came to Greenwood to speak with residents and learn
more about the questions and concerns they have regarding
the Site. Following are some of the questions asked by
residen~, with responses provided by EPA. Additional
questions will be answered in the next fact sheet.
Q. Is EP A sure that it excavated all the buried drums?
A. EP A, using geophysical sUIvey instruments, surveyed
the entire Greenwood Chemical Company property for
buried metal. According to our survey results, no more
buried drums remain. The surveys identified six areas as
possibly containing buried metal. However, when the
areas were excavated with a backhoe, no drums were
found. EP A, using aerial photographs taken over time,
saw no signs of drum burial on adjacent properties.
Q. Has EPA interviewed individuals who may have
buried drums on the Greenwood Chemical Site?
A. Yes, EP A has interviewed several people about drum
burial activity. During those interviews, EP A asked each
person to pinpoint areas on aerial photographs where he or
she knew or suspected drums were buried. EP A continues
to investigate any new leads about drum burial that come
to our attention.
Q. Will the UV/oxidation technology to be used in the
water treatment building treat the cyanide in the
ground water? Where will the unit come from?
A. Yes, the UV /oxidation unit will treat cyanide. The unit
will come from a vendor selected by EP A in a competitive
bidding process held after the remedial design has been
completed.
Q. Can EPA conduct a tour of the water treatment
plant after it has been constructed?
A. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and EP A regulations prohibit individuals who
have not taken forty hours of safety training and been
entered into a medical monitoring program from entering
the Site. Also, because the Greenwood Chemical property
is privately owned, obtaining permission for such a tour
might be difficult. However, EP A plans to produce a
narrated, videotape tour of the treatment plant after the
plant has been completed. EP A will make the videotape
available to interested residents.
Q. What effect will the water from the treatment plant
have on the tributary to Stockton Creek? How much
will. be discharged into the Creek in relation to the
present flow?
A. Water discharged from the treatment plant will meet all
Federal and State standards protective of aquatic life. The
amount of discharged water will be minimal in relation to
the stream and should not cause any noticeable change in
flow rate or course.
Q. Why isn't EPA planning to reinject the cleaned
water?
A. EP A considers that the discharge of treated ground
water into surface water is the best design alternative at
this time. EPA's hydrogeologists and consuli:ants will
work to ensure that pumping and treating the ground water
will not affect the residential well water supply.
Q. How will the water treatment affect residents'
wells?
A. The treatment will minimize migration of ground
water contamination towards residential wells. There are
no residential wells in the immediate area of where the
treated water will be released.
Q. What does EPA test residential wells for, and how
much do the tests cost?
.
A. EP A tests for heavy metals and organic contaminants.
. The cost of the tests is approximately $1,000 per well.
Q. Why aren't there signs designating the area as a
Superfund Site?
A. In response to residents' concerns, EPA has posted
several signs at the Site that read: "Danger. Keep Out.
Hazardous Area." In addition, EPA intends to fence the
entire Site this fall.
Q. Why can't EPA isolate and condemn the Site
instead of spending so much money on it?
A. EPA, under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)-
commonly known as Superfund-is mandated to design
and implement a permanent remedy to contamination at
the Greenwood Chemical Site. EP A is required to address
both existing and potential risks posed by Site
contamination.
e
Where Can You Get More Information?
EP A is committed to providing the public with a way to
examine relevant sample results, reports, correspondence,
and other information. EP A has established a local
information repository in order to give the community
access to dOCwilents about the Greenwood Che!!ljcal Site
and the Superfund process. The repository is located at:
Cruzet Branch Library
Box 430
Crozet, V A 22932
(804) 823-4050
If you would like more information or have any questions
or concerns about the Site, please contact:
Amy Barnett (3EA21)
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 ChesOlut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6915
...
Post Office Box 26666
Richmond, Virginia 2326]
!;,0:"'.h0 T') ~:-;:)/\,'W N&J\l\LlGRS
ON _" f- i!.-t.:::.2L. ,_
"
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
August 15, 1991
SERVICE - VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE910048
ORDER ESTABLISHING 1991/92 FUEL FACTOR PROCEEDINGS
To: Local Government Officials:
Pursuant to Paragraph No.8 of the state corporation Commission's
Order of August 14, 1991, we hereby serve notice of a change in the
Company's fuel factor.
If you would like a copy of the Company's entire filing, please
contact Ms. Patricia Gordon at (804)771-3621.
t~d~
Kendrick R. Riggs
Attachment
-, .
_ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINlA91 0 8 2 02 15
"STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
;" 1
I !f.:"
J .i: J
. to.....,
AT RICHMOND, AUGUST It'E :j--ft~\- [=/
APPLICA!~O~ Of" ~.': II S
\~ -, 1_ l. \" l,: '_
. ,-I /-.'" .) ..
