HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-05 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 5, 2003
March 7, 2003
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
1. Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members~ except Mr. Perkins,
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis,
Wayne Cilimber9 and Ella Carey.
4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Katie Hobbs read a statement on behalf of Citizens
for Albemarle outlining several recommendations for
the Rural Areas Advisory/Focus Group.
5.2. Proclamation recognizing March 19 through March
23, 2003 as Virginia Festival of the Book Month.
· ADOPTED and presented to Nancy Damon.
5.3. Claudius Crozet Park Property Purchase.
- APPROVED the purchase of 2.19-acre parcel from
Claudius Crozet Park, Inc., and AUTHORIZED
County Executive to execute Purchase Agreement
and Deed acceptable to County Attorney and take
other appropriate action in order to effectuate the
purchase with Claudius Crozet Park, Inc.
5.4. Addition of Corville Farm Road (Route 868) into
State Secondary System of Highways.
- ADOPTED resolution.
5.5. Set public hearing to amend the jurisdiction areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer
service to TM32A, Sec3B, Ps18&19 (Thomas P.
Haught).
· SET public hearing.
5.6. ZMA-2002-001. Fontaine Avenue Condos (Signs
#77&81 ).
· DEFERRED public headng until March 19, 2003.
5.7. Red Hill Groundwater Contamination.
AUTHORIZED the Department of Engineering and
Public Works to work with DEQ to facilitate a long-
term solution to the Red Hill contamination problem.
5.8. =Letter dated February 5, 2003, to the Honorable
Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr., Chairman, from Janardan R.
Pandy, Environmental Engineer Senior, Valley
Regional Office, Department of Environmental
Quality, re: copy of notice of public hearing for
proposed issuance of major source modification
permit to the City of Harrisonburg - Resource
Recovery Facility.
· Ms. Thomas expressed concern about the potential
impact and asked that somebody look into it.
6a. Work Session: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan.
· DEFERRED until April 2, 2003. The Board
requested staff reorder the list of unpaved roads, set
out the proposed rural rustic roads,, and provide a
ASSIGNMENT
Clerk: Prepare letter for Chairman's signature
acknowledging and forward copy of statement to
Planning.
(Attachment 1)
County Attorney's office: Proceed as directed, get
appropriate signatures, and provide Clerk's office and
Parks and Recreation a copy of fully executed
documents. (Attachment 2)
Clerk: Forward resolution to Jim Bryan and copy
Engineering. (Attachment 3)
;lerk: Advertise public hearing for April 2, 2003.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing for March 19, 2003.
En,qineedn.q and Public Works: Staff to work with DEQ
on landowner contact, community meetings, and
evaluation of various long-term alternatives, including
establishment of central water su ppty.
County Executive: Direct Engineering staff to review
and provide additional information to Board.
Plannin,q staff: Proceed as directed.
-Page 1-
narrative on the roads. Provide one list that
includes this year's and last year's pdority ranking
and advertising dates. Staff to address the policy
implications of paving more roads in the rural areas.
6b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Jim Bryan
· Provided Board members with fact sheet on
Advance Mills Bridge.
Chades Martin
· Asked for an update on the feasibility of turning left
in both lanes from Route 20 onto Route 250. Mr.
Bryan responded that he is waiting for a reply from
the Culpeper office.
David Bowerman
· Thanked VDOT for the report on Carrsbrook.
· Mentioned the bridge repairs on the Locust Avenue
and Park Street bridges. The traffic impacts are
going to be significant. There needs to be some
detour signs installed in the County coordination
with the City.
7. Presentation: Financial Advisors.
· RECEIVED.
8. Public hearing on a request to include Blue Springs
Farm Subdivision under Sec 4-213 of the County
Code as an area where dogs are prohibited from
running at large.
· ADOPTED resolution.
9. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 2002.
· RECEIVED,
10.
SP-2002-016. Old Trail Golf Club (formerly
Bucks Elbow Golf Club) Amendment (Signs
76&93).
APPROVED SP-02-16, by a vote of 5:0, subject to
the 18 conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
11. FY 2004 Budget Bdefing.
* RECEIVED.
12. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
· At 12:35 p.m., the Board went into closed session.
13. Certify Closed Session.
· At 1:52 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session and certified the closed session.
14. Appointments.
· REAPPOINTED William Harvey to the Advisory
Council on Aging, with said term to expire May 31,
2005.
· REAPPOINTED Nickolas J. Sojke to the
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation
(CHART) Advisory Committee, with said term to
expire April 3, 2005.
· REAPPOINTED Edward Jones and Hovey Dabney
to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (T. J. Planning
District), with said terms to expire June 3, 2005.
Clerk: Forward comments to Jim Bryan.
Clerk: Notify property owners of Board's action.
Forward adopted resolution to County Attorney's office
for inclusion in next update of County Code.
Clerk: Set out conditions below. (Attachment 5)
Clerk: Prepare appointment lettesr, update Boards and
Commissions book and notify appropriate persons.
-Page 2-
APPOINTED Richard Lindsay to the Jefferson Area
Board on Aging (T. J. Planning District), with said
term to expire June 3, 2005.
REAPPOINTED Peter Sheras to the Region Ten
Community Services Board, with said term to expire
June 30, 2006.
· REAPPOINTED Karen Lilleleht to the House
Committee, with said term to expire December 31,
2005.
APPOINTED Kevin O'Connor to the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority Advisory Committee, with said term
to expire December 31, 2004.
15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Dennis Rooker
· Mentioned an article regarding West Nile. Wants to
make sure the County has an ongoing
communication program.
Sally Thomas
· Mentioned a letter from Central Virginia Health
Services, Inc., an entity that, in 2002, provided
service to 1700 patients in the Esmont area. They
are applying for grant funding to expand their
practice to include dental services and are
requesting a letter of support.
· She and Mr. Rooker will be meeting with Butch
Davies regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway.
3:30 p.m. Joint Meetin,qI with Plannin,flt Commission
2. Wk Session: Rural Areas Section of Comprehensive
Plan.
· HELD.
3. Adjourn.
· The meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
Clerk:
Prepare letter for Chairman's signature.
/ewc
Attachment I - Virginia Festival of the Book Proclamation
Attachment 2 - Deed and Agreement for Purchase of Claudius Crozet Park property
Attachment 3 - Corville Farm Road Resolution
Attachment 4 - Ordinance - Blue Springs Farm Subdivision
Attachment 5 - Conditions of Approval
-Page 3-
J
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
Attachment I
Albemarle CountY is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within and outside
its borders; and
WHEREAS,
our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over 1,000 writers and tens of
thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books and publishing; and
businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contributed to the ongoing
success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS,
the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF
THE BOOK the best book festival in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of CountY
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 19, 2003 through Sunday,
March 23, 2003 as the ninth annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to partic~te fully in the wide
range of available events and activitieg
Signed and sealed this 5th day of March, 2003.
-Page 4-
Attachment 2
THIS DEED dated this day of 2003, by and between CLAUDIUS
CROZET PARK, INC., a Virginia nonstock corporation, Grantor and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the total sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00),
and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do
hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH
COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee the following described property:
All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the
appurtenances thereunto belonging, situated in the Community of Crozet in Albemarle County,
Virginia, designated as Albemarle County Tax Map 56 as Parcel 55, containing 2.19 acres, more
or less, as shown on plat of Warren F. Wade, C.L.S., dated February 16, 1970 (the "Plat), of
record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 495,
page 626, on which Plat the subject property is identified by the name "WILLIAM
WASHINGTON"; being the same property conveyed to Seller by deed from Vivian W. Meads,
Yvonne E. Shackelford, Denton Washington and Ora M. Washington dated June 1, 2000, of
record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1924, page 103.
Reference is made to the Plat for a more Particular description of the land conveyed hereby.
This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive
notice in the chain of title to the property conveyed hereby, insofar as same affect said property, which
have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its Chairman, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the conveyance of the interest in real
estate made by this Deed.
This Deed is exempt from recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 pursuant to
Virginia Code § 58.1-811(A)(3).
WITNESS the following signatures.
GRANTOR:
CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC.,
a Virginia nonstock corporation
By:
DANNY NEWTON
PRESIDENT
GRANTEE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
-Page 5-
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE (the "Agreement") made this
day of ,2003 by and between CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC., a Virginia nonstock
corporation (hereinafter the "Seller') and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the
"Buyer`).
1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate located in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "Property"), and described as follows:
All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the
appurtenances thereunto belonging, situated in the Community of Crozet in Albemarle County,
Virginia, designated as Albemarle County Tax Map 56 as Parcel 55, containing 2.19 acres, more
or less, as shown on plat of Warren F. Wade, C.LS., dated February 16, 1970, of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 495, page 626, on
which plat the subject property is identified by the name '~VILLIAM WASHINGTON"; being the
same property conveyed to Seller by deed from Vivian W. Meads, Yvonne E. Shackelford,
Denton Washington and Ora M. Washington dated June 1, 2000, of record in said Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 1924, page 103.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase pdce for the Property is THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($30,000.00) and shall be paid by Buyer to Seller by cash, in the form of a check drawn on Buyer's official
account, at closing.
3. Conveyance. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by appropriate deed containing
general warranty of title, which title shall be good, marketable and insurable, free and clear of all liens,
indebtedness, encumbrances and tenancies, and subject only to such easements, covenants and
restrictions of record that do not adversely affect marketability and insurability of title, that do not
adversely affect Buyer's intended uses of the Property and that are approved by Buyer prior to closing. In
the event Buyer's attorney finds title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any defect within 60
days of notice thereof to them, Buyer make declare this Agreement null and void, and alt funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded.
4. Uses. Buyer agrees to utilize the Property for County park and recreational purposes
and community-related activities.
