HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-20
FIN A L
November 20, 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) Proclamation: 50th Anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor.
6) *Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7) ZMA-89-09. Rio Hill West. P-t1bHe-Heariftg-oft-a-re~l1e~t-to-rezofte-9,:,!:98-ae
from- R -G-to- R -16 ':' - -Prof)erty-oft - S-~itie-of- Berkmar- Br-at-jfl -iftt:er~eetieft
with --Wooab:roook --Br,:, ---TM4S,P29B~f)a:roth9%,92ff)a:roth93A%!H99€:,
€harlett:e~yiHe-Bish --This -f):roof)e:roty -Hel! -wit:hift -the -ael!igna~a -g:roowHt
area - kftowft -al! - N eighbo:rohooa - r -afta -is -reeommeftaea -ffl:ro - high -aeft~H:Y
re~itieft tift}-ift - the - €omf)reheftsi'\re - Pl8.ft ':' (Staff requests the Board to
refer the petition back. to the Planning Commission.)
8) SP-91-58. Clifton. Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-87-49 to
permit a 14-room bed & breakfast & a 24-seat restaurant on 10.1 ac
zoned RA. Property on E side of Rt 729 approx 0.4 mi S of Rt 250.
TM79,P23B&23C. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from November 13, 1991.)
9) SP-91-46. William Wibert (applicant), Ha To Ly (owner). Public Hearing on
a request for a sheet metal shop on property zoned HC on N side of
Berkmar Dr approx 500 Ft W of Rt 29. TM61U,P5,Sec 1. Charlottes-
ville Dist. This property lies within a designated growth area.
10) ZMA-91-06. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone 3.1 ac from HC (Proffered) to HC & C-1 (both prof-
fered) . Property on N side of Greenbrier Dr approx 500 ft W of Rt 29.
TM61 W, P5, Sec 1, Blk A. Charlottesville Dist. Site is in EC Dist.
This property lies in a designated growth area. (Deferred from Novem-
ber 6, 1991.)
11) SP-91-43. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership. Public Hearing on a request
to locate billiard center on 3.1010 ac zoned HC. Property on N side of
Greenbrier Dr approx 500 ft W of Rt 29. TM61W,P5,Sec 1,Blk A.
Charlottesville Dist. This property lies within a designated growth
area.
12) SP-91-52. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership. Public Hearing on a request
for emergency veterinary office on 3.1 ac zoned HC (proffered)
(ZMA-91-05 & SP-91-06 are pending). Property on N side of
Greenbrier Dr approx 500 Ft W of R t 29. TM61 W , P5 , Sec 1, Blk A.
Charlottesville Dist. This property lies within a designated growth
area.
13) ZMA-91-07. Redfields Development Corp. Public Hearing on a request to
rezone 1.1 ac from RA to PRD; to rezone 7.7551 ac from PRD to RA &
R-1; to rezone 0.76 ac from R-1 to PRD (original PRD approved as
ZMA-89-19). Located adjacent to Sherwood Farms & bounded by Sunset
Rd & 1-61. TM76 ,P22A, 23, 24B ,47,49 , 49B(part) ; TM76N ,P8B&12.
Samuel Miller Dist. This site is in a designated, growth area shown in
the Comprehensive Plan as low density residential (1-4 dwelling units
per ac).
~
?iduv
L
.
.)
'" \::y'...:' ,
"
.~,;;.
F R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
Charlotte Y Humphns
,Jad', ,Jouell
Edward H Bam, Jr
Samuel Miller
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F Perkins
While Hall
Peler T, Way
Scoflsville
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
FROM:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Developmei;_ l
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk. CMC ~e~
DATE:
November 21, 1991
SUBJECT:
Board Actions of November 20, 1991
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on November 20, 1991, the follow-
ing actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.7. ZMA-89-09. Rio Hill West. Public Hearing on a request
to rezone 9.198 ac from R-6 to R-15. Property on S side of Berkmar Dr at its
intersection with Woodbrook Dr. TM45,P29B(part),91,92(part),93A1&109C. Charlo-
ttesville Dist. This property lies within the designated growth area known as
Neighborhood I and is recommended for high density residential in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. At the request of staff, the Board referred the petition back to the
Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No.8. SP-91-58. Clifton. Public Hearing on a request to
amend SP-87-49 to permit a 14-room bed & breakfast & a 24-seat restaurant on
10.1 ac zoned RA. Property on E side of Rt 729 approx 0.4 mi S of Rt 250.
TM79,P23B&23C. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from November 13, 1991.) APPROVED
subject to the five conditions as set out below:
1. Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight travellers and a 24 seat
restaurant. Except for lodging guests and occasional luncheons,
wedding receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restaurant usage is
limited to not more than 24 diners per evening, and such 24 diners
shall be seated during those hours set forth in condition #3;
2. Building and Fire Official approval;
3. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.,
except for occasional activities outlined in Condition No.1;
d
Date:
Page 3
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
November 21, 1991
Memo To:
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-91-43. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership. Public
Hearing on a request to locate billiard center on 3.1010 ac zoned HC. Property
on N side of Greenbrier Dr approx 500 ft W of Rt 29. TM61W,P5,Sec 1,Blk A.
Charlottesville Dist. This property lies within a designated growth area.
APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive;
2. No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted;
3.
Hours of operation shall
Monday - Thursday
Friday - Saturday
Sunday
be limited to:
10:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
12 noon to
to 12 midnight
to 2:00 a.m.
10:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-91-52. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership. Public
Hearing on a request for emergency veterinary office on 3.1 ac zoned HC (prof-
fered) (ZMA-91-05 & SP-91-06 are pending). Property on N side of Greenbrier Dr
approx 500 Ft W of Rt 29. TM61W,P5,Sec 1,Blk A. Charlottesville Dist. This
property lies within a designated growth area. APPROVED with the following
conditions:
1. There shall be no outside exercise area;
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive;
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday: 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 a.m.;
5:30 p.m. Friday until 9:00 a.m. Monday;
5. There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall accept animals
only on an emergency basis;
6. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation;
7. Industrial Waste Survey Form to be submitted to the Albemarle County
Service Authority and approved prior to commencement of veterinary
activities.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-91-07. Redfields Development Corp. Public Hear-
ing on a request to rezone 1.1 ac from RA to PRD; to rezone 7.7551 ac from PRD
to RA & R-1; to rezone 0.76 ac from R-1 to PRD (original PRD approved as
ZMA-89-19). Located adjacent to Sherwood Farms & bounded by Sunset Rd & I-6~
TM76,P22A,23,24B,47,49,49B(part); TM76N,P8B&12. Samuel Miller Dist. This s1te
is in a designated growth area shown in the Comprehensive Plan as low density
residential (1-4 dwelling units per ac). APPROVED subject to the following
agreements:
"
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
November 21, 1991
Date:
Page 5
Agenda Item No. 16a. Presentation of Six-Year Road Plan Analysis by Mrs.
Humphris. RECEIVED.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
The Board supported the letter from Kevin P. Murphy, Science Teacher at J.
T. Henley Middle School to Jean Potter, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, dated
November 11, 1991, to modify the sewage settling pond next to Slabtown Creek and
make it available for study by the student I s at Henley. The Board encourages
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to take the request into consideration.
LEN:bh
Attachments (7)
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Amelia Patterson
Bruce Woodzell
George R. St. John
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
./u'~{/jI~({:f It /.)6/il
.$1-/
"
~aw~
OCT 1 5 1991
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator~
October 15, 1991
SP-91-46 W. J. Wibert Roofing and Sheet Metal
It is my oplnlon that the use as proposed by this applicant, is a
contractor's office. This is based on the following:
1. All sheet metal work is preformed for roofing installed by this
applicant;
2. No roofing is prepared for sale either directly to the consumer
as on a retail basis, or to other contractors as on a wholesale
basis;
3. The sheet metal work is customary and incidental to the
contracting business of installation of metal roofing;
4. Such work to "make up" the materials used in construction is
customary and incidental to other contractors, such as plumbing
or electrical businesses.
It is my understanding that the sheet metal work is performed with
two small, relatively quiet machines and hand tools. These
machines cut and fold, but do not hammer. Should the Planning
Commission and Board be so inclined, they may chose to require a
certified engineer's report for compliance with performance
standards (Section 4.14).
,
c,..
IATTACHMENT CI
GREENBRIER SQUARE LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Charl~~~s3{~cevrro;nfa46522902 1P) ~liJ ~~rm
(804) 971-8080 ~~, ~
SEP ~ 1991
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
TO:
Bill Fritz
county of Albemarle Planning Department'
FROM:
Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnershi
Edward H. Brownfie d Jr.
Bruce R. Murray
DATE:
September 12, 1991 (Revision of August 8th Memo)
RE:
Revision of Proffers for Highway Commercial - HC Portion
of Property
If Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership property zoning was
divided, the portion zoned Highway Commercial - HC, the following
are the uses we request be permitted, all other uses vould be
proffered "out" of the zone.
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC
24.2.1 BY R1GHT
4. Building materials sales
5. Churches, cemeteries
6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference
5.1.2)
8. Educational, technical and trade schools
9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric
10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22)
12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and
service
13. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9)
15. Furniture stores
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty
shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and
cheese shops
17. Home and business services such as grounds care,
cleaning, exterminators; landscaping and other
repair and maintenance services.
18. Hardware
1
IATTACHMENT CllPage'21
21. Light warehousing
22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
(no on-site storage of large vehicles or equipment
such as truacks and earth moving equipment)
26. New automotive parts sales
27. Newspaper publishing
28. Administrative, business and professional offices
29. Offic~ and business machines sales and service
30. A. Eating establishment
B. Fast food restaurants
a) Use for food distribution off premises
only;
b) Ancillary use of retail pick-up or carry-
out only;
c) No consumption of food on premises;
d) N~ seating on premises
33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce
(reference 5.1.19).
34. Wholesale distribution
35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding multi-legged tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters
and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility.
Water distribution and sewerage co!llection
lines,pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in
conformance with Chapter' 10 of the Code of Albemarle
and all other applicable law.
36. Public uses and buildings including temporary or
mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk
lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and
the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (reference 31. 2 . 5; 5. 1. 12) .
(Amended 11-1-89)
37. Temporary construction uses (references 5.1.18)
24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. All uses allowed by Special Use Permit if a
permit is later obtained
2
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 31
GREENBRIER SQUARE LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Post Office Box 1465
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(804) 971-8080
pWq)
S~p 19 1991.
pLANNrNGDlVlSlON
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Bill Fritz -.
County of Albemarle Planning Department
DATE:
Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership
Edward H. Brownfield~~:~~
Bruce R. Murray ~.-__ - ~
September 19, 1991 (Revision of August 8 memo)
~,,~~...-,. '-"
-,
-----
FROM:
RE: Revision of Proffers for Commercial - C-1 Portion of
Property
If Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership zoning was divided, the
portion zoned Commercial - C-1, the following are the uses we
request be permitted, all other uses would be proffered "out" of
the zone.
COMMERCIAL - C-l
22.2.1
BY RIGHT
<i :
a. Retail sales and service establishments
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops
2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops
4. Drug store, pharmacy
5. Florist
6. Food and grocery stores including such special shops
as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and
cheese shops
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service
8. Hardware store
9. Musical instruments
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops
11. Optical goods
12. Photographic goods
13. Visual and audio appliances
14. Sporting goods
b. Services and public establishments
1. Administrative, professional offices
1
22.2.2
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 41
2. Barber, beauty shops
3. Churches, cemeteries
4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic
(reference 5.1.2)
6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9)
8. Health spas
10. Laundries, dry cleaners
11. Laund~omat (provided that an attendant shall be on
duty at all hours during operation)
12. Libraries, museums
13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.6)
14. Eating establishments
15. Tailor, seamstress
17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding mUlti-legged tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters
and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by q public utility.
Water distribution and sewerage collection
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
18. Public uses and buildings including temporary or
mobile facilities such as schools, office~, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, state or federal agencies (reference 31. 2.5) ;
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk
lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and
the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
(~mended 11-1-89)
19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18)
21. Medical Center
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. All uses allowed by Special Use Permit if a
permit is obtained
B. Special Use Permit Previously Granted:
24.2.1.30 Fast Food Restaurant:
a. Use for food distribution off
premises only;
b. Ancillary use of retail pick-up or
carry-out only;
c. No consumption of food on premises;
d. No seating on premises
2
"
.
.'
. " . :~~.'.: '~~;-:'~P'~)~'~~"'iLy')'/:'.'!r\l
COUNTY OF ALBEMARi~<1 , (Q Jl& ,;"""t~
\
\
ATTACHMENT A
Engineering Dept. Comments
')l "\l\ll\P1\'~ f)i'VI'C:!OM
I L.J' , '1, ... J ~ II;l ~ ." v 'U~
pl. . .... ."~
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Fritz, Planner
FROM: Peter J. Parsons , Civil Engineer RJp
DATE:
RE:
December 19, 1989
Redfields Revised Plat (SUB-89-205)
I
We have reviewed the above noted preliminary plat. The following
comments are based upon site review comments which do not appear
to be adequately addressed:
a),' Additional 50' septic and building setbacks from streams will
likely be necessary, and should therefore be shown on the
preliminary plat.
b) The note regarding 30' drainage, easements over all streams and
drainage courses has not been added.
c) The issue of access for lots 23A and 22D has not been
addressed.
fel) The proposed layout of storm sewers appears grossly
inadequate.
e) Utility easements have not been delineated.
f) The minimum design speed. ,for road "L" is 25 mph. under current
VDOT standards.
It is our recommendation that curb and gutter be required on
all of the proposed roads. The applicant, however, is proposing
curb and gutter on all roads with the exception of roads "A" and
liB", the collector streets. While our previous recommendation
remains unchanged, if a rural cross-section is allowed for the
collecto~ roads, entrances should be .strictly limited as shown on
the preliminary plat, and all lots should access "internal" roads
only.
( (
~...
: '~'.
. .
~.
"7".....,
. "
Memo Re: Redfields Revised Plat
December 19, 1989
Page 2
Lots 19, 41, 42, 61, 62, and 99 have significant areas of critical
slope which would likely be disturbed when the lots are built on.
For this reason we recommend tha t these l,ots be deleted and
dedicated as open space. The building site and, proposed lot lines,
and access for the single detached dwelling unit on lot 106 should
be shown on the preliminary plat to insure that disturbance of
critical slopes is minimized.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
PJP/ksb
f'"
( (
", "":. '~
"
[\/:~.;,l~" L} :..',::,:,J!:J2.:.~7L
Ag(>~,'; it~::y, l':;j, C//,/ 113.771
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Remarks on Secretary Milliken's Proposed
Improvements to Transportation Services
November 26, 1991
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I
appreciate the opportunity to address Secretary Milliken's proposal
for improvements to transportation services in the Commonwealth.
Albemarle County continues to maintain funding of transportation
improvements as a top priority and looks forward to any initiatives
to increase our flexibility in mfnaging our transportation needs.
wi th this perspective in minci,j I would like to comment on the
proposals. ~hese remarks must be taken with some caution as we
have not been informed of the details of the individual proposals
and thus cannot fully assess their impact at the county level. In
general, any proposal that purports to increase county flexibility
and responsibility but lacks legislative authority for resources is
considered to be counterproductive. Shifting the burden of funding
is not a viable solution. The County stands ready to assume
greater responsibility when the resources and authority are also
provided from the Commonwealth.
In response to the specific proposals:
o Establishing a separate state agency for rail and public
transportation is not supported. Creating another agency adds to
the regulatory and bureaucratic processes with little improvement
in services. The focus should continue to be on streamlining
government services ,not proliferating more agencies. Without
further justification, it is difficult to see the benefit to this
proposal.
o Assuming more responsibility for certain secondary highway
functions is a double edged sword. Having more control over
meeting our secondary highway needs is supported but doing so will
require additional county resources unless increased state funding
follows. This is readily apparent if the County were to assume
responsibility for design, maintenance and installation of traffic
control devices as suggested by Secretary Milliken. Albemarle
County does not have qualified staff to perform this function and
thus may have to forego the opportunity to assume more
responsibility in the secondary highway system.
o Improving revenue sharing dollars and raising the ceiling is
supported as an opportunity for the County to increase our
construction of secondary roads. This should not come, however, at
the expense of reduced state funding of the Commonwealth's
secondary road program. If this were done, it would further shift
the fiscal burden to the locality and is one more example of the
County's paying the price for services primarily provided by the
Commonwealth.
o Establishing incentives for rural transportation planning
cannot be evaluated without further information. Although it may
not directly improve transportation services within Albemarle
County, as transportation planning is currently done at the local
level, there may be indirect benefits through improvements in
transportation services on the part of all our adjacent rural
counties. If established, rural transportation planning should
utilize Planning District Commission's expertise.
o Lastly, requiring Albemarle County to fund a greater cost of
new secondary road construction is not supported. While such a
proposal will stretch the Commonwealth's limited dollars, the
ability to actually see an increase in construction of new
secondary roads is unlikely. The reason is simple. Albemarle
County cannot continue to absorb more state mandates on the one
hand while the State reduces funding of these mandates on the other
hand. This is happening across a broad spectrum of state programs
and having a cumulative, unfair and adverse impact on county
taxpayers. Without broader and more diverse revenue generating
authority, the burden will continue to be borne by taxpayers owning
real and personal property. This is not an unlimited source of
local funding. The unfortunate outcome of this proposal will be a
reduction in the rate of transportation and other local funding
needs, such as education.
In summary, transportation improvements are needed but not at the
sole expense of the local taxpayer. Albemarle County is a willing
participant in seeking improvements but our further review and
assessment of these proposals requires more information. We look
forward to an opportunity to work further with the Transportation
Board and Department in seeking solutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments.
Draft revised 11/15/91
t
l',
c" <
1/ ',.
,:1,:-:) t;J f"c};3rd~,~.~__:_!::_J:.._L~~
I~.
,~ ;~~':-n ~'~J.
DRAFT
November 14, 1991
The Honorable John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Milliken:
We have received your letter of November 4 and the Board of
Supervisors would like to thank you for your personal efforts in
clarifying issues of grave concern to us. As you know, the coun-
ty's position has always been, and still is, that the western
bypass, or in fact any bypass, is not required and that if all of
the CATS improvements are completed, this will become evident. Our
objection heretofore were not so much with the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board's (CTB) formal resolution of November 15, 1990, but
with "side comments" made by some at the public hearing that
Alternative 10 might be constructed before the CATS Plan is com-
pleted. Your letter and the proposed clarifying resolution goes a
long way in alleviating these concerns.
On October 24, 1991, the three local jurisdictions (Albemarle
County/City of Charlottesville/University of Virginia) reconvened
the Joint Transportation Committee to discuss our positions on the
~
~
The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 14, 1991
Page 2
whole Route 29 North problem. You will be pleased to note that the
Committee is recommending to the three jurisdictions that we pass a
joint resolution similar to the CTB's position and confirming our
desires on the sequencing of construction. Our resolution will go
beyond the CTB's in that both the County and the City will include
cooperative efforts on the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway
and the University will include the construction of the connector
road from the bypass to the North Grounds. When approved by the
three separate bodies, this will become part of our CATS Plan.
We do have the following specific comments or suggestions on
your letter and the proposed resolution:
o Letter, Page 1 - Phase I, Short-range Recommendations -
We feel that the design for widening of Route 29 from the
Route 250 bypass to Rio Road should facilitate the later
construction of the grade-separated interchanges at Rio,
Greenbrier and Hydraulic Roads. It would seem far more
economical to design Route 29 in this manner at this time
than to have to redo part of the construction for the
interchanges. The early design of these interchanges
will also aid the County and City in the preservation of
the necessary right-of-way.
o Letter, Page 2 - Phase II, Medium-range Recommendations -
Since the three grade-separated interchanges are to be
built before Alternative 10, it is requested that the
design of the interchanges and acquisition of right-of-way
r
>>
. .
, ,
~ The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 14, 1991
Page 3
based on hardship proceed in the same manner as is being
done for Alternative 10.
o Letter, Page 3 - Final paragraph - With the above comments,
the letter does meet the approval of the County. We are
concerned, however, with the comment that the County
should "move forward with the preservation of necessary
right-of-way" since we have no way to do that except
through the purchase of land, for which we have no
resources. The County will participate in making develo-
pers aware of any proposed rights-of-way needs, and
including the bypass in our CATS Plan and working with
developers on any proposed land use change. We trust you
are aware of our legal limitations.
o Resolution, Final "WHEREAS" - We suggest the following
wording be substituted: "WHEREAS, the Board strongly
believes that the Route 29 Bypass should be constructed
in concert with the remaining construction projects of
the CATS Plan after Phase 1 and Phase 2 recommendations
of the Board's November 15, 1990, resolution have been
completed.
Again, we would like to extend this Board's thanks to you for
your personal efforts in resolving the uncertainties, misunderstand-
ings and concerns which have plagued Albemarle County for decades.
We look forward to receiving the CTB's resolution which hopefully
l'
....
..
.
The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 14, 1991
Page 4
will put this matter to rest.
We believe that the final solution
will be in the best interest of the citizens of the local communi-
ties as well as the Commonwealth in general.
Sincerely,
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:ec
0"
.,
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD M.Ei.\8mS
11-;).0-(1 {
,-
.
,
J. T. Henley Middle School
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
ROUTE 1. BOX 519
CROZET. VIRGINIA 22932-9738
TELEPHONE 18041
8;23-4393
FROM:
Kevin P. Murphy, Science Teacher
TO:
Jean Potter, Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority
: '... ,'.~ i
....,.,,<.i~
,
i
. i
; i I
:,', "J'
_'<. I \.-..'
~~--", '-......-
DATE:
November 11, 1991
" - - ~, ~ .-
; ~~. (J ;-'~ S
RE:
Sewage Settling Pond, Henley Middle School
The science staff at Henley wish to make a proposal concerning the old sewage
settling pond located on the grounds next to Slabtown Creek. The pond and adjacent
building is scheduled for removal by the Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority. It is
assumed that the surface water will be pumped off and the berm bulldozed to fill the void.
We feel that it would be more feasible to modify the pond and make it available for
study by the students at Henley. The plan would call for dredging or removing a large
part of the organic accumulation in the bottom of the pond and modifying the berm on the
uphill side so as to encompass part of the watershed, therefore capturing run-off from the
hill. The pond is already designed with an overflow that directs excess water into
Slabtown Creek. Several good rains would fill the pond, and the subsequent succession of
life could be observed firsthand. The adjacent building could be dismantled as planned.
With the exception of the removal of the organic accumulation, the cost of this
venture should be less than that of the original plan. Private funds can be pursued by
the Henley Outdoor Club to help defray the cost of the dredging.
The advantages and opportunities that would be made available to teachers and
students resulting from such a project are many and varied. Studies could include:
1. The process of pond succession
2. the development of the' aquatic community
3. food chains and predator/prey relationships
4. the processes of natural cycles
5. eutrophication
6. benthic and pelagic life
7. improving sensory and awareness skills
8. chemical analysis
9. watershed management
10. erosion control
11. human impact on the environment
12. adaptation and animal behavior
13. properties of water
14. improving and repairing the' environment
15. civic responsibilities (students playing an active role in the restoration
project)
We appreciate you taking the time to consider and review this project, and look
forward to your help in providing the best educational experience possible for all
students. If you have any questions or would like to get together and discuss the
possibilities, please give me a call or drop me a line at Henley.
cc: Board of Supervisors, School Board Members, Dr. Paskel - Superintendent,
Dr. English - Instruction, Mr. Vale - Principal, Mr. Reaser - Building Services, Ms.
Holt - Finance, Laura McCulloch - Science Cordinator, Peyton Roberts - Watershed
Management, Linda Capps - PATSO President
"
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
-~
Distributed to [\:Jim!: _Ii, I ') '<i/
As",,,,,,i'l I',y, , f(, /) f f /20 '7'1 -;
4 v,'<.-.<. ..~, ,I JiV. __.~,:-_~. <..--
PROCLAMATION
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR
WHEREAS, on December 7, 1941, without military provocation
Japanese armed forces attacked American installations at Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, the attack killed 2,403 American military personnel
and wounded 1,178 others; and
WHEREAS, the attack on Pearl Harbor carried our Nation into
World War II, where another 289,728 lives were lost, including the
lives of 10,342 Virginians; and
WHEREAS, Americans fought and died to help defeat the forces
of tyranny and to secure the blessings of freedom for millions of
people throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, the immeasurable and unselfish sacrifice of those who
died at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere during World War II deserves our
highest honor and praise;
NOfi, THEREFORE, I, Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize
Decembe:c 7, 1991, as the 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL
HARBOR and call its significance to the attention of our citizens.
~/1>~ R&19-( ~
C1iAIRMAN, ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~
,; J ~ G ",^" t'.;\
)
CERTIFICATE of REC:OGNITI01\]
By virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution
in the Governor of the Comnzonwrnlfh of Vi rgiJI ill/
there is hereby officially recogn ized:
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR
WHEREAS, on December 7, 1941, without linlltdl-Y prOVOC,L:1CL,
Japanese armed forces attacked American insLallat:lons ;:,1: Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, that attack killed 2,403 American military personnel
and wounded 1,178 others; and
WHEREAS, the attack on Pearl Harbor carried our Nation 1n1:0
World War II, where another 289,728 lives were 10s'L, lnclud111g the
lives of 10,342 Virginians; and
WHEREAS, Americans fought and died 'LO help defeat the forces
of tyranny and to secure the blessings of freedom for mllllons of
people throughout the world; and
'WHEREAS, the immeasurable and unselfish s'acrifice of those WilO
died at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere during World War II deserves our
highest honor and praise;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lawrence Douglas Wilder, Goven101- , do
hereby recognize December 7, 1991, as the 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR and call its significance to the attent:lon
of all our citizens.