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
CASE N6":!~~E~ lb~d4 8
To revise its fuel factor pursuant
to Va. Code ~ 56-249.6
PE:~~:~.,\~:'~:~ SE~V;C~S
ORDER ESTABLISHING 1991/92
FUEL FACTOR PROCEEDING
On August 1, 1991, Virginia Electric and Power Company
("Virginia Power" or "Company") filed with the Commission
written testimony, exhibits and proposed tariffs intended to
decrease its zero-based fuel factor from 1.641Q/kWh to 1.595Q/kWh
effective September 15, 1991.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That this proceeding be assigned Case No. PUE910048;
(2) That a hearing is hereby scheduled at 2:00 p.m. on
September 10, 1991, the Commission's 13th Floor Courtroom for
the purpose of receiving evidence related to the establishment
of Virginia Power's fuel factor for the twelve-month period
commencing September 15, 1991 pursuant to Virginia Code 9 56-
249.6;
(3) That Virginia Power forthwith make copies of its
application and prefiled testimony available for public
inspection during regular business hours at all Company
offices in Virginia where customer bills may be paid;
(4) That, on or before August 23, 1991, any person
desiring to participate as a protestant, as defined in SCC
Rule 4:6, shall file with the Clerk, Document Control Center,
P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216 an original and twenty
(20) copies of a notice of protest as provided in SCC Rule 5:16(a)
and serve a copy on the Company (service upon Virginia Power
shall be directed to: Kendrick R. Riggs, Esquire, One James
River Plaza, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261);
(5) That, on or before August 30, 1991, each protestant
shall filed an original and twenty (20) copies of a protest
(SCC Rule 5:16(b)) and of the prepared testimony and exhibits
protestant intends to present at the hearing, and serve two
copies of each on Virginia Power and all other protestants;
(6) That, on or before August 30, 1991, the Commission
staff shall investigate the reasonableness of Virginia Power's
estimated costs and proposed fuel factor and file a report with
the Clerk, send a copy to Virginia Power and to each protestant;
(7) That, on or before September 4, 1991, :Virginia Power
shall file with the Commission an original and fifteen (15)
copies of all testimony it expects to introduce in rebuttal to
the direct prefiled testimony of both Staff and protestants;
additional rebuttal evidence may be presented by Virginia Power
without prefiling, provided it is in response to evidence which
was not prefiled but elicited at the hearing and provided
further, the need for additional rebuttal is timely addressed
by motion at hearing and leave is granted by the Commission.
A copy of the prefiled rebuttal evidence shall be sent to all
protestants by Virginia Power; and
2
(8) That, on or before August 16, 1991, Virginia Power
serve a copy of this Order on the Commonwealth's Attorney and
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each county (or
equivalent officials in counties having alternate forms of
government) in which Company offers service. Service shall be
made by either personal delivery or by first-class mail to the
customary place of business or the residence of the person
served.
ATTESTED COPIES hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the
Commission to: Kendrick R. Riggs, Esquire, One James Plaza, P.O.
Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261; Richard D. Gary, Esquire,
Hunton & Williams, Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 East Byrd
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074; the Office of the Attorney
General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 101 North 8th Street,
6th Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Hullihen Williams Moore,
Esquire, Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent and Chappell, 1200 Mutual
Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Edward L. Flippen, Esquire,
Mays & Valentine, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23208;
Dennis R. Bates, Esquire, Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County,
4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia 22030; John D. Jenkius,
One County Complex Court, Prince William, Virginia 22192; Jean
Anne Fox, 114 Coachman Drive, Tabb, Virginia 23602; and to the
commission's Divisions of Energy Regulation.
"A T~:~~-::i. - a.':iI__
Clerk of the Y ~
Statt: Corperatic,n Commission
3
-.
~
\,::T{':~-,"
If1':nr~!~1"~h
t\: ~ ~I I;~I
(. lib, ~, ~
\ "JJ~')~:~""~~)V1
~,,\ ,. 1/'
.~~~.lf.'f
".~~<~
~~=i'~/~?)~D .A\ENi3ERS..
,,--'.
nal/,iI (;. Glllln.1I
Co 11I11I is ,\ It II II! r
(C'OMM\ON\Vl~~^l.;rlK of Vffff~(iHNKA
V;'{2.; 11; (I ['.:" '[ Jh ~y 11/ ('II t C011/11/ ;.",,,; Oil
400 Preston Avenue
P. O. Box 2063
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
, r/ '.
~l1Clrlot.tesville VEC ManpoweL!l~LLletin
Charlottesville Local Office Activity
Period
~une 91
June 90
Secured EmRl2Yment
262
180
Job OrdersLQR~ninqQ
117/211
125/218
l!lmJ.iG~nt ::?_~svicgE.
727
688
0.3%
months.
June 1991 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers was 136.0
above May and increased 4.7% over the past twelve
)une 1991 EmJllQyment Data
Labor Force
Metropolitan statistical Area
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene
'73,250
25,178
35, 751
6,666
5,654
Employed Unemploy_ed Rate
69,828 3, If 2,2 4.7
24,017 1 , 161 4.6
34,416 1,335 3.7
6,272 394 5.9
5, 123 531 9.4
Also Served by Charlottesville
Louisa
Nelson
~--
)
11 ,726
6,402
10,897
5,820
829
582
7. 1
9.1
Virginia
National
3,316.439 3,118,314
127,054,000 118,280,000
Manpower Hiqhlights
198,125
8,774,000
6.0
6.9
As expected, students entering the labor market increased area's unemployment
rates. In most counties the 1985 level was reached. However it's also expected
that next ~onth's labor force wi 11 be smaller (less students) and more employed,
thus reducing the rate. Employment levels in most occupational categories showed
gains signaling improvement in the number of adult workers.