5. Right of First Refusal. Buyer and Seller agree that, in the event that Buyer ceases using
the Property for park and recreational purposes and decides to sell the Property, Buyer shall provide
written notice to Seller, who shall have the dght of first refusal to purchase the Property. Once notified in
writing of Buyer's intent to sell the Property, Seller shall have 30 days to exercise the right of first refusal.
Seller shall communicate its intent regarding the right of first refusal to Buyer in writing within the 30-day
pedod.
6. Costs and Expenses. Seller shall pay Seller's recording tax applicable to the transfer of
the property to the Buyer, its share of the current real estate taxes and its own attorney's fees. Buyer shall
pay its own attorney's fees, its prorata share of the current year's real estate taxes when due and
payable, cost of title insurance, survey, subdivision and deed preparation and all recording costs (unless
exempt) other than the Seller's deed tax. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all other expenses incurred
by Buyer in connection with this purchase, including without limitation flue examination, insurance
premiums, recording costs and fees of Buyer's attorney, shall be borne by Buyer. All taxes, assessments,
interest, rent, and escrow deposits, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of Settlement and paid by
Seller. Buyer agrees to pay any rollback taxation assessed against the Property.
-Page 6-
7. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle County Attomey's Office on or before
January 30, 2003 (or earlier if Buyer and Seller agree), or as soon thereafter as title can be examined,
and papers prepared.
8. Right of Entry. Buyer, its employees, representatives, agents and assigns, shall have the
right to enter upon the Property at any time prior to closing for purposes of engineering, surveying,
geotechnical investigation, soil borings and other necessary site investigation, so long as such studies do
not result in a change in the character or topography of the Property. Buyer agrees to assume full
responsibility for its actions or those of its em ployees, representatives, agents and assigns resulting from
such entry, and shall pay all costs associated with such entry and any services obtained by it in the
course of such site investigation.
9. Risk of Loss. All risk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or
other causes are assumed by, and shall be borne by the Seller until closing. In the event of any material
loss, destruction or damage to the Property by reason of fire, windstorm, casualty or other causes pdor to
Closing which delays Closing, Buyer shall have the right to void. this Agreement.
10. Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property will be in substantially the same
condition at Closing as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
11. Construction, Benefit and Effect. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and may not
be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all the parties.
12. A,qreement Survives Closing. It is expressly understood and agreed by Buyer and Seller
that time is of the essence of this Agreement, and that all agreements, promises, stipulations and
representations contained herein shall survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators,
agents, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
13. Purchase Contingencies. This Agreement is subject to approval by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
14. Authorization of Purchase. Seller warrants that it has approved the conveyance of the
Property to Buyer pursuant to a duly authorized corporate resolution or other authorized action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day first above
written.
SELLER:
CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC.,
a Virginia nonstock corporation
By:
DANNY NEWTON
PRESIDENT
~UYER:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
-Page 7-
Attachment 3
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 5th day of
March, 2003, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street described below was established in 1971, currently serves at least three
families per mile and serves from 200 to 300 cars per day from residencies with no viable alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current
subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend
additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-72-1, Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all the property abutting this street, this Board finds
speculative interest does not exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the following street to the secondary
system of highways, pursuant to 33.1-72. I(D), Code of Virginia:
Name of Street: Croville Farm Road
Length: 0.22 Miles
From: Route 691
To: Cul-de-sac
AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to
improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to 33.1-
72.1(D), Code of Virginia; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Corville Farm Road (Route 868) from the intersection of Route 691, (Greenwood Road)
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 06/14/1971 in Deed Book 474, page 009;
and Deed Book 499, page 376, in the Office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.22 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.22 mile.
-Page 8-
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division 2, Running At Large, is hereby amended
and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Section 4-213 In certain areas.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II. DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
DIVISION 2. RUNNING AT LARGE
Sec. 4-213 In certain areas.
A. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog to run at large at any
time within the following designated areas of the county:
(1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county. (7-19-73)
(2)
clerk's office of the county:
19-73)
Orchard Acres Subdivision, Crozet, as platted and put to record in the
Section I, Deed Book 322, page 146; section 2, Deed Book 471, page 401. (7-
(3) Woodbrook Subdivision as platted and put to record in the cle~s office of
the county: Section I, Deed Book 358, page 297; section 2, vacated, Deed Book 414, page 115; section 3,
Deed Book 386, page 39; section 4, Deed Book 397, page 177; section 4A, Deed Book 408, page 215;
section 5, Deed Book 402, page 111; section 6, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 7, Deed Book 419, page
359; section 8, Deed Book 459, page 209; section 8A, Deed Book 481, page 231. (8-22-73)
(4) Georgetown Green as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the
county in Deed Book 440, page 93. (9-26-73)
(5) Crozet areas, beginning at a point, a corner common to parcels 96, 46 and
45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence in a westerly direction and 45B of section 56 of the county
tax maps; thence, in a westedy direction along the southern boundaries of parcels 45B and 39, section 56 of
the county tax maps to the centerline of State Route 240; thence with State Route 240 north to the
intersection of the northeastern comer of parcel 11 of section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a westerly
direction with the northern boundary of parcel 11 to a comer with parcel 10D of section 56 of the county tax
map; thence, in a southerly and westerly direction with the eastern and southern boundaries of parcels 10D,
10 and 9 of section 56 and parcel 69 of section 55 to a corner with parcels 69 and 71A of section 55; thence,
with the boundaries of parcel 71A of section 56 in a southerly, westerly and northerly direction to the corner
with parcel 70F of section 55; thence, in a westerly direction with the southem boundaries of parcels 70F, 72
(13), and 72B of section 55 to the southwestern corner 0f parcel 72B, a comer common with parcels 74 and
75 of section 55; thence, with the eastern boundary of parcel 74 in a northerly direction to the center of State
Route 691 and continuing in a northerly direction across State Route 691 and alOng the eastern boundary of
parcel 66 of section 55 to a corner with Orchard Acres, (section 55C); thence, with Orchard Acres in a
-Page 9-
clockwise direction to its intersection with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and continuing across the
railway to its northern right-of-way; thence, in an easterly direction along the C & 0 right-of-way to its
intersection with the western boundary of pamel 51 of section 55 extended; thence, in a northeasterly
direction across State Route 788 to its intersection with the western boundary of parcel 51 of section 55;
thence, in a northeasterly direction along the western boundaries of parcels 51, 50, and 49 section 55 and
parcel 1 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 48 of section 55; thence, in a northwesterly and northeasterly
direction along the southern boundary of parcel 48 of section 55 and the southern and western boundary of
parcel 47 of section 55 continuing in a northeastern direction along the western boundaries of parcels 1, 3
and 5E of section 56 to a comer with parcel 5E of section 55, parcel 17 of section 40 and Sunrise Acres
(section 40A); thence, with Sunrise Acres in a clockwise direction to the intersection with the centerline of
State Route 810; thence, in a southwesterly and south-easterly direction with State Route 810 to the
intersection with the southern boundary df parcel 64 of section 56; thence, in an eastern direction with the
southem boundary of its inter-section with parcel 66 of section 56; thence, in a southerly and eastedy
direction around the western and southem boundaries of parcel 66 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel
66B of section 56; thence, in an eastem direction along the southern boundary of parcel 66B, section 56, to a
comer with parcel 58 of section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western
boundary of parcel 58 to section 56A (2) to its inter-section with State Route 240 and continuing across State
Route 240 and parcel 60 to section 56A (2) and the C & 0 Railway to a comer common to parcels 67 and 68
of section 56A (2) on the southern right-of-way of the C & 0 Railway; thence, with the southern right-of-way of
the C & 0 Railway in a westedy direction to its intersection with a corner common to parcel 58 of section 56
and parcel 71B of section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western and
southern boundary of parcel 58 of section 56 to a comer with parcel 57^ (1) of section 56; thence, in a
southerly and eastedy direction along the western and southern boundary of parcel 57A (1) of section 56 and
the southern boundary of parcel 57 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 55 of section 56; thence, with parcel
55 of section 56 in a northeasterly direction to a comer with parcel 54 of section 56; thence, in a southeasterly
direction with the southern boundary of parcel 54 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 48 of section 56;
thence, in a southeastern and southern direction along the eastern boundary of parcel 48 of section 56 to its
corner with parcel 47 of section 56; thence, in a southerly direction along the eastern boundaries of parcels
47 and 46 of section 56 to the point of beginning.
(6) Jefferson Village Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 449, page 637 and Deed Book 452, page 87. (12-19-73)
(7) Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the
county in Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 129, Deed Book 545, page 68 and Deed Book 653, page 79.