--><':~~"'~~
??/,,- " '\;",
.....? '-f--/-: .~ ~ . ~'/ ," ' ..~.~~~"
,(, > . '''~ "'<"'d ~"
.:-;:?'''~r'' .~':' . "~ ~~_~~,
I ~ 'l: 'r :~"', ""_, .... ~ f~\
L~~~~\,. , :;~~
zo '~~
~~. ~;J ,;;;
1"" ''-~ ,~. ,~ 1:,;
. ".,\ \ ~ ~ . ~".- ',~ ._-~ I._p
\~~'.;'::{/ '=;;~>;:':.,,'c i:;.:".
.. .-.'-/,,' '~:..;;; y. ,~.';/.?' Z;;
~i...'''< '. ;'. ~.-... 't.\~'(f"//
~"'>~,:~~, ":..".''::A!' ~ Yy7-
2?~_/~~oW
.~~
q1;~
tn.
Secretary of tlii' Cl)IIUll<lIJ,",',drl,
"
/i- ~
OI'S~rl':l"''''d.' tv~ Boa", d' I I'::; , 7 (
\. L.iW,,\..- . ..-
Agenda Item No. q I. /1 Z ()( b:, I )
STATEMENTS OF EXPENSES
To: State Compensation Board
For: Month of cJc~;t'r/ / '1'9/
DEPARTMENT:
County Share
State Share Total
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:
{I3~~~1
f//5:! #
cf 7/f;.tf t:1
SHERIFF:
G f/cl.b''z
6#b~'
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY:
/11/475
ff~7S-
REGIONAL JAIL:
tf /( 7;1
7" ~,13
Note: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
which the State Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
are not the total office expenses of these departments.
\to
"" " .,!/. I.:' (,-.,'
Dtstributed to b::~HCi: .....iJ--ld I~~,
. ' ~ 'A( / !. \
'~ \_ e,' t', '1/110., V.'{ /
Agenod 11.r.:~1 1 id. -,---~------- /
Hugh C, Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
TOO: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
November 7, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Malvern, Albemarle County, 02-92
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Recently the Virginia Department of Hi~toric Resources, the Commonwealth's agency
responsible for administering historic preservation programs, received information regarding
the history and significance of Malvem. This information was submitted by Geoffrey B.
Henry for the owner, Mrs. F. Palmer Weber, along with a request that the department
conduct a preliminary evaluation of the property to determine whether it is eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. I must
emphasize that this evaluation does not constitute a formal action to add this property to those
registers.
The National Register and Virginia Landmarks Register are lists of properties important for
their prehistoric and/or historical associations. Only those properties found to be significant
for their associations with events or persons or determined to be good examples of an
architectural style or method of construction are eligible for inclusion on the registers.
Additionally, properties must meet age and integrity standards.
Inclusion on the registers applies no restrictions regarding what the owner may do with his
property. Registration makes a property eligible for protection and financial incentives such
as easement donations, tax credits for rehabilitation and grant funds, not available to
unregistered properties. More importantly, registration is a way of honoring the significance
of a historic property and recording its history and appearance by collecting information that
becomes a permanent record in the Department's archives.
.,
The information submitted about this property has been considered by the department's
National Register Evaluation Team, a group of staff representing a variety of disciplines and
agency programs, at one of its semi-monthly meetings. It is the staff's opinion that Malvem
is an eligible historic resource. While this review is not dependent upon an owner's consent,
we are notifying the owner and you of the department's evaluation so that you can participate
in this process should you so desire, and so that you may know to contact us should you have
any questions.
We will make a recommendation that this property is an eligible historic resource to the State
Review Board, an advisory group consisting of preservation professionals from throughout
the state. We anticipate that the board will consider the staff recommendation regarding the
eligibility at its upcoming meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The
meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 10th, 1991, in Senate Room B of the General
Assembly Building at the comer of Ninth and Broad streets, Richmond, beginning at
lO:OOam. As with the staff's evaluation, the Review Board's conclusion does not constitute
any formal action to nominate this property to the registers.
If the Review Board concludes that this property is eligible for registration, the applicant or
any other interested party may wish to prepare and submit the more extensive formal register
nomination. Prior to any action to register the property, federal regulations require the
department to notify the owner, as well as local officials, and give both the opportunity to
express opinions on the nomination before any formal action is taken. Though the formal
notification requirements come into effect only when a formal nomination is being
considered, we want to call your attention to the fact that the historical significance of this
property is being considered and we would welcome any additional information you may
wish to share with us.
The enclosed materials should explain in more detail the register process and the implications
of listing. However, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
H. Brya
Deputy
Enclosures
.
Hugh C Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTJrI of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virgmia 23219
TOO: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX (804) 225-4261
NA TIONAL REGISTER PROCESS IN VIRGINIA
Preliminary Information Form (PIF) -----Department of Historic Resources
received and reviewed, additional (DHR) archives checked for property
information requested if necessary file and any additional information
PIF reviewed and rated by National ------Owner and consultant informed of
Register Evaluation Team at monthly team recommendation, additional
meeting information requested if necessary
PIF goes to State Review Board for ------Owner and consultant notified of
review and recommendation (Board Board's decision
meets every other month)
IF STATE REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDS NOMINATION:
Preparer of nomination consults with Department staff regarding criteria,
areas of significance, period of significance and boundaries.
Department staff reviews nomination ----COMPLETE nomination due to DHR
drafts upon request and provides seven weeks prior to meeting of
technical assistance State Review Board and Virginia
Board of Historic Resources
Department staff reviews completed -----Owner, consultant and local
nomination officials notified no less than
30 days prior to State Review
Board meeting
Copies of nomination sent to members --Nomination presented at State
of both Boards two weeks prior to Review Board meeting. If approved,
meeting State Review Board recommends that
nomination be forwarded to Keeper
of the National Register, Virginia
Board of Historic Resources lists
pro~rty on the Virginia Landmarks
RegIster
Owner and consultant notified of ---------Nomination is forwarded to the
Boards' decisions Keeper of the National Register
in Washington, D.C.
Pro{>erty is logged in at National ---------Following 45 day review period,
RegIster office Department is notified of oecision
Owner, consultant and local officials
notified of Keeper's decision
. .. ~ ..
Hugn C, MIller. Director
COMMONWEi\LTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virgima 23219
TOO: (ea.) 7~i~
Teteonone /ao.)7l16-3143
FAX: (ea.) ~261
RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACFS
ElIgibility for Federal tax promiODS: If a property is listed in the National
Register, certain federal tax provisions may apply. ~ Tar Reform Act of
1986 revises the historic preservation tar ina1llives amhorized by Congress in
the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Reverwe Act of 1978, The Tax Tremmeru
Extension Act of 1980, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and the Tax
Reform Act of 1984 and as of Jtl1UIilTJ 1, 1987. provides for a 20 perceru
invesrmeru tax credit with a full adjUSImeru to basis for rehabilitating historic,
commetrial, industrial. and residenrial reruaI buildings. The former 15 perceru
and 20 perceru invesrmeru tar credits for rehabilitation of older commetrial
buildings are combined into a single 10 perceru investment tax credit for
commetrial or industrial buildings buill before 1936. The Tax Treatment
Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax deductions for charitable
contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically
important land areas or structures. Whether these provisions are advantageous
to a PIOperty owner is dependent upon the particular circumstances of the
property and the owner. Because tax aspects outlined above are complex,
individuals should consult legal counselor the appropriate local Internal
Revenue Service office for assistance in detennining the tax consequences of
the above provisions. For further information on certification requirements,
please refer to 36 CFR 67.
Consideration in planning for Federal, Federally licensed, and Federally
assisted projects: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 requires that Federal agencies allow for the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation to have an opportunity to comment on all projects affecting
historic properties listed in the National Register. For further infonnation,
please refer to 36 CPR 800. .
Consideration in issuing a surface coal mining permit: In accordance with
the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977, there must be consideration of
historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal
is located. For further information, please refer to 30 CPR 700 el seq.
Qualification for Federal grants for historic pusea yadon when funds are
available: Funding is unavailable at present.
Distributed to Ekud: Ji - / fi:::l (
Agenda Cj/:J I ~t((,.,~)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRG~NJA.
Hugh C Miller. Director Department of Historic Resources ! 'i . NOV
221 Governor Street I
j i
November 8, 1991 Richmond, Virginia 23219
, 'r
i 1 liSRP: (804) :786-1934
_. "f~phon~ (694) 786-3143
FAX (804)Q25-4261
I
.' ,.~., l
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
,~)
Re: BELLAIR, Albemarle County (DUR 02-02)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
For some time the Department of Historic Resources has been
interested in including the above property on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and nominating it to the National Register of
Historic Places. Before this action is taken, I would like to
clarify the nature of these designations to you. It is the policy
of our department to notify property owners and local city or
county officials prior to such consideration.
The Virginia Landmarks Register is an official listing of
places in the Commonwealth judged to have state or national
archaeological, architectural, and/or historical significance. At
its next meeting, on Tuesday, December 10, 1991, the State Review
Board will have the opportunity to consider the inclusion of
Bellair on this register. Should the board determine the prepared
nomination for Bellair is acceptable, it will automatically
nominate it to the National Register of Historic Places maintained
by the Department of the Interior.
Listing in the National Register provides recognition and
assists in preserving our Nation's heritage. Listing of a resource
recognizes its historic importance and assures protective review of
Federal projects that might adversely affect the character of the
resource. If Bellair is listed in the National Register, certain
Federal investment tax credits for rehabilitation and other
provisions may apply.
Listing in the National Register does not mean that
limitations will be placed on the properties by the Federal
Government. Public visitation rights are not required of owners.
The Federal Government will not attach restrictive covenants to the
properties or seek to acquire them.
You are invited to attend the State Review Board meeting at
which the nomination will be considered. The Board will meet at
10:00 a.m. on Tuesdav. December 10. 1991 in Senate Room "B" of the
November 8, 1991
Bellair, Albemarle County
Page 2
General Assembly Building at Ninth and Broad streets, Richmond,
Virginia. We hope you can come. This nomination will also be
considered for inclusion on the Virginia Landmarks Register by the
Historic Resources Board at its meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday,
December 11, 1991, also in Senate Room "B" of the General Assembly
Building. Should the board determine the prepared nomination for
Bellair is acceptable, it will be placed on the Virginia Landmarks
Register at that time. This meeting is also open to the public.
Enclosed, please find a notice that explains, in greater
detail, the results of listing in the National Register and that
describes the rights and procedures by which an owner may comment
on or object to listing in the National Register.
Should you have any questions about this nomination before the
meeting of the State Review Board of the Department of Historic
Resources, please contact me at (804) 786-3143.
:t"elY,
H. ~i chell
Deputy Director
HBM/mdm
Enclosures
..
COMMONWEALTl-'l of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
Telephone (804) 786-3143
TDO: 804-786-4276
FACTS REGARDING NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
1. National Register designation officially recognizes the
cultural, architectural, and landscape features of an
historically significant area, bringing them to the attention of
the community, state, and nation. Ideally, the increased public
awareness stemming from registration acts as a catalyst in
furthering community efforts to preserve the area's historic and
natural features.
2. National Register historic district designation does not
restrict an owner's use of his or her property in any way as long
as private, non-federal funds are used. It does not, for
example, prohibit any owner from altering or demolishing any
buildings, nor does it restrict subdivision or sale.
3. National Register designation can help lessen the negative
impact on an historic area from government funded projects. By
law, an environmental impact study is required for any federally-
funded projects - such as road building, utility installation,
and public housing. Also, certain state projects are reviewed
for their impact on historic resources. If any project is deemed
to have an adverse effect on historic buildings, archaeological
sites, or landscape features within a historic district, the
project may be redesigned to lessen that effect.
4. National Register designation confers two types of financial
-benefits on historic district property owners. First, it allows
the owner of a contributing building within the registered
district to claim investment tax credits for certified
rehabilitations if the building is used for income-producing
purposes. A "contributing" building contributes to the historic
character of the district. It must be at least 50 years old and
retain sufficient architectural integrity.
5. For additional information on the investment tax credit
program, contact the Department of Historic Resources, 221
Governor street, Richmond, VA. 23219 (804)786-3143.
National Register designation also makes properties eligible
for matching federal grants for historic preservation.
Currently, federal funds are not available for preservation
projects.
I
FREX1UENTI.Y ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT the
NATIONAL RFX;ISTER of HISTORIC PLACES
WHAT IS TIlE NATIONAL Ra;ISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES?
The National Register is the official list of the nation's cultural
resources worthy of preservation. It is the federal government's way
of recognizing Arkansas' historically and architecturally important
structures that are SO years of age and older.
HOW ARE nOCISIONS MADE ABOUT WHAT IS LISTED ON TIIE NATIONAL RFX;ISTER?
All people judging a property must do so by federally established cri-
teria. These criteria are designed to assure that the property is signi-
ficant in one of the areas of architecture, archeology, or history.
To be architecturally significant a property must represent an excellent
example of a style, the work of a master craftsman or architect or a
method of construction. To be archeologically significant it must
contain or have contained information important in our history or pre-
history. To be historically significant it must be associated with
events or persons that made an important contribution to the history of
the area and/or broad patterns of our national history.
ISN'T IT mUE 1HA:r ONLY BUILDINGS OR SITES CONNFrrED WI11I FAKXJS PIDPLE GET
LISTED ON TIIE NATIONAL REX;ISTER?
No. The criteria allow for much more than recognizing the achievements
of,a few well-known individuals. The National Register is designed to
recognize the accomplishments of all people who have made a contribution
to our COtL~try's history.
WHAT OOES TIlE NATIONAL REX;ISTER MEAN TO ME?
The National Register records and recognizes the contribution to our
heritage that your property represents.
WILL SOMmNE TELL ME WHAT COLOR.,I HAVE TO PAINT MY HOUSE?
No. If you are using your own money you can do anything you choose to
a National Register listed property, including paint it any color
you select.
...
,
-I,
"
'II
1,
Hugh C, Miller, Director
COMMONWEALT1-1 of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
TOO: (804) 786-1934
TeleQhone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Eligibility for Federal tax provisions: If a property is listed in the National
Register, certain federal tax provisions may apply. 1he Tta Reform Act of
1986 revises the historic preservation tta incentives authorized by Congress in
the Tta Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act of 1978, The Tta TreatmelU
Extension Act of 1980, the Economic Recovery Tta Act of 1981, and the Tta
Reform Act of 1984 and as of Jamuuy 1, 1987, provides for a 20 percelU
investmelU tta credit with a full adjustmelU to basis for rehabilitating historic,
commercial, industrial, and residential relUal buildings. The former 15 percelll
and 20 percelU investmelU tta credits for rehabilitation of older commercial
buildings are combined ilUO a single 10 percelU investmelU tta credit for
commercial or industrial buildings built before 1936. The Tax Treatment
Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax deductions for charitable
contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically
important land areas or structures. Whether these provisions are advantageous
to a property owner is dependent upon the particular circumstances of the
property and the owner. Because tax aspects outlined above are complex,
individuals should consult legal counselor the appropriate local Internal
Revenue Service office for assistance in determining the tax consequences of
the above provisions. For further information on certification requirements,
please refer to 36 CPR 67.
Consideration in planning for Federal, Federally licensed, and Federally
assisted projects: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 requires that Federal agencies allow for the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation to have an opportunity to comment on all projects affecting
historic properties listed in the National Register. For further information,
please refer to 36 CPR 800. .
Consideration in issuing a surface coal mining permit: In accordance with
the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977, there must be consideration of
historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal
is located. For further information, please refer to 30 CPR 700 et seq.
Qualification for Federal grants for historic preservation when funds are
available: Funding is unavailable at present.
RIGHTS OF OWNERS TO COMHENT AND/OR OBJECT TO LISTING
IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
Owners of private properties nominated to the National
Register have an Opportunity to concur with or object to listing in
accord with the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 60.
Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to
object to listing may submit, to the state Historic Preservation
Officer, a notarized statement certifying that the party is the
sole or partial owner of the private property and objects to
listing.
Each owner or partial owner has one vote regardless of the
portion of the property that the party owns. If a majority of
private property owners object, a property will not be listed.
However, the state Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the
nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a
determination of eligibility of the property for listing on the
National Register. If the property is then determined eligible for
listing, although not formally listed, Federal agencies will be
required to allow for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
to have an opportunity to comment before the agency may fund,
license, or assist a project which will affect the property.
If vou choose to obiect to the listing of your property, the
notarized objection must be submitted to Hugh C. Miller, 221
Governor street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 before the scheduled
meeting of the state Review Board noted in your letter.
" . ' ..
If you wish to comment. on the nomination of the property to
the National Register, please send your comments to the state
Historic Preservation Officer at 221 Governor street, Richmond,
Virginia 23219 before the state Review Board considers this
nomination. A copy of the nomination and information on the
National Register and the Federal Tax provisions are available from
the above address upon request.
REV 1990
'r:' .:'~"C: -i.:--i:-.....-.:i'_,-.-
-
~ . "1dd :~~ rH t- ,~, ._._~..~~'.~/_~{~' ((,. ~ )
..
AT...
300 East Lombard Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
301-659-7500
5Eg~vfi(~E5\ l~.~C~,
November 11, 1991
,," !~l J' j"'\} c' -' \ -.- ,.
'.,. 1I~. / f'..; f, : ) :.. 14 l I') I.. L /1 1\ L.\ :
~ ~~.) .. j '\...-'.-. <, ." .~. I.... ; ,.! .j", :. .\ l
rFll'j~=J ;!.?'~~' !J
\11:/'
,} il j>~iQV I 4 ~88j_
1.....1 ( .
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 October 1991.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 301-659-7500.
Sincerely,
dNJl~ l~,'1YtlG{'t')tl~
Sheila H. Moynihan
Project Monitor
jshm
enclosures
cc: ~_~~,I~!lltilll~t'F'..
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
..
,,)
BONO PROGRAM R~POR-r
Monlh
October
Vear ~
Property: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
loc.lion: Charlottesville, VA
Subml"ed by: Loretta Wyatt
Mar\A~r
051-35371
I. LOWfR INCOME
Project .:
Num~r of Unit.
November 5, 1991 Effective 10/31/91
DaTe
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
66
66
15
The lollowlng units have been deslgnaled as uloW1tl Income"' unlls
1 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41 61.
2 4 Arbor Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford
42 62.
3 5 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43
63.
4 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett 44
64.
S 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 45 65.
6 12 Arbor Crest Dr. 26 . G. Robert Stone ~
66.
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr. 27 Jane Wood 47 67.
e 20 Arbor Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn Mandeville "8
ea
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69.
10 ~ Arbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50
70.
84 Arbor Crest Dr. 3t Juanita Boliek
\1 ~1 71.
12. 86 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Mary A. Hoxie 52,
72.
13 90 Arbor Crest Dr. 33 Florence Wheeler 53
73,
14 94 Arbor Crest Dr. 34 Sarah E. Fischer 54
74.
IS 106 Arbor Crest Dr. 3~ Katherine T. Nowlen 55
. 75.
16 36 ~ 76,
11 :\1 51, 77,
lIS 38 !>e, . 78.
19 J9 - 59 78.
~O 40 60 80,
T t\e c"~n~s Itom p.evlous repo.t ,,.f1eeled in th. .bOv. hshng .r.
Oeletlona AddlUone
't- H \.- 1 t.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3, 13,
4 14 4. 14.
5 15 5 \5.
6 16 6 16.
7 17 7 11.
8 18 8, 18..
I 19 9 '8.
10 20 10. 20.
\.
Effective October 31, 1991
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. I.c:rrbard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apari:I1'ents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restr ictions (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 authorized 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:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 51 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
November 5, 1991 ,*liii~
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~ ~~~
Authorized Representative
4
.....
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ..
i '~", \ \
DepL of Planning & Community Development' .
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
, .
lWN
t .i,:;!~}l
November 8, 1991
Rio Associates Limited Partnership
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-89-09 Rio Hill West
Dear Sirs:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
November 7, 1991 unanimously recommended denial of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please be
advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will
review this petition and receive public comment at their
meeting on November 20, 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
-} /-~v~
V/,~-- r~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/mem
cc: W. W. Stevenson
~elia Patterson
v1.ettie E. Neher
Distributed to Soard~ Jl-(;d.~ql
Agenda Item No. QJtJ113.rlJY3
,
.....
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 !, \;~,
(804) 296-5823
( ~ ' ,
E3 C /\ F? D 0 f- S U FE !,( \1 \,:'::'. ~,~;
November 8, 1991
The Clifton Inn
ATTN: Steve Boehmfeldt
Route 13, Box 26
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-91-58 Clifton
Dear Mr. Boehmfeldt:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
November 7, 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:
I. Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight
travellers and a 24 seat restaurant. Except for
lOdging-guests and occasional luncheons, wedding
receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restaurant
usage is limited to not more than twenty-four (24)
diners per evening, and such 24 diners shall be seated
during those hours set forth in condition #3;
2. Building and Fire Official approval;
3. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from 6
p.m. to II p.m., except for occasional activities
outlined in Condition No. I;
4. Health Department approval;
5. Completion of entrance improvements to obtain necessary
sight distance;
6. Planning Commission approval of site plan.
'-
The Clifton Inn
November 8, 1991
Page 2
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on November 13, 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
y;'d<< /J~r-"
,.) ~..c,-J // 6"
A~/'-"'" ~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/mem
cc: Country Inns Extraordinaires, Inc.
~Am l~a ~atterson
J Hlgglns
ettie E. Neher
~
" ,~,.,~,.. L ,'.01'. J!~ 3 -? I
l~;efl;i.a ki:r', i'L, 9!d{t~,iy
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
NOVEMBER 7, 1991
NOVEMBER 13, 1991
SP-91-58 Clifton
Petition: Clifton, The Country Inn petitions the Board of
Supervisors to amend SP-87-49 in order to permit a 14 toom
bed and breakfast and a 24 seat restaurant [10.2.2(27)] on
10.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B and 23C, is located on the east side
of Route 729 approximately 0.4 miles south of Route 250 in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area (Rural Area IV).
Character of the Area:
The property is currently developed with several structures.
The main dwelling known as Clifton is a early 19th century
plantation house. The building is a state registered
historic landmark.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to amend SP-87-49 which permitted
a seven room bed and breakfast with a 50 seat restaurant.
The applicant's current proposal is for a 14 room bed and
breakfast with a 24 seat restaurant. The restaurant would
be limited to a single seating per day and 2 rooms are
anticipated to be used by the staff of the Inn. The rooms
would be distributed in various existing buildings on the
property as follows: 6 rooms in the main house, two rooms
in the cottage, 3 rooms in the carriage house and 3 rooms in
the stables. The location of the structures and
improvements to the property are shown in Attachment C. The
notations regarding the number of rooms in each structure,
as noted on attachment C, are no longer valid.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-91-58 subject to conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
August 5, 1987 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-87-49
to allow for a 7 room Inn with a 50 seat restaurant.
1
April 3, 1990 - The Planning Commission recommended approval
of SP-89-83, a request for a 12 room Inn with a 50 seat
restaurant. This request was withdrawn prior to review by
the Board of Supervisors.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This site is located in Rural Area IV of the Comprehensive
Plan. Clifton was part of Peter Jefferson's original I
Shadwell Estate which was in turn, deeded to Thomas
Jefferson. The site is on the Virginia Landmark Register.
The conversion of historic buildings to commercial uses
compatible in character should be considered a method of
historic preservation. Due to the site's existing
commercial use as an Inn, an extensive wooded area
surrounding the lot, and the lot's close proximity to a
growth area (0.4 miles west of the Village of Rivanna and
1.0 mile east the Urban Area). It is the opinion of staff
that this proposal would not have a detrimental impact on
the Rural Areas of the County.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has calculated that this use will generate
approximately 712 vehicle trips per week. This figure is
based on the 4th edition of the I.T.E. manual, using figures
available for Business Hotel. While the proposed use is not
a business hotel, the I.T.E. manual definition for business
hotel most closely fits the applicant's use. An analysis of
traffic generation under the currently permitted use (7
rooms and a 50 seat restaurant) indicates that 861 vehicle
trips per week could be generated. Therefore, the proposed
request represents a traffic reduction of 17%.
The applicant's request represents a reduction in the total
volume of activity permitted on site due to the reduction of
the seating capacity of the restaurant and the provision
that the restaurant will be operated on a one seating per
night schedule. Guests of the Inn are the most likely users
of the restaurant.
During the approval of SP-87-49 a condition of approval was
site plan approval (Attachment D). No site plan was ever
submitted or approved. The applicant is currently
relocating the entrance to the site as recommended by the
Department of Transportation and the applicant has contacted
the Health Department to determine what improvements are
needed. Those improvements are scheduled to be undertaken
in the near future. All structures are existing and no new
structures are proposed.