0<2
r~ t3ow~ .
.b~d ~~k
DATE f~ ~./ ~ JY /
AGENDA ITEM NO. JiJ( ~/ /~/ Ytb?
AGENDA ITEM NAME ~tJ/ p~ ~ T
DEFERRED UNTIL ~~. fL'.-f;!
Form. 3
7/25/86
'.
DATE
/~'//- Y/
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5~- ~ /r / 9
/
5?-;JJ/-/~ ~
AGENDA ITEM NAME C .3;;:": . ,,', _ /:::-
DEFERRED UNTIL ~- 7-7:/
Form.3
7/25/86
Distributed to Board: f' //'-9/
Agenda Item No 9/ Of2/.
' - , -:tf.:.?-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
'J
.,
f'!. "
July 24, 1991
Emil Kutilek
P. O. Box 5525
Charlottesvil~e, VA 22905
RE: SP-91-28 Emil Kutilek
Tax Map 40B, Parcel 69
Dear Mr. Kutilek:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 16, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only and
airfield is for usage by the applicant only;
2. Limited to two base aircraft;
3. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to three (3) per
week during daylight hours only, except in emergencies;
4. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except
that of an emergency nature, shall be performed in an
enclosed building;
5. All areas used by aircraft under ~ts own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface;
6. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation.
Emil Kutilek
Page 2
July 24, 1991
7. Airstrip shall be located no closer than 500 feet to
the nearest residential lot line.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on August 21, 1991. 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.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
('I/L~,
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JULY 16, 1991
AUGUST 21, 1991
SP-91-28 EMIL K~LEK
Petition: Emil Kutilek petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for a private airport
[10.2.2(19)] on 46.25 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 40B, Parcel 69, is located on
the southeast side of Route 810 approximately 3/10 mile
south of the intersection of Route 789 and Route 810 in the
White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area.
Character of the Area: Two dwellings and several farm
structures are located on this site. Thurston subdivision
is located to the east. The property under review is a
mixture of wooded and open fields. A low voltage power line
is located to the east of the proposed landing strip. The
minimum distance to the line is approximately 170 feet. A
high voltage power line is located a minimum of 900 feet to
the east. The minimum distance to a dwelling on adjacent
property is approximately 800 feet. The closest structure
on site is approximately 100 feet from the landing strip.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to use an
existing grassed field for a runway for personal use. No
grading is proposed and the runway would remain grassed.
Not more than two single engine airplanes will be on site at
a time. The planes would be stored and repaired in existing
farm buildings. Fuel storage is proposed., The applicant
has provided a description of the request (Attachment C).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4:1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends denial.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: None available.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan makes no
specific comments regarding private airports, but does
recognize the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The
general intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage
development in the Rural Areas which is not directly related
to a bona fide agricultural or forestal use. Staff opinion
is that this request will have a neutral impact on the Rural
Areas.
1
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant is proposing to base not more than two single
single engine planes on site. The planes would be used for
private recreational use. Maximum usage is estimated at one
to three times per week. The applicant has submitted
information to the Virginia Department of Aviation as well
as the Federal Aviation Administration. The applicant is
seeking a personal airport as opposed to a private airport.
A personal airport will not appear on aeronautical charts
and will not be available for use by others.
The applicant has provided a letter from the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (Attachment D). In the
opinion of staff, this letter adequately addresses the
comments of Section 5.1.1(a) which states:
"In review of a special use permit petition for an
airport or heliport, the Board of Supervisors shall be
mindful of the substantial public investment in the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and shall only
approve such petition upon finding that:
1. Equivalent or better service is not available at
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport;
2. Operation of the proposed airport or heliport will
in no fashion interfere with the physical
operations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
. Such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property.
Staff has received a petition from the adjacent
property owners in support of this request (Attachment
E). The closest residence to the runway is
approximately 800 feet distant. The approach and
takeoff zone is over undeveloped land which is owned by
a partnership which has signed the petition in support
of this request. Due to support from the adjacent
property owners it is the opinion of staff that
approval of this request will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property.
2
o the character of the district will not be changed
Adjacent property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
properties to the east have been developed into a
subdivision with an average lot size of three acres.
The landing strip will be a grassed strip in the
existing fields and no changes - grading, clearing -
are required. A limited amount of tree clearing may
occur in the approach zone for safety purposes. No new
structures are proposed. Based on the limited activity
on site, this use should not change the character of
the district. Staff notes, however, that aircraft are
not normally anticipated in relatively close proximity
to a developed subdivision.
o the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the ordinance, with the use permitted by right in
the district and with additional regulations provided
in Section 5.0 and with the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Current farming activities will not be interrupted by
the landing strip. The use is not clearly supportive
of the RA district as it is not directly related to
agricultural/forestal activities. Therefore, it is the
opinion of staff that this use will have no affect on
the RA district. Staff has reviewed the provisions of
Section 5.1.1 which governs airports and is of the
opinion that this request is not in harmony with that
section. Staff reviewed with particular interest the
provisions of Section 5.1.1 which states:
"No runway or heliport area shall be located
nearer than five hundred (500) feet horizontally
or one thousand (1,000) feet longitudinally to any
residential structure on any adjoining property.