(1-23-74; 5-21-86)
(8) Sherwood Manor Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 504, page 114 and Deed Book 514, page 505. (1-23-74)
(9) Four Seasons as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county
in Deed Book 467, page 378 and Deed Book 481, page 417. (3-27-74)
(10) Earlysville Heights Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 452, page 165 and Deed Book 491, page 3. (3-27-74)
(11) Westmoreland SubdMsion as platted and put to record in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 402, page 91; section 2, Deed Book 414,
page 29; section 3, Deed Book 419, page 265, and section 4, Deed Book 423, page 19. (5-22-74)
(12) Hessian Hills Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 316, page 254; section 2, Deed Book 327,
page 327; section 3, Deed Book 370, page 145; Deed Book 379, page 365 and section 4, Deed Book 378,
page 107. (10-9-74)
-Page 10-
(13) Knollwood Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the county, in Deep Book 272, page 3. (Does not include Old Forge Road or Hessian
Hills Apartments.) (10-9-74)
(14) Stonehenge Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 543, page 409; Deed Book 545, page 660; Deed Book
548, pages 326, 345, 346, 347, 348, 522 and Deed Book 550, page 320. (1-22-75)
(15) Queen Charlotte Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 395, page 6. (3-10-76)
(16) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page 553. (12-7-77)
(17) Oak Hill Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 360, page 105; Deed Book 362, page 22; Deed Book 391, page
483; Deed Book 396, page 291; Deed Book 398, page 317; Deed Book 40t, page 228; Deed Book 405,
page 433; Deed Book 441, page 299 and Deed Book 468, 'page 85. (5-22-78)
(18) Westgate Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42, 42C and 42D) as
platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 497, page 636;
and Deed Book 529, page 147. (5-22-78)
(19) Solomon Court Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42 and 43D) as
platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 349, page 390;
Deed Book 353, page 145 and Deed Book 430, page 181. (5-22-78)
(20) Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted ar~l recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 357, page 55; Deed Book 361, page 127; Deed Book 376, page
224, Deed Book 380, pages 249, 251 and 253; Deed Book 384, page 27 and Deed Book 387, page 469. (6-
21-78)
(21) Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 426, page 457; and Deed Book 455, page 16. (6-21-78)
(22) Greenbrier Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 550, page 601. (10-7-81)
(23) Huntwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court in Deed Book 728, page 377; and Deed Book 728, page 378. (5-13-87)
(24) Hollymead as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court for the following areas: Sections 1 and 2 in Deed Book 531, pages 309 through 313; section 3 in Deed
Book 714, page 444; Hollymead Square in Deed Book 633, page 330; tax map 46, parcel 28G in Deed Book
418, page 440; tax map 46, pame126B2 in Deed Book 741, page 304; and tax map 46B1-01-1 in Deed Book
489, page 381. (9-16-87)
(25) The urban area of the county, the communities of Hollymead and Cmzet
and the village of Scottsville, all as defined in the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia, and as
shown on a map which is on file in the office of the clerk to the board of supervisors. (11-4-87)
(26) Wavedy Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382; and Deed Book 781, pages 267 and 270. (12-16-87)
(27) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292; Deed Book 644, pages 269 and 270; Deed
-Page 11-
Book 646, pages 220 to 221; Deed Book 657, pages 789 to 790; Deed Book 659, pages 561 to 565; Deed
Book 694, pages 544 to 545; and Deed Book 867, page 253. (12-16-87)
(28) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 197; Deed Book 365, page 202;
Deed Book 371, page 474; Deed Book 388, page 514; Deed Book 393, page 417; Deed Book 410, page 577;
Deed Book 420, page 259; Deed Book 505, page 607; Deed Book 530, page 351; Deed Book 543, page 114;
Deed Book 661, page 44; Deed Book 692, page 453; and Deed Book 809, page 623. (9-7-88)
(29) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 703, pages 742, 743 and 744. (1-17-90)
(30) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149. (8-8-90)
(31) Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 343, page 64. (8-17-94)
(32) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 339, page 458. (8-17-94)
(33) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 637, page 456. (12-7-94)
(34) Glenmore Planned Residential Development as recorded in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 1074, page 203 and Deed Book 1209, page 257.
(1-4-95)
(35) Peacock Hills Subdivision as recorded in the Off~:e of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 589, pages 205-212; Deed Book 708, pages 286; Deed Book 777,
pages 039; Deed Book 904, pages 182, Deed Book 960, page 174; Deed Book 1025, page 610; Deed Book
1123 pages 071; Deed Book 1189, page 407; Deed Book 1310, page 128. (9-6-95)
(36) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 564, page 088. (3-12-97)
(37) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 365, page 212. (12-2-98)
(38) Westmont Subdivision as platted and recorded in the ofrme of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 1513, page 201, and in Deed Book 1617, page 510.
(39) Blue Spdngs Farm Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 1341, page 121.
B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to be running at large while
roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or
custodian's immediate control. Any person who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed to have
violated the provisions of this section, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than five dollars ($5.00)
nor more than twenty-t-n/e dollars ($25.00). It shall be the duty of the animal control officer to enforce the
provisions of this section.
(7-19-73; 8-22-73; 9-26-73; 11-15-73; 12-19-73; 1-3-74; 1-23-74; 3-24-77; 5-22-74; 10-9-74, 1-22-75; 3-
10-76; 4-21-76; 12-7-77; 5-22-78; 6-21-78; 10-7-81; 5-21-86; 5-13-87; 9-16-87; 11-4-87; 12-16-87; 9-8-
88; Ord of 1-17-90; Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. No. 94-4(2), 8-17-94; Ord. No. 94-4(3), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95-4(1),
-Page 12-
1-4-95; Ord. No. 95-4(2), 9-6-95; Code 1988, § 4-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-4(1), 12-2-98; Ord. 00-
4(1), 5-3-00; Ord. 03-4(2), 3-5-03)
State law reference-Authority of county to adopt this section, Va~ Code § 3.1~796.93.
-Page 13.
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
Attachment 5
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2002-016, Old Trail Golf Club (formerly Bucks Elbow Golf Club)
Amendment (Signs g44,76&93). Public hearing on a request to allow public golf course w/clubhouse in
accord w/Secs 10.2.2.4, 13.2.2.4 & 16.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord. TM 55, Ps 84C,84E,102,103,103F,83&71
contains 207 acs. Loc on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt US 250) appmx 0.5 mis E of intersec of US 250 & 1-
64. Znd RA, R-l, R-6 & EC. White Hall Dist.
10.
11.
12.
13.
The facility shall be in general accord with the plan tiffed "Old Trails Golf Club", prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., dated October 21, 2002, and revised December 16, 2002,
subject to these conditions;
The applicant shall construct a read to serve the golf course, built to public read standards and
running from Route 250 to the property line at the northern edge of Tax Map 56, Parcel 14. The
road shall follow an alignment consistent with the Crozet Master Plan, once adopted;
Private club memberships shall not be required for access to or play on the course;
There shall be no outdoor lighting of the course or of the practice area/driving range;
No new residential development shall be permitted within the "Limits of Golf Course indicated on
the plan titled "Old Trails Golf Club", prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., and dated
October 21, 2002, and revised December 16, 2002;
The existing house known as Mountain View shall not be demolished;
The clubhouse, restroom building, and maintenance facility shall be located within the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional area;
No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any
residential or rural district. No parking area or loading space shall be located closer than twenty
(20) feet to any residential or rural district;
All landscaping around the clubhouse, restroom building, maintenance facility, parking area and
other facilities shall include only native plants identified in the brochure "Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau," published by the Virginia
Department of Conservation & Recreation;
Vegetated areas of the facility outside the tees, greens, fairways, roughs, cart paths, and access
road shall remain in their current states (if wooded) or be revegetated and maintained in native
plant species. These species shall be selected from the brochure "Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau" and/or "Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Riparian Forest Buffers," published by the Virginia
Department of Conservation & Recreation. Species identified in the "Riparian Forest Buffers"
brochure as being native only to the Coastal Plain region shall not be used. Management of these
areas shall maintain them in native plant species. Non-native plant species shall be diligently
removed from these areas. The applicant shall submit a letter from the Thomas Jefferson Soil &
Water Conservation Distdct stating that these plantings required in have been established to the
District's satisfaction;
The applicant, upon the request of the County, shall provide verification to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Community Development that the site is in compliance with the
specifications contained in Conditions 9 and 10 regarding the landscaping plan;
Stream buffers in pasture at the date of this approval shall be revegetated in accordance with the
schematic titled "Minimum Standard for Hole Crossings in Existing Pasture Areas", dated January
15, 2003, and prepared by Jerry Kami. The design of the stream crossing on hole twelve (12)
shall be deemed to be in general accord with the plan titled "Old Trails Golf Club", prepared by
ROudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., dated October 21, 2002 and revised December 16, 2002,
and shall use a minimal sight line subject to a mitigation plan to be approved by the Department
of Engineering and Public Works;
Irrigation water for the golf course shall come only from surface water impounded on existing
ponds on the site;
-Page 14-
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The dams and outlet structures on the two (2) ponds on the site shall be repaired and upgraded
to the satisfaction of the Department of Engineering and Public Works;
The course shall secure Department of Engineering and Public Works approval of a natural
resources management plan. This plan shall address wildlife conservation and habitat
enhancement, waste reduction and management (including, hazardous material storage and spill
containment), energy efficiency, water conservation (including water-use reporting and efforts to
protect streamflow in Slabtown Branch), water quality management (including runoff management
for the clubhouse area, monitoring, and reporting), and integrated pest management. The
applicant, upon the request of the County, shall provide verification to the satisfaction of the
Director of Engineering and Public Works that the site is in compliance with the specifications
contained in the plan;
Grading shall be carded out in general accord with the conceptual grading plan rifled "Preliminary
Grading Plan," prepared by Gene Bates Golf Design, and dated January 9, 2003;
Cart-path stream crossings shall be built in general accord with the drawings titled "Wooden
Cartway Crossing Plan" and "Wooden Cartway Crossing Elevation;" and
Neither the green for hole fourteen (14) nor the tee boxes for hole fifteen (15) shall be located
less than twenty-five (25) feet from the property line.
-Page 15-
Citizens for Albemarle
Statement for RA Advisory/Focus Group
A staff report, Draft of Introduction and Land Use Section of Chapter Four
Rural Area Comprehensive Plan (May 21, 2001), includes "Guiding Principles"
directed towards maintaining the rural nature of Albemarle. These Principles
have been posted on the County web site and state that Albemarle County will:
"Recognize in policy development that all the following defining aspects are
equal and important components of the Rural Areas": a) Agriculture; b)
Forestry- Resources; c) Land Preservation; d) Land Conservation; e) Water
Supply Resources; f) Natural Resources; g) Scenic Resources; h) Historical,
Archeological and Cultural Resources.,'
The Principles also state that the County will:
"Encourage and implement protection and enhancement of genetic, species,
and ecosystem diversity for wildlife in the County."