2
,
During field inspections staff has identified deficiencies
on the site which must be corrected. Discussions with the
Zoning Administrator indicate that a minimum of 20 parking
spaces are required. Currently graveled parking areas exist
for approximately 12 cars. It is the opinion of staff that
other areas exist which could be used for parking and would
involve little or no grading. The access road for the site
from Route 729 is not shown on Attachment C, but is
approximately 450 feet long. This access way is
approximately 10-12 feet wide and does not afford the
opportunity for two vehicles to pass. This access way
should be widened to a minimum of 20 feet in accord with
Sections 4.12.6.2 and 32.7.2.5 (Attachment E). Staff
recommends that the existing one way access aisles in front
of the existing parking area and house be permitted to
remain. This recommendation is due to the existing
character of the site which would be changed if these access
aisles were widened.
In addition to the provision of additional parking and
increasing the width of the access road to the site, all
parking areas and access ways shall be improved as required
by the provisions of Section 4.12.6.3 (Attachment F).
In order to insure compliance with the provisions of the
zoning ordinance, staff will recommend that a plan be
submitted to the Planning Department for administrative
approval.
SUMMARY
The applicant's request represents a reduction in the total
amount of activity permitted to occur on site. It is the
opinion of staff that this request will not affect adjacent
properties or change the character of the district. The use
may be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
stated previously in this report. Staff recommends approval
of this request subject to the following conditions of
approval.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
I. Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight
travellers and a 24 seat restaurant. Except for
lodging guests and occasional luncheons, wedding
receptions, cocktail parties and the like,
restaurant usage is limited to not more than
twenty-four (24) diners per evening, and such 24
diners shall be seated during those hours set
forth in condition #3;
3
, .
2. Building and Fire Official approval;
3. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be
from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.;
4. Health Department approval;
5. Completion of entrance improvements to obtai~l
necessary sight distance;
*6. Staff approval of plan indicating a minimum of 20
parking spaces, a minimum 20 foot access road and
improvements to the access ways and parking areas
in accord with Section 4.12.6.3.
A".r-I'ACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Sketch Plan of the Site
D - Action Letter from SP-87-49
E - Section of the Ordinance
F - Section of the Ordinance
* NOTE: At the Planning Commission meeting, staff
recommended a 14 foot travelway.
4
G
'J , r
)
~nl ~' ~t
~
fFSJk'
\,
. .''\.
" .'
\'"
"", /"""
'.
....
608
IATTACHMENTAI
~
~
,ille
"
.....
.;:)
o
"
..
SP-91-58
CLIFTON
..l..
;
'"
~
'.
~
.... Qill\.. .'
) l
'f.
~,~ ~r -'~~)
,," ~. ~,)
[ill;j """,,
:f<~~ I ~ ~ t'~l
\
I
""'
....
~:..:;
'?"t'''"
..:>
o
c.,
\""
.--- -------------\1----'
: Il~OM~f 414 :
, I
I \ I
, ,
, I
I I
I I
I r.-:;;:;1
~
~
~
ALBEMARLE COUNT~
! '
\
\
\ SA
\
80
SP-91-58
CLIFTON ..
SCALE IN FEET
100 I) 1M
___ ,~O ~ ~
,
93
RIVANNA AND
. SCOTTSVILLEDISTRICTS
SECTION 79
~
->
IATTACHMENT CI
~
l\:
~f
~rr
5
ft
-
,...
-,
,....
,-
..-
~
GJl ~
\) <PI ;-
~ ~ ~
~ r'f
--C
. "' \
v,-
~r.:i ~ f
t~y
f1
('
~f
c "
~. 7
!r
[J
~
N~
~i
I ..
/ !
jATTACHMENTO\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
August 7, 1987
Clifton - The Country Inn
c/o Clifton
Rt. 9, Box 412
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-87-49 Mitchell and Emily Willey
Dear Mr. & Ms. Willey:
ThetAlbemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
August 5, 1987, unanimously approved the above-noted
request to allow the existing (Clifton) tourist lodge to
expand to an inn with restaurant. The property is located
on the east side of Rt. 729, south of Rt. 250E and described
as Tax Map 79, Parcel 23B, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval is limited to seven (7) rooms for overnight
travellers and a fifty (50) seat restaurant. Except
for lodging guests and occasional luncheons, wedding
receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restaurant
usage is limited to not more than fifty (50) diners per
evening, and such 50 diners shall be seated during
those hours set forth in Condition #4.
2. Site plan approval. Prior to review of the site plan
by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall obtain
Health Department and Virginia Department of
Transportation approvals.
..
e IATTACHMENT DIPage 2\
Clifton - The Country Inn
Page 2
August 7, 1987
3. Building and Fire Official approvals.
4. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be f~om
6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Community Development
RSK/jcw
cc: Jesse Hurt
Bob Jenkins
Jack Collins
Kathy Brittain
Dan Roosevelt
T. Mitchell and Emily B. Willey
.. t
..
IATTACHMENT EI
._.....~....,.....'.'~~__\...._.....'.."':'"M.n_'.....;..:'.ctot.-~..'V-M~!.:.....l.'..:,<M...;..:.'I;..;....;'I'~.H).:..~~I';;,~...Aj~f.~~:t;~...:';:~~;.~:.:~.,.~);!~i~~:'i~!.."'~~0......t<~,.,,);:RM":~1'wr~~1:....~{<"...:......,....:;\;'r. i...;~;:.~;.,,:.t.,..:...i,~.:-"t..:;.i~.f-!...'.":.I~;;1;.~~~.~.~:,.:.(',.;~'t~;J..~t~~~;.':u>..-\~~\:t~'Ur.XW.., I'n.f.t~~-"li
4.12.6.2 INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Parking areas shall be designed to facilitate unimpeded flo
of on-site traffic in circulation patterns readily
recognizable an~ predictable to motorists and pedestrians.
Parking areas shall be arranged in a fashion to encourage
pedestrian access to buildings and to minimtze internal
automotive movement. Facilities and access routes for
deliveries, service and maintenance shall be separated,
where practical, from public access routes and parking
areas. Direct, unobstructed accessways for emergency
vehicles to and around buildings and uses shall be provide(
as specified by the Albemarle County fire official. Speed
bumps, gates and other impediments to emergency access sha:
be prohibited unless otherwise recormnended by the fire
official in a particular case. (Added 6-14-89)
32.7.2.5
Except as otherwise permitted in a particular case, interil
circulation aisles adjacent to parking spaces shall have a
minimum travel width of twenty (20) feet with appropriate
turning radii; provided that the cormnission may increase
such width and turning radii upon finding that such increa
is necessary to accormnodate emergency vehicles together wi
the largest delivery or service vehicles which may
reasonably be anticipated to occasion the site, whether
under proposed or potential usage. One-way circulation
aisles shall not be permitted, except that the commission
may approve one-way circulation in such case where the sarr
is necessitated by the peculiar character of the site or c
the proposed use such as but not limited to' uses involvin~
drive-in windows and automobile laundries. In.s~ch case,
the cormnission shall require installation and maintenance
control devices such as bypass lanes, signage, pavement
markings and physical barriers as deemed reasdnable.
One-way circulation aisles shall have a ~inimum travel wic
of twelve (12) feet exclusive of curb and gutter. (AmendE
6-14-89)
The commission may require provision for and/or co~-.
str~ction of travel lanes or driveways to serve adJo~n-
ing properties. The pavement.of ve~~cular ~ravel lanes
or driveways designed to perm~t veh~cula~ travel on the
si te and from adj acent property an~ pa~k~ng .areas shall
be not less than twenty (20) feet ~n w~dth. (32.5.7,
1980; Amended 5-1-87) I
,
Distributed to S',~3(cl: : f ' I.) - (,' i
Agenda Item No.
(,',, . ~ ",
f l /t,:'... ,l~,:/'?
ii' --
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
", :"::-/;/\RU:
ri ~:! rn
'" ''"', II \
\ Ii I
ud . <~::"ll~ IlJ
~_~ _ ^ _..l ~ ro..____
,'J ('~,,:'- S:.;~)FF~\:~SO~S
October 16, 1991
William Wibert
21l6-D Berkmar Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-9l-46 William Wibert
Tax Map 6lU, Section 1, ParcelS
Dear Mr. Wibert:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15,
1991, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of the above-noted request
to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject
to the following conditions:
1. No welding shall occur on-site;
2. All materials shall be stored indoors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will
review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on
November 20. 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted
action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
1/~/~ ------
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw -
cc: Ze E. Neher
William B. Downer, III
Jo Higgins
Ha To Ly
Amelia Patterson
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
if CLl/iuf / ( f.) u/'i I
~f1
.
tpawq
OCT 15 1991
PLAN~lING O'V'~ION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator~
October 15, 1991
SP-91-46 W. J. Wibert Roofing and Sheet Metal
It is my opl.nl.on that the use as proposed by this applicant, is a
contractor's office. This is based on the following:
1. All sheet metal work is preformed for roofing installed by this
applicant;
2. No roofing is prepared for sale either directly to the consumer
as on a retail basis, or to other contractors as on a wholesale
basis;
3. The sheet metal work is customary and incidental to the
contracting business of installation of metal roofing;
4. Such work to "make up" the materials used in construction is
customary and incidental to other contractors, such as plumbing
or electrical businesses.
It is my understanding that the sheet metal work is performed with
two small, relatively quiet machines and hand tools. These
machines cut and fold, but do not hammer. Should the Planning
Commission and Board be so inclined, they may chose to require a
certified engineer's report for compliance with performance
standards (Section 4.14).
~
STAFF PERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER 15, 1991
NOVEMBER 20, 1991
SP-91-46 - WILLIAM J. WIBERT (APPLICANT) HA TO LY (OWNER)
Petition: William Wibert petitions the Board of Supervisors
to locate a sheet metal shop [24.2.2.(8)] on 0.5 acres
zoned, HC, Highway commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 61U,
Section 1, Parcel 5, is located on the north side of Berkmar
Drive approximately 500 feet west of Route 29 in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located
in Urban Neighborhood I.
Character of the Area: This site and adjacent sites are
developed commercially. The property immediately to the
west is vacant, how~ver, the Planning Commission has
approved a preliminary site plan for development of the
adjacent lot (Lot 6).
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant proposes to form sheet metal into flashings,
gutters, downspouts and the like for use in roofing (see
Attachment C). The applicant then transports the finished
product to his job site. Material is not prepared for use
by others. Roofing materials are stored on site in limited
quantities. Large quantities of material are sent directly
to the job site.
Summary and Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-91-48.
Planninq and Zoning Historv:
June 25. 1991 - The Planning commission approved a
preliminary site plan on the adjacent lot (Lot 6) which
required that the parcel under review modify the parking and
access ways.
STAFFcomm~:
Staff has visited the site and met with the applicant and is
of the opinion that this use is a contractor's office and
equipment storage yard. The applicant stores a limited
1
amount of materials on site. There are currently three
employees which spend a limited amount of time on site
preparing materials for use on jobs. The majority of the
employees time is spent at the job site. All adjacent uses
are commercial. The use is not a high traffic generator as
there is only limited traffic to the site due to the fact
that customers do not visit the site and all other traffic
is employee and delivery related.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that
the existing entrance is inadequate. During the approval of
the site plan for Lot 6 the Planning Commission required
revisions to access and circulation on this parcel which is
the subject of this review. staff opinion is that entrance
improvements should be deferred until the development of Lot
6. This opinion is based on the fact that this use will be
a low traffic generator and other uses which are high
generators could be established "by-right".
.....~
Staff has made this application available to the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) who has not commented on
this proposal. The structure currently exists and no
changes in the appearance' of the structure is proposed. No
outside storage is proposed and staff recommends a condition
prohibiting outdoor storage. With such a condition it is
staff's opinion that this development is not required to
obtain ARB approval.
Staff opinion is that this use will not conflict with
adjacent uses and that the use is consistent with section
31.2.4.1. This opinion is based on the character of the
area, commercial, and the limited activity that occurs on
site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-91-46
subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of ADDroval:
1. No welding shall occur on site.
2. All materialS shall be stored indoors.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Letter of Description
2
J
\ \
~~
,~e ';:-~
.:::..'<:'~"^~'b
;'t
i
o
jATTACHMENT AI
17
cC
:l!:
~'t>
J
~/
(:,<C-V
~'t'('
":-'
.f
.v
,..
r/-
SP-91-46 WilLIAM J~ .WIBERT
-
,Q-
'\
.
61U- 0
tOO
61M LOTS '-7
0,8, 797 P'l- 249
,V, 11/1/61
.
--
111I nn
tOO 400
....
LBEMARLE
IATTACHMENT 81
COUNTY
,,01. In ft.t
'c,n
~~
~ 0". 0
~ -~~H~I
2 OPfN SPAt[
...
:"
..0;
,ct
,,'"
.,<,;
,t!-
...
".
,,0
Q:d;J M
OFFICES PHI o.B. 747 pQ.I76-207
PH20,B, 820PQ 351-356
'?O
2DO
61M - BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC, I, 0,B,337, Pgs.336,337
BERKELEY COMMUNITY' SEC. 2. O,B,
BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC, 3, OB, 360,Pgs,I44A,144B
-
SP-91-46 WilLIAM J. WIBERT
,-
-
-
"'"
SECTION
61-M-U
CHARLOTTESVLLE
DISTRICT
.
IATTACHMENT cl
w. J. WIBERT SHEET METAL AND ROOFING
2116-D Berkmar Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
804/973-1172
August 5, 1991
Ms. Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Department
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Ms. Patterson:
..r....~
Please fine! enclosed our completed application for a Special Use Permit, plat, and check.
In conversation with Ms. Babette ~orpe, she suggested I write a letter exphiining our
business to help you understand what we will be doing.
We intend to operate a sheet metaljroofmg company. Most of our ,work is actually done
off the premises at various building sites. Our sheet metal shop is to support the roofing operation
and will be used ,mainly to fabricate materials that we will install on the job. Our time spent in the
shop fabricating materials is normally less than 10% of the total job.
Occasionally, we expect to get requests -from customers to fabricate items that they need.
Our shop will fabricate these items. This type of work amounts to about 3% of our total work.
The equipment we will be using is a brake, which is manually operated and makes no noise
or vibration, a metal slitter (which is electric and runs very quietly), and various electric drills, etc.
The worst noise we will be making will be with hammers when working on metal (which is only
done occasionally, never for very long periods).
We are next door to a music repair shop which uses electric drills' occasionally, and we
believe the noise we make will not bother them. Also, we are approximately 500 yards across the
street from Robinson Electric which I believe also has a sheet metal shop.
Hopefully, our operation will not disturb any of our neighbors and will benefit the area. If
you have any questions or need more information, please call or write at anytime.
,. '.. ~ nr I.f \f.lli~.~'.~.'~.''''WJ''~~'''
J:;:JI [~~ \!2,..,-",v,,"' ',-', ,. · l> 'J I t.l ~
. 'Ioil'f'..... ........ ~.;.:.. l,'!~'" "" 1;#
, ~~, i '
AUG '1 1991
Sincerely, ,
;/~11/&'
William J. Wibert
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING DEPARTMENT
..
'1" l' ,,, d / / _ J" WI
v-'dOM',,~
Agondii It~;(i Ni). !lI. !!.~
J1u ' -tv
~JUj}
", 1I}),0/1'
I I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
. '.... r
Dept of Planning & Community DevelopnH~h't' ",', , .
401 McIntire Road '-,: ,-:~: .--, ,-
" "
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 .'
(804) 296-5823
J
- ,. " r ,........
. "
...'
"';
'I'
October 4, 1991
Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
ATTN: Bruce Murray
P. O. Box 1465
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA-91-06 Greenbrier Square Limited ptrn
Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5
Dear Ms. Murray:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
October 1, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted ~etition to the Board lof Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the proffers as
outlined in the attached letter from Greenbrier Square
Limited Partnership dated September 12, 1991.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on November 6, 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
1//L tJ%-
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
~
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNI~G COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER 1, 1991
NOVEMBER 6, 1991
ZMA-91-06 GREENBRIER SQUARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Petition: Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership petitions
the Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.1 acres from HC,
Highway Commercial [Proffered] to HC, Highway Commercial
[Proffered] and C-1, Commercial [Proffered]. Property,
described as Tax Map 61W, section 1, Block A, Parcel 5, is
located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive approximately
500 feet west of Route 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is located within Neighborhood 1 and is
recommended for Community Service. This site is within the
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Character of the Area: This property is the location of
Greenbrier Square. Adjacent properties are developed
commercially.
ADDlicant's ProDosal: The applicant is proposing to rezone
1.12 acres of the front portion of the property from HC
[Proffered] to C-1 [Proffered]. This area includes that
portion of the site most visible from Greenbrier Drive. The
rear portion of the site is currently zoned HC [Proffered].
The applicant is requesting that the proffers for the HC
area be amended to broaden the permitted uses. A list of
the new proffers is included as Attachment C. No new
buildings are proposed. The purpose of this rezoning
request is to provide for a greater list of permitted uses.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan as well as past rezoning actions on the
site and staff recommends approval of ZMA-91-06 with the
acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
Plannina and Zonina Historv:
January 13, 1984 - Planning Commission approved Pargo's
Restaurant and Office Condominium site plan.
February 14, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended denial
of ZMA-84-32 stating that scope and possibilities of uses
were too broad.
1
,
February 20, 1985 - Board of supervisors approved ZMA-84-32.
This action rezoned the property from C-1to HC with
proffers.
June 11, 1985 - Planning commission approved Greenbrier Park
site plan.
July 30, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
ZMA-85-18 which amended the previous rezoning to allow
Motels, and approves Super 8 Motel site plan.
August 7, 1985 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-85-18
[PROFFERED]. This added hotels, motels, and inns as an
allowed use for a portion of the site.
March 21, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-01
[PROFFERED] which adds Fast Food Restaurant to the list of
allowed uses..
November 7, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-15
[PROFFERED] which permitted churches.
Comorehensive Plan:
This site is recommended for community service use in
Neighborhood 1. Staff has included the non-residential use
guidelines as Attachment D. In working with the staff the
applicant has proffered out uses which are Regional Service
uses, such as autodealer and mobile home sales, as well as
other uses which are high traffic generators. Therefore,
the proposed rezonings may be considered consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
The applicant as justification to support this requests has
stated:
"Existing HC proffered zoning has proven to be
exceedingly restrictive for flexible commercial space
and has created ongoing monitoring problems for the
staff and zoning department. All surround properties
are zoned C-1. The purpose of this application is to
recognize the nature of existing uses on the property.
The street frontage building (for which rezoning is
requested) consists of retail uses better defined under
the C-1 zone and the two rear buildings are used for
purposes, including light warehousing and distribution
businesses which are only allowed in the HC zone. The
HC proffer is also being amended to allow the zoning
administrator greater flexibility in dealing with
applications by mixed use commercial tenants whose
businesses often do not fit clearly under one use
category."
2
~
staff generally agrees with this statement. The original
rezoning for the property, ZMA-84-32, included a list of
proffers which provided for a limited number of uses.
Subsequently, staff has processed four rezoning
applications. The original rezoning proffered out uses
which were high traffic generators. The ~ubsequent
rezonings were all reviewed with particular concern on
limiting increased traffic.
The current request would return the front portion of the
property to C-l which was the zoning prior to ZMA-84-32.
However, the applicant has proffered out some uses in the
C-l district which are high traffic generators such as
financial institutions. The modifications of permitted uses
in the HC portion of the site is also proffered so that high
traffic generators are not permitted. To aid the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, staff has included the
uses permitted by right in the HC and C-l district
(Attachments E & F) and the uses currently permitted on the
site as proffered by previous actions (Attachment G).
It is the opinion of staff that the proffered uses are
consistent with the past efforts to prohibit uses which are
high traffic generators. In addition the use permitted
would be consistent with the Community Service designation
of this area. Approval of this request would provide a more
reasonable use of the land and would provide for easier
administration of the site by the County. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of ZMA-91-06 subject to the following
proffers.
A'l-rACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B Tax Map
C Applicant's Proffers
D Table 46 of the Comprehensive Plan
E Permitted uses in the HC district
F Permitted uses in the Cl district
G Currently proffered uses
H VDOT comment
3
'---'
,Y
/'
,(
'c.=/
'\ '{
~
-[666]
\. \ V--' ........._ Ihh,l,
--"
IATTACHMENT AI
r
\
'-
,--'(---~
"0,0
~
~
;..>.
~
\ ' 3'
Redlond ~J - - - ~
('1
(>..~o ZMA-91-06
~ "GREENBRIER SQ., L TD~, P ART~E~SHIP,
,
<
ALBEM'ARLE CC /NTY
H
.e
IliA
!
..
i
,
.
....
Ita
01
'I.. _ .
tlCAU .. FlIT
- -
-
-
.
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT
IATTACHMENT 81
-=- - Llm'lta Line
!
23 ~24
r - ZMA-91-06, GREENBRIER SQ.
.
=
It
..
j
i
a
, ..
-
-
SECTION 61~W
~c_
IATTACHMENT CI
GREENBRIER SQUARE LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Charl~~~s~rc,c~frO;nf:6522902 W} ~.jl,~~rrn
(804)971-8080 ~~-. ~
SEP ~ 1991
M E M 0 RAN DUM
PLANNING DIVISION
TO:
Bill Fritz
County of Albemarle Planning Department'
FROM:
Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnershi
Edward H. Brownfie d Jr.
Bruce R. Murray
DATE:
September 12, 1991 (Revision of August 8th Memo)
RE:
Revision of Proffers for Highway Commercial - HC Portion
of Property
If Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership property zoning was
divided, the portion zoned Highway Commercial - HC, the following
are the uses we request be permitted, all other uses \lIould be
proffered "out" of the zone.
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC
24.2.1 BY R'IGHT
4. Building materials sales
5. Churches, cemeteries
6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference
5.1.2)
8. Educational, technical and trade schools
9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric
10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22)
12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and
service
13. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9)
15. Furniture stores
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty
shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and
cheese shops
17. Home and business services such as grounds care,
cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other
repair and maintenance services.
18. Hardware
1
.
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 21
21. Light warehousing
22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
(no on-site storage of large vehicles or equipment
such as truacks and earth moving equipment)
26. New automotive parts sales
27. Newspaper publishing
28. Administrative, business and professional offices
29. Offica and business machines sales and service
30. A. Eating establishment
B. Fast food restaurants
a} Use for food distribution off premises
only;
b} Ancillary use of retail pick-up or carry-
out only;
c} No consumption of food on premises;
d} No seating on premises
33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce
(reference 5.1.19).
34. Wholesale distribution
35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding multi-legged tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters
and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility.
Water distribution and sewerage cQllection
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in
conformance with Chapter'10 of the Code of Albemarle
and all other applicable law.
36. Public uses and buildings. including temporary or
mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5) ;
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk
lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and
the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
(Amended 11-1-89)
37. Temporary construction uses (references 5.1.18)
24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. All uses allowed by Special Use Permit if a
permit is later obtained
2
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 31
GREENBRIER SQUARE LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Post Office Box 1465
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(804) 971-8080
M E M 0 RAN DUM
IISa11W
. . SEt:> 19 1991 q
PL1\NNINGD1VlSIOH
TO:
Bill Fritz"
County of Albemarle Planning Department
FROM:
Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership
Edward H. Brownfield~~~~
Bruce R. Murray ~. --- - d
September 19, 1991 (Revision of August 8 memo)
~\'Il..',..~,-", ,,,',
-----
DATE:
RE:
Revision of Proffers for Commercial - C-1 Portion of
Property
If Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership zoning was divided, the
portion zoned Commercial - C-1, the following are the uses we
request be permitted, all other uses would be proffered "out" of
the zone.
COMMERCIAL - C-l
22.2.1
BY RIGHT
" :
a. Retail sales and service establishments
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops
2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops
4. Drug store, pharmacy
5. Florist
6. Food and grocery stores including such special shops
as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and
cheese shops
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service
8. Hardware store
9. Musical instruments
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops
11. Optical goods
12. Photographic goods
13. Visual and audio appliances
14. Sporting goods
b. Services and public establishments
1. Administrative, professional offices
1
22.2.2
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 41
2. Barber, beauty shops
3. Churches, cemeteries
4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic
(reference 5.1.2)
6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9)
8. Health spas
10. Laundries, dry cleaners
11. Laund~omat (provided that an attendant shall be on
duty at all hours during operation)
12. Libraries, museums
13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.6)
14. Eating establishments
15. Tailor, seamstress
17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding multi-legged tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters
and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility.
Water distribution and sewerage collection
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
18. Public uses and buildings including temporary or
mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5) ;
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk
lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and
the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
(Amended 11-1-89)
19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18)
21. Medical Center
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. All uses allowed by Special Use Permit if a
permit is obtained
B. Special Use Permit Previously Granted:
24.2.1.30 Fast Food Restaurant:
a. Use for food distribution off
premises only;
b. Ancillary use of retail pick-up or
carry-out only;
c. No consumption of food on premises;
d. No seating on premises
2
191
~ I 3' I
I CJ
::; -< -a I > ~ g > n
~ ::$' i II " :>:;
" c ~ "
-< " " 2 .~
r;" I ~ '" '"'
c: ==- ;; '" -" '"
I 0 j~ :;r:J
~ I I ;; :>
I ~ I ~
~ ! ;:; !
V1
I r: Ci
c
ro ::J [I
"
I -<
I
I
I I
I i
I
i I
I
I I
i
I I
I I
I I
! i
! i
i
i
i
I
, !