No hanger or aircraft storage shall be located
nearer than five hundred (500) feet to any
residential structure on an adjoining property.
Within any agricultural or residential district,
commercial activities and private clubs located on
the premises with a private airport; flight strip,
or helipad, are expressly prohibited;"
The nearest dwelling on any adjacent property is
approximately 800 feet horizontally from the runway.
However, vacant parcels could be built on which would
result in dwellings approximately 285 feet horizontally
from the runway. The minimum distance to adjacent
dwellings in past requests was 1,000 feet. (Staff
3
notes that this property owner is in support of this
request). Storage of the pl~~es will occur in existing
structures which are located within 500 feet of vacant
properties. (Staff notes that both of these property
owners are in support of this request.) This use does
not meet the minimum distar1C,;t!s listed in the ordinance.
If this request is appro~e~ it would be the first
airport request which does not meet the minimum
standards of Section 5.1.1.
Swnmary:
Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
1. Lack of facilities at the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport.
2. Support from adjacent property owners.
3. Approach zones are over undeveloped Rural Areas land.
Staff has identified the following factors which are
unfavorable to this request:
1. Proximity of an existing subdivision which may allow
for new construction 285 feet from the runway;
2. Close proximity (170 feet) of a low voltage power line;
3. Proximity of the developed area of Crozet;
4. Use is for personal use only and is not directly
related to agricultural/forestal activities.
In regards to the unfavorable factors, staff notes that the
existing power line is located downhill from the landing
strip and is close to the elevation of the-landing strip
(the power lines are approximately ten to fifteen feet
higher). The applicant's information indicates that the
flight path across the power line will occur when the plane
is at approximately 300 feet. Should this request be
approved staff opinion is that federal and state approvals
will ensure adequate operational safety.
Staff opinion is that the negative factors outweigh the
positive factors and, therefore, staff recommends denial.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only;
4
2. Limited to two base aircraft;
3. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight
hours only, except in emergencies;
4. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except
that of an emergency nature, shall be performed in an
enclosed building;
5. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface;
6. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Description of Request
D - Letter from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
E - Petition from Adjacent Property OWners
5
I ,"
J .,
.. .. ..
.... g ... ~ ~
.. ... .. g;
... .. ~ ... u;
0 ... ..
.. - '" ;:;
'" '" ... 0 '"
'" '" '" ~ ... s
:.., N :.., ... ..
'" ... '" 0 ...
i ... ;:;
... .. .. ~
... .. .. ..
.. .. <5 ... ~ :.,
... 0 .. 0
... ~ ;:;
.. 0 ~ t: ~
..
;; ~ ~ 2 2l ..
0
.. ;:;
... ;:; ~
~ .. 'f
0 .. ...
... is s: :ill = f
..
;:;
... ..
- '" '" ~
uo 0 .. uo .. .;.
!" g ... - '"
i5 ... - .. ..
... ;; .. :::
... .. '"
'" 0 .. ... ... ..
~ ., ~ U; '" ..
0 0
~-J..
~
LII r Lt.
fLA r MTN
.)".
/....
~
~
o
u
'<
/....
c.,
~
C:J
~
'<
.
('
.
~\ 'tillJ
~ HIGH
""\ ro.
<fl
o
CASTLE
ROCK
-J..
,~~
;~~'"
~I\
Hear~ Mtn F T '(
\~
'\ H..,d, .
.-~
-"
-------
".\
ALBEMARLE COUNTY.'
, ... : 1" 1
IATTACHMENT BI
SECTION 40.
_..._ ACIIU
SEE 56.640
,
'THURSTON'
0) SECTION ONE
@ ACREAGE
G) PARCELS
D. B. 637-456;45B (PIaU
lOlI.....
- -
SCALE: '-.300'
.. ..
SP-91-28
EMIT KUTILEK
,-
~
..
WHITEHALL
DISTRICT .
SECTION 408
I
J
IATTACHMENT cl
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please acc,;~t my request for a special use permit allowing me to keep a personal
airplane on the farm. The following are my intentions subject to your approval:
1) No more than two (2) single engine airplanes would be on the farm at one time, both
being personally owned. Anticipated flying is one to three times per week or less.
2) No aviation fuel would be stored on the farm except possibly a 200 gallon above
ground tank with hand pump. The purpose being to completely fill the aircraft fuel
tanks to compensate for the fuel burned from the Charlottesville Airport to the farm.
This is to prevent the formation of moisture in the aircraft fuel tanks due to
condensation when they are not completely full.
3) No night flying is anticipated.
4) No grading will be necessary as an existing pasture field will be used for the landing
area.
5) Application has been made to the State of Virginia and the Federal Aviation
Administration for licensure.