Conversely, the staff report goes on to say that: "Agricultural and forestal uses
continue to be the priority land uses for the Rural Area." This statement reflects
old policy and contradicts the "equal and important components" phrase, thus
failing to take the full body of the current Guiding Principles into account".
Citizens for Albemarle~ses~aat the Rural Areas Advisory/Focus Group
strongly supports, in all reports it produces or presentation it makes, that:
· Natural resource conservation (particularly water resources, biodiversity
components, forests, wetlands, and riparian areas) be explicitly recognized
and included in land-use plans and policies;
· Sustainable coexistence of these natural resources with other land uses (e.g.,
agricultural, forestal, historical, etc.) should be a fundamental goal of
County Rural Area policies; and that
· Pro-active planning tools such as PDR (for example, ACE) be directed
towards natural resource conservation as a highest priority.
Submitted by: Board of Directors, Citizens for Albemarle, 26 February 2003
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date:
Agenda Item #:,,
?o: Members, Board of Supervisors
From; Ella Washington Carey, CMC, ~~
Subject: Reading fist for March 5, 2003
Date: February 28, 2003
August 7, 2002
October 9, 2002
November 6, 2002
December I I, 2002
Pages 18 - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. Martin
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Bowerman
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM.
/ewc
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS,
Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS,
our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over
1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS,
businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF
THE BOOK; and
WttEREAS,
the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the
country;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday,
March 19, 2003 through Sunday, March 23, 2003 as the ninth
annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide
range of available events and activities.
Signed and sealed this 5th day of March, 2003.
CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Thomas P. Haught -- Request to amend Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide sewer service to Tax
Map 32A, Section 3B, Parcels 18 and 19.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Biel
AGENDA DATE:
March 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
The ap plicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for sewer service to two half-acre lots located on the north side
of Proffit Road (Rt. 649), approximately 400 feet west of Pritchett Lane (Attachment A - applicant's request, Attachment B -
location and tax map). The property is located within the designated Development Areas, in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Parcel 18 is the applicant's residence and Parcel 19 is currently a vacant lot owned by the applicant. The applicant would like to
construct a new dwelling on Parcel 19; however, the request for a sewer permit was denied by the health Department due to the
"presence of water table features in the shallow soil horizons." Also, the septic system that serves the applicant's residence on
Parcel 19 is marginal.
The site is located in the Springfield Subdivision, which is within the Hollymead Community. The site is within the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area designated for water only (Attachment C). The applicant's lots are approximately 1,300 feet east of the
ACSA Jurisdictional Area that provides both water and sewer.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located in the Urban Area Hollymead Community. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following
concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the development Areas:
"General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)."
"Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
"Follow the.boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)."
There is a substantial area of the Hollymead Community in this subject area that is not included in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area
at this time (Attachment E). This area is formed by the eastern side of Route 29, extending north to the North Fork Rivanna
River, proceeding east and winding along the North Fork Rivanna River to the end of Pritchett Lane, following Pritchett Lane
southwesti to the Northwood Mobile Home Park (Attachment C & D). As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan recommends
serving Development Areas with public water and sewer. Therefore, this quadrant of the Hollymead Community should be
designated as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer service.
RECOMMENDATION:
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated
Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this property is
located within a designated Development Area, the provision of both water and sewer service to the properties would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to
consider providing public sewer service to Parcel 32A, Section 3B, Parcels 18 and 19. Staff also recommends the Board of
Supervisors consider including in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer service the quadrant of the Hollymead
Community that is not currently included.
03.029
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE
SERVICE AUTHORITy
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
ATTACHMENT A
County of Albemarle
Department of planning alld Commlllaity Development
401 McInth'e Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 ~
804 296-5823
Phone:
CO-APPLICANT Name (or agent, if any):
Signature:
Address:
Phone:
JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED:
~[~ ~ Sewer
[] Water Only to Existing Structure(s)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address)
Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s): ,~ ~ J~
[] Water Only
[] Limited Service (Describe in Justification
below)
CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any):
[] Water and Sewer 'ffWater Only
[] Water Only to Exisling Structures [] Limited Service
JUSTIFICATIONFORREIQUEST: (.JL) fl/3/O Tr) o/~i'-~L.) V/~I¢
For Staff Use Only
PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate):
~ I~ide or ~ Outside a Gro~h Area? ~ Adjacent to SAJA?
~ Inside or ~ Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? ~ Adjacent to a Oro~h Area?
Location and dis~nce of water/sewer line proposed to provide se~ice
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action
Albemarle County .
Service
32A, ~ 3B, Pafcets 18 and 19 am not in II~e Service Aullxx~s~ area. As such :you
PAS:drag
cc Wayne ~
Paul A. 8hoop, P.E.
Dm~ofF. ng~
168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Tel (804} 977-J511 · Fax (804)9790698
www. acsanet, com
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the
State Del=artment of Health
Office of Environmental Health
Phone (804) 972-6259
FAX (804) 9724310
~ December 17, 2002
Thomas Jefferson Health Distn'ct
1138 Rose Hill Drive
P. O. Box 7546
Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
Thomas and Francesa Haught
3005 Cove Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Re:
Sewage Disposal System Application
Tax Map 32A-3-B-19
Route 649, Albemarle County, Virginia
ALBEMARLE -- CHARt.OT't~..b-~/ILLE
GREENE COUNTY (STANARI~VIL[~
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
NELSON COUNTY {U:)V;NGSTON)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haught:
Your application for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit filed on October 31, 2002 with the Albemarle
County Health Department has been evaluated in accordance with the requirements contained in the Code of
Virginia, Section 32.1-163, thc Sewage Handling and. Disposal Regulatiqns, and current agency policy and
procedures for processing applications for on-site sewage disposal systems.
Based on the information filed with your application and the site evaluation conducted by the Departments
representative, your application for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit for the above retkrenced
location is denied for a conventional, sewage disposal system in the areas investigated by the health department. The
Department's ffmdings and reasons for denial in the areas examined, are set forth in item A:
A. Presence of water table features in the shallow soil horizons.
In accordance with the Virginia Adm/ni-~trative Process Act, Title 9, Chapter 1.1:1 and Section 32.1-t64.t of the
Code of Virginia, this letter is to further inform you of your right to appeal from the decision of the Department,
which is specified in this letter.
l.f you desire to pursue your right to appeal in which you may at your discretion be represented by counsel, the first
step in the appeal process is to submit to Susan L. McLeod, M.D., M.P.H., P.O. Box 7546, Charlottesville, Virginia
22906, Phone (804) 972-6219~ a written request detailing and outlining all the facts and such data or infornaation
which forms the basis for you appeal within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If thi~ office may be of further sexx/ce to you regarding your application, please let us know.
Environmental Health Specialist~ Senior
Jan. 13, 2003
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
PO Box 2738
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Sewage disposal System Application
Tax M_ap 32A-S-B-19
RT 649 Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Sirs:
My application for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit fried October 31, 2002
was denied, as conveyed in Mr. William Loth's letter to me dated December 17, 2002.,
copy attached.
desire to obtain sewer service from the Albemarle County Service Authority.
The Albemarle County Service Authority sewer line currently exists at a higher elevation
approx 50 yards, from this property, across RT 649 ( Proffit Road) serving Forest Lakes
North residences.
I understand that to obtain this service, I would have to obtain right of ways, install a
grinder pump, and install the sewer line, including crossing under Rt. 649. I further desire
that this installation would also provide the sewer service for the lot I currently own
adjacent to the subject tot, which is on a septic system and where water is supplied by
Albemarle County Service Authority( account 0721455520).
Please advise how- I may obtain the necessary permits and cost analysis to proceed with
this project.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas p. Haught
3005 Cove Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22911
434 964 1837
434 981 5452 Cell
frantom ~adelphia. net
ATTACHMENT B
N
ACSA REQUEST
FOR SEWER SERVICE
032A0- 03 - OB 01800 & 19 -
1 INCH = 1000 FEET
REVISED: 8/'{1/98
A LBEMARL E
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT C
./
:~ CLOVER'S AIRPORT ACRES D.B 350Pg, 193- O.B.358Pg,541- D.B.354Pg-505 - D. B. 352 Pg. 75 (A)- D. B. $9~ Pg.5
:'L~?,-; ACREAGE PARCELS
'~,,,', SPRINGFfELD DB. 394 pg. :~71B
'~' DB 6450g 88
DISTRICT
SECTION 32A,
ACSA REQUEST FOR WATER & SEWER
Streams and Rivers N
Parcel Lines W~E
ACSA Designation - Water Only s
ACSA Designation - Water to Existing Structures Only
ACSA Designation - Water & Sewer
Proposed Parcels for Water & Sewer ACSA Designation
~/"
':\ O.~
ATTACHMENT D
,/ :' ]l
. ' /~ \\ 'x . ~
,~'...~ .. ~ ~'~.,' '.,~ ~ ~; ' , ., .' ~. ... ~ . ~ . ',~ ,.~ ,.. .~;~. '~,-,,/ ,
..;'. ........... ; ......... /,? ' .........~ ., / ', ' r ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ " ',.,,
,> . · ....... ,
~ ~ ~ ~. . . . ~ ~'~ ',., / '.~ ~..,~
,., . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . .
, ~,,,.': , . =. ~ ~ ,,.. ~, '~
,., ~ ' ~ ? ......... ~ . .... ,.,/ ~. ,, / ',.,~ .,,,
. · , ~ ~.~/
~"', '.~ /,~ : ' . " c:'~[ '. .,, .,,,.
...,,...../ '~ ......... ~l:~ ~:~,..., '"-..~' ·
~ ,; /' : , ~~ , , /
"' ~ "?'".. ~. ' 'h ·
~" ~,,: .,"
PREPARED BY: -OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA SERVICES (GOS)- ~ 435 870
THIS MAP IS FOR DISP~Y PURPOSES ONLY. ~21/03
1,740
ATTACHMENT E
FORES ?