""
~!8
,~ I
-:r I "
~ :-8
::::. : .-
::J
00
~
\",.-: I
"'... :::::-1
" "
r:
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
!
!
~
"
~.
s: ~ I
~~i
rovl
[~,i
r:0':l
~(?
:> '-'
~ 3
23
~ ~ '
'. ..... I
::; " I
g ~I
I
~t:
~ "
;;;- c: 5 I
~ ~ ~
- '"
~~
I
I
I
'" > I
::J " I
0-"
'" ~
~ 0 I
~i [i
:2 3
;:;:; ,-'
~'~ I
I
I
~ ~ i
o U"I ~.:; <:
~~V>;; ('";_......,~(';1~
6' ~; ~ c~. ~ ~ ~ 2~'
~ ;:j" ~. 0 ~;:;: o'C C.l :J ::oJ '"< :J
::... =- 8 C> S' VI ~ c a.. -3 2 8
o CJ VI ..., VI Co.l 0 t.l
() ~ ~ o' r; ~ ~. ~ ~ 5
~ CJ:J 8~-D
:J 5'
c.. G~
I 1
?; I
I Z V1
- 0- '" i s: ro ,
" '" 2 1
;;;- '"' " n I') ~ ~ '<
::r < ,
::J 0 0- :;r:J 3 '" ;:;. I
::; ~ k,., :; ;::;. v- I') 0 I')
~. " 2'
~ l~ '-' ==- 0 ;; I') ~ '" '" i?'
;:;' ~'"-< ~v ~J -< ~ i
3 ::; !~ S'. '" '" ;; 0:: I') " ~.
0- I....:;.. ,~ C ;: V I
'" ~ 1('" 0 3' :<:0 '" 3' 2 '"
< ,I') '"' 0- '" ::J~ v' :; ;;;. ::; 3 i
'" '" 10: " OJ ~ '" r.
::J '" O-~ 0 <1>
0 ?:; -, V1 I') ::; :> :<:0 1
i~ - '"' OJ ~ '"
0- I '"' '" ~ r: c;' '" OJ ~ 2. ;<-
v '3 I~ :;; ~ '< :g:g C1C '"
-< C!, '" 0 '" ~ ~
~ :; ;:;. ~~
o' r: ~' ::J ;; S 0
;:? ~ 1 '" ~ ::J
~ I ::J '" (", '"' '"
, ::.. '"' v
! r:
~ '"
!
<'1
<I
'" I
~!
01
0::
j'!
'"
0' ::J, s:
~ , i! ~~
C.....=000g-
;, 0 ~ - 0-
~~-D~22~
~~[[~~3
;:;" Q... ~ CoI ~
('; ~ ~ ,....
~ -- ~
v. ('j
~~
.~ ("\
:5 2
" '" ::J
g Co.::::.
,~, ,-.~
~ f 3
r.~~
3 =: I
~~
~
~ ;.,;"s:
=-::::~~Co.l
~ zs.i~
IJ f I, ~.
VI .....co;;g
::J
,~
0..3>
~ =- ~
g-t:~
~ ~ (';
::;; ~. a...
r:-<c
~ 3'~'
8~~
::; Co.l :J
g ~ ~
v () C)
,.... Q.. ....,
'"
6'
:r--=:
- r:. v
:;:; VI 0
0' 2 ~
3 2-Q.
~<.3
c' ~2,
:;. :,.::: 0
~ ~~
~~ 8
v: (") v
~ :;
:;;
i !
1 I
>1
=, 0- > ,
g I l': I
;;s I < ~2-
c:= '" I
" :> ;:;' 0
0 CJ ~
::J I') j v '3 I')
::J '" 0-
" V1 I I
OJ V> '" (") -< c:
-< '" <' i ;:? ::J I
~ ~'
'< ;::;' ! "
;:;' '"' 0 v '"
~ '" '" , ;:; i:"' ::J
, ::J ~
c.. , I') f i
,
1 "9- ,- I
^' I '"" i
'? ,
i i
v
00;::0
o ~
o ::; .~
c... ""l r;.
~ 11>
:..> C (3'
::J ~::J
0- "
VI 0 (")
~ ::::::: V>
'< ). '"'
r;' 2-~.
~ ~ a
~'
~ G I
;: 3 I
~"'? I
r;. ;;.) j
" =, I
;;-::: 1
o ::J
8.. '"- I
~ 0
=321
~ ~'I
~~
'"'
'< '"
(=:" ~i
I') I
~ I
I
,
:
'" ,
~' i
~ !
==-j
[I
:;; 1
~[
I
,
_ i
5 3' ~ I
" ~''3 I
32..~!
~0~i
^'""l :::::::
~ ~ ~
i~' ~ ~
i s.. 2" ~
l-g ~ 2 i
'I' X &. ~ I
i 2";i,~, I
I a- ~. :T I
I v> !
cr:: '
0' >
::J =
==-0
~::B
'< 8
;:;" IJ')
(") I')
v '<
:::!. ;:=;"
:3 11>
~ !:..l
-<s..
c:
.~ ~
~ ~
'" s:
'" v-
~
'" ~ ~
0- 8
~ 5-
'"' ,~ -
ro
:S, '" "
" '" ~
~ ::J
'"
'-' I
I
I
n
g,
'"
0"
,..... 0
r:......
< 0
~ C-i
00-
v "
3 Q
(") :::::::
::J <
~(")
::;
i?'
;:?
~l
=- o'
:::;' r"l
"'- 0
I') -
:::!. (?
Q Q.
" ~
~. 0
2 ~
-'"
3:>..;+
0' ~
::l ~. !
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
~ ~
s:- ~'
=:: ;-,
(") Q..
~, ()
Q &
:J, ~
;:: 0
~ ~
:::::""CJ
~ ~
0' ~
::::::: ~
:E if
~~.
5' ()
82...
::,~
:> "
;, ~
;:: c
~ ~
:::....':.)
~ ;:+
g' ~,
OJ
g ..~
Koo
o ~ 0
~ 0 0
x ~
~' g ~,
~2..g
o .3
~ 0
V'l 0 oJ
000
, ~
'" Z::J
~oO":
~
I N
I C ,i:;
!~ ~~ 8
!o 0 0 0
Iv 0 (':: ::J
Ie) ::: x ~
IV> ().<
I~ v ~
1<": C7 CL c
!~ 1- ~ ..=
I~o ::l
I' ~ 0 ~
I 00 0
I (j' ~
I ~
!
+
N
~..~
~ 0
Q ~ .8
~ ~ 3
~]- ~:
'" -< '3
Q ~ c:
?-~?
OJ '"
~ ~;
o ~
'i
o
< ~ I :..>'" N
~ Q' i 2 ~ '~.
::::::: (j iVl - (') :J
g, t i~' i, ~ ~
Q,..., Ie: CJ 0 ;:;'
8 Q i~--<~~
E"~l. Q~~
c" ~ 1 ~ VI VI
:J ~ i <";J 05
I ~ ~
r. i.J1
~-;
~~
::; ~
'" ::J
(", ~
'- 3'
2 3'
:J ..3
V1
Z ~ Z
9. < g
i ;:::
T I Vl
,-"
;; ..- ~
;;:::
0- I " .>
>
V1
I
I
'-"
V>
-"n
:>:;0
'-" ::; s:
()$:
W I' > C
10 ~~
I I ~~
I i
i !
I I' ~
I ~7l
I i::;~
i + In c,
I :...; ~ m 0
10 I> Z
17l>
, I >:'
i :..n
I
i I
i I
I I
i ~
N
o
+
N
o
o
IATTACHMENT 0\
-~
~,
v>
CCJ
om
V1>
93~
<'"'
('iZ
iT'ir:i
>0
7l
>~
V1v
;::
1
I
I
i
I
!
I
1
I
!
i z
0
I z
! ,
';0
i m
I ~
I ::i
r'l"'
I 2
-,
I :;;: :;;
I :-
! >- o::i
....
Z m
::i A
:'\
'-
Vl
m
Ci
C
0
m
::::
z
,"':"1
(/l
I
,
i
,
'./1 Ii
m
;;0
::;0 '
n ~ ~--j-
>n
~j":1
->
V>
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
_,__--I
V1~
~..,..,
~n
-,:z:
n;;o
.""'7Lm
>C1
:;r:J3
>:Z
V>;::
24.0
24.1
24.2
24.2.1
IATTACHMENT E\
HI GHWAY CO}!MERCIAL - HC
INTENT, WHERE PE~~ITTED
HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by ~~en~~ent to the zoning map to permit
development of co~mercial establishments, other than
shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations
rather than to central business concentrations. It is
intended that HC districts be established on major highways
within the urban area and co~~unities in the comprehensive
plan. It is further intended that this district shall be
for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial
development by providing sites with adequate frontage and
depth to permit controlled access to public streets.
PERM:;:TTED USES
BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted in any RC district
subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation
with the direc~or af plan~ing and other appropria~e
officials, may permit. as a use by right, a use net
specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be
similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and
more specifically, similar in terms of locational
requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact c
traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning a~~inistrator!s
decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0.
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
c:;
-' .
6.
7 .
8.
dk 9.
10.
Automobile laundries.
Automobile, truck repair shops.
Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20).
Building materials sales.
Churches, cemeteries.
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference
5.1.2) .
Convenience stores.
Educational, technical and trade schools.
Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric.
Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
-150-
{ATTACHMENT EJ Ipage 2\
11. Financial institutions.
12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and
service.
13. Fire and rescue sq~ad stations (reference 5.1.9).
14. Funeral homes.
15. Furniture stores.
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops
as bakery, candy, milk dispensary a:1d 'Hine and cheese
shops.
17. Home and business services such as grounds care,
cleaning, exterminators, landscaping a~d ether repair
and maintenance services.
18. Hardware.
J.9. (Repealed 6-3-81)
20. Hotels, motels and inns.
21. Light warehousing.
22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental.
23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service.
24. Modular building sales.
25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental.
26. New automotive parts sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
28. Administrative, business and professional offices.
29. Office and business machines sales and service.
30. Eating establishment; fast.-food restaurants.
31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
32. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles.
33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce
(reference 5.1.19).
34. Wholesale distribution.
-151-
(Supp. *3, 6~3-81)
35.
36.
IATTACHMENT EllPage 31
Electric, gas, oil and corrmunication facilities
excluding multi-legged tower structures and including
poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters. and related
facilities for distribution of local service and ownec
and operat~d by a public utility. Wa "':.==r distribution
and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and centra:
sewerage systems in conformance w~~n Chapter 10 of thE
Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobi:
facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounc
and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state 02
federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and
sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/c
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
37. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
38. Indoor theaters.
39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20)
40. TemP9rary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8)
(Added 3-5-86)
41. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in section
24.2.2, ~ses per.mitted in section 22.2.1, ~crnmercial,
C-1. (Added 6-19-91)
22.0
22.1
22.2
22.2.1
IATTACHMENT F\
Cmf:.rvfERC IAL - G- 1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
C-l districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment to the zoning map to permit
selected retail sales, service and pUblic use
establishments which are primari.lY oriented to central
business concentrations. It is intended that C-l
districts be established only within the urban area,
co~~unities and villages in the comprehensive plan.
In order to permit flexibility of development within
this district in conformance with the stated intent, the
cOITh'TIission may, in a particular case, modify, vary or
waive certain requirements of section 21.0 as hereinafter
provided. '
PERIIlITTED USES
BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted in any C-I
dis~rict subject to the requirements and limitations of
these regulations. The zoning administrator, after
consultation with the direc~or of planning and other
appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a
use not specifically permitted; provided that such use
shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general
cha~acter and more specifically, similar in terms of
locational requireillents, ope~ational ch~racteristics,
visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the
zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally
provided in section 34.0.
a.
rT"i'n.::)
.l...... '-
establishments:
follo~ing retail sales and
se;.:\/ice
1
2 .
-'
1 II
.. .
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
Department store.
Drug store) pharmacy.
.t 5. --- Florist.
6. Food and grocery stores including such specialty
shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary a~d
wine and cheese shops.
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service).
8. Hardware store.
i J' r-
-.lLl~-
IATTACHMENT Fl fpage ~
9. Musical instruments.
10. Newsstands, mag(lzines, pipe and tobacco shops.
11. Optical goods.
12. Photographic goods.
13. Visual and audio appliances.
14. Sporting goods.
15. Retail nurseries and greenho~ses.
b. The following services and public establisr.ments:
1. Administrative, professional offices.
2. Barber, beauty shops.
3. Churches, cemeteries.
4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic
( ~ a r- l "'\,
relerenc~ J.~.~J.
5. Financial institutions.
6. Fire and rescue sQuad stations (reference 5.1.9).
7. Funeral homes.
8. Health spas.
9. Indoor theaters.
10. Laundries, dry cleaners.
l '
~.L.
Laundromat (provided t~at an attendant shall
be on duty at all hours during operation).
12.
/-
/
Libraries, museums.
13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.6).
14. Eating establisr.ments.
15. Tailor, seamstress.
16. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20).
17. Electric, gas, oil and cOIT~unication facilities
excluding multi-legged tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
--~
,--
---..-~
"
./-::?
------
-146-
IATTACHMENT FI~age 3}
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collectic::... lines, pumping stations and appurten-
ances owned and operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
18. Public uses and buildings including temporary or
mobil_ facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, stateor_d fe_d~1='al agencies (reference
31.2.5); public water and Sewer transmission, main
or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by
the Riv~nna Water and Sewer Authority (reference
31 . 2 . 5; 5. 1 . 12) . (Amended 11-1- 8 9 )
19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
20. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).
21. Medical center.
22. Automobile, truck repair shop. (Added 6-3-81)
23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (-reference
5 . 8) . (Added 3 - 5 - 8 6 )
..
IATTACHMENT GI
"
The permitted USc3 on the property are:
24.2.1.26
24.2.2.28
24.2.1.29
24.2.1.34
Building material sales (indoor storage only).
Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric.
Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and
seI.vJ.ces.
Furniture stores
Home and business services such as grounds care,
cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other
repair and maintenance services.
Hardware
Light warehousing.
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
(no on-site storage of large vehicles or equipment
such as trucks, earthmoving equipment).
New automotive parts sales.
Administrative, business and professional offices.
Office and business machines sales and services.
Wholesale distribution.
24.2.1.4
24.2.1.9
24.2.2.12
24.2.1.15
24.2.1.17
24.2.1.18
24.1.2.21
24.1.2.22
24.2.1.20 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, hotels,
motels and inns on that portion of the 4.34 acre tract
containing approximately 1.25 acres and being the eastern
portion of said 4.34 acre tract. (Proffer dated August 6,
1985, signed by Joseph W. Richmond, Jr.).
24.2.1.30 Fast food restaurant:
a. Use for food distribution off premises only;
b. Ancillary use of retail pick-up or carry-out only;
c. No consumption of food on premises;
d. No seating on premises.
24.2.1.5 Churches, cemeteries.
3
'"
IATTACHMENT HI
>II
V DOT LOmIY1GUlts.
Mr. Ron Keeler
Special Use Permits & Rezonings
October 1991
Page 2
September 11, 1991
6. SP-91-51 John E. and Kathleen W. Gruss, Route 743 - This section of Route 743 is
currently non-tolerable. This request would result in some increase in traffic from the
existing use. The existing commercial entrance is adequate.
7. ZMA-91-05 Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership, Route 866 - This request is to rezone
3.1 acres from HC (proffered) to PO-MC. The PO-MC request also has some proffered uses. The
Department does not support any request that would result in higher traffic volumes being
generated from the property than allowed by the current zoning with proffers. This property
is on Route 866 and not very far from the intersection with Route 29 which is a heavily used
intersection. Traffic volumes from the property can add to the congestion at the Route
29/866 intersection. The western entrance needs to have a tree trimmed to the east to obtain
adequate sight distance and this comment applies for this as well as the next three items.
8. ZMA-91-06 Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership, Route 866 - This is a request to
rezone 3.1 acres from HC (proffered) to HC (proffered) and C-1 (proffered). The front part
of the property would be C-1 and the rear of the property would be HC. The Department does
not support any request that would allow for higher traffic volumes to be generated from
this property than is allowed by the current zoning with proffers.
9. SP-91-52 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership, Route 866 - This request is for an
emergency veterinarian office on this property. There would probably be some additional
traffic generated by this request.
10. SP-91-43 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership, Route 866 - This request is for a
billiard center and would probably result in some increase in traffic. There is no
information in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for a billiard center and no indication is
given as to the size and type of facility to be provided.
11. ZMA-89-09 Rio Hill West, Route 29 North - The Department's most recent comments for
this request in a letter dated August 12, 1991, still apply.
12. ZMA-91-07 Redfields Development Corporation, Route 781 - This request is to rezone
1.9064 acres from RA to PRO and to rezone 7.7551 acres from PRO to RA and R-1. The
understanding is that this request will not result in any additional lots from the originally
approved rezoning (ZMA-89-19) on this property. Property is being transferred between this
development and adjoining privately owned parcels. There could be some increase in lots in
the future if and when these adjoining parcels develop. This section of Route 781 is
currently tolerable but will bec~~e non-tolerable with developments approved.
",.,'
""
..
Yours truly;,p ~ n
~-.a.~
fA. Echols
Assistant Resident Engineer
JAE/smk
Distributed to Soard: j}-iS" (it
Agenda Item No, 'ii, //(\:'0..'7(/:
. r
October 16, 1991
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
CauI\IT'/ c roo -
Dept of Planning & Community Development ~ ,;j ,) )t /\L CLJ/l,l\RLE.
401 Mcintire Road f[':l'l ri:::~ (:::;') \:::J!l0 nrF::J ;'~,:'~
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290 1-4596 1l,..~,J'.'- I....."...." """"-~"\ 11 !
(804) 296-5823 . n'\t!\ O. C T 21 1991 \: i l
I Ii ,d II
! I, ,'", J i oJ
U U i 1.7'l'C:t:j'L" l:~urrrlr.rr __ t
'..-' "- - ..., t.:'~ L:::..
U)i\:~:U OF SUf'ERV1SOqS
Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
ATTN: Bruce Murray
P. O. Box 1465
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-91-43 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5
Dear Ms. Murray:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
October 15, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following l
conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive;
2. No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted;
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday
Friday - Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
12 noon to 10:00 p.m.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on November 20. 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.
. I
Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
Page 2
October 16, 1991
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
1JLp-~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~ettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER IS, 1991
NOVEMBER 20, 1991
SP-91-43 GREENBRIER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Petition: Greenbrier Limited Partnership petitions the
Board of Supervisors to permit a billiard center [24.2.2(1)]
on 3.1 acres currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial
[PROFFERED] (ZMA-91-06 is pending). Property, described as
Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Block A, ParcelS, is located on the
north side of Greenbrier Drive approximately 500 feet west
of Route 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This site is located within Neighborhood 1. This site is
within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Character of the Area: This property is the location of
Greenbrier Square. Adjacent properties are developed
commercially. Adjacent uses in Greenbrier Square include
pizza delivery, a dance school, and a laundromat. Uses in
the rear building include warehousing, contractor's offices
and wholesale distribution.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has provided a detailed
description of the proposed use (Attachment C). The
applicant is proposing a billiard center that would have
approximately 14 to 20 tables and not more than 6 video
machines. A snack bar would be provided, however, alcohol
will not be available.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval of SP-91-43.
Planning and Zoning History:
January 13, 1984 - Planning Commission approved Pargo's
Restaurant and Office Condominium site plan.
February 14, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended denial
of ZMA-84-32 stating that scope and possibilities of uses
was too broad.
February 20, 1985 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-84-32.
This action rezoned the property from C-1 to HC with
proffers.
June 11, 1985 - Planning Commission approved Greenbrier Park
site plan.
July 30, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
ZMA-85-18 which amended the previous rezoning to allow
Motels, and approves Super 8 Motel site plan.
1
..
August 7, 1985 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-85-18.
this added hotels, motels, and inns as an allowed use for a
portion of the site (Proffered).
March 21, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-01
which adds Fast Food Restaurant to the list of allowed uses
(Proffered) .
November 7, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-15
which permitted churches.
October 1, 1991 - The Planning Commission recommended
approval of ZMA-91-06, a request to rezone the property to
C-l, Commercial (Proffered) and HC, Highway Commercial
(Proffered) .
STAFF COMMENT:
The billiard center is to be located as shown in Attachment
D. This is the current location of Open Door Church (The
church use will be discontinued). Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and can offer the following comments:
a. The Board of Supervisors reserves unto itself the right
to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder.
Special use permits for use as provided in this
ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property,
Due to the distance to adjacent residential lots, 800
feet, and due to the enclosure of the recreational
activity within the building, this use will have not
impact on residential property. All adjacent property
is developed commercially. This is a commercial use
which should not be of substantial detriment to other
adjacent commercial use.
b. that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
This use will have hours similar to the theatre and
convenience store located across the street. The
proposed hours of operation are:
Monday - Thursday
Friday - Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
12 noon to 10:00 p.m.
2
.
The adjacent restaurant will possibly benefit from the
proposed billiard center due to walk-in customers. The
existing laundromat is compatible with this as it is
possible that people will use the billiard center while
using the laundromat services. The dance school should
not be affected by this use as it operates on a system
typically involving groups of people coming for
scheduled classes. Most uses in the rear building are
light warehousing, contractors offices or wholesaling
and would not be affected by this use.
c. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted
by right in the district, with additional regulations
provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the
public health, safety and general welfare.
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations regarding
this use. In an effort to reduce any potential
negative factors that a use of this type could
generate, the applicant has stated that alcohol will
not be served. In addition, the applicant in
Attachment C has described how the business would be
operated and the self-policing proposed to eliminate
problems. Staff's main concern with the proposed use
is the possible pedestrian access across Greenbrier
Drive by patrons of this site and the theatre and
convenience store on the opposite side of the street.
Staff is unable to calculate any projected volumes for
pedestrian access and is unable to identify any
solutions, other than signage, to protect pedestrians.
A pedestrian crosswalk of Greenbrier Drive would not be
allowed by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Pedestrian crossing of Greenbrier Drive may be
considered inconsistent with the public health, safety
and general welfare.
Past actions have addressed traffic generation by this
site. No figures are available for trip generation by
billiard centers. Staff has used figures which are
available for video arcade and has attempted to make
comparisons. While the proposed center includes up to
six video machines, it is primarily a billiard center
with up to twenty tables. Traffic figures are
available for video arcade on a per 1,000 square foot
unit of measure. It is the opinion of staff that this
use will not generate traffic at a level equal to video
arcade as several video machines could occupy the same
area as one billiard table. Therefore, the proposed
billiard center will contain more square feet than a
3
.
video arcade while providing fewer amusement devices.
According to the I.T.E. Trip Generation manual, a video
arcade may generate 9.6 vehicle trips per hour/1000
square feet during p.m. peak hour. Other uses
permitted by right in Greenbrier Square generate the
following during p.m. peak hour: 0.456 vehicle trips
per hour/1000 square feet (furniture store), 10.27
vehicle trips per hour/1000 square feet (food store),
5.229 vehicle trips per hour/1000 square feet
(hardware), 0.598 vehicle trips per hour/1000 square
feet (light warehousing) and 0.521 vehicle trips per
hour/1000 square feet (wholesale distribution). While
a video arcade would be among the highest generators it
is staff opinion that the proposed billiard center will
generate traffic at a lower rate which would be in
keeping with past efforts to prohibit high traffic
generators from this site.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
1. The use will have no effect on residential areas;
2. The use is consistent with the commercial activity in
the area;
Staff has identified the following factor which is
unfavorable to this request:
1. This use may increase pedestrian access across
Greenbrier Drive which would be a safety concern.
Although pedestrian access is a concern, staff believes that
other elements of the proposal sufficiently address other
possible concerns. Staff would not recommend denial based
solely on the unknown level of pedestrian access.
Opportunity to control this pedestrian movement is limited.
Staff recommends approval of SP-91-43 subject to the
following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive;
2. No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted;
4
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday
Friday - Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
12 noon to 10:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Letter of Justification
5
,'I \~ '
.
\
J
llr,fi:ll
, 'l'4J
'" ~:;/ - ""-'
, ......
\
\,
'. '\
"
\
"'-.
IATTACHMENT AI
9.-" __J:
Q)'1~a "-J
, "71.
' "
"-'
('),"
~~~i
~
ill
j::)
IC'~
Ol'v ~
OJ::)
t
r<
,
lOJ
.....>1
R~dbuo
I
Ea.
,,~~
Carter M1n
F T
Ash Lawn'
~ ,~
I/Y9_~~'
llEJ
'---.
~.
.f
\
SP-91-43
~~'GREENBRIER SQUARE LIMITED PARTNERSHII
t:'
r"\
.-'
ALBEMARLE C .JNTY IATTACHMENT 8\
..'
- =--- - Lllnltl 'Lint
!
'II
=
f!
IliA
~
..
..
i
I
.
..
1
i
j
u
'11'
14
Of
N 5P:<i1-43
: GREENBRIER SQUARE liMITED PARTNERSH
- I
'IL
__ . raT
- -
-
.
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 61.
.