6) In addition to being a licensed pilot, I am also a licensed aircraft and power plant
mechanic. I plan to maintain my personal airplane only. Maintenance on the aircraft
would be conducted in an existing building as well as storage. Discardable fluids will be
stored with my other farm fluids and burned in an oil-fired stove.
NOTE: In reference to Tax Map 40B Lot 60 Walter W. Baber.- Mr. Baber's signature
was not obtainable due to the uncertainty of his whereabouts. The yard is overgrown as
consequence of the house being deserted for several weeks.
IATTACHMENT o[
I
AIRPORT
Charlottesville/Albemarle ~l
rDuL 10- .
~. ~~
May 7, 1991
Mr. Emil Kutilek
Cottonwood Farm
Rt. 2, Box 558
Crozet, Virginia 22932
Dear Mr. Kutilek:
This is in response to your recent request zor a review oz your
proposal to construct an airzield on your property in Crozet,
Virginia. It is my understanding that you intend to operate said
airzield zor your own private use and benezit. Given this intended
use and distance zrom the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, it
appears that your airzield would not compete with this zacility.
This assessment does not extend to any Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) or Virginia Department oz Aviation
licensing/registration requirements. Iz you should require
assistance in obtaining inzormation relative to said
registration/ licensing requirements, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 973-8341.
s~nCerelYiPUf/ll!r
~ Ellintt
Director oz Aviation
pc: Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Community Planning and Development,
Albemarle County
Charlie Williams, Virginia Department oz Aviation
Dave Arnold, Manager, Air Trazzic Control Tower, CHO
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
201 Bowen Loop . Charlottesville, VA 22901 . (804) 973-8341
)
IATTACHMENT E, Page 11
We the undersigned neighbors do not object to Emil J. Kutilek
keeping an airplane at Cottonwood Farm.
Siqnature '
Tax Map
Parcel No.
~~....-M-:... /~L-----_4P.cA______________5-(L______
-ffi~ d~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _~f)~ tJ_ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ __ _ _ ~~ _ _ _ __
'- D '.. Lfl ~ 51 f:~.
-' - -~--~~-~~- -~~~---------~~~--------___________~_~2____
,~~ ~~/a--"-'. '/':~~~ d()13 5"0
-:~ -.~ I ' ~';107 ~----~c8---------------;-;-----
----~--~---~ ~h~----------------------------------------_____
~~=~~-~~--~~-~~~~---s(~-~___________~__1f~______
I i /-4.~"=-------------u---h'jQ}b---___h____1.a!_____
~, 'n~-=-~~_____1()JS___________~~______
(- mcf:' ffitd::pL---'-----{:h-~-h-------fh' __'L__
~ -i~~-J,.-~~~- 0. _.h._0'd,':!-fY=___ <!L_______
, ;;I;? l \ ~ / .
- - /5-~ - - _~(~t~~__ - - --~(~::71L-~~tt~-~~l~J '- _ _____ __ __ ____ ___
/ ~I...- L./7-Qr - '-19 - 71
7 - - _:f./li _ tUl e _ _ ':l 1:L _ _ _ fA~<::( L JL _ _~..:: 3_I..:3.L 1 :_'f..c_'_V:_ 't.L_::: ~J:: :1.."--:':1$
"--r,~C- f>k---5-~~JL--L~-~-~f-(::AL-----~_-~------
-~-= - ~ ~~ ------ - -- -----.$;-:A-------------:>---------
~~~~~~~(?:~:~~~~~~~~{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;r~~~~~~~~
~ -' r? C",(V1A.-.. 9c i3 ~ 7
----~---~--l~o--------__________________________________________
~:~~!!~~~~~~~~:::~:~~~::~::::::::~~~:::::
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'''~Y
IATTACHMENT E, Page 2\
We the undersigned neighbors do not object to Emil J. Kutilek
keeping an airplane at Cottonwood Farm.
Siqnature
Tax Map
Parcel No.
_ _l...:. _ _ _ .;.~_ _ __ -<~ __ ::.~~~ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ __ ~PJ3_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ -~.:-!. _1. _4.~::_
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DATE // .?/- V
AGENDA ITEM NO. 91 t1 7/ t? / -3 ;?
AGENDA ITEM NAME 1/ ~~ ~?1 ////tt( ~,
r t-
DEFERRED UNTIL 9 -f/'---tp/
Form.3
7/25/86
DEFERRED UNTIL
r-,)I'-- c:j /
~/ / y/?::/
S/-*'--/~ ~.
fl~ d(-;y/
DATE
AGENDA ITEM NO.
AGENDA ITEM NAME
Form.3
7/25/86
r~@[Pw
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMO TO: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ~~~
DATE: August 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Transfer of Appropriation - Approved August 21, 1991
Attached is the signed appropriation form for transfer of funds
from Brownsville to Hollymead and Burley projects.
LEN:bwh
Attachment
cc: Jo Higgins
Robert paskel
.,
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR
91/92
NUMBER
910010
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER X
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND
CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER FROM BROWNSVILLE TO HOLLYMEAD AND BURLEY PROJECTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1900060205999999 HOLLYMEAD CONTINGENCY $53,000.00
1900060251999999 BURLEY CONTINGENCY 32,000.00
1900060202800902 BROWNSVILLE MASONRY PROJECT (85,000.00)
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~~-=
9-/>-9/
/--F7---)?/
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
. 1
Distributed to Board: ..i, ((P,<J I.. COUNTY OF AL8EMARU:.