CARRSSROOK
Chris Greene v~
Lake
~.AKE PARK
/\
ALBE/VlARLE COUNTY - VIRG]lqlA
LAND USE PLAN
MAPF
COM!VlUNITIES OF HOLLYIVIEAD AND
PINEY MOUNTAIN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE' SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Red Hill Groundwater Contamination
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Information on DEQ request for County assistance with
development of alternative water supply for Red Hill residents
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman
AGENDA DATE:
March 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
On February 12, 2003, County staff from Engineering & Public Works met with De partment of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
representatives from Harrisonburg and Richmond. DEQ staff requested assistance and cooperation from the County on a very
difficult groundwater contamination issue in the Red Hill area. DEQ has been investigating groundwater contamination at the
site since the late 1980's. Initially, the Trading Post's fuel tanks and dispensers were the suspected source. At this point in
time, five various tanks, spills, and releases are under investigation. So far, 11 wells have had petroleum products detected,
and 7 have had carbon filtration units (cfu's) installed, some for many years. Over $1 million has already been expended on
investigations and pump and treat systems, and the plume is far from contained. To date, 2.8 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater and over 4,000 gallons of free-phase gasoline have been extracted from the ground. The wells at Red Hill School
have not been contaminated to date, based on extensive testing. However, the topography of the area raises concerns that
this may only be a matter of time.
According to Harrisonburg DEQ staff, they have investigated 2,200 cases of petroleum leaks during the history of the program,
and the Red Hill case is the most difficult case of all, and is in the "top ten" state-wide with regard to expense and intractability.
The main reason that DEQ approached the County is that they are very motivated to secure a permanent, long-term alternative
water supply for the impacted community. A couple of replacement wells have been drilled on individual properties, but these
have either become contaminated or are dry holes. DEQ has funds, albeit limited, for the development of an alternative,
centralized water supply, but would need the County's assistance to coordinate with landowners and facilitate the process of
finding a party to administer and maintain the new system. Public water lines maintained by ACSA are miles away from the site
and the cost of extending water service to these properties would likely be in excess of the property values.
DISCUSSION:
The County has always been reluctant to approve new central well systems in the Rural Areas. These are perceived as not
sustainable in the long-term, as evidenced by a steady stream of central well systems in distress over the course of several
decades. However, the nature of this case requires "out of the box" thinking. DEQ does not consider cfu's to be a long-term
solution, and on-site wells do not appear to be a premising prospect. Extending the existing public system does not ap pear to
be feasible considering the distance involved and the small number of households to be served. A centralized system could be
developed based on geologic studies to help ensure that the system is: (1) not in the pathway of the contaminant plume, and
(2) fed by wells with sustainable yields.
The more difficult question is policy related. The County would have to approve the new system und er Chapter 16 of the
County Code, and is being asked to help facilitate its establishment. The County would also have to work very hard to find an
entity to manage the new system, likely an existing utility such as ACSA or a company already in the business of operating
small water systems (of which there are several in the area). It is interesting to note that the groundwater committee has
recommended reconsidering the County's central well policy if these systems could be designed based on scientific information
and operated under the auspices of a professional management entity. Perhaps the Red Hill situation is the "camel's nose" in
this regard. The County's motivation should also be prompted by concerns for Red Hill School and the safety of its water into
the future.
AGENDA TITLE:
Red Hill Groundwater Contamination
March 5, 2003
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Department of Engineering & Public Works to work with DEQ to facilitate a long-term solution to the Red Hill
contamination problem. This would entail County staffworking with DEQ on landowner contact, community meetings, and the
evaluation of various long-term alternatives, including the establishment of a central water supply.
03.026
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Secretary of Natural Resources
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Valley Regional Office
Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-9519
Telephone (540)574-7/800 Fax (540)574-7878
www.deq.state.va, us
Robert G. Bumley
Director
R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Valley Regional Director
February 5, 2003
Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
104 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Dorrier:
In accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 5-80-1170 of the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution and
Virginia Code Section 10.1-1307.01, enclosed is a copy of the public notice announcement for
the proposed issuance of a major source modification permit to City of Harrisonburg - Resource
Recovery Facility. The public notice period for this draft permit begins on February 4, 2003 and
will continue for 30 days.
If you have any questions regarding the above draft permit or would like to have
information sent to you please call me at (540) 574-7817 or email me at
jrpandey~deq.state.va, us. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Enclosur~~ .:~ .
Sincerely,
Jan~d~~e
Environmental Engineer Senior
PUBLIC NOTICE
APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION
UNDER THE STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW
Public Notice Date: February 4, 2003
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) - Valley Regional Office will conduct a public hearing to
consider an air permit application from the following source:
Source Name:
City of Harrisonburg - Resource Recovery Facility
Registration No.: 81016
Location:
1630 Driver Road
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
This permit wiit allow the above source to replace two municipal waste combustio~i (MWC) uii~s and-in~'t~ll a ....
shredder. The permit will also allow an increase in distillate oil throughput for its existing boilers. The control
technology that is being proposed for each MWC urdt includes a dry-dry flue gas scrubbing system, a fabric filter
and a carbon injection system. The total expected annual emissions of pollutants from the above source would be as
follows: PM10 - 18.2 tons, SO2 - 53.7 tons, NOx - 140.8 tons, CO - 98.8 tons, VOC - 7.41 tons, Hazardous Ak
Pollutants (HAP) - 23.9 tons including 22.6 tons of HC1.
The hearing will be held in accordance with the Air Pollution Control Law, Virginia Code Sections 10.1-1300
et seq. and in accordance with the State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulations for the Control and Abatement of
Air Pollution, 9 VAC 5-80-1170. The hearing will be held on March 6, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the conference room
at the Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
DEQ staff will present an informational briefing describing the proposed project and the Department's rationale
for its preliminary determination to interested individuals immediately before the public hearing. This information
briefing will begin at 7:00 p.m. Following the presentation, DEQ staff will answer questions relating to air quality
issues affecting this project. The public hearing will start promptly at 7:30 p.m. Information exchanged during the
briefing will not be part of the public record.
The staffhas completed its rewew of the permit application and is ready to receive and consider pubhc
comments on the draft permit. The public may examine the application, draft permit and supporting documentation
at the Valley Regional Office located at 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801, on each business day
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. until the date of the hearing. Information may be obtained by
contacting Janardan Pandey, Valley Regional Office, at (540) 574-7817.
Persons who want to make an oral statement at the hearing concerning this application are requested to enter
their name on a sign-up sheet to be provided beginning at 6:30 p.m., 30 minutes before the public brief'rog, and to
furnish the hearing officer with a copy of their testimony and the original of all exhibits. Individuals may sign-up
only for themselves. The length of time allowed for testimony shall be determined by the hearing officer. In lieu of
oral testimony, written comments may be submitted during the public hearing to the hearing officer. Testimony,
exhibits, and comments are public records.
In addition, written comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail to Janardan Pandey, jrpandey~deq.state.va.us,
540-574-7817, 4411 Early Road, P. O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801, at any time before the hearing or until
the close of business 15 days thereafter. The public comment file will close on March 21, 2003.
R. Bradley Chewning, P. E.
Regional Director
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
TARPLEY GILLESPIE
JANUARY 21, 20O3
Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Va. Code 15.2- 2232) -Albemarle
County_ government operations building, Southern Urban Area
PROPOSAL:
Latein 2002, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors entered into an agreement to purchase
the Wachovia Bank Operations building at 547 Old Lynchburg Road. Albemarle County would
like to use this building for emergency~ervices and other operations. The building formerly was
used as a regional operations center for Wachovia Bank. The building would be used for the
specific County functions of POlice Department Headquarters and the administrative offices of
the Fire and Rescue and other services to be identified. Under the terms of the contract,
Wachovia Bank will lease a portion of the building back from the County until late in 2003 in
order to continue 6xisting functions. The County is currently studying space needs to determine
which additional department(s) would be most appropriate to relocate to this site. The public use
of the property requires a review for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan under Section
15.2-2232 of the State Code.
:~LOCATION:
The 10.07 acre property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcel 54P is located at 547 Old Lynchburg
Road approximately one quarter mile south ofi-64 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The
property is zoned CO Commercial Office and is designated for Office Service in the
Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within Neighborhood 5 of the designated
Development Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is at the junction of Old Lynchburg
Road and 5t~' Street Extended.
PROPOSED USE:
The Wachovia property will require some modification before any county operations will be
relocated. While these modifications are being planned, 30,000 square feet of the facility will be
leased back to Wachovia for its use for up to 12 months. When the building is ready for
occupancy by the County, which is anticipated to take approximately one year, public safety
operations including police and fire/rescue departments will be located there. Other county
operations will be relocated after a thorough analysis of space needs of individual departments
and the efficiency and effectiveness of providing services fromthe new space.
CHARACTER OF THE SITE/AREA:
The surrounding area is generally suburban in character. The property is located within
Neighborhood 5 of the designated Development Areas. A residential neighborhood is located to
the east and south of the site along Stagecoach Drive. Further southeast of the site is the Oak
Hill Mobile Home Park. To the west across Fifth Street Extended is the new Sterling multi-
family development, Country Green Apartments, and Southwood Mobile Home Park.
STAFF COMMENT:
The purpose of this review is to determine if the general location is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. In evaluating this proposal, staff identified the following issues to
consider:
Location within the designated Development Area - The proposed site is located within
Neighborhood 5 of the designated Development Areas. The property is designated for Office
Service use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Office Service use was created for uses including:
"Office parks and mixed use planned development emphasizing office Uses,
residential uses, and regional scale research and office uses providing information
and professional services to the County and the larger region."