IATTACHMENT cl
GREENBRIER SQUARE LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Post Office Box 1465
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(804) 971-8080
MEMORANDUM
m1f '7~ i " ~ .";~:;:'~
" \ "": \. :"" I "<.-' ':.." It, I,:"
~. ~'.." ,'< . '-.' ," ~, I 'f
t. · 'A '..' ',,-.-~,' II \"
.l ~-.;J .....,.:..::,:;; ~~'; , ~
\t ~9
.~ SEP 19 1991
PLANNING D'V1S10N
TO:
Bill Fritz
FROM:
Bruce Murray (;'Ll/;l~vtY
September 12, 1991 v
DATE:
...~ '.," .
. ....t _,,, .:~.~('''~...; ~ .._..;-,...:~ 0.:'
RE: Greenbrier Square (Family Entertainment)
SP-91-43 (Revision of September 11th memo)
In answer to the questions in your letter dated August 29,
1991, please refer to the items below:
1. The hours of operation shall be 10: 00 am to 12: 00
midnight Monday through Thursday; 10:00 am to 2:00 am
Friday and Saturday; 12:00 noon to 10:00 am on Sunday.
2. See attached site plan. Square Footage 4806
3. The Center will be family managed and operated. There
will be approximately 3 part-time employees for varying
times depending on business flow.
4. The church will not continue use.
5. The Center will have a small snack bar selling canned
soft drinks, cold sandwiches and hotdogs.
6.
Canned soft drinks will be sold.
served.
No alcohol will be
7. The Center will contain 14 to 20 Gandy Billiard Tables.
8. The Center will contain a minimal number of video games;
not more than six.
9. For other descriptions and uses please see attached
sheets.
"\~
G)
..-
IATTACHMENT C~Page 21
@
@
NATURE OF PROPOSED USE:
The use of this facility will be a Family Billiard Center.
The Center will contain 14 to 20 Gandy Billiard Tables. These will be
rented at a rate of four dollars per person. This center will also have a
small snack bar selling canned soft drinks, cold sandwiches, and hotdogs. The
Center will contain pool equipment for retail sales, such as pool cues, racks,
balls, cue repair kits, billiard tables, etc. Also, the Center will contain a
minTmal number of video games; not more than six. The reason for this is when
we are running a waiting list for tables the patrons will have some secondary
means of entertainment while they are waiting.
(j)
TRAFFIC IMPACTS BY MODE AND TIME OF DAY:
Since the Center is going into existing retail space, we see no specific
impact on traffic in any way.
Impacts to adjacent uses such as those relating to noise, lighting or sight.
In my opinion there should be little if any impact to adjacent uses. There
will r~t be a great deal of noise either inside the center or outside in the
parking lot. Our main reason for securing this particular space was for its
location in a nice and respectable part of the county. The location was also.
selected because it has a substantial amount of window area so as to monitor
activity outside as well as inside.
CD
DAYS OF THE WEEK AND HOURS OF OPERATION:
The center shall run the following days
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Note: The Sunday hours are
or religious organization,
and hours:
10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
10:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
specifically chosen not to interfere with any church
hence the 12:00 opening time.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PATRONS PER DAY:
The Center will be family managed and operated. There will be approximately
three part-time employees for varying times depending on business flow.
To get an exact figure on patrons is of course difficult with any new busi-
ness but we have projected thirty to forty patrons per day.
IMPACT MITIGATION:
In establishing the Center, we realize there is a commitment involved to
the county residents to see that there is no negative impact to the community.
we have taken steps to try to insure there will be no problems steMming from
this operation. There will be an age limit of 18 years and older unless accom-
panied by a parent or guardian at least 21 years old. We do not want to have
any type of truancy problems to arise as a result of the Center.
We will be enforcing a dress code as follows:
No torn or tattered attire
No soiled or greasy attire
No shirts with offensive statements
flMQ, I
.
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 31
Rules of conduct will be posted and enforced. These will include:
No abusive language
No gambling
No rowdy behavior
No loitering
We sincerely want this to be a place where families with children feel
comfortable and women feel just as comfortable as men.
There will-be no alcoholic beverages sold, nor will patrons who have been
drinking be allowed to come in to play. We believe this will mitigate all
negative impact before there is any problem.
OTHER INFORMATION PERTINENT TO THE REVIEW OF TI-E PROPOSAL:
In the past three years billiards has become a very popular unisex and
family game. We feel that there is a great need for additional recreation in
Albemarle County. This center will provide good wholesome recreation for
families, young people on dates, etc.
The Center intends to hold monthly tournaments for men, women and youths.
We will explore with Parks and Recreation a County tournament once a year.
The Center also will provide recreation for senior citizens and will offer
a 20% discount on table rentals and snack bar products.
We also wish to help community youth groups and will offer a 20% discount
to these organizations as well.
In summation, We believe the Center can be a big plus in recreation for the
community and have tried very hard to insure there will be a pleasant atmo-
sphere for all.
Prepared by:
Patricia Thomas-Cato and James R. Cato
Owners
,.
(;:'-' ---- .--.--' '----:------
, ~ f
r02Q
i VI
l'l\
~
O~O
Gos'
,;;''' ..J/(El~_
IATTACHMENT C~Page 41
.)
R~"
, " . ". :.::: <
,>~. . ' '., ." .... "
I "',,'","" "
". ' '"
. ~< '-...''-,.
i
I
iO
liI
-.::l
!-
:l:l
-<
[,~ '~I
._,' -~~~"~ '-' ~~~
I", ". '
r\\
~J;
~
4i
~I
"
i . -..........'.,..........
'" ,,'-,'.',
i :~'~~~. '''. .-~~ '
l")
~
..,.,
.,.,
,
J
'.. '.:\~.. ',~:SJ
-;.>.:~~".: I
,---
"
1J
:;0
r- m
If 0 .
"
~ t-
S) .; ~
,--<'
"C .1
... (j, ~ ::c l~
c
'" I'. ~
~ '"*' 6' % .~
4- ~ \II i:xl
~. &r IT" !~
(' - C
Q... x. s: I
<> ... ...
~ ~ I~ :-n
... ~ ;
41- " IT-
:r- jc
':) ~ 111"1
~ ~ {\It \~
.. 3 iAl
.~ "'
. ~ I
.. .. I"
"'I ,
v- ~ ,r-
!~
,~
[S.,'....'...."'.
. '!
, ...._.~'. ",1
-,' {:
:c
~'...,.,
, >',"'<'1
- "". '. ~
' .,
I '.
" "I
' '. .,. ...............
i -.............
'''''"'- '. ,"''- '. I
' . ,
" ,
M'"
'. '. " .'.' ""'. . ".
,"""-. ....,'\,...." ".
. "":'., ......., "-~ .
'. - ,- , 'I
' .
I': _' ,,' I
j.,. "-, . ,-'~ '- I
I,...... . -'_"",
I,' .':
I
I.:. '. '- ~,'".'I
tSJ
---"~
L'I
>, ". I
, ' ,
-----l
-,
'. "
"'_. ,..... I
..... ~. ..... i
I . ...., ,". '
i . " ',:,
t-.-.- '. ': ;
[M:-,..':
,... " '- " -"1.
" ....... ""- .... J
'" ' . I
, .
". "" '-<,~
" '-., '--., i
. "'." i
, . LJ-.-.-.-----. ~
iZSJ",. "I . ... I
, ". ~... ,
. '. -.. ... .. '- ~ ;
" ',', .', " "
... ~..... .. - ~
'. '. j ,
D
D~
0;
D!
LJ.~
o
!
-:
co
!
-=
[J
lj
Ii
, j:'
-j..
i
\
o 1
" ,
If\ '"" ;
~ l'
~ m
':J."'-
(,'
ll\
J
, i
I
"1~
!
i.
'l
~
fI:
;-.
r;.
!
) .
, ,
i'
!
~
~
~--
.
-'_.l"'"--~,,.~,"!,,,,,t"':"~~
ffi~ ~'I.","~,;' '~ , ... ...,,": f~..
I ti,.J i :'"':\_~.' .:; ii \J ~ ~-~ '1 ~ 1 ~
\ATTACHMENT Cllpage 51
Background Information on Patricia Thomas-Cato and James R. Cato
- ,....-....- ---.""(,
_..~,,~ -...............n
James R. Cato
Born and raised in southern Virginia. Graduated from St. Christopher's
High School in Richmond, Virginia. In 1970, moved to Charlottesville, Vir-
ginia to attend the University of Virginia. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa in
1974 and entered the Colgate Darden Graduate School of Business. After
graduate school, lived and worked in Charlottesville for four years, before
moving to St. Louis, Missouri. In 1983, moved back to Charlottesville and
worked for University Firestone, Inc. until its acquisition by Merchant's,
Inc. Relocated to Merchant's Inc. headquarters in Manassas, Virginia, where
is now employed as Director of Finance and Administration. Is currently an
officer of the Prince William County Parent Teacher Coalition.
Patricia Thomas-Cato
Lived in Charlottesville from early childhood until adult. Owned and
operated "Kid's Closet", a retail clothing store on the Charlottesville Down-
town Mall. Was employed by Charlottesville City Schools as a teacher's aide.
Last three years has owned and operated a preschool in Manassas, Virginia.
Is currently the P.T.D. president at Bennett Elementary School.
Patty and Jim are the parents of two school age children, Jamie, age 12,
and Ricky, age 10.
Distributed to
'/. ,,/ - LJ I
L:;,Jz-Ll-
",i , ~,
Agenda Item No. ~...:;c
,.., .
i fJ.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DepL of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
-y \iT',' OF f\LBEMARLE:.
; .. . j '\;"::itG.~I1S.tnIEJ ffi"
I;"~ \!il\
l?;I.\ Dti 21 1991 ) IWJIU\1
..U1 '\\ ,I 'I'~""^'i'" "'''''(' .-'Ll.-.'.....-iL. _\ I
,'. ~. t~:'::j t.'::::J '12:.:1 : l: L.:J:,
'BOARD OF SUPERV!SO~S
October 16, 1991
Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
ATTN: Bruce Murray
P. O. Box 1465
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-91-52 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
Tax Map 61U, section 1, Block A, Parcel 5
Dear Ms. Murray:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
October 15, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. There shall be no outside exercise area;
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive.
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday: 5:30 P.M. - 9:00 A.M.
5:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 A.M. Monday
5. There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall
accept animals only on an emergency basis.
6. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of
operation.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
. .
Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership
Page 2
October 16, 1991
comment at their meeting on November 20. 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.
If you should have any'questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
V~d~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDFjjcw
cc: ~~ttie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
. .
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER 15, 1991
NOVEMBER 20, 1991
SP-91-52 GREENBRIER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Petition: Greenbrier Limited Partnership petitions the
Board of Supervisors to permit an emergency veterinary
office on 3.1 acres currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial
[PROFFERED] (ZMA-91-06 is pending). Property, described as
Tax Map 61U, section 1, Block A, Parcel 5, is located on the
north side of Greenbrier Drive approximately 500 feet west
of Route 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This site is located within Neighborhood 1. This site is
within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Character of the Area: This property is the location of
Greenbrier Square. Adjacent properties are developed
commercially. .
~J
ADDlicant's ProDosal: The applicant is proposing to locate
a veterinary office to provide for' emergency care of injured
or ill animals only. The office would be open evenings and
weekends when other vets are unavailable. No routine
appointments will be made. A description of the activity is
provided as Attachment C.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section. 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval of SP-91-52.
Planninq and Zoninq Historv:
January 13, 1984 - Planning Commission approved Pargo's
Restaurant and Office Condominium site plan.
February 14, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended denial
of ZMA-84-32 stating that scope and possibilities of uses
was too broad.
February 20, 1985 - Board of supervisors approved ZMA-84-32.
This action rezoned the property from C-1 to HC with
proffers.
June 11, 1985 - Planning Commission approved Greenbrier Park
site plan.
July 30, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
ZMA-85-18 which amended the previous rezoning to allow
Motels, and approves Super 8 Motel site plan.
1
. .
August 7, 1985 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-85-18.
this added hotels, motels, and inns as an allowed use for
a portion of the site (Proffered).
March 21, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-01
which adds Fast Food Restaurant to the list of allowed uses
(Proffered).
November 7, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-15
which permitted churches.
October 1, 1991 - The Planning Commission recommended
approval of ZMA-91-06, a request to rezone the property to
C-1, Commercial (Proffered) and HC, Highway Commercial
(Proffered).
STAFF COMMENT: This activity will occur during evenings and
weekends when other uses on site will be at a minimum. All
animals will be removed from the site at the beginning of
the following week's first business day. Traffic figures
for this type of use are ~navailable. Staff anticipates
that traffic generation would be extremely low.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
5.1.11 which states in part:
"In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other
uses involving intensive activity such as shopping
centers or other urban density location, special
attention is required to protect the public health and
welfare. To these ends the commission ~nd board may
require among other things:
Separate building entrance and exit to avoid
animal conflicts;
Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from
access by the public by fencing or other means.
No outside exercise area is proposed as all animals would be
ill or injured and would be removed from the site the
following business day. Staff opinion is that separate
entrances are not needed as conflicts are not likely due to
the low volume of use and that only ill animals would be
brought to the site.
2
other items of section 5.1.11 will be met by the applicant.
This use will not affect any residential areas as the
nearest dwelling is approximately aoo feet distant. All
requirements relating to the operation of the clinic such as
x-rays and disposal of deceased animals are addressed by the
approval process of the Board of Veterinary Medicine.
During the review of SP-90-10a (a veterinary clinic in
Pantops Shopping Center), staff prepared information to
address specific concerns stated by the Board'. That
information is included as Attachment D.
It is the opinion of staff that this use is a low traffic
generator which is consistent with past County efforts to
limit traffic on this site. The use will provide a service
to the general public and will not interfere with adjacent
commercial uses. Based on the above comments, staff
recommends approval of SP-91-52 subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. There shall be no outside exercise area;
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive.
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday: 5:30 P.M.' - 9:00 A.M.
5:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 A.M. Monday
.
5. There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall
accept animals only on an emergency basis.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Letter Describing the Use
D - Information Regarding Regulation of Vet Clinics
3
'1 ,,'
;.vdle
, .
\
\i;7';"
"\
\
r7/)//
,'0
I
,~Jooo..' '
\,
<~
(677)-=
IATTACHMENT AI
,/
/"
'~ I
olGll!
J .""),~
\. ' "'x
~ \ \"
~ ~v'" /""
...., ~--, -:;'~,' \1'"'
.J,G!~j - I
"01
\ '6' ' \ .~
" -.. ).~ : "~I
~~.';:,... ---.... ....-~.--., .
, ~ ,;-'-, ' -',,>' , -'~""""'~.
110] , ",..., ~
. 614" '.
,0/
C",O,
'v r
0,.,
[
~81Oi
~-,
\,
"
Re
, f
~~
~'\
:)0
Carter Mln
F T
ASh Lawn'.
r!8ci7l
~.
I::'
,A'?:~,
~
795@'f
76
~ "
~'"
"'<<",
Ci
"",,'
.$:'
\
0>0
/,
~-+'.
/ Nonh Garden
.
I
lih
I
-'-
,,'
SP-91-52 Greenbrier Limited
Partnership
'~
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
"
IIA
l
i
Ita
.,j
J
.f
.... - .
-.. . PUT
- -
-
,
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT
-
IATTACHMENT al
!
ti
..
LI....It.LIIle
-
SP-91-52 Greenbrier ~imited
Partnership
It
I
."
.;,
It.
i
i
,.
SECTION 61-W
IATTACHMENT cl
GREENBRIER SQUARE LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Post Office Box 1465
CharlottesviUe, Virginia 22902
(804) 971-8080
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bill Fritz >,
FROM:
Bruce Murray
DATE:
September 11, 1991
RE:
Greenbrier Square (Vets)
SP 91-52
In answer to your questions in your letter dated August 29,
1991, please see the information below:
1. See attached site plan. Square Footage 2700
2. The hours of operation will initially be from 5:30 pm on
Fridays until 9:00 am on Mondays. They would like to
have the flexibility in the future to operate during non-
business hours on a daily basis.
3. Only injured and ill animals will be boarded on site.
Dr. Betts noted that i.ll animals do not make as much
noise as healthy animals, and that all the animals would
be transferred from the emergency clinic to another
Veterinarian. hospital by s': 00 am of the following
business day.
4. The center will only be used for emergency services. It
may be helpful to explain to the Planners that this
emergency clinic is a consortium of Veterinarian Clinics
and exists only to provide care during their nonbusiness
hours. At all other times the individual clinics have
their own economic incentive to provide treatment at
their own facilities.
5. The clinic will provide any emergency care as needed.
No routine, non emergency care will be offered such as
grooming or boarding.
6. We, as the landlords, will require everything that is
stipulated in SP-90-0S Riverbend Limited Partnership to
be done at Greenbrier Square.
7. section 5.1.11 has stipulations under item D requirements
for outside exercise. Because of the nature of the
operation, we had nqt planned any outdoor exercise area.
,
r
COUNTY OF ALBEIv1ARLE
IATTACHMENT D:
I'vIEill 0 RAI.ND Ul\1
FROM:
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner uf)f
TO:
DATE:
April 12, 1990
RE: '
SP-90-08 Riverbend Limited Partnership
The Board of Supervisors reviewed the above referenced
permit on March 21, 1990 and deferred action in order to
allow staff to address concerns raised by the pUblic. Those
issues and the means of addressing then are as follows:
a. Type of veterinary hospital or clinic. - The proposed
clinic is a small animal care center.
b. Radiation proteotion - The Board of Veterinary Medicine
requires approval from the State Department of Health
for any x-ray equipment. This requirement is similar
to that for dentist and doctor offices.
c. Disposal of deceased animals after hours. - The Board
of Veterinary Medicine requires a freezer unit to be
used exclusively for the storage of deceased animals
awaiting pickup by the SPCA. Other methods of disposal
may be approved.
d. Isolation room location. - The Board of veterinary
Medicine requires the provision of an isolation room.
e. Noise. - Staff review has found no state regulations as
to noise. The City of Charlottesville has required
"that, the building area where animals are housed be
enclosed with walls and window construction having a
sound transmission class of at least 50." Instead of
using City requirements staff would recommend a
specified noise level in adjoining areas (as outlined
in the Airport Impact Area Overlay District) .
IATTACHMENT oJpage 21
Ronald S. Keeler
Page 2
April 12, 1990
f. Airflow and ventilation. - The Board of Veterinary
Medicine requires ventilation in order to insure the
well being of the occupants.
g. Examination of animals outside of the building. - The
Board of Veterinary Medicine requires that all
examinations take place in an examination room.
Emergency examinations are excluded from this
requirement.
h. Concern was raised about spread of infectious diseases
to the adjacent pet shop. Staff discussion with the
Board of Veterinary Medicine indicated that normal
building construction and vet practices would not
promote the spread of infectious diseases to any
adjacent use.
i. Water and sewage requirements. - The site is served by
public water and sewer. The Board of Veterinary
Medicine requires adequate provision for water and
sewage disposal as well as approval by the Health
Department.
J. Disposal of tray chemicals, sharp instruments and
tissue. - The disposal of tissue is addressed by the
Board of Veterinary Medicine in a like manner as
disposal of deceased animals. The Board of veterinary
Medicine has no requirements for the disposal of tray
chemicals or instruments. An Industrial Waste Survey
Form submitted to the Albemarle County Service
Authority will determine if any chemicals can be
disposed of by the public sewage system. Staff
recommends approval of an Industrial Waste Survey Form
prior to commencement of vet activities.
WDF/jcw
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Distributed to SClard: if": Is-elL
A 1 -',
. .~, j.". ,.' .~ ,J"
genda itEm t,'o '1/,; ! /.~ '.. /~.' i?
, . - r.
October 16, 1991
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DepL of Planning & Community Deve!opmenCOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
401 Mclntire Road WI r--:.~.I?...JJ~if11
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 n }J II.lll,
(804) 296-5823 ~\',,~ OCT 21 19911 i II
ll\\\ )!li
Li u ;,t;;;::::Si';-:T u tb illJ
~jc;/\r~ L} ()f Sl..J'~)Ef\'i:S'OqS
Redfields Land Trust
c/o Redfields Development
1 Boars Head Place
P. O. Box 5347
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Corporation
RE: ZMA-91-07 Redfields Development Corporation
Tax Map 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 49, 49B (part) and
Tax Map 76N, Parcels 8B and 8D
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
October 15, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
agreements:
1. Each lot shall comply with current building site
provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50
lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
2. All roads, with the exception of roads A, Band C and
the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards
for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary
System at time of development of those residential
areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, Band C shall be
constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of
Transportation standards for rural cross section and
placed in the Secondary System at the time of
development of the residential areas utilizing those
roads.
3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed
until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been
completed to the satisfaction of the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
Redfields Land Trust
Page 2
October 16, 1991
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed
with Phase I.
5. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms
Subdivision.
6. Not more than 520 total units.
7. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and
C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in
a December 19, 1989 memorandum.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on November 20. 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.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
r
Sinc~e~
1/~ a;:6
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~tie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Frank Cox
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER 15, 1991
NOVEMBER 20, 1991
ZMA-91-07 - REDFIELDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Petition: Redfields Development Corporation petitions the
Board of Supervisors to rezone L~~498 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to PRO, Planned Residential Development and to rezone
7.7 acres from PRO, Planned Residential Development to RA,
and R-1, Residential and 0.7566 acres from R-1, Residential
to PRO, Planned Residential Development. Property,
described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 22A, 23, 49, 49B (part) and
Tax Map 76N, parcels 8B and 80, are located adjacent to
Sherwood Farms and bounded by Sunset Road and I-64 in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located
within a designated growth area and is shown as low density
residential. (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
Character of the Area: Phase I of Redfields is currently
under development. The majority of the site is wooded.
Sherwood Farms is adjacent to the west. Multi-family units
exists to the east. Property to the south is a horse farm.
Interstate 64 and Route 29 border the property to the north
and northeast.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to amend the boundaries of the
Redfields Development approved with ZMA-89-18 (Attachment
C). This amendment does not increase the level of
development. This amendment is to provide for a more
logical development pattern including location of roads and
distribution of lots and open space. ZMA-89-18 allowed a
total of 656 dwelling units with an overall density of 2.38
dwelling units per acre. The applicant's current proposal
reduces density to 1.95 dwelling units per acre and 520
dwelling units. In addition, the applicant has provided
more information regarding the subdivision of the property
and development of the townhomes.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff ha~ reviewed this request for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and ZMA-89-18 and
recommends approval of ZMA-91-07.
1
.
.:',.'::"/...,;.,""~
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
January 17. 1990 - Board of supervisors approved ZMA-89-18,
which rezoned the property to PRD.
November 13. 1990 - The Planning Commission approved
preliminary plat for 34 acres (Phase I).
~, ;.
STAFF COMMENT:
The requirements of ZMA-89-18 required that a buffer be
provided adjacent to Tax Map 76, Parcel 49B. Subsequently,
that buffer area was added to Parcel 49B. The applicant now
proposes to rezone this strip of land from PRO to R-1 which
is the zoning of Parcel 49B. In addition, a strip of land
was added from Parcel 49B to Redfields to allow for better
road alignment. The applicant proposes to rezone this area
from R-1 to PRO. The two areas proposed to be rezoned are
shown as Parcel C and 0 on Attachment D. These areas are to
provide for better lot configuration and basically represent
a land swap. Attachment 0 indicates all areas to be
rezoned.
The application plan submitted by the applicant indicates
145 single family lots and 20 townhouse units. The
applicant also indicates a reduction from 656 units to 520
units. This plan was reviewed by the site Review Committee
and the applicant has revised the plan to address comments
made by the Committee. The road plans have been approved by
the Virginia Department of Transportation. Staff recommends
that all lots, including townhouse units shown on the
application plan, be approved administratively. During the
approval process staff will require modification or deletion
of any lot which is unsuitable for development due to slope.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density
residential development (1-4 dwelling units per acre). This
proposal is consistent with that designation. This proposal
will slightly reduce the residential build out of this area
over the original approval.
Staff opinion is that the proposed rezoning is consistent
with the previous approval for this development, ZMA-89-18,
as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore staff recommends approval subject to the following
agreements:
1. Each lot shall comply with current building site
provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50
lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
2. All roads, with the exception of roads A, Band C and
the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to
2
,~.,,'..
:'~:~:",",' "~
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards
for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary
System at time of development of those residential
areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, Band C shall be
constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of
Transportation standards for rural cross section and
placed in the Secondary System at the time of
development of the residential areas utilizing those
roads'.
3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed
until such time as the Route 631 improvements have been
completed to the satisfaction of the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed
with Phase I.
5. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms
Subdivision.
6. Not more than 520 total units.
7. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and
C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in
a December 19, 1989 memorandum.
(NOTE: These agreements and the application plan replace
the original conditions, proffers and application plan).
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - ZMA-89-18 Action Letter
o - Revised General Development Plan
E - Revised Phasing Plan
3
,
..
#( >~. ": .~---. :...., "" -.... :._":':";~~'-;1'
, ' ~ .\., ,..., ..,~.
. . '~'_ " . ,.. .',';': ~ ,.' ..:. ; .,.:. ~ ,', I .
. f ~ ... ." 0" t"\,. _. ....