Agenda Item No, qt', Of)..!', t/(,~"""
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
FROM:
Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive
Robert W. Paskel, Superintendent of Schools ~
Capital Improvement Projects Transfer of Funds
TO:
RE:
DATE:
July 23, 1991
The Burley Middle School Auditorium and Gymnasium
renovations and the Hollymead Elementary School classroom and
library project were placed under contract without adequate
contingency funding (10% of the project cost).
Because the Brownsville masonry repair bid was less than the
budgeted amount, funding is available for transfers to these two
projects as follows:
1. $53,000 to the Hollyrnead Elementary Project
2. $32,000 to the Burley Middle School Project
This will leave $79,750 in the Brownsville project as a
contingency for the HVAC replacement and masonry repairs.
At its meeting on July 15, 1991, the school Board voted to
request the transfer of $53,000 to the Hollyrnead Elementary ClP
Project for contingency and $32~000 to the Burley Middle School
ClP Project for contingency from the Brownsville Masonry ClP
Project.
Al Reaser and Jo Higgins are managing these projects and
they will be pleased to answer any questions you may have
concerning the need for this transfer of funds.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
LAR: npm
91-041
. ~
COlJNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Robert W. TUCkel~J~~~o~~ty Executive
Jo Higgins, Directl~~~ngineering
TO:
DATE:
August 12, 1991
RE: CIP Transfer - Memo dated 23 July 1991
The Ho11ymead Elementary and Burley Middle School projects
currently have no contingency funds. The attached memo is
to transfer $53,000 to the Hollymead project and $32,000 to
the Burley project from the Brownsvi11e project. In order to
cover change orders that are necessary for the completion of the
work that could not have been anticipated, it is important to have
these funds in place to facilitate the timely completion of the
project. In this case, both projects are existing buildings being
expanded/renovated and renovated respectively. There are no
contingency funds allocated. Renovation projects, unfortunately,
require more changes due to the existing conditions being
different from that anticipated during design. In any event, all
additional work that is proposed will be reviewed to assure that
it was not in the original contract, is necessary, and the price
is ,-easonab1e.
At the completion of these two project, as I understand, Al Reaser
will recommend that the School Board request to transfer any funds
not expended back to the Woodbrook Elementary HVAC Project where
they were originally allocated and subsequently transferred to
Brownsvi11e.
If you have any questions, please advise.
JH/
Attachment
Copy:
Robert Brandenburger
Al Reaser
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Di,;..t~:';I,,~,"'(..4' -~'. 0
hJdlj"~.H....';,,; tD bJ3fCr _~ ~ "'I".?(
Agenda Hem No, _ 9l.~f-;;;"_C;"
~
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
f ,r-
RLE\
Memorandum
,
-L
si;,'.:' ,'I;
TO:
F.R. Bowie, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Clifford W. Haury, Chairman, School Board
CJi~1tltf ew. IJ~:UO
RE:
Murray High School
DATE:
August 13, 1991
As we agreed in our discussion of the agenda items scheduled for the
joint meeting on August 14, 1991 that we had to postpone, I am sending you the
School Board's plan for the evaluation of Murray High School.
First, in its July 8th meeting the Board asked the Superintendent to
prepare an evaluation of the instructional program at Murray High School due
at the end of the first semester in January 1992. This evaluation would
include, but not be limited to, an assessment of instruction, administration,
staffing, student attendance, student performance and placement, course
scheduling and recommendations for changes in the program.
Second, since the roof of the current facility needs replacement in the
near future, the School Board would review the instructional program
evaluation and then deliberate on the capital improvement needs commencing in
January 1992 to coincide with the County's Five Year Capital Improvements Plan
cycle. In sum, the Superintendent is working on a report and recommendations
for both the program and the facility.
On another matter, the School Board agreed to a joint meeting time and
date of the second Wednesday of the month at 3:00 p.m. commencing in September
1991. However, the School Board requested that the Board of Supervisors
consider a joint meeting on alternate months at 5:00 p.m. on the second or
fourth Monday of the month. Please let me know if this is a possibility.
CWH/cs
cc: School Board Members
'''^',,;k,b.-! In D"~rr!: _~, "L~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~
DATE: August 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Appointments to Various Boards/Commissions/Committees
Through September, 1991
EXPIRATION NAME OF AD ELIGIBLE FOR
BOARD/COMMITTEE DATE MEMBER REQUIRED REAPPOINTMENT''(
BOCA Code Board of
Appeals 8-21-91 William C. Thacker No Yes
Jordan Development 8-13-91 Thomas F. Stephens No Yes
8-13-91 D. James Firster No Yes
JAUNT 9-30-91 Robert W. Tucker No Yes
9-30-91 Nathaniel Brown No Yes
Land Use Classifi-
cation Appeals Board 9-1-91 Dan M. Maupin No Yes
9-1-91 Samuel Page No Yes
9-1-91 Montie Page No Yes
LEN:mms
;'.' '\. fDI.. n._1 \VJ\ 7'
I I ~ !