The proposed government facility complies with the Land Use Plan designation of Office
Service. The proposal is in general harmony with the surrounding area. Because the proposal is
to be located within the existing Wachovia facilities, there is to be minimal, if any, new impact
from this project.
The property is zoned CO Commercial Office, which is intended to permit development of
administrative, business and professional offices and supporting accessory uses and facilities.
The activities proposed at the site are consistent with Office Service types of uses and therefor
are consistent with the recommended land uses and zoning.
Relation to Neighborhood Model District -Because this proposal makes adaptive reuse of an
existing structure, all twelve of the Neighborhood Model principles do not apply. Of the twelve
principles, the principles relevant to this proposal are Pedestrian Orientation, Interconnected
Streets and Transportation Networks, Mixture of Uses and Redevelopment.
The project is consistent with the Pedestrian Orientation principle in that the facility is within
close proximity to residences and is accessible by sidewalks. The implementation of a planned
transit line to the site will help to make the proposal consistent with the principle of
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. The building is proximate to residential
areas, making it possible for residents to walk to work and helping to achieve a mixture of uses
in the neighborhood. By reusing the existing Wachovia facility rather than building a new
complex somewhere else in the County, the proposal achieves the principle of Redevelopment.
Location within an Entrance Corridor District - The property is located within an Entrance
Corridor District. Any exterior modifications to the site would require approval from the County
Architectural Review Board. This requirement will ensure that any future modifications are
appropriate to the site and corridor. No exterior modifications are currently proposed. No
significant outside storage uses are anticipated.
Relation to the Community Facilities Plan - The Community Facilities Plan of the
2
Comprehensive Plan states the following: 'new public facilities should be within County
Development Areas. "(Pg. 140) The site is within the Development Areas and is well situated
near 1 64 for convenient access.
"Related or complementary services/facilities should be located within one complex and
centralized whenever possible. ' (Pg. 141) Both the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments are
to be located at this facility, thereby centralizing these two related public safety functions.
"Expand existing (Police) headquarters at the County Office Building to accommodate the
ultimate administrative needs or provide for those needs through construction of a new
headquarters building located in the County to address current space inadequacies. "(Pg. 143)
The proposal will achieve this recommendation by addressing the current space shortage in the
Police Department.
The Community Facilities Plan directly addresses the need to provide additional administrative
office space for County government. The Plan recommends the following:
'If deemed appropriate, provide additional office space either through leasing, purchasing, or
construction of a new building. "(Pg. 162)
"Subject to review, retain the Police Headquarters at the County Office Building site with the
provision of additional space needs to address the current deficiency as a high priority. All
possible options to satisfy the department's space needs should be reviewed." (Pg. 163) This
proposal includes the relocation of the Pohce Department Headquarters from the County Office
Building. The County has studied the internal space needs of the Police Department and
determined that relocating the headquarters to this site is the preferable alternative for the
following reasons:
It has been determined to be more fiscally responsible to relocate the Police Department
to this site than to attempt to expand facilities at the County Office Building site.
The location adjacent to Interstate 64 is ideal and will decrease response times and
improve service. It should be noted, however, that most responses to emergencies occur
while officers are on patrol. Noise and other impacts associated with emergency
responses should not be significant.
Due to the reasons stated above, staff finds the proposal to be in general accord with the
recommendations of the Community Facilities Plan.
Relation to the Transportation Plan - The Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan
recommends that transit service be expanded in the Urban Areas (pg. 186). Currently, transit
service does not extend to the prOposed site. The 2001 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS)
Transit Development Plan identifies the need to extend transit service to Old Lynchburg Road.
The plan includes a Five Year Operating Cost Plan which makes recommendations for phasing
funding for transit improvements., The plan recommends that a new route be funded to service
3
Old Lynchburg Road in Year Five (FY 2005). This timing would coincide with the planned
occupation of the building by the emergency services operations. Albemarle County and CTS
are currently one year behind in implementing funding recommendations. Staff recommends
that the County implement service to Old Lynchburg Road by FY 2005 as recommended in the
Transit Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the principles and recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission find this proposal
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the recommendation that the County implement
transit service to the area as recommended in the Transit Development Plan.
Attachment:
A: Generalized Site Plan
B: Generalized Floor Plan
4
ATTACH MENT A
tnZQ-
~<~
WAHOO WAY
~ ,1 ,; /a ~ ~ ~ ~.~ .'
~/ ,!b ~ " .'
L-~ ;' / -"' -'"
z Z ]
_5
ATTACHMENT B
'j.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COt4t4ISSION:
3UAND'rEGO R. WADE
.1ANUARY 21~ 2003
REV]:EW FOR COMPI.~ANCE W~TH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (VA CODE
SECTION 15.2-2232) RELOCA'I'~ON OF ROUTE 662 (BLEAK HOUSE ROAD) AND
ABANDONMENT OF RZGHT-OF-WAY FOR OLD ALI:GNiVlENT.
Procedure:
Virginia Code :~5.2-2232 requires the Planning Commission to review and
approve the general or approximately location, and extent of a street or public
area unless such feature is already shown on the adopted master plan.
The proposed change in location of Route 662 is not part of the County's
Comprehensive Plan or any adopted transportation plans and needs to be found
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal:
.lonathan Z. Cannon and Alice P. Cannon have requested the County permission
to relocate a portion of Bleak House Road (Route 662) that currently runs
between the main house and the barn on property they own (Attachment A).
The proposed project is about 1.5 miles north of the intersection of Beak House
Road with Reas Ford Road (Route 660) in Rural Area :L The road forms the
boundary between the White Hall and Rio IVlagisterial Districts. The proposed
road relocation will begin at a point on the boundary between Tax Map 30 Parce~
10A and Tax Map 30 Parcel 10, being the southwest corner, 25 feet west of the
State Route 662 centerline. The proposed road will be relocated approximately
2,530 feet to the west of the existing Bleak House Road. (Attachment B & C)
The applicant's justification to relocate the road is to eliminate a public road that
separates their home from their bam. The applicant also requests this road
relocation to correct the blind curve on the road.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is zoned Rural Areas and designated as open space in the
County Land Use Plan.
Staff Comments:
Staff comments focus on the following issues: impact on historic site; impact to
watersupply watershed; impact on the Rural Areas; and public benefit of the
road realignment.
Rural Areas:
The Comprehensive Plan lists the intent of the Rural Areas is to:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
- Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
The relocated road will allow the barn and house to be on one parcel and
thereby allowing the parcel to be more attractive for agricultural purposes. The
applicant has not indicated that there will be an agricultural use.
Historic Property:
Information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources indicates that
Bleak House is considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
The Comprehensive Plan contains the following goal and objectives regarding
historic proerties:
Goal:
"Protect the County's historic and cultural resources."
Objective: "Continue to identify and recognize the value of buildings,
structures, landscapes, sites and districts which have historical architectural,
archaeological or cultural significance."
Objective: "Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve
Albemarle's historic and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the
County and maintain the County's character."
Staff suggested the applicant study the site to determine its significance and
eligibility for the National Register. An assessment of the site was done by
Archaeological & Cultural Solutions, :[nc. A records review and onsite assessment
determined that "the only potential impact the new road may pose to historic
resources could be to the archaeological remains of the springhouse that was
sketched in the vicinity of the proposed alignment of the new road" (Attachment
D). This statement refers to information the consultant reviewed from Mr.
2
Cannon, which was a not a surveyed sketch the previous owner had drawn that
showed several out buildings, including the springhouse. There is no evidence on
the ground that this springhouse existed.
Staff has reviewed the records and conducted a site visit assessment
(Attachment E). Staff recommends:
1. The applicant institute measures throughout the duration of the project to
ensure that the barn is not negatively impacted by the road construction or
construction-related activities.
2. ]:f the archaeological remains of the springhouse will be impacted by the
proposed construction, the applicant record the remains prior to demolition.
Staff believes these steps will protect the historical resources at this site.
Watersupply Watershed:
The subject property is designated Rural Area (PA 1). Bleak House Road is
located in the North Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Watershed. The net long term
impact to the watershed from this relocation project would not likely be
significant, since the current alignment already draws to the watershed. The new
alignment does increase the amount of impervious surface due to the increased
length over the existing alignment. The length of the proposed relocated section
is 1, :LS0', which will replace a section of 940', a difference of 210'. Required
erosion control measures should minimize the impact of construction activity to
the watershed.
Staff does not believe the watersupply watershed be negatively impacted due to
the proposed alignment of the new road.
Road Aliqnment
The road currently carries 160 vehicle trips per day. The applicant indicates the
road will eliminate a blind curve. Staff has determined after a review of the plans
and onsite visit that the proposed relocated road will improve the blind curve.
The applicant requested and received relief from Section 10.4 Rural Area District
Area and Bulk Regulations, in order to relocate Rt. 662 such that the required
front setback from the relocated right-of-way is not met for an existing barn. The
applicant received approval to reduce the front setback from the proposed
relocated road from 75 to 13 feet, a variance of 62 feet. The barn is currently
about 45 feet from the edge of existing Rt. 662. (Attachment F & G)
3
The current road is unpaved. The proposed new road will be unpaved as well
upon the request of VDOT. The adjacent sections of Bleak House Road are
unpaved. County Engineering and VDOT have commented on the proposed
relocated road plans and support approval with some modifications (Attachment
H &'l').
Summary
The relocated road will correct a dangerous curve in the road and remove a
public road the separates two cultural resources. The relocated road will not
negatively impact any identified cultural resources. Staff find the road
realignment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the following
conditions:
VDOT and County Engineering approval of the road plans.
The applicant institute measures throughout the duration of the project to
ensure that the barn is not negatively impacted by the road construction
or construction-related activities.
]:f the archaeological remains of the springhouse will be impacted by the
proposed construction, the applicant should record the remains prior to
demolition.