. :. ...~. ! :-'1 '.: :... -.- ':t_.. / ..:' .., .:; i..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLJt\';';"(Q llfj .'''''''iJj
\
,
ATTACHMENT A
Engineering Dept. Comments
?L.i\~'.lNiNG DrviS/ON
,.I. . .... .'~
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Fritz, Planner
FROM: Peter J. Parsons , Civil Engineer RJP
DATE:
RE:
December 19, 1989
Redfields Revised Plat (SUB-89-205)
I
We have reviewed the above noted preliminary plat. The following
comments are based upon site review comments which do not appear
to be adequately addressed:
a).' Additional 50' septic and building setbacks from streams will
likely be necessary, and should therefore be shown on the
preliminary plat.
b) The note regarding 30' drainage, easements over all streams and
drainage courses has not been added.
c) The issue of access for lots 23A and 22D has not been
addressed.
fa). The proposed layout of storm sewers appears grossly
inadequate.
e) Utility easements have not been delineated.
f) The minimum design speed- .for road "L" is 25 mph. under current
VDOT standards.
It is our recommendation that curb and gutter be required on
all of the proposed roads. The applicant, however, is proposing
curb and gutter on all roads with the exception of roads "A" and
"B", the collector streets. While our previous recommendation
remains unchanged, if a rural cross-section is allowed for the
collecto+ roads, entrances should be .strictly limited as shown on
the preliminary plat, and all lots should access "internal" roads
only.
( (
: \'\
.~ .- .,
~l;.
16011 '
'\ ".
\
.., 170431 (,
7\;;1
'.~ ~ _",.<: I
<r'" ;/,'
-(<'<,"/ ,..
_,y. '/ Ii
~
'IATTACHMENT AI
0'"
~
Forminglo
Country (
'w~-
/1
M
~\..
~
;(
f
f
.~ ______ ,-
l/ -
~'/ ~~~.
1
~~.
~-
~"-,
...!
:,~fI/
,,";
)
-,,~
ZMA-91-07
REDFIELDS DEV.
Blenhe im
~.O~~
~ .... ?'"---- Wnn
!70;r - ~
/
/
~~?
~l ':
,~~
"'l
_l.,
....
,
."
--
r::':71 / /11 ~
.~,-..".
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
IATTACHMENT 8\
60
~
Q
"
".~<?_- "-
~~ i
""'If ~.p
ITf r~-
J/f I\. / ~
i/fJ/' \, ~
~, I ~ 'I
J --...f J ~
L -1 1 I ~,
J I '"
I ./ I ,/x"
~, I I I r );:
, I ~
j '\ \-j 7
t\~l\ __~./.// '~.l '."'1J-~~. ·
"l"/ "l"/ r- .'., .::.~
':%:1 " . ' ~7
l} ~_Ecn::c/ "l"~~l; ( #' ~Y"A '\
1St< ".Ul \_ 8ECcoIR ESTATES ~'1' r ~'--:8 !-.s~'.
100111 ~y . "-.J 3 \" ~
'l 'V "'0
~ 10EliT> ""\ .............)::;_ \. ./' -- _ __
b- ~~::-r//./ ~~r~ ~ { ) .Li-;::'-- --.........
- / ~/. i kr -:t. ...... '--
--+- \ 10Er.l, " /"" """" ...........
/ I, /"///.//'l'./ Ii ______ / l./ .........
f I ~/////./- """ U \ 4 .
/ r If ~ECTION 76H - 10112'\ / ""'-
'. '. 10C Ir C~ERTY HICC IOf~' 2' 1 (/;; /:)".
.~, .~J "l"/- '" 5 i
.. to .., j
,1~~- ::,,1 .~
11"r53'<.,,; ~~r~1 . . 10HIS, '~ f 1(r (\ ,!
,... ~ I08W)'
13 I 138' ~ ;:::.:: _ . "
~'20~); CI;:::':: C~l/ 05 \~, "-
U~~~NG' "'V, '/ / - ..,;
HAM V
~~ ~ !
. 8~MOROC" ;Y J 8
~~TS " SMO '"
~, ."Z"\,,,,,"~ ~ " 29 "..
~ ~~ 17A
75 j \~~~~. SECTION;~ ~ T
"'""'7' /' 19 ~ h/N5'~ HICC/ ili r-
-;l /'.L:....... _ ~/ ~ '"
/ /Y'~ >-..- ~ y ,/,' /" ,/
~'~k\~~ '- \,r....f'8""1\ ~ )\
228 24 240~ '!j.'I17 \~. 1 \,
~ 2'--... e;'-' ~ I'
~ A ,.\:~'> 1\;0 / \. ,,,... / ..........
~ \ 44 I 1 ~ "'~.;}
". ". /.~ * \ (t.==1 r ,r-
sEcn::7.:; / (f'AA \~~ ~4j."eo~.s'-'4" ,;':>-'7' )/7'0.-/' /Il' ".~'
%H~;OO~R~ r'/ 2''-' '-1.~~ eo 468, 45d ~cor /II/ /~
'// 'i/:- ~ ',-"""" - ~ 4SC \~ 71 -~, . ~- ~
~ ~ '------ ..''':: 'l. ''1~il. ~ Lio,_ ~/55 ~ ~II
% :~@! ~ .'0'-.- ~ ~~~;;;~ ..-
- ~ ~ ~
...............J' ~ c.,. o~, 7 -----~ - #' ~
'---'t F f\ ./ , ~~ ~ ,h/
'.. 0' 54"""" .... ~~..:; n: =-
46E' 4 .. ," J /' 1:!.~~8 ~X~.
49 .~~~! -.'. L./. 'RtQ,'631 4~SA//1 ^<~.fI.r::" I/(~'/;/
~ /1 '~'~~15ZP ~ ... / / ' ,.' ///
,/ . .52J. Ii ,', 54P;. '\.~7 f// '//1. ~
498 'L-.' " 52C " ," . . .:~ ~ <I" W- ~ .
r~ ----, - .0'~ :~ ?~:/:~':r~',:"// . ~/. 0 ~'-iii'
,~ .YO 53;Tl ..' -L:L'~ ~
! ~~52 'J, ....s . '..
, ) 1...1C '/8' oJ' 2< sJ '" '_ ZMA-91-07
~, .r-'-+' ........ 5311 REDFIELDS DEVELOPMENT CORP.
I ~ ........ ~ 5J.-
,,/'v' \ ~' ~{.gJf; ~~ ~://////,//I/I////////^')<,,"'-'-'-'-"""""'''MILL cREF.A<"..~~"'~
I
la
1761
/
Y I I
I I /
I /
7 1""""'-::::;
7 ..f/~
'-... ,7 ~ -,..r-
,,"7 ~~
v' ~'J' \
~~ '
.-'~ \/
/ ............~ \ '.1
~~v._ \ I
'j .............~ \ \
~\ ~ ../
JL~OLJ1'tl~ ~
~,
.7
./ CITY
<-'\, ff
.. 'V';?
~~~
,r:+-~
...........~~
-L
\
OF
, CHARLOTTESVILLE
\
,
\
\
\
\
.........
.............
.....,
"-
'\
77
-.......
"'--
r/,
64
:::::=9
~
E ~""MIII.::!'7'MI2S:=
.I
-
_ .x
,,- -;:::- f
-....
90
SCALE IN FEET
SAMUEL MILLER, SCOTTSVILLE
SECTION 76
. ,".~'..
.',
IATTACHMENT cl
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
'. 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
January 22, 1990
Gaylon Beights
246 East High street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-89-18 Redfields Development
Tax Map 76, Parcels 21A, 22A, 23, 24B, 47, and 49
Dear Mr. Beights:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
January 17, 1990, unanimously approved the above-noted
request to rezone 276 acres from R-1, Residential to PRD,
Planned Resi~~ntial Development, r~sulting in 656 lots.
Property, located adjacent to Sherwood Farms, and bounded by
Sunset Road and I-64.
The Board approved Zl1A-89-18 subject to the conditions as
amended, and addendum as recommended by the Planning
commission; as proffered in a letter dated December 3 1989,
to Wayne Cilimberg signed by Frank D. Cox, Jr., verbally
verified by the applicant before the Board on January 17,
and deleting proffer #4 in said letter. The conditions as
recommended are set out below:
1. Each lot shall comply with current building site
provisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50
lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
2. All roads with the exception of roads A and B and the
private road to serve lot 106 shall be built to
Virginia DeparJcment of Transportation (VDOT) sti:::wdards
for urban cross section and placed in the Secondary
System at time of development of those residential
areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be
constructed in accordance with VDOT standards for rural
cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the
time of development of the residential areas utilizing'
"those roads.
, ,...~~.
.
IATTACHMENT cl~age ~
",':~.:.. -::"">
Gaylon Beights
Page 2
January 22, 1990
3. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed
until such time as the Rt. 631 improvements have been
completed to the satisfaction of the Departmentjof
Planning & Community Development;
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed
with Phase 1;
5. There shall be only single family detached dwellings
south of road L.
6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A and B
in accordance with Engineering comments in attached
memorandum (Attachment A) dated December 19, 1989;
7. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2, and 3 found in
Attachment D which read:
1. A reduction in total residential units from 867 to
656 dwellings;
2. A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14
to 2.38 units/acre; and
3. A maximum neighborhood density not to exceed 4.0
un~ts/acre in any given 'residential neighborhood
or development phase.
8. Compliance with conditions of addendum as follows: A
revised application plan in accordance with section
8.5.5 of the zoning Ordinance is required and shall
include the following:
1. Setbacks for single family detached lots shall be
25 feet front setback, 15 feet side setback and 20
feet rear setback. (Note side setback may be
reduced to not less than six feet in accordance
with section 4.11.3.1) This shall be noted on the
plan on Page 1 note 9b;
2. Note on the plan that only single family detached
units will be located south of road L. A 20-foot
strip of common open space shall be provided
adjacent to Tax map 76, Parcel 49B. The open
space strip shall include a landscape easement to
allow for Tax Map 76, Parcel 49B, to install
screening trees. A 20-foot rear setback shall
extend from the open space/landscape strip;
..<..
. ,
.'
IATTACHMENT CllPage 3\
I
~ .,; t'. . "J...' ,.}'oc<
Gaylon Beights
Page 3
January 22, 1990
3. Revise the following notes on page one:
,.;
a. Remove RPC and replace with PRD in note 9b;
b. Note 11 must delete the following "and shall
conform with Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) residential subdivision street design
standards in effect as of the date of PRD
Development Plan approval."
c. Delete Note 19. Staff does not support
administrative approval of the final plats or site
plans. Staff does request administrative approval
of the final subdivision plats for Lots 1 through
104.
d. Revise land use notes to include Phase 6 as Open
Space;
e. Total number of lots is 656, not 658;
4. Remove all preliminary plat notes found on sheet 5a,
and 9;
5. Revise the following notes on sheet 9:
a. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must
refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority
and'not County standards; and
b. Total number of lots is 656, not 658;
6. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must
refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority and not
County standards as found on sheets 10, 11, and 12;
9. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms
Subdivision.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Direct of Plann' & Community Development
VWC/jcw
cc: Kathy Dodson
Richard Moring
Jeff Echols
Frank Cox
DATE
AGENDA ITEM NO.
AGENDA ITEM NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form. 3
7/25/86
'/htWrxlwu (~ 0 J I q q;
/
q). 111~().1q1
, ~ i' >, ~{C 1lu..2tf14i (j-IJ O.Jx.ctl!Lrtuu.F
i R '_ Cj ) -G 3 ".I/..- ~4v! ZM.:. ':{Jat<- '1 ilr.JPm 1
'm.,;t17'.4 .. _ 1/a e. / I l~--:J7J'U
"r~f!1lj 5, (09)
u /
Distributed to Board: ) j -;::5" 'j I
Ap-endtl Item No, q I. if 1..3, ? ?_~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
':". ':-:.; L
John G, Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
. ' . - .
I ~,
,(~j r86-8032
J:::91TDD (~' r86-7765
. . ~ : 1
November 4, 1991
i....:... \
, , ')\" .,
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowie:
This letter is intended to reply in more detail to your
letter of August 1. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
is committed to the sequence of construction as set forth in the
CTB's November 15, 1990, resolution.
The CATS Plan is an approved Plan for the Charlottesville -
Albemarle County area and it is the intent of the Department and
the CTB to carry out that Plan as funding on the primary system
becomes available. To keep the Plan on schedule, however, it
will be necessary for the City of Charlottesville to keep its
projects at a high priority and for Albemarle County to schedule
the secondary projects in the CATS Plan.
It was never the intent of the CTB or the Department that
the CATS Plan not be carried out as currently proposed, provided
funding was available. However, the Department and the CTB
believe that a Route 29 Bypass is an integral and important part
of the regional transportation plan and will be needed in the
future, even with the implementation of the CATS Plan.
with those general comments in mind, I would like to review
the status of the three phases included in the CTB's November 15,
1990, resolution which were also addressed in your letter of
August 1.
Phase I. Short-ranae Recommendations: The widening of Existing
Route 29 to six lanes with continuous right-turn lanes from the
Route 250 Bypass to the south Fork of the Rivanna River will be
accomplished by two projects as shown on Page 38 (Items 3 and 4)
of the 1991-92 Six-Year Improvement Program. The first project
from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is scheduled for
construction in July 1993 and the second project, from Rio Road
to the river, is scheduled for advertisement in July 1994, all
subject to available funding. The design work is currently
underway.
, .
.
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
November 4, 1991
Page Two
As additional funding becomes available and scheduling
permits, a design will be prepared for three interchanges to be
added to the Base Case. The design of these interchanges is, of
course, subject to public hearings and CTB approval. The
preservation and acquisition of right-of-way for each element of
the Plan was part of Phase I. If this Plan is to succeed the
County and the City must do everything possible to preserve the
right-of-way required for the construction of the Base Case, the
three interchanges and the Line 10 Corridor approved by the CTB.
The refinement of Alternative 10 is currently underway, and
a preliminary plan (functional plan) will be provided to
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to assist in the
preservation of right-of-way along that corridor.
After the design has been approved and right-of-way plans
are prepared, and subject to available funding, VDOT will
consider acquiring property which meets the Department's
requirements for advanced right-of-way acquisition along
Alternative 10.
In order to work with the County in the protection of the
watershed, access points on Alternative 10 will be limited to
those approved by the CTB when the corridor was designated,
unless additional access is requested by the local government.
Phase II. Medium-ranqe Recommendations: Three grade-separated
interchanges along Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road
will be built when traffic conditions dictate and funding is
available. The construction of each interchange is subject to
approval of the design after public hearings are held during
Phase I so that right-of-way for the interchanges can be
preserved.
Phase III. Lonq-ranqe Recommendations: It is the intent of the
CTB and the Department to construct Alternative 10 when traffic
on Route 29 becomes unacceptable and funding permits.
You asked us to consider how this commitment to the CATS
Plan and the phasing of projects might be solidified. The
following sequence of activity spells out that commitment and I
would be pleased to seek CTB ratification of this specific
sequencing if the Board of Supervisors requests I do so. Of
course, the commitment of the Board and the City Council to each
do its part is necessary as well.
1. The widening of Route 29 to six lanes, with
continuous right lanes from the Route 250
Bypass to the south fork of the Rivanna
River. This is currently being designed.
.
, '
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
November 4, 1991
Page Three
2. The remainder of Phase I contained in the
CTB's resolution of November 15, 1990.
3. The completion of the Meadowcreek Parkway
from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 north
as urban and secondary road funding becomes
available for the facility's right-of-way
acquisition and construction cost.
4. The construction of the interchanges on Route
29 north at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and
Greenbrier Drive as traffic demands and
funding permits.
5. The preservation and acquisition of right-
of-way for Alternative 10. This will be
accomplished as funding is available for this
established corridor's right-of-way
acquisition and construction.
In closing, I trust that this letter assures the County of
the Department's and the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
commitment to the construction of the CATS Plan and that the
County will assist the Department in preserving right-of-way for
the approved corridor for the Route 29 Bypass.
If the contents of
if the County wishes to
necessary right-of-way,
draft resolution before
this letter meet with your approval and
move forwa~d with the preservation of
I would be jpleased to bring the attached
the CTB fo# its con9firrence.
;
i
'"
""",-""..
sin erely,
I, I/J~, /\/",/ill"., ___
j\-.tl' / . ,~--,
ohn G. 1 liken
"',
JGM/cmg
Attachment
cc: Ms. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Richard L. Walton, Jr., Esquire
r.
Moved by
, Seconded by
, that
WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board,
the Commonwealth Transportation Board by resolution dated November
15, 1990, approved the location of Project 6029-002-122, PE-100 in
three phases; and
WHEREAS, the three phases provided for short range, medium
range, and long range recommendations for the construction of the
project in conjunction with other projects in the city of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated August 1, 1991, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors has requested that this Board take positive
steps to commit to the priorities which were set forth in the
Board's resolution of November 15, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the orderly development and
funding of the various projects in accordance with the three phases
as set forth in the Board's resolution of November 15, 1990, is in
the pUblic interest; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that state and local
transportation priorities should be harmonized where possible; and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Board that the Department of
Transportation adhere to the schedule of improvements as set forth
in the November 15, 1990, resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Board strongly believes that the Route 29 Bypass
(Alternative 10) should be constructed in concert with the
construction of the CATS Plan; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
direct the Department of Transportation to take all steps and make
~ .
all effort to complete the projects approved in its resolution of
November 15, 1990, as more fully set out in a letter to F. R. Bowie
dated November 4, 1991, from John G. Milliken, which is attached
hereto and made a part of this resolution.
l
{' ~ .
.
'-->.7,
,* ,,'
i
F. R (Rick) Bowie
Rivdnna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
Charlotli! y, Humphns
lclCV. .Jouett
Edward H. Baln, Jr.
Samuel Miller
Walter F Perkins
Whit", Hall
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Peter T Way
Scollsvill"
November 22, 1991
The Honorable John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Milliken:
We have received your letter of November 4 and the Board of
Supervisors would like to thank you for your personal efforts in
clarifying issues of grave concern to us. As you know, the coun-
ty's position has always been, and still is, that the western
bypass, or in fact any bypass, is not required and that if all of
the CATS improvements are completed, this will become evident. Our
objections heretofore were not so much with the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board's (CTB) formal resolution of November 15, 1990, but
with "side comments" made by some at the public hearing that
Alternative 10 might be constructed before the CATS Plan is com-
pleted. Your letter and the proposed clarifying resolution goes a
long way in alleviating these concerns.
On October 24, 1991, the three local jurisdictions (Albemarle
County/City of Charlottesville/University of Virginia) reconvened
the Joint Transportation Committee to discuss our positions on the
whole Route 29 North problem. You will be pleased to know that the
Committee is recommending that we pass a joint resolution similar
to the CTB's position and confirming our desires on the sequencing
of construction. Our resolution will go beyond the CTB's in that
both the County and the City will include cooperative efforts on
the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway and the University
will include the construction of the connector road from the bypass
to the North Grounds. When approved by the three separate bodies,
this will become part of our CATS Plan.
We do have the following specific comments or suggestions on
your letter and the proposed resolution:
o Letter, Page 1 - Phase I, Short-range Recommendations -
We feel that the design for widening of Route 29 from the
Route 250 bypass to Rio Road should facilitate the later
..
J" r.
,....
..
The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 22, 1991
Page 2
construction of the grade-separated interchanges at Rio,
Greenbrier and Hydraulic Roads. It would seem far more
economical to design Route 29 in this manner at this time
than to have to redo part of the construction for the
interchanges. The early design of these interchanges
will also aid the County and City in the preservation of
the necessary right-of-way.
o Letter, Page 2 - Phase II, Medium-range Recommendations -
Since the three grade-separated interchanges are to be
built before Alternative 10, it is requested that the
design of the interchanges and acquisition of right-of-way
based on hardship proceed in the same manner as is being
done for Alternative 10.
o Letter, Page 3 - Final paragraph - With the above comments,
the letter does meet the approval of the County. We are
concerned, however, with the comment that the County
should "move forward with the preservation of necessary
right-of-way" since we have no way to do that except
through the purchase of land, for which we have no
resources. The County will participate in making develo-
pers aware of any proposed rights-of-way needs, including
the bypass in our CATS Plan and working with developers
on any proposed land use change. We trust you are aware
of our legal limitations.
o Resolution, Final "WHEREAS" - We suggest the following
wording be substituted: "WHEREAS, the Board strongly
believes that the Route 29 Bypass should be constructed
in concert with the remaining construction projects of
the CATS Plan after Phase 1 and Phase 2 recommendations
of the Board's November 15, 1990, resolution have been
completed.
Again, we would like to extend this Board's thanks to you for
your personal efforts in resolving the uncertainties, misunderstand-
ings and concerns which have plagued Albemarle County for decades.
We look forward to receiving the CTB's resolution which hopefully
will put this matter to rest. We believe that the final solution
will be in the best interest of the citizens of the local communi-
ties as well as the Commonwealth in general.
Sincerely,
d!e~
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:ec
cc: Ms. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
r
,
"
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
Charlotte Y Humphris
,JdCI<. Jouett
Edward H. Bain, Jr
Samuel Miller
Walter F Perkins
Whit\:' Hall
F. R IRick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scolt5ville
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: F. R. Bowie, Chairman JU/ec.-
DATE: November 12, 1991
SUBJECT: Route 29 North, Alternative 10
Attached is a draft response to Secretary Milliken's letter of
November 4, 1991. This item is scheduled for discussion under
Highway Matters on November 13.
FRB:ec
Attachment
r- 'W
, J, ..
j. .
b) DO;jrd~ _ J t i _ ' :
;;0. (!I.-IiiJ.-Zl?:
DRAFT
November 14, 1991
The Honorable John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Milliken:
We have received your letter of November 4 and the Board of
Supervisors would like to thank you for your personal efforts in
clarifying issues of grave concern to us. As you know, the coun-
ty's position has always been, and still is, that the western
bypass, or in fact any bypass, is not required and that if all of
the CATS improvements are completed, this will become evident. Our
objection heretofore were not so much with the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board's (CTB) formal resolution of November 15, 1990, but
with "side comments" made by some at the public hearing that
Alternative 10 might be constructed before the CATS Plan is com-
pleted. Your letter and the proposed clarifying resolution goes a
long way in alleviating these concerns.
On October 24, 1991, the three local jurisdictions (Albemarle
county/City of Charlottesville/University of virginia) reconvened
the Joint Transportation Committee to discuss our positions on the
~~ ~
~
The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 14, 1991
Page 2
whole Route 29 North problem. You will be pleased to note that the
Committee is recommending to the three jurisdictions that we pass a
joint resolution similar to the CTB's position and confirming our
desires on the sequencing of construction. Our resolution will go
beyond the CTB's in that both the County and the City will include
cooperative efforts on the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway
and the University will include the construction of the connector
road from the bypass to the North Grounds. When approved by the
three separate bodies, this will become part of our CATS Plan.
We do have the following specific comments or suggestions on
your letter and the proposed resolution:
o Letter, Page 1 - Phase I, Short-range Recommendations -
We feel that the design for widening of Route 29 from the
Route 250 bypass to Rio Road should facilitate the later
construction of the grade-separated interchanges at Rio,
Greenbrier and Hydraulic Roads. It would seem far more
economical to design Route 29 in this manner at this time
than to have to redo part of the construction for the
interchanges. The early design of these interchanges
will also aid the County and City in the preservation of
the necessary right-of-way.
o Letter, Page 2 - Phase II, Medium-range Recommendations -
Since the three grade-separated interchanges are to be
built before Alternative 10, it is requested that the
design of the interchanges and acquisition of right-of-way
.,. ..'
The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 14, 1991
Page 3
based on hardship proceed in the same manner as is being
done for Alternative 10.
o Letter, Page 3 - Final paragraph - with the above comments,
the letter does meet the approval of the County. We are
concerned, however, with the comment that the County
should "move forward with the preservation of necessary
right-of-way" since we have no way to do that except
through the purchase of land, for which we have no
resources. The County will participate in making develo-
pers aware of any proposed rights-of-way needs, and
including the bypass in our CATS Plan and working with
developers on any proposed land use change. We trust you
are aware of our legal limitations.
o Resolution, Final "WHEREAS" - We suggest the following
wording be substituted: "WHEREAS, the Board strongly
believes that the Route 29 Bypass should be constructed
in concert with the remaining construction projects of
the CATS Plan after Phase 1 and Phase 2 recommendations
of the Board's November 15, 1990, resolution have been
completed.
Again, we would like to extend this Board's thanks to you for
your personal efforts in resolving the uncertainties, misunderstand-
ings and concerns which have plagued Albemarle County for decades.
We look forward to receiving the CTB's resolution which hopefully
r .,-
The Honorable John G. Milliken
November 14, 1991
Page 4
will put this matter to rest. We believe that the final solution
will be in the best interest of the citizens of the local communi-
ties as well as the Commonwealth in general.
Sincerely,
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:ec
Dist_iliAjl~U LJ E'-J41iC' ,__...~
;.'" . '. .
~eoua I.o;ml ~, ,~"____,,,,_,
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Charlotte Y Humphris
,LKk ,Jow:'tt
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scottsville
FROM:
Members, Board of Supervisors
F. R. Bowie, Chairmanl~J3
TO:
DATE:
November 8, 1991
SUBJECT:
Route 29 North, Alternative Ten Sequence
On August 7, the Board approved our letter of August 1 to
Secretary Milliken concerning the Alternative Ten sequence of
construction. Attached is the response from the Secretary of
Transportation. I have placed it on the agenda for discussion
under Highway Matters for Wednesday, November 13. At the Wednesday
meeting, we will have a draft response also for discussion.