, I \
;; ! .~ , t
.' ; ,."",,.k...}
',"'"
"
Edward H Baln, Jr
Samu~l Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
August 23, 1991
Charlotte Y Humphns
IrKk JOi.ldl
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F Perkin'
Whllt;' Hall
F R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T Way
'-)c()l\sville
Mr. William C. Thacker
Thacker Construction
614 West Rio Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Thacker:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 21, 1991,
you were reappointed to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals with said
term to expire on August 21, 1996.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to
continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:bwh
cc: Jesse Hurt
Lester A. Wilson, III
(- "') (-;'') r.:1~, n
! .L!181 Vl
r ',j I
; , I : ill
l.,,,.. u
Edward H. Bam, Jr
Sarnu!?l Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901A596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
Charlotte Y Humphns
Jack .10ul..'ll
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walt\::'r F Perkins
Whl1O:' HCll1
F R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T Way
Scottsvllle
August 23, 1991
Mr. D. James Firster
1360 Auburn Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Firster:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 21, 1991,
you were reappointed to the Jordan Development Corporation Board of
Directors with said term to expire on August 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to
continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:bwh
cc: Forrest Kerns
Lester A. Wilson, III
r) ~""'. r-\\\ f7
t p..; 1 n \ \ D ) \~ f
\: iHi\I'd' .1
" I q,,' I,
~' \" "C" } t'~ t"j
'C-il>~'''''' -
F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229014596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
August 23, 1991
Charlolll' Y Humphris
.JeH:k Jou<!l!
Edward H. Balll. Jr
Samuel Miller
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F Perkllls
While Hall
Peter T Way
SC01Isvilk
Mr. Thomas F. Stephens
Route 4 Box 234A
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Stephens:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 21, 1991,
you were reappointed to the Jordan Development Corporation Board of
Directors with said term to expire on August 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to
continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:bwh
cc: Forrest Kerns
Lester A. Wilson, III
Z
::l
-.
>-
cC
::IE:
l>I:
11.
cC
l>I:
~
III
W
....
Z
cC
-.
U
W
Q
>
0
Z
I-
U
0
11.
W
III
N
~ <.:l
::l
... cC
.
g: .....
::l
-.
::IE:
C
l>I:
<.:l
0
l>I:
11.
~
l>I:
~
(II
...
'-
8.
41
l>I:
.
- ~
~ 41 .-
-<f)"8~
l\I 41 ::IE: .-
c: .- ..... ::l
~ < 'B .~ III
(.J 01+'(1)-
W III >- l\I
d~~...Cii;1
CI:: QI .- u c: C
Q. .s= ..., ,- c c
..... III l\I '-
~l\I'-t:t:"2
- ... 8..- l1i! l\I
~~~Qit>-
.... .:L.U--
(II - .- ~
cacnc..-eJ
..... '- ::l 0 l\I ...
< 41 (II ... U '-
- c: c: (II (II l\I
U 41 41 .- .- ::l
w<:Iu:....a
11.
III
(II
(II
c:
III
-
11.
'-
III
41
>-
>0
l
...
III (II
1->-<
UIIlI-
W III
-.mQ.
OC:Q.
a:: .- .....
11. ... c:
l\I 0
00:::'-
11. ...
~"2E-
Z!i (II ... 41
- ~ .~ "B
I- c: ::IE:
< 11I'-
l;;: 't: .e ,~
04lc....
11.... ....
1Il'- 0 III III
Z '- 11. '-
<U::IE:I-U
a::
I-
I I I
I
i II
I I
I I
1- --
I II
I
-_..- : I I
i I r
I I
I I I
I I
! r I
I I
I
I I
I
I II
I
.g
...
III
c:
o (II
... (II
l\I >-
... -
'- l\I
8..i
(II
c: >- (II
ca ..... .-
'- .- g')
I-U>-
(II 8. Cii
.. l\I c:
...u<
c:
l\I 41 c:
... '- 0
- ca ,-
::l.... ...
(II ,c U
c:m41
o ::l (II
U 0 '-
'- 41
00'"
Q.,cc:
::IE: 1--
Z
o
-
I-
C
l>I:
I-
III
-
Z
::IE:
Q
C
I-
U
-
l>I:
I-
III
Q
....
C
I-
III
W
l!5
....
.....
....
cC
l>I:
::l
I-
.....
::l
U
l>I:
<.:l
<
(II
c:
l\I
-
11. (II
... - m
...c-c
I- c:~ l!! :.; 'c
z a. en ,-
W 0 l\I
% -c:L.
Q..-CUOI-
~JHU
z........ $ '-'-
ClIll>l:Q.O
..... I-
en
(II
(II c:
... l\I
c: (II -
~.~ ~ ~
i~~~1
~g.~~u55
Q ::IE: > 41 (II '-
ar: -Gluca...
o~.:!Q~::;&
CJ .- U QI ,- ._
~f58..~;=.~
ZNIIlIll> C....
o
N
c:
o
.- (II
...... ...
l~ I~
l! 11. ~ .::
l\I4I cCC: (II
::IE: U ...