Attachments:
A. Applicant's Request
B. Location Map
C. Proposed alignment of relocated road
D. Letter from consultant on National Register eligibility
E. Staff comments on consultant's record review and site assessment
F. Zoning Department Memo on Variance
G. Staff Report to Board of Zoning Appeal on Variance
H. VDOT's Comments
[. Engineering Department Comments
4
ATTACHMENT A
JOSEPH W, RICHI~OND, JR.
~NDALL L. ~N~. J~.
CHHZSTX~ THOMSON
PA~IC~ P. SHIEDS
~ICHI~OATD AND ~ISHBU1Ri~E, L.L.i~.
~ O. ~OX
(434] 977- 8590
w~.richfish, com
JOSI~Pi~ ~r, ]~ICHMOND
(1915-1991
July 30, 2002
Mr. Juandiego R. Wade
Transportation Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and
Community Development
401. Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Cannon Road Realiomunent Project
Dear Juan:
As you know, we represent Jonathan Z. Cannon and Alice P. Cannon in
connection with their road realignment project. Please accept this letter as a formal request of
applicable Albemarle County authorities and state authorities to review the requested
realignment change which is more particularly shown on a plan prepared by Gloeckner
Engineering,, Surveying, Inc., a copy of which t delivered to you in our meeting last week. I am
in the process now of obtaining reduced sized copies for your consideration.
I am also in the process of preparing a legal description of the new road
alignment. As soon as I have that, I will forward it to you for review.
Please let us know if there is anything further you need at this point in order to
begin the process of reviewing the request. We look forward to working with you on this
project.
S '7~2~1Y' /Q, ~
J0'~/eph M Cochran
JMC/v
C:\2002\wadeitr.cannon.wpd
ATTACHMENT B
N
Vicinity Map for Relocation
of State Route 662
ATTACHMENT C
!
!!
RELOCATION OF STATE ROUTE 862
I1
i'
.4rchaeological Cv Cultural Solutions, Inc.
109 Crown Point Road
W'flliamsburg, Virginia 23185
ATTACHMENT D
Records Review and Site Visit Assessment
Bleak House Road (SR 662) Relocation Project
Albemarle County, Virginia
December 14, 2002
Using information provided by Richmond and Fishburne, L.L.P. (R&.~, Archaeological ~
CulturalSolutions, Inc. (~IC3) conducted an assessment of the cultural resources on the Bleak
House property for the Bleak House Road Relocation Project. The assessment consisted of
a site visit on November 8, 2002 to examine the structures on the tract and their setting in
the context of the proposed road relocation. During this visit, Mr. And Mrs. Jonathan Z.
Cartoon, the owners, also permitted ~4CS staff to review copies of the records they have
collected for the property.
As the attached architectural report indicates, Bleak House is potentially el/gible for the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, as it embodies distinctive
characteristics of a type of construction. The one-story brick kitchen may be
contemporaneous, while the barn dares to the early twentieth century. Other structures,
including an icehouse, well, smokehouse, granary, stables, and springhouse, sketched by an
informant, are no longer extant above grade, but may survive as archaeological sites.
In the nineteenth century, the road running through the property was situated east of the
present alignment, as indicated on the 1875 map of Albemarle County drafted by G. Peyron.
The proposed road, located on the west downslope of the landform where the Bleak House
complex lies, would seem to completely avoid the grounds. It would also lie out of view, at
a low elevation shielded by ornamental trees and tall boxwoods.
The only potential impact the new road may pose to historic resources could be to the
archaeological remains of the springhouse that was sketched in the vicinity of the proposed
alignment of the new road. An archaeological survey of the proposed centerline, marked in
the field, would quickly reveal if this were the case. Nonetheless, the plan to move the
e.,dstmg twentieth century road out of the Bleak House complex to a location ro the west
would be a very favorable development as k would insure the preservation of the principal
elements of the complex by removing traffic and routing ir in a less visible location
(downslope and shielded by vegetation). As well, the relocated road would appear to resolve
a significant safety hazard (blind comer).
Bleak House, Albemarle County, Va. 2
doors consist of flat six-panel doom with Greek moldings. The doors that open into the
shallow closets on one gable-end are of the double vertical, recessed-panel type. The only
variant in this scheme are the door and window architraves, which consist of Roman
moldings done with cymas and beads on the inside. These no doubt, reflect the
Jeffersonian penchant for these elements in the region long after they had gone out of
fashion elsewhere in the state and country. The profile of the architraves on the exterior
consists ora beveled element rather than the standard ovolo.
It appears that a doorway once opened on the wall now entering into the sunroom
in the back room of the T, which no doubt, provided access to the detached kitchen
located a few yards behind the dwelling. This one-story brick kitchen has been altered in
the twentieth century but still retains its triangular windows in the chimney gable, a
feature that ties in with similar ones on the main house and suggests a similar date of
construction for this outbuilding.
The only other significant building on the property is a barn located across the
present road. This wooden structure was built in the early part of the twentieth century
and is still used to care for animals on the farm.
Because of its intriguing combination of front gable, bracketed eaves, and
ti'iangular gable windows, this dwelling is architecturally intriguing, a step above the
usual I-house of the second quarter of the nineteenth century. If it dates to the late 1830s
as tradition suggests, then it is a very early example of how the picturesque aesthetic
began to transform the solid square boxes of the Greek Revival. Even i_fit dates to the
late 1840s or 1850s, the use of Jeffersonian architraves is a fascinating survival from an
earlier era~ Combined with the setting, the house seems a worthy candidate to be
nominated to the National Register.
Carl Lounsbury
Bleak House
Albemarle County
Standing on a rise in rolling countryside northwest of Charlottesville, Bleak
HoUSe is shrouded on the front by a mature stand of ornamental trees and tall boxwoods.
The brick house is a two-story, T, shaped structure dominated by a center gable lit by a
semicircular window on its front side, unUSu_a!, triangular-shaped windows in the gable
ends lighting the attic beneath the deep, bracketed eaves. In the 1960s a short brick
addition matching the height and footprint of the original section was constructed at the
bottom of the T or back of the house and an enclosed sunroom was added on one side. At
this time, the hoUSe was modernized with the addition of bathrooms and the installation
of new flooring on the ground floor. A new one-story porch was coUStmcted, which
extends across part of the front facade. Access to its balUStraded flat roof is from a
central doorway on the second story. This porch replaces at least two earlier porches,
each of a different configuration.
James Rodgers may have built Bleak HoUSe between 1'837 and 1840 though this
has not been substantiated in period documents. Although the land came into Rodgers'
possession at this early date, the central gable and bracketed eaves suggest a later date of
construction or at least significant alterations perhaps a decade later when such Italianate
features were coming into vogue. Rodgers retained possession of the property through
the early to mid 1870s so he may have built this house anywhere between 1840 and the
Civil War when these characteristics would have been more likely to appear.
Construction and finish details suggest a period between 1840 and the Civil War.
The framing members in the roof are hewn and pit sawn and secured with mature cut
nails. There is no evidence of nails for sheathing or shingles 'on the rafters that land on a
false plate just behind the central gable, suggesting that this feature is original and not a
later alteratior~ There is also no evidence in the brickwork for a later reworking either.
The house sits on a low, stepped watertable. The brickwork consists of 1:5 bonding with
penciled joints. Rather than a course of headers, every fifth row is laid in Flemish bond.
A line of white penciling 3/16 inches wide accentuates the mortar joints.
In plan, the house consists of three principal rooms on the ground floor, no doubt
two parlors on either side of a central stair entry with a dining room located at the back in
the stem of the T behind the staircase partition. Entry into the house is through a central
front doorway flanked by sidelights and crowned by a transom: In the front entry, an
open-string staircase rises in an L-shaped configuration to the second floor bedchambers.
The two front rooms are each lit by a large window on the front and back walls. The
chimneys are located on the gable end walls and flanked by shallow closets. A reworking
of the space behind the stair entry was done to accommodate modem bathrooms and
closets.
The interior woodwork is typical of the period with Greek Revival mantels and
bases, and the staircase in the front entry with oval handrails and square balusters. The
ATTACHMENT E
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Juan Wade
Margaret Maliszewski
January 7, 2003
Relocation of State Route 662
I have reviewed the report recently submitted by Archaeological & Cultural Solutions,
Inc. regarding the above-referenced project. The report suggests that the proposed
relocation will not negatively impact the primary historic resources on the property (the
house and the barn), but could impact the remains of a springhouse. Also, the new right-
of-way is shown 180' from the barn, which has been identified as a significant structure. I
have no objection to the proposed relocation with the following recommendations:
1. Institute measures throughout the duration of the project to ensure that the barn is not
negatively impacted by the road construction or construction-related activities.
2. If the archaeological remains of the springhouse will be impacted by the proposed
construction, the remains should be recorded prior to demolition.
FAX (434) 9724126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department, of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (4341 296-5832
ATTACHMENT F
TrD (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Juan Wade, Senior Planner
FROM:
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration
DATE: August 20, 2002
RE:
Relocation of State Route 662 Shown on Plan Dated July 22, 2002
Revised August 19, 2002
The Albemarle County Department of Building Code and Zoning Services offers the
following comment on the revised proposal to relocate State Route 662:
The required front setback from a public road in this zoning district is 75 feet. The
proposed right-of-way is located 17.57 feet from the existing barn. The Board of
Zoning Appeals is scheduled to hear a request for a variance, VA-2002-023, to
reduce the setback on September 17, 2002. Approval of the request to relocate the
road is subject to approval of VA-2002-023.