Should any supervisor have substantive comments, please notify
either Bob Tucker or me by Tuesday, November 12.
FRB:ec
Attachment
V' /;(1 S
nt {f.,-,..u-c ..c. ___
/ 1/2.. <.J / 'f / eWC!.-
ANALYSIS
of
CATS FUNDING. PRIMARY and SECONDARY ROAD PROGRAMS
by
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Supervisor, Jack Jouett District
November 20. 1991
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Meeting
County Office Building. McIntire Road
Charlottesville. VA 22901
REMARKS: CATS, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY ROAD PROGRAMS
NOVEMBER 20. 1991
During the years that I served on the MPO Technical Committee and
since I have been a member of this board. it has seemed to me that some
planning and informational tools were needed for decision making that
we did not have.
Never was this more evident to me than during the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's meetings concerning the proposed Alternative 10
Bypass at Natural Bridge in October.1990 and in Manassas in November.
1990. I felt that. had we been able to put into the hands of the CTB
members the correct information which they needed for proper decision
making but were not provided by their staff. the decision would surely
have been different. But all we could do was to say. "That isn't
correct." We had no data to support our position.
This bothersome situation surfaced for me again with the recent
proposals of Secretary Milliken for changes in the way transportation
improvements are to be funded and implemented in our localities. When
the Secretary makes more specific proposals. we need the tools which
will allow us to know how we in Albemarle County will be affected. how
our CATS and secondary and primary road programs will be affected.
I propose a starting point by suggesting the compilation of data
in ways which provide us with a better road map. so to speak, something
TABLE 1
1. Of the 27 CATS proiects:
a. only 10 are Secondary
b. 7 are Primary
c. 10 are Urban (City)
2. Of the 27 CATS projects:
a. 17 are required to relieve 29 North traffic
b. 10 are not required to relieve 29 North Traffic
(such as # 22. for example, Madison Ave. Extd.)
3. OnlY 6 CATS proiects. of the 17 required to relieve 29 North
traffic. are not in any 6 Year ProQram. not planned or allocated.
1. # 18 - Rio Road/250 Connector (circled)
2. # 19 - Rio Rd./29N Interchange
3. # 21 - Georgetown Road
4. # 23 - Hydraulic Rd./29N Interchange
5. # 26 - Hydraulic Rd./250 Bypass Interchange
6. #27 - Meadowcreek PkwY./Rio Rd. to 29N
Only 3 of these are in the County Secondary ProQram:
Rio Road/250 Connector; Georgetown Road; Meadowcreek
Parkway.
One of these is an Urban ProQram: Hydraulic Road/250 Bypass
Interchange
Two are in the Primary System: Rio. and Hydraulic Rd./29N
Interchanges.
TABLE 4
NOTE: The $43.5 million Cost of 9 Remaininq CATS Secondary
Projects includes $8.2 million for the Rio/250E Connector.
Therefore. that amount is likely to be reduced. We need to
deal with this soon.
These 9 proiects are:
5 CATS Secondary Projects Planned in the 6-year Proqram.
Funds Not Yet Allocated:
1. Hydraulic from Lambs Rd. to Rio Rd. - $ 1,540
2. Meadowcreek Parkway NCL to Rio Road - 5.149
3. Rio Road. Rt. 29 N to Hydraulic Rd. 3.274
4. Rt. 631. Rt. 706-Rt. 1103 2,878
5. Greenbrier Extd. Whitewood/HYdraulic - 1.188
TOTAL = $14.029
4 CATS Secondary Projects Not Yet Planned as of FY 91-92:
1. Rio Road/250E Connector - $ 8.200
2. Georgetown Rd./Hydraulic/Barracks 1.900
3. Rt. 637 Ivy/250W/I64 2.300
4. Meadowcreek Pkwy/Rio Rd./29N 17.100
TOTAL = $29.500
TOTAL REMAINING CATS SECONDARY PROGRAM COST = $43.5 MILLION
Question- Where did this money QO?
CONCLUSION:
From my analysis. it is very obvious that. if projected funding is
accurate, we can easily complete our CATS Secondary Program. all of the
County's projects on our priority list. and have additional funds
available for other projects. This is vastly different from what the
Commmonwea1th Transportation Board was led to believe.
I have provided copies of this material for all of the Board
members. for Bob Tucker and staff members. I hope that. after yOU have
had time to look it over and digest it. we can discuss it at a Board
meeting at some future date.
Perhaps yOU will feel it is a start for a format that could be of
help to us. And. of course. staff and Board members may have
corrections. suggestions. additions.etc. to make. It is obvious that
we need a "DATE TABLE" which shows scheduling for every project and
other tables similar to what I have presented which give an easily
understandable overview of funding of all projects. Primary. Secondary
and Urban. This is merely a start on something I think could be useful
to us. In any event. I plan to keep these tables updated for my own
use.
Thank yOU for your time and for your attention.
HODGE COMMENTS ON TIMING OF CATS
CTB work session. November 14. 1990 - Manassas
.1.
become
p.l0)
So
sooner
therefore.
than we
we
are
feel
able
that the need for the Bypass will probably
to accomplish the CATS plan." (Transcript,
2_
we're talking about 25 to 30 years to finish the CATS plan that I
indicated to you are mostly secondary roads (Transcript, p.10)
3. dropping,
p. 18)
but the
probably
CATS plan, with the current funding process. which is
is not going to be in place for 30 to 40 ... " (Transcript,
" and with 2.6 million dollars a year, it's at least 30 years before
4. it can be completed." (Transcript, p.19)
"
Yes. the CATS plan is definitely not going to make it by the year
and it's definitely not going to make it by the year 2010." (Transcript,
5.
2000,
p.20)
6.
" I don't
(Transcript, p.30)
see
the
CATS plan being finished in a timely fashion."
CTB meetin~, November 15, 1990 - Manassas
"
'"l little
because
"
8. plans
that's
As we discussed in great detail about the CATS plan,it is very
likelihood that it will be in effect for the next 20 to 30 years ...
funding capabilities and prioritie~ have been set." (Transcript. p.43)
They were initially made with the assumption that all of the CATS
could be in effect. As we discussed with you yesterday, in detail. ...
a virtual impossibility." (Transcript, p.45)
Cf. in effect."
We feel that it will be needed with a lack of the CATS plan being
(Transcript, p.50)
10.
" looking at the money, that I explained yesterday with the CATS
plan, and having the CATS plan in effect by 2010, ... a virtual impossibility.
(Transcript. p.53)
CTB meetin~, March 20, 1991 - Richmond
1/.
it would take an additional 18 years beyond the current six year
plan or to the year 2016 to fund the secondary projects in the CATS plan."
(Presentation to the CTB. p.8)
II . . . questions raised regarding the funding, and may take 30 years to
/2. fund all of the projects." (Presentation to the CTB, p.11)
Iii
lB
.....
~
....J
a:J
~
(J)
I--
e(
()
o
lJJ
Z
z
:5
a..
I-
lJJ
>-
o
Z
:ii
~ ~ e '
Iii ::Jf<it
>-
u..
~
::J ~ 5
n ~ ~
II)
~ ~
N 'q' E I
~ ,r 'it
"5
:>
o
::J
I--
(J)
Z
o
i=
~
a::
o
0-
(J)
Z
c(
a::
I--
L5
a::
c(
w
.....J
.....J
>
(J)
W
I--
I--
9
a:
c(
::I:
()
ll)
co
0)
T""
c::
III
e ' ,
::J'it
~ j ~
o _
tl ~ ,
~'it
ID
~ a;
N
~ ~ t'l
~ ~ Iii
g a, t
ci! E '0
I- Il. '"
o >= III
~ ID U
fa .s ~
z a:
~
a..
:: t'l i ,
. ,r !<it
:ii
o ql ~ e .
~ Iii ::J f<it
<(~>-
u 0 ~
o e c
:J Il. ::l
~
o >= ~
lJJ ID II)
~ ~ 0
:5 a:
Il. t'l
~ ~
/tf
ID j tll
o ~
tl
~f<it
t'l i ,
,r'it
w
U CIl
cr:u..o
::J 0 Z
a ::J
CIl u..
~
~
<0-
~
~
~
, C'i
o
"
iP. co
1\1 (1j
N
I
,I,
~ 8
v ...:-
~
l"-
N
C'i
<0
"
C'i
~
o
8
~
al
"
al
N
8 ~
~ al
..:/tf
~
l"-
N
~
I~'
ID
C'i
~ ~,OO'~
,@,
,~
~ ,~ ~I
~I
/tf'
8
"
~
'!)
N
ai
~
Iti
iil
u
~
Iti
~
, ~
~
C'i
~
1ii
~
Iti
8
~
ai
~
g gee e e g a..~ g g e tl e ~ e tl tl tl ~ e tl e tl
oooo~~~~oo ~OO~&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lJJ >-'"
U I- a
cr: u.. CIl u.. ID
i5a8~
CIl CIl
>=>=>=>=~>=>=>=
co co ID co co co co co
::J ::J ::J CIl Il. CIl CIl a..
. .
I- I-
a a
o 0
> >
E <i! l-
I- CIl
ti a a
lJJ I- U
g [(l CD
~ ~ a
~;C1
[F < <
~~~~~~~~g=
00 ~ ~ 5 ~ _ ~r ~ ~ u
~ N .." I,,'J "'"" 5:
<
~ 8 s N
CiS <ii
~- ;- ~ ttf
::E
o
a::
u..
en
I--
()
W
a
a::
0-
u.
o
(J)
::J
I--
~
(J)
o
.,.
E
g
~~dd ~d~ 0;
~~~~~~~~
ilfj~q~~uZ-J~
1l~iDlii III Cf
~II~ ~~ ~
.9 u
~ z
a:
I-
U
lJJ
a
cr:
a..
~ If
ticr:ti~~ .~~
cr: ...::l ilf u u
ggCllc. ~~
i~~~~gg
-c -0 E ~ .s <<I co
rr~N~~~
g. ~ ~ t::
~2a:8
l~@~
..x:: .2 oW ~
ti3q::lQ
~ '" -J II
o is u
1il >- lJJ
.. =t=
~ z
~ 1<l
N Ii
II
.c:
t
o
Z ti
cr:~ ~
Cf
lJJ lJJ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
CfIIIIII
-J
" u _
1O ~ CIl
..... (/) ii
q: :fl E
~ ~ ~
~lIl.:J
iD~~
~ ~
~
>=~>=~. ~... ~. .
ID a co co 5 III ~ 5 5 III a 5 ~ 5
S; S;0 S;S;~S;S;~S;
en ::J::J en
~~
~ ~
~~CIl
00;;;
cr: cr: <<l
~~II
~~!~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
8~<(<(lJJ
~ III ~ ~ f;l
~-~c;i;N
III c.c: ,
f;l Y Y Q
N Iii Iii cr:
r--._c:c:
II CIl ill ill
c ::!! ::!!
!lS ~ ~
Ci5 t;j
98,tA
~ ~ 8
~
o
t) 1:i
~ )(
c:: lJJ
o. ...:
U CD 0
f;l Cl ~
N :ii !!
afi.c
a: ~ ~
o C ~
Cf .. '"
Zn~C::~:2 ~Z....l
C)>-f;l.9"'Il1;l;~C)~
NI_"'q:e,T>-Na
l;iu:a~ 'lD~lIllIl-
""gltl~~C)5(~o
ilf ~ ,g 0 tl N N , cr:
o1::! ~ou;~cFcf~ Q
~ ~ ~ ~ ! < ~ a:
~::!!~Q; is
I :t
ti ti
cr: :5
j >
o <
& -2
~ '"
g al
'" ::!!
):l N 1il l\l
~ IS ~ <0 ~
. ~tilil~
~ i!: * ~
~:ii~@l@l@l@l
~aoc:~ec
~c;ia..cn:J)-
...JC:G)""ooro...
a: ;- ~ ,...,... C\l
a, .
Cl~
:ii II)
c c::
e "a;
.. -
." t:
!: 0
. u..
en
1-0
~z
> > > > Z > >- >- >- >- >- >- z Z z Z z z zGe >(9 z€J z z@(2 t ~
N ~ V ~ ~ ,... ~ a ~ ; ~ ~
~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
~ :a
8 ~ ell
~ 8 c::
~ ~ ~ .0
~ ~ \\l
~~~s
a:J~ sr
al lij e ~
o ~ ~ to-
cr: ~ Cl E
~a:em
)- '" _ l1. II)
og~c:~
CI 0 E II) 0
>g~~EE
E en 0 >
o~a.e8
.t::CDEC._
15.t-So
~~f~r
~ is Il. ::J ~
~ ~ :a II ~
uif~~
!I~~!
II II II II ,g
~>=>=>=II
o <C<C<ClIl
~ en Il. ::J G
10/91
TABLE 2
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SUMMARY OF CURRENT 6 - YEAR PROGRAM 1990 - 1996
County Estim, Cost Allocated
CATS Prlorty StatusJEAD At No, Aoad From ITa Project Type Aevlsed as of 90-91 In 91 -92
No, No, 91 -92
(5/91 ) (x $1 CXXJ) (x $1 CXXJ) (x $1 CXXJ)
1 N/A - - County - wlde Pipe Inst, signs, etc, $ 600 $ 180 $50
2 N/A 625 - Hatton Ferry Operation 60 10 10
3 N/A - - Plant Mix Plant mix projects 1,200 200 24+150*
4 Complete 631 Ala Ad, @ 631 /659(SPCA) Intersection 388 326
5 Complete 631 Ala Ad. @ 631/Agnese Intersectlon 106 82
6 Complete 554 Barracks @554/656 Intersection 337 337
7 Complete 631 Aio Ad, @ 631 /768 Intersection 563 516
8 Complete 656 Georgetwn @ 1411/1472 Intersectlon 322 258
9 Complete 620 - Buck Isl Crk Bridge 326 326
10 5/93 (5 mo) 700 - 7CEl/631 Intersection 400 158
11 6192 (6 mo) 554 Barracks WCL to G'town Major reconst to 4 lane 1,176 742 376
12 Complete 631 - 781/700 Intersectlon 279 279
6 @ 7/97 631 (MdwCrk P~ NCL to Ala Ad major const/brdg (new rd) 5,850 701
14 10/91 (12 mo) 671 - Moormans RIv Millington Bridge 1,468 575 533
14 15 7/fX2 (18 mo) 631 AlaRd 11 mls.780 Major recon (new align) 5,612 2,OOS 006
8 16 Complete 631 Ala Ad ,3 me 29N/650 Major reconst to 4 lane 2,226 2,226
17 Complete 001 - Buck Mtn Crk Bridge 350 350
18 Constructing OOJ - @ S,Rlvanna AIv Bridge 2, 077 1,357 720 *
19 5/93 (6 mo) 678 in Ivy 2501678 Major recon (new align) 500 444
1 21 5/93 (1 yr) 743 Hydraulic Lambs/631 Major reconst to 4 lane 1,725 185
9 22 7/95 631 AloAd 743,I2;N Major reconst to 4 lane 3,520 246
24 Complete 810 - N of 240 Imprv sight dlst at school 112 112 18
25 11/91 (4mo) 729 - @729I2BJ Intersectlon 3J5 63 42
26 2/94 691 Park Park exIt/24O New road 100 85
'Z7 Constructing 743 - @743100El Intersection 705 644
20 28 7/95 (9 mo) 1 B66 GnbrDrExt New road New road 1,379 123 68
29 9/97 001 Old Ivy 001 /,1 mn 250 Intersectlon/underpass 210 10
33 7/95 (12 mo) 649 Airport ~ Major reconstructlon 900 0
31 >96 743 Ar:1vc Mill Alvanna RIv Bridge 1,250 0
32 >96 677 Old Ballrd @ AA Bridge Bridge 800 0
34 >96 001 Old Ivy 250/29-250 Byps Major reconstruction 800 0
35 2/94 (3 mo) 691 Jarmans Gp 240/684 Major reconstrustfon 1,000 0
36 > 96{most - Unpaved County-wlde Unpaved Road Projects 7,497 70 498
projects) - - - Mlsc 18
* Revenue Sharing Funds Sub Total 12,613 3,203
$435,CXXJ State TOTAL $44,193 $15,816
$435,CXXJ Alba, County TOTAL - 6 CATS Project $20.312 $ 6,215
TOTAL - w/o CATS Projects $23,881 $ 9,001
Funds required: non-allocated and non-CATS projects = (f"141280")
10/91
TABLE 3
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - ALBEMARLE COUNTY
NOT IN CURRENT 6-YEAR PLAN OR >1996
Revised Allocated
CATS County Route Road F romiT 0 Project Type 91 -92 As of
No, Priority Number Name EstCost 91 -92
No, (x $1 OCO) (x $1 OCO)
:20 0n Clp) Peyton Cmnwlth/Gmbrier New Road or Maj,Recon $200 $ 200
23 0n Clp) Berkmar N of Rio Rd New Road 6C() 6C()
33 Connector Avon St/Rt 20 New Road (not Qualify 1,375 77
for 6-yr, funds)
37 726 79511 302 Spot improvements 500 0
38 - Crezet 240/250 Connct New Road study 0
39 631 UAB to parK Spot Improvements 750 0
40 708 :20/29 Spot Improvements 525 0
41 631 Stagecoach NA to UAB Spot Improvements :nJ 0
42 810 @ Moormans Rv Bridge Project 350 0
43 - Connector Fanta/Sunset New Road study 0
44 781 Sunset SCLlStagecoa Spot Improvements 150 0
~ 692 in N.Garden 25Cf3/71 2 Spot Improvements 400 0
27 - (MdwCrk: Pky\ N, of Rio Rd New Road study 0
47 712 @ Ammonett Br Bridge Project 180 0
48 em @ Ivy Creek Bridge Project 215 0
49 649 Proffit @ RR Bridge Bridge Project 800 0
50 6C() @ Mechunk Crk: Bridge Project 500 0
51 627 @ Balnger Crk Bridge Project :nJ 0
52 ffi7 @ Piney Crk: Bridge Project 250 0
53 6S2 @ 662/795 Intersect Imprv 150 0
54 6S2 @ 662/793 I intersect Imprv 200 0
55 743 @ Jacobs Run Sight Distlmprv 300 0
56 - Connector Avon/5th St New Road 4,870 0
21 57 656 Georgetown &43/654 Maj. Reconstruct 1,OCO 0
58 744 02m s At 726 Gates 85 0
59 679 .24m sRt 738 Fish Lgts & Gate 85 0
60 627 .74m s.Rt 726 Fish Lgts & Gate 85 0
61 611 23'n s. Rt 691 Gates 85 0
62 642 2Bi1 ne Rt 708 Gates 85 0
63 625 75m se Rt 81 2 I Fish Lgts & Gate 85 0
64 1310 .06m sRt 6 I Gates 85 0
65 002 ,01 m sRt 612N Fish Lgts & Gate 85 0
TOTAL $14,595 $ 877
TOTAL - 2 CATS Project $ 1,OCO -
TOTAL - w/o CATS Projects $ 13.595 $ 877
Funds required: non-allocated and non-CATS projects = ~ 12,718)
I~ rr
0 c:
.... ~ c: c:
0 ~ ~
:=
'e c: c: E 'e 'e E
c: c: c: 0 0 Il) (D
~ ,2 ,2 .... - - 0 (D
~~ ~ , .- .- ~ ~ " (")
'e E E C\I ....
I'- ~ Oil) ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 1'-1'- ~gi
(!) cOcO
f: z ~ ~~ ~~
-
z 0 " II " " " II " II II II
:)
0 Z
U ::J II) - (/)
11. la II) II)
W 4> 0 I- 23
-' 4> :J .- U Z
a: ~ >. c: ....'U (/) W C)
< 4> 4> 4> J!3 I- :E Qj
:E ~ > -<<i U '-
~ 4> Q ww_ 0
w a: ~ Q r; 4> W
~ >< 'e- d >a:(f) ~
IXl 1-.2 ~<cCS p..
-' (!) 4> II) la 'U -Cl c: a.. a:
< >- la 4> 0 0..J:C\I
- a.. ~
0 4> Q " - =~
~ 4> >. 4> (/) 0 == ~UII)
~ , a: >'c '0' I-z ~5 (n - 4) ~
~~ ... U 5 oJ:- "'0
Q., )( a.. w ~~~
z - a I Sf\! 0) =
w 0 .... )( E (ij 8 ,
- a: 1--
..J i= 0 - a: i ' @).~ ,
la ~ ~ ~ c: (/)
m U ~ a.. .... c: >::i , Qj
w 4> ... (II ... 'c 0 CI.)
~ a ~ ~d >ClitSE =c: ~f:(f)
a: 0 Q 4) ~
a: a: ~ c:~ <... 4>a: a: o-!;(
a.. ~ 00.. c: 0 za:u
>- 'e 'e I zla'05:s u. oQ, Z
a: 04>II)()O Ua:c:
~ a: I'- ~~ U~IUWI- W wo..o ~
~ -' ~
<C W 'U~ IXl (/) c:
> :j~~
0 (") d ~ (/) c: 4> C\I ~
~ ~ (/) ,- c: -. ~ ~
z ..~() I- 'U j ,2 <:)z -
0 II OIl 4> <4> a: u.o< .0
" C:'~ i () c: a.. I/) < OUo ~
U i - 4> -
<!:l 0 'U (/) I-Ww .....
W (/) ,,g ..c: .! i zo:z.2 W (/)-'!;( ~
en wcu(/)cu.J:) - Q ::> .(
:)Q -- z J!3 J!3 ,!; z oa:u ~
z.24>(/)< -QQ- W U~o
wCl:J ~ .!t.!t > Qj w
> 4) c: w ow:j la
w_~ wee a: wlXl< C)
a:,S4> a: a.. a.. 1--', = 4>
o(/)a: (II1l)~ u. <<z ~ cb
0 ~zo -
w... ~ '0
I- ... u.... ... W I-Oz ~
U 0 U (/)
w
w I- Z cu
., (/) ~ (/) ...
0 4>
0 (/) >
a: < w <
a.. U IXl -'
....
i
....
ai
...,
Q
o
b
o
>
E
,g
I/)
c:
o
i
Q
~
'U
~
E
>-
&
-
TABLE 5
PRIMARY 6-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
COMPARSION OF 5-YEAR OVERLAP OF 90-91 FINAL AND 91-92 FINAL PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ALLOCATIONS va. CULPEPER DISTRICT ALLOCATIONS
Albemarle County
Ro~e Pnmmy FY
ProJects
A1b - Improve 90-91
20 Intersectlon At 742 91 -92
EAD 11 /96 (5mo)
A1b - Improve hor12 90-91
20 & vert align - At 53 91 -92
EAD 7/93 (6mo)
A1b - widen 6 lanes 90-91
29 NCl - Rio Rd 91 -92
EAD 7/93 (6 Mo)
A1b - widen 6 lanes 90-91
29 Rio Rd - S.F.RIv. 91 -92
EAD 7/94 (2 yr)
AIb - widen 6 lanes 90-91
29 S.F.RIv - Arpt Rd 91 -92
EAD 7/96 (2 yr)
A1b - environ. 90-91
29 study (Sverdrup) 91 -92
A1b - 4 lane & Free 90-91
250 Bndge ECl - 164 91 -92
constructlng (2 yr)
A1b - Chvllle 90-91
29 (BYPass). All 1 0 91 -92
(fOrP.E.& ROW)
TOTALS
Albemarle County
(8 proJects)
90-91
91-92
(dlff)
Culpeper
Dlstnct
90-91
91 -92
(dlff)
Estlm.
Total Cost
(x $1 0(0)
826
786
596
596
17,509
1 3,21 0
8,866
8150
10,805
1 3,224
3,600
3,602
1 2, 400
1 4,033
3000
(new)
54,601
56.600
(+1,999)
91 -92
100
70
200
110
670
1,596
300
300
300
50
55
1,900
1,235
700
ProJected AUocatlons (x $1 0(0)
92-93
93-94
94-96
95-96
1 0/91
TOTAL
(x $1 0(0)
3,470 5,965 6,606 6,690 11,410 34.140
4,115 4,446 6.510 7,080 8,080 30,230
(+645) (-1,520) (-95) (+390) (-3330)
[Alb; (:0;. fy. 91-913 $c .9Q.c~..~ Year ~1()(;atIOn ~er~ee'............ ..... ..: ~;3; ~ 0)... 4E:-
. . .. .......... '1<>.... .ua%,()fm...~IY~aJro~(r9.~ (-1201.~) ~
:-:I~<.'.' . :-: :.:::::~/~:~.....'..:~~:~~~ :.~~: .', (_ .tIl:70)
200
100
100
200
100
2500
1900
4000
2745
2960
1430
3230
1430
1066
300
1,100
900
2,360
2. 750
1770
1666
400
200
1,405
236
1,365
1,700
6,410
4,990
1,800
1,346
1,830
600
600
1,100
15,362 15,669 15,452 16.283 17,047
13,278 15.380 15,860 15.763 16.023
(-2,084) (-289) (+408) (-520) (-1,024)
Culpep. .Dlill FY' 9t ~Qa. &g6;.9t.&: Yt. ~"ac8ilOn rllftereoGe........ ·
. . ..,..,,<. :>asa-%ofFY~9t3lt0<iaftO(C<
79,613
76,304
:+3;5Oe). ~
( -4.4'lb) ~
-.