III ,-8. :::'0 ~c:
I- 4Ien l\I'-
Z... ... l\I
W l\I c: III 0
~ ~8. ~~ ~
ffi ~~ E5 <
::E.......a.. (QI- GI
cC.~~E ~~"2::
W '- 41 41 ~ (II .- ... ...
u...um '_~l\I'_
Z(II'-'O c: ._~
cC .- ~ .- 41 .- ... ~
zo (II~~.eu.cu
QU4IC:IIl<m-
l!5't:l>I:':ij U m,!: U ~
<.:l E ~ ~ 'c .!: E = '0
~.~t;;~~5~'9~
Z::I:EIIlNQ.Q.:
o
N
Z
;:)
...,
~
e:
:II:
ao:
~
e:
ao:
~
a:l
W
...
Z
e:
...,
U
W
Q
~
Z
....
U
0
~
w
en
N
8: <:l
~ ~
,
g: -' I
;:)
.....
:II:
e:
ao:
<:l
0
ao: I>>
Q. C
.-
:..: L.
ao: 0
~ ...
'C
0
:II:
41
>
.-
t/l
41
...
2
...
Cll
-
t/l
.-
.- I>>
:II: 41
41 -'
~:lS g.'ii!~
"8.Cll'- _0
Hi i I~
~=a:ll>> 1e:f
o CllC U Q.
-t/l....- OJ!
:c~g~ ct~?:
ao: .- Cll U .-
.........Q.-..,tJ) C
en CllenQ. 41 C 41 ~
_ L... tJ)"-....,
Z!e:"tl"tl-Cll
:II: - ::).- ...
:II: NOa:l...enu
Q
e:
Ii
L.
8'
L.
Q.
t/l
.... ...
Z C
w I
:II:
2i JI ~
-' 41
w .; L.
> e-
w 41
Q ao:
~ E-
.... Cll Cll
- L....
Z .... I>> .-
;:)w o Q.
~g L. Cll
Q.U
Ua:l
-- '-- --
...
L.
8.
41
ao:
>-
...
>
t/l ...
JI U
41 e:
.; ... C
41 C Cll
~ lO:
U 0 t/l
C >- - 41
Cll U 41 .-
'- ,- > ..,
z -- .- GI .,. L.
~Q.~~:::5i:l
a..S ~U-U)
U"'L.CllQ.Cll
~'Ui~C8."'4I:II:
_..... 4)>.00
enC ao:"'Cll41
~ 2! 2! Iii ._~ ~:~
w1!e::::l C-
g: 2! E 8.';:
~e: e:uO;:)
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
\
I
I
I
41
41
...
...
C .-
~ g .-
~.. ti
~gJ 8.~
L.. "- L. '"2
s"9t'co
t/l ... C ~
4IenOCL.
ar:a:a~E.8
L. :J - .&;
CLtmca.-at
.., GI u.. Z 0-
Cll L. 41
::Ie: Z
""
t/l
C
Cll
-
Q.
>-
...
en
....
U
w
...,
o
ao:
Q. en
-
ao: <:l
w ......
.... ~
;:)en~
Q.....o-
~QW
U
f5
... >-
Cll I>>
.L. 41
... ...
C t/l Cll
o ,_ L..
,- C .....
..... "_ (I)
:! -e I>>
...e: C
t/l...... .-
,- C t/l
en C 0 :::l
:II: ,-.- 0
~-e~ ~
8e:,~~~
ar::cn-L......
~ ,!: 8: 2l ,~
ent/le:a:lg
.... t/l
ZO<:la:l
e:L.a:lao:U
ao:UQ::C
<:l UUI>>
... ......C
<:l 41 L. U '-
ZNGI-rn
C;;f~~~
aUO....::c
::c
Z
::)
...,.
>-
ce
:E
CII:
Q.
ce
CII:
ce
:E
CD
w
u..
Z
ce
...,.
U
W
Q
>
0
Z
~
g
Q.
W
(I)
N
8: <.:I
::)
-- ce
I
g: ..J
::)
...,.
:E
ce
CII:
<.:I
0
CII:
Q.
~
CII:
~ <II
...
0
<II
';
...
8-
:J
(I)
<II
<II >
... II
~<IIii
C ... l!! ca
~ ~ .c .=
QQ. "C
CII: "C'"
O!5~O
~ 'Uj CII: ~
- .- QJ &a
(I) > ... <II
- ,- ca II
:::)l.~ "0
O:;L~
CD(I)Q.::J
::)
(I)
W
..J
::)
Q
W
'"'
U
(I)
W
W
u..
w
U
Z
ce
Z
W
....
(I) Z
U -
- ce
'"' :E
Q.
C Q.
CII: ce
<.:I :E
)..
~~
Z ... U
o ca
-OQJ U)
... a::II - ~
U........ w
8 ,2 ~ ~
<.:ICII:<IIll(l)z
zQ.ct).........
- ........- C % l&.I
~~~.=~a
..J..JU '"'
CD Q. '" .... .....
it~~,=~~
Q.Q'cE~~
O..Jccaoz
...ccu-......
~::)-Q..wO
~~Q.= ~~
0> OCII:
5