/~~:
3(2.8/9/
""r'V\.cl., Ie ~ ;
~('1.7/<r1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY O. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
-r; )
(
March 25, 1991
Route 29 Corridor
City of Charlottesville
Albemarle County
Mr. Robert Humphries
109 Falcon Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Humphries:
Per your t hone re uest of March 22, 1991 please find attached
a list of the Highway Projects Recommended in CAT any This
~ }nformation was used n the presentation made by Mr. Hodge to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board work session on March 20, 1991. Also
included is a copy of ther-Analysis of Presentatio~ko the Commonwealth
Transportation board by George R. St.John.
I hope this information will be of assistance to you and if you
have additional questions we will try to respond to them as best we can.
Thank you for your continued interest in this important transportation
matter.
Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.
State Location & Design Engineer
PGN/mld
Mr. John G. Milliken
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
JV2-~ ?/22./91
-+ \"6 "'"
1/ 1.;0 T
HIGHWAY PROJECTS RECOMMENDED IN THE CATS PLAN
(ASSUMED IN 2010 HIGHWAY NETWORKr-- ---- ----
LOCATION
/- HYDRAULIC ROAD
z. McINTIRE ROAD
3 McINTIRE ROAD
4; RTE. 29 NORTH
r RTE.250 BYPASS
,
b. 9TH.ST. REALIGN
t. RIO ROAD
8. RIO ROAD
'1. ROUTE 250 E.
IC/. E. HIGH ST.
II. ROUTE 250 W.
12. ROUTE 250 W.
13. IVY ROAD
(f, ROUTE 631
FROM
TO
COST
(IN MILLIONS)
ROUTE 657 ROUTE 631 1.4
PRESTON AVE. RTE. 250 BY-PASS 5.5
RTE. 250 BYPASS ROUTE 631 5.3
RTE. 250 BYPASS SOUTH FORK 28.3
RIVIANA RIVER
ST.CLAIR AVE. E. HIGH ST. 3.8
CHERRY AVE MAIN STREET 6.9
ROUTE 29
McINTIRE RD. EXT.
1.6
ROUTE 743
ROUTE 29
2.3
E. HIGH ST.
ROUTE 20
1.6
1.4
9TH. STREET
ROUTE 250 BYPASS
ROUTE 677
ROUTE 29/250 BP.
ROUTE 677
4.6
ROUTE 637
EMMETT STREET ROUTE 29/250 BP.
4.1
O.56MI.N.RTE 706
ROUTE 1103
11.1
l5. ROUTE 250 ROUTE 20 1-64 10.9
lb. RIDGE STREET WEST MAIN ST. CHERRY STREET 1.9
17 GREENBRIER DRIVE WHITEWOOD ST. HYDRAULIC ROAD 0.8
I fl.
RIO ROAD/
ROOTE 250 CONN.
RIO ROAD
ROUTE 250
8.2
/9'. MADISON AVE. EXT. MADISON AVE.
20. GEOREGTOWN ROAD
2.1. FONTAINE AVENUE
PRESTON AVENUE
0.2
1.9
HYDRAULIC ROAD BARRACKS ROAD
JEFFERSON PARK ROUTE 29/250 BP. 1.1
~~. ROUTE 637 ROUTE 250
1-64 2.3
~3. McINTIRE RD.EXT. RIO ROAD
ROUTE 29 N. 17.1
~
D};;,,'lL~.-, t.J ~',c::" .j/ (5.,;'li
^<'y", ;'.",-, ,:, t}I,/!/3,17/
f"'\~.,,;t....: j'.."..,(. ,--'J. ---..--._--.0
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Remarks on Secretary Milliken's Proposed
Improvements to Transportation Services
November 26, 1991
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I
appreciate the opportunity to address Secretary Milliken's proposal
for improvements to transportation services in the Commonwealth.
Albemarle County continues to maintain funding of transportation
improvements as a top priority and looks forward to any initiatives
to increase our flexibility in managing our transportation needs.
Wi th this perspective in mind, I would like to comment on the
proposals. These remarks must be taken with some caution as we
have not been informed of the details of the individual proposals
and thus cannot fully assess their impact at the county level. In
general, any proposal that purports to increase county flexibility
and responsibility but lacks legislative authority for resources is
considered to be counterproductive. Shifting the burden of funding
is not a viable solution. The County stands ready to assume
greater responsibility when the resources and authority are also
provided from the Commonwealth.
In response to the specific proposals:
o Establishing a separate state agency for rail and public
transportation is not supported. Creating another agency adds to
the regulatory and bureaucratic processes with little improvement
in services. The focus should continue to be on streamlining
government services, not proliferating more agencies. Wi thout
further justification, it is difficult to see the benefit to this
proposal.
o Assuming more responsibility for certain secondary highway
functions is a double edged sword. Having more control over
meeting our secondary highway needs is supported but doing so will
require additional county resources unless increased state funding
follows. This is readily apparent if the County were to assume
responsibility for design, maintenance and installation of traffic
control devices as suggested by Secretary Milliken. Albemarle
County does not have qualified staff to perform this function and
thus may have to forego the opportunity to assume more
responsibility in the secondary highway system.
o Improving revenue sharing dollars and raising the ceiling is
supported as an opportunity for the County to increase our
construction of secondary roads. This should not come, however, at
the expense of reduced state funding of the Commonwealth's
secondary road program. If this were done, it would further shift
the fiscal burden to the locality and is one more example of the
County's paying the price for services primarily provided by the
Commonwealth.
o Establishing incentives for rural transportation planning
cannot be evaluated without further information. Although it may
not directly improve transportation services wi thin Albemarle
County, as transportation planning is currently done at the local
level, there may be indirect benefits through improvements in
transportation services on the part of all our adjacent rural
counties. If established, rural transportation planning should
utilize Planning District Commission's expertise.
o Lastly, requiring Albemarle County to fund a greater cost of
new secondary road construction is not supported. While such a
proposal will stretch the Commonwealth's limited dollars, the
ability to actually see an increase in construction of new
secondary roads is unlikely. The reason is simple. Albemarle
County cannot continue to absorb more state mandates on the one
hand while the State reduces funding of these mandates on the other
hand. This is happening across a broad spectrum of state programs
and having a cumulative, unfair and adverse impact on county
taxpayers. Without broader and more diverse revenue generating
authority, the burden will continue to be borne by taxpayers owning
real and personal property. This is not an unlimited source of
local funding. The unfortunate outcome of this proposal will be a
reduction in the rate of transportation and other local funding
needs, such as education.
In summary, transportation improvements are needed but not at the
sole expense of the local taxpayer. Albemarle County is a willing
participant in seeking improvements but our further review and
assessment of these proposals requires more information. We look
forward to an opportunity to work further with the Transportation
Board and Department in seeking solutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments.
Draft revised 11/15/91
I,
Ois!(!tl\l~ij tv Mfa: li.::.Q:CZL.
Agenda Item No. qjo / I ~ 3 ~ ~7.1J.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~Jr-
Robert W, Tucker, Jr" County Executive~'v I
November 7, 1991
Draft Remarks to Secretary Milliken's Proposed
Improvements to Transportation Services
The attached is a draft of the County's position on Secretary
Milliken's proposed changes to improve transportation services in
Virginia. The Commonwealth Transportation Board has requested
comments on the proposals be submitted by December l5, 1991 and
solicits comments at various public meetings, the closest of which
is in Richmond, Virginia on November 26th.
I request the Board review the attached statement and provide me
any comments so that a revised statement can be prepared for
presentation at the public meeting.
If a member of the Board is not available to present these remarks
at the public meeting, I propose to send a staff member to do so.
RWT,Jr/RBB/dbm
91.l95
DRAFT
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Remarks on Secretary Milliken's Proposed
Improvements to Transportation Services
November 26, 1991
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I
appreciate the opportunity to address Secretary Milliken's proposal
for improvements to transportation services in the Commonwealth.
Albemarle County continues to maintain funding of transportation
improvements as a top priority and looks forward to any initiatives
to increase our flexibility in managing our transportation needs.
With this perspective in mind, I would like to comment on the
proposals. These remarks must be taken with some caution as we
have not been informed of the details of the individual proposals
and thus cannot fully assess their impact at the county level. In
general, any proposal that purports to improve county flexibility
and responsibility but lacks legislative authority and resources is
considered to be counterproductive. Shifting the burden of funding
is not a viable solution. The County stands ready to assume
greater responsibility when the resources and authority are also
provided from the Commonwealth.
In response to the specific proposals:
o Establishing a separate state agency for rail and public
transportation is not supported. Creating another agency adds to
the regulatory and bureaucratic processes with little improvement
in services. The focus should continue to be on streamlining
government services, not proliferating more agencies. wi thout
further justification, it is difficult to see the benefit to this
proposal except enhancing the ability of the rail and public
transportation to sub-optimize service and further compete for
already scarce resources at the state and federal level.
o Assuming more responsibility for certain secondary highway
functions is a double edged sword. Having more control over
meeting our secondary highway needs is supported but doing so will
require additional county resources unless increased state funding
follows. This is readily apparent if the County were to assume
responsibility for design, maintenance and installation of traffic
control devices as suggested by Secretary Milliken. Albemarle
County does not have qualified staff to perform this function and
this may have to forego the opportunity to assume more
responsibility in the secondary highway system.
o Improving revenue sharing dollars and raising the ceiling is
supported as an opportunity for the County to increase our
construction of secondary roads but this should not come at the
expense of local funding or reduced funding of the non-revenue
sharing portion of the Commonwealth's secondary road program. If
this were done, it would further shift the fiscal burden to the
locality and is one more example of the County paying the price for
services primarily provided by the Commonwealth.
o Establishing incentives for rural transportation planning
cannot be evaluated without further information. Although it may
not directly improve transportation services within Albemarle
County, as transportation planning is currently done at the local
level, there may be indirect benefits through improvements in
transportation services on the part of all our adjacent rural
counties.
o Lastly, requiring Albemarle County to fund a greater cost of
new secondary road construction is not supported. While such a
proposal will stretch the Commonwealth's limited dollars, the
ability to actually see an increase in construction of new
secondary roads is unlikely. The reason is simple, Albemarle
County cannot continue to absorb more state mandates on the one
hand while the State reduces funding of these mandates on the other
hand. This is happening across a broad spectrum of state programs
which is having a cumulative adverse impact on county taxpayers.
Without greater revenue generating authority, the burden will
continue to be borne by taxpayers owning real and personal
property. This is not an unlimited source of local funding. The
unfortunate outcome of this proposal will be a reduction in the
rate of transportation improvements.
In summary, transportation improvements are needed but not at the
expense of the local taxpayer. Albemarle County is a willing
participant in seeking improvements but further review and
assessment of these proposals requires more information. We look
forward to an opportunity to work with the Transportation Board and
Department in seeking solutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments.
- .
Ll c
:.,' '_ ::L:..11..,
" 9L'LL!J2~ ry )
.J
John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
October 17, 1991
At the annual conference of the Virginia Municipal League on October 8, I outlined
several proposals to improve the delivery of transportation services in the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, under my direction, has scheduled five public
meetings for soliciting input from public officials and citizens before final recommendations
are developed for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. The meeting
schedule is attached.
The proposals include:
* Establishing VDOT's Rail and Public Transportation Division as a separate
state agency, reporting to the Secretary of Transportation and the
Commonwealth Transportation Board.
* Permitting counties, under agreement with VDOT, to assume responsibility
for certain transportation functions and decisions on the state's secondary
highway system, including entrances to secondary roads, through truck
restrictions, speed limits, and justification, design, maintenance and
installation of traffic control devices.
* Improving the transportation revenue sharing program by raising the total
state appropriation to $15 million, increasing per-jurisdiction ceiling to
$650,000, and extending the eligibility to cities for use on urban and
interstate projects.
* Establishing a fund to provide an incentive for rural transportation planning
through the planning districts or other appropriate entities in rural areas.
* Requiring new urban street and secondary road construction to be financed
jointly by the state and local governments on an 80%/20% match basis,
with the state's 80% share being provided under the current secondary
road allocation formula.
Written comments will be accepted at any time but to ensure their consideration in
the formulation of recommendations, they should be received by December 15, 1991.
Written statements should be addressed to P. O. Box 1475, Richmond, Virgini~ 23212.
John G. Milliken
#I
The Commonwealth Transportation Board has scheduled five public meetings to address
proposals to improve the delivery of transportation services in the Commonwealth. The
meetings, all of which begin at 7:00 p.m. will be held on the following dates:
Tuesday, November 12
Virginia Department of Transportation
Suffolk District Office Auditorium
1700 N. Main Street
Suffolk
Tuesday, November 19
Virginia Department of Transportation
Bristol District Office Auditorium
Bonham Road, 1 mile south of Route 11
Bristol
Thursday, November 21
Fairfax High School
3500 Old Lee Highway
Fairfax
Monday, November 25
Virginia Western Community College Auditorium
3095 Colonial Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke
Tuesday, November 26
Virginia Department of Transportation
Central Office Auditorium
1221 E. Broad Street
Richmond
. .'
Virginia Associatiooof Counties
lOOlE.BroadSt.. SuiteLL20. Richmond,Va.' 23219-1901
(804) 788-6652 . FAX 788-0083
Leg isiiii"~e
Alert
I'; f
House panel discusses
impact fees for education
On Oct. 10, a subcommit-
tee of the Byrne Commis-
sion studying impact fees
met to discuss possible
changes to legislation
effective July 1990 that
allows road impact fees in
Northern Virginia.
Chaired by Del. C.
Richard Cranwell (D-
Roanoke County), the subcommittee discussed the use
of proffers as credits and the imposition of conditional
zoning in the impact fee process.
Counties interested in
impact fees for education
need to contact Flip Hicks
at (804) 788-6652 as soon
as possible.
impact fee authority for
new school construction is
even more critical. Had
Chesterfield County had
the authority to enact
impact fees for education,
$7.9 million could have
been generated for
education since 1989
based on the number of
building permits issued during that time.
Lane Ramsey and Jay Stegmeier of Chesterfield County
made a presentation to the subcommittee on how impact
fee authority would affect Chesterfield County. They
stated that although road impact fees would reduce the
county's burden for funding transportation projects,
Cranwell announced at the end of the meeting that any
other localities interested in education impact fees need
to make their concerns known before the subcommittee
meets again the week of Nov. 18. Contact Flip Hicks at
V ACo as soon as possible if your county is interested in
impact fees for education, so that he can communicate
your interest to the Byrne subcommittee.
Milliken's transportation
proposals to be discussed
Speaking at the VML conference on Oct. 8, Secretary of
Transportation John Milliken proposed that secondary
road construction be financed joint! y by the state and
local governments on an 80 percent to 20 percent basis,
with the state's 80 percent share being provided under
the current secondary road allocation formula. This
proposal reverses a policy in existence since 1932, with
the state assuming all construction costs of secondary
roads in counties.
To solicit comments on this and other proposals in its
Blueprint for Transportation, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board has scheduled meetings through-
out the state.
County officials are urged to attend these meetings and
make their voices heard because the proposal requires
counties to contribute funds of20 percent
The meetings are scheduled at 7 p.m. on these dates:
Tuesday, Nov. 12- Virginia Department of
Transportation, Suffolk District Office auditorium,
1700 N. Main St. in Suffolk
Tuesday , Nov. 19 - VDOT Bristol District Office
auditorium, Bonham Road, 1 mile south of Route II, in
Bristol
Thursday, Nov. 21-FairfaxCountyHighSchool,
3500 Old Lee Highway in Fairfax
Monday, Nov. 25 - Salem District Office audito-
rium, Harrison Avenue, north of Main Street and east
of Route 311, in Salem
Tuesday, Nov. 26 - Central Office auditorium, 1221
E. Broad St. in Richmond
· continued on page 2 ·
I , ~I .
Meetings focus on fees for waste
management permit applications
The Department ofW aste Management has scheduled a series of
public meetings to acquaint local governments and the public with
its draft regulations to impose fees for the review of permit
applications for waste management facilities.
The draft regulations would impose fees ranging from $12,500 to
$17,500 for parts A and B of a permit application. According to the
department, service levels will vary according to the fee that is
fmall y charged. For instance, a fee of $12,500 will enable the
department to add nine people to its permitting staff in the 1992-93
fIscal year and to add fIve more people during the second year of
the biennium. StaffIng at this level will not enable the department
to issue all the permits by the statutory deadline of Jan. 1, 1994. Of
150 landfIlls, about 50 will miss the deadline.
If a fee of $15,000 is charged, only about 20 landfills will miss the
deadline. A fee of $17,500, according to the Department of Waste
Management, should allow all permit applications to be completed
on time.
The Virginia Association of Counties opposes these proposed
regulations and urges local officials to attend these meetings ready
to make comments. The department has mailed a copy of the draft
regulations to the localities along with an announcement of the
meeting schedule.
The meetings are scheduled for 10 a.m. on these dates:
Monday, Oct. 28-HolidayInn 1776, U.S. 60 Bypass Road in
Williamsburg
Monday, Nov. 4 - Roanoke County Administrative Center, 3737
Brambleton Ave. S.W. in Roanoke
Tuesday, Nov. 12-HolidayInnSouth, U.S. 1 and 1-95 in
Fredericksburg
Hearing scheduled for public
employee collective bargaining
A public hearing on collective bargaining by public employees is
scheduled at 7:30 p.m. on Nov. 6 at the Quality Inn-Lake Wright in
Norfolk, 6280 Northampton Blvd.
A special subcommittee studying SB 893, from the 1991 General
Assembly, met for the flfSt time Oct. 3. The bill the subcommittee
is studying sought to amend the Code of Virginia to give employ-
ees of cities, counties, towns and other political subdivisions the
right to form, join or assist employee associations or labor organi-
zations. The bill contained language that local governments shall
not be prohibited from "meeting and conferring" with such
Transportation
· continued from front page ·
Other proposals being considered include:
. Permitting counties, under agreement with VDOT, to assume
responsibility for certain transportation functions and deci-
sions on the state's secondary highway system, including
entrances to secondary roads, through truck restrictions, speed
limits, and justification, design, maintenance and installation
of traffIc control devices.
Establishing VDOT's Rail and Public Transportation Division
as a separate state agency, reporting to the secretary of
transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Increasing municipalities' flexibility in the use of city street
payments to meet local transportation needs.
employee representatives or from arriving at "agreements"
respecting the employees' terms and conditions of employment.
The amended bill also stated that employees do not have the right
to strike.
At the Oct. 3 meeting, V ACo, VML, the Virginia School Boards
Association, the Virginia Chapter of the International Personnel
Management Association and the Virginia Retail Merchants
Association spoke in opposition to the bill. County offIcials are
urged to follow this issue closely and to attend the public hearing to
speak against this bill.
. Improving the transportation revenue sharing program by
raising the total state appropriation to $15 million, increasing
per jurisili.ction ceiling to$650,000 and extending the eligibil-
ity to cities for use on urban and interstate projects.
. Establishing a fund to provide an incentive for rural transpor-
tation planning through the planning, districts or other appro-
priate entities.
Milliken is scheduled to speak with county officials during
VACo's Annual Meepng from 10:15 to 11:15 a.m. on Nov. 11 at
The Homestead. He will also address V ACo's Transportation
Steering Committee, which will meet at 2:30 p.m. on Nov. 10 at
The Homestead.
Any questions on these meetings may be directed to Larry Land,
V ACo staff member, at (804) 788-6652.
D: , '/
',~"r:,wr"a' [.'0 l' .1/' C' ". (
". ');'3:'(1:. '/':},'1
Agenda Item No, -2.!. /7 z c~ ?9J
------
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Charlotte Y Humphns
Jack Jouett
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
Walter F. Perkins
Whit,=, Hall
F. R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T Way
Scottsville
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
November 15, 1991 ~
SUBJECT: Reading List for November 20, 1991
DATE:
July 17, 1991 - All - Mr. Bain.~
May 8, 1991 - pages 1 - 19 (#7c) - Mrs. Humphris /lul~'
pages 19 (#7c) - 34 (#19) - Mr. Bowerman
pages 34 (#19) - 46 (#27) - Mr. Bain./Ut;ttl.-
LEN: ec
J. T. Henley Middle School
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD ME....\SE:RS
ON.._ ,/J-;).()-ct I
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
ROUTE " BOX 5'9
CROZET, VIRGINIA 22932-9738
TELEPHONE t8041
8'23-4393
TO:
Jean Potter, Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority
:."C: ~
""-_....'...1.
FROM:
Kevin P. Murphy, Science Teacher
~ 'v'
DATE:
November 11, 1991
L
')
RE:
Sewage Settling Pond, Henley Middle School
The science staff at Henley wish to make a proposal concerning the old sewage
settling pond located on the grounds next to Slabtown Creek. The pond and adjacent
building is scheduled for removal by the Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority. It is
assumed that the surface water will be pumped off and the berm bulldozed to fill the void.
We feel that it would be more feasible to modify the pond and make it available for
study by the students at Henley. The plan would call for dredging or removing a large
part of the organic accumulation in the bottom of the pond and modifying the berm on the
uphill side so as to encompass part of the watershed, therefore capturing run-off from the
hill. The pond is already designed with an overflow that directs excess water into
Slabtown Creek. Several good rains would fill the pond, and the subsequent succession of
life could be observed firsthand. The adjacent building could be dismantled as planned.
With the exception of the removal of the organic accumulation, the cost of this
venture should be less than that of the original plan. Private funds can be pursued by
the Henley Outdoor Club to help defray the cost of the dredging.
The advantages and opportunities that would be made available to teachers and
students resulting from such a project are many and varied. Studies could include:
1. The process of pond succession
2. the development of the aquatic community
3. food chains and predator/prey relationships
4. the processes of natural cycles
5. eutrophication
6. benthic and pelagic life
7. improving sensory and awareness skills
8. chemical analysis
9. watershed management
10. erosion control
11. human impact on the environment
12. adaptation and animal behavior
13. properties of water
14. improving and repairing the environment
15. civic responsibilities (students playing an active role in the restoration
project)
We appreciate you taking the time to consider and review this project, and look
forward to your help in providing the best educational experience possible for all
students. If you have any questions or would like to get together and discuss the
possibilities, please give me a call or drop me a line at Henley.
cc: Board of Supervisors, School Board Members, Dr. Paske I - Superintendent,
Dr. English - Instruction, Mr. Vale - Principal, Mr. Reaser - Building Services, Ms.
Holt - Finance, Laura McCulloch - Science Cordinator, Peyton Roberts - watershed
Management, Linda Capps - PATSO President
'"
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
.,
. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
-
October 25, 1991
/LtctV~le.J . .;1 ,. ~:{(i. 9/ Y5IJ
< '<~:~. -~ ".,~', '. '~-~7!:'~~~",,-::-',..-.'.~.:_':~:... .,~ ~
.~... . ,;..... 4>_,
,.
-
""'--
CONGRESS DECLARES NOVEMBER
NATIONAL ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE MONTH!
For the ninth year, the U.S. Congress has declared November National Alzheimer"s
Disease Month.
The resolution, sponsored by Senator Larry Pressler (SD) and Congressman Bill Lowrey
(CA) set the stage for a nationwide campaign to raise public awareness about Alzheimer's
Disease. It says, in part, "Increased national awareness of Alzheimer's Disease and recognition
of national organizations such as the Alzheimer's Association may stimulate increased
commitment to Long Term Care services to support Alzheimer's patients and their families as
well as greater investment in research to discover methods to diagnose, delay onset, treat and
eventually cure the dread disease.
Alzheimer's (pronounced: ails high merz) Disease is the most common form of dementing
illness. A degenerative disorder, Alzheimer's attacks the brain, causing impaired memory,
thinking and behavior disturbances. The course of the disease is variable, it can last for from
three to twenty years. It gradually destroys mental and physical capacities, rendering its victims
unable to care for themselves and eventually unable to sustain their own lives. Their is no known
cause, treatment or cure yet identified.
Approximately 10% of people over age 65, and nearly 50% of those over 85 will develop
c: \AZ\CPrR\BO.\RIl\1IAD1U -9l.W
Alzheimer's Disease. Because of the increasing lifespan and ~turation of the Baby Boom the
numbers of people eminently at risk for the disease is growing rapidly. It is estimated by the
National Institute on Aging the U.S. will have over 67.5 Million people over age 65 by 2050
compared to 25.5 million today. As a result we can expect there to be 12-15 Million victims by
2050
Despite these grim projections, our nation spends only $230 million dollars researching
a disease which is already costing $90 billion while costs are expected to climb to well over
$300 billion. Currently for every dollar the nation spends on research of AD, society (victim's
I
families, communities and Medicare) spends $375 to care (only modestly) for its victims.
An estimated 3000 people in the Charlottesville area suffer from Alzheimer's Disease.
The economic loss to their families is over $6O,OOO,OOO! Imagine what saving that much money
could do for our economy.
The Alzheimer's Association has been instrumental in achieving increases in funding for
Alzheimer's research from less than $50 million in 1988 to an expected $320 million in 1992.
Founded in 1980, the Charlottesville - Piedmont Chapter Alzheimer's Association and
the over 212 other chapters nationwide are dedicated to sponsoring research into the diagnosis,
treatment and cure of the disease and providing support services to America's Four Million
Alzheimer's Disease victims, their families, caregivers and communities. For additional
information on your local Chapter's local services please call 295-1910.
********
I
c: \AZ\cm\BOARD\1IADIn -9l.RLS