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
ATTACHMENT G
STAFF PERSON: Amelia G~ McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: September 17, 2002
STAFF REPORT VA-2002-023
OWNER/APPLICANT:
TAX MAP/PARCEL:
ZONING:
ACREAGE:
LOCATION:
Jonathan Z. and Alice P. Cannon
30 / 10A
Rural Areas
19.382 acres
3941 Bleak House Road near Earlysville. Property is
located on Route 662 (Bleak House Road) about 1.5 mile
north of the intersection with Route 660.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from
Section 10.4 Rural Area District Area and Bulk Regulations, in order to relocate a state
road such that the required front setback from the relocated right-of-way is not met for
an existing barn. This variance is to reduce the front setback from the
proposed/relocated road from 75 to 13 feet, a variance of 62 feet. The barn is currently
about 45 feet from the edge of existing Rt. 662. (See the plat of the property.)
This parcel is currently split by Rt. 662 with the barn and field on one side (the west
side) and the house, Bleak House, and other outbuildings on the other side (east side).
The applicants propose to relocate the portion of Rt. 662 which runs through their
property and separates the barn and immediate field from the house and property on
the other side of the road. They will rebuild the state road on the west side of the barn
on their property.
RELEVANT HISTORY: There are no relevant zoning history files. While the Engineer,
Kurt Gloeckner, was designing the road, he contacted the Zoning office by phone to
inquire about the required setback for the barn from the relocated road. Somewhat
confusing language in an ordinance amendment led the Zoning staff member to
originally provide the incorrect setback distance of 6 feet. Mr. Gloeckner continued his
design work based on that information.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property,
although not small in size or oddly shaped; is constrained by the fact that a state road
which remains in use, splits it into two portions. The east side of the property includes
the historic Bleak House, built around 1840. The west side of the property consists of
pasture and a barn for homes. Therefore, the homes and barn are across the state
road from the house. As explained to staff, the primary purpose of the road relocation
being undertaken by this applicant, is to have the homes and barn on the same side of
the state road as the house and other outbuildings.
VA 2002-023 Jonathan & Alice'Cannon
September 17, 2002
Page 2
The road in this area includes a blind curve in front of the house and the barn. There
appears to be a legitimate concern about the safety for tractors or other slow-moving
equipment which might turn into the barn or the field on the west side of the road. The
entrance from the driveway for the house does not appear to have adequate sight
distance towards the north. This read relocation will improve sight distance for those
who travel Rt. 662 as well as for the driveway entrance to this house and the entrance
to the barn.
The new location for the read and therefore, the resulting Setback for the barn, are
dictated by the topography and road curvature requirements. It would not be possible to
relocate the read such that the setback is met from the barn without significant grading
and environmental disturbance.
There are some unique aspects relating to this property which give rise to the variance.
While this parcel has existed in this size and shape for some time, the read relocation
will provide public benefits as will be discussed further by staff.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows:
Hardship
· Due to topographic and foliage features existing on the site, road relocation must be
less than 75 feet from the existing barn.
Staff is of the opinion that in this particular case, the proposal may be based on
convenience to the applicants; however, several public benefits are byproducts of the
applicants' proposal.. The desire to have the horses, pasture and barn adjacent to the
house and not separated by a state road, serves the applicants' convenience and
contributes to their agricultural use of the property. The road relocation project also
improves the sight distance into and from the applicants' house, barn and field.
In addition to the benefit realized by the applicant, there are the following public
benefits:
1. The public safety along the road by the travelling public will be improved by the
increase in sight distance and the elimination of a blind curve;
2. Instead of a prescriptive easement of 30 feet, the applicant will dedicate a 50 foot
right-of, way for the state road. This will make it easier for VDOT to make further
road improvements;
3. The applicants will be bearing the cost of the road relocation instead of the
general public.
in summary, the strict application of the ordinance would not permit these public
benefits to be realized.
VA 2002-023 Jonathan & Alice Cannon
September 17, 2002
Page ~
1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
· The road relocation project is unique. It will greatly enhance a portion of St. Rt. 662.
The project will enhance the usable open space of TMP 30-10A.
Staff notes that while it is not unique for property to be split by a road, there are other
unique aspects of this application. They include the fact that this proposal provides
several public benefits.
The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared
generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same
vicinity.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
· The road relocation project will enhance a portion of St. Rt. 662 which will benefit
adjacent properties. We know of no detrimental impacts on adjacent lands.
Staff does not perceive any detrimental impact on the character of the area by this
proposal; on the contrary, the area will be improved in character by this proposal.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such
variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the
character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since all of the three criteria for approval have been
met, staff recommends approval of this request.
The Albemarle Board of Supervisors and the Virginia Department of Transportation will
review and approve the road relocation. Staff does not recommend any specific
conditions of approval.
-/
VDUT CVILLE
ATTACHMENT H
'November7,2002
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Dept. Of Engineering
401 Mclmire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ROute 662 Re Alignment
Dear Mr. Brooks:
The above referenced plan dated October 18, 2002 has been reviewed. The following are our
comments:
1. The horizontal curve data is absent and needs to be shown. (300' minimum curve)
2. The minimum diameter entrance culvert allowed is 15".
3. Indicate 20' drainage easements at ouffall ofproposed culverts. Should extend to
boundry or nattnal stream.
4. Class I Rip Rap should be' shown at ouffall of all proposed culverts.
5. The transitions and tie ends encroach onto property not Controlled by Mr. Cannon and
will require additional fight-of-way.
6. Add note indicating standard CD-1 or CD-2 underdrain is required at all cut and fin
transitions and grade sag points.
7. A curve waving sign W1-2R & WI3-1 (20 IV[PI-I) will be required at approximately
station 11 +50 and a W1-2L & 13-1 (20 MPH) at station 20+50.
8. The typical section should indicate a 50' right-of-way.
Please have the plan revised ~md resubmit with a response letter for further review.
Sincerely,
.T.H. Kesterson
Per. & Sub& Spec. Supv.
ATTACHMENT I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
Juan Wade, Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer
2 Aug 2002
Relocation of Rt. 662 (received 3,1 Jul 2002)
The Engineering Department has the following comments regarding the proposed plan for Bleak
House Road:
1. A stream buffer must be shown for the stream at the bottom of the pasture to the west. The
extent of grading for the road should be shown on the plan to assess the impact to the buffer.
A mitigation plan may be required for stream buffer disturbance.
2. An erosion control plan will be required.
3. A road plan will be required; typical road sections, pavement designs, standard notes, cross-
drains, ditch sections, drainage computations, grades and slopes, guardraiI if required, etc.
The road profile will need to extend both ways into the existing road to assure that the
proposed grades are transitioning well into the existing grades.
4. The entrance to the barn and house should be shown on the plan, with proposed changes to
access the new road.
5. Ri~ht-of-way from BMC Land Trust will need to be obtained on TM 30 parcel 10.
Permission should be obtained pr/or to any County approvals.
6. VDOT approval is required.
Please contact me if you have questions.
Copy: file 2375
File: Rout 662 Bleak House Road relocation (1).doc
/'7
2002
FOURTH QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5823
INDEX
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E)
III. Comparison of Ali. Building Permits (Chart F)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF
SFA
SFFFH
DUP
MF
MHC
AA
Single-Family (includes modular)
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Townhouse
Duplex
Multi-Family
Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
Accessory Apartment
02-I 3-03 05:40
During the fourth quarter of 2002, 193 building permits were issued for 494 dwelling units. In addition, 9 permits were issued for mobile
homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $ 22,500.
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
MONTH 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ' 2001 2002
JAN 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 52 55
FEB 53 43 44 44 39 84 ' 43 39 348
MAR 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 54 74
APR 69 46 71 75 62 102 63 62 63
MAY 60 41 63 118 65 '55 72 196 198
JUN 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 181 117
JUL 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 46 235
AUG 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 55 64
SEP 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 32 72
OCT 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 86 308
NOV 60 66 43 49 48 - 42 -' 49 36 48
DEC 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 36 138
' '
TOTAL 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 875 1720
I ,
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Dy Month
Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Month~
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
[[]2000 []2001
12002i
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
Quarter 4, 2002
IL COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling 'Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
' · I
MAGISTERIAL ' ' DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 15 7 14 0 0 1 1 38 8%
JACK JOUETT 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
RIVANNA 34 2 8 0 86 0 1 13127%
SAMUEL MILLER 23 0 0 0 0 2 1 26 5%
SCOTTSVILLE 21 2 0 0 224 4 0 251 51%
WHITE HALL 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 44 9%
TOTAL 140 11 22 0 310 8 3 494 100%
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SFFFH DUP - ,. MF · MHC AA · UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 10 7 14 0 0 0 0 31 6%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 0 0 0 86 0 0 92 19% ..
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 1%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 10 0 0 0 224 0 0 ~ 234 47%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
CROZET COMMUNITY ~ 22 0 0 0 0 -~ 0 22 4%
HOLLYMEAD C6MMUNITY 22 2 8 · 0 0 1 2 ' 35 7%
PINEY MOUrNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
RIVANNA VILLAGE ' ' 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1%
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 80 ' 11 22 0 310 1 2 426 8'6%
,
RURAL AREA 1 r 19 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 4%
RURAL AREA 2 11 I 0 I 0 0 0 0. 0 11 2%
RURAL AREA 3 18 0 0 0 0 2 1 21 4%
RURALAREA 4 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 -- 16 3%
ri RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 60 0 0 0 0 '*- 7 '- 1 68 ' ' 1~.%
TOTAL 140 11 22 0 310 8 3 494 100%
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
-4-
Quarter 4, 2002
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY' TYPE (continued)
Chart E. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 6 7 14 0 0 I 0 28 6%
Baker Butler 2 ~ 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1%
Broadus Wood t3 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ t3 3%
Brownsville i 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 3%
Crozet 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3%
Greer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
Hollymead 22 2 8 0 0 0 2 34 7%
Medwether Lewis 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 I%
Murray 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 1%
Red Hill r 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 ' 1%
Cale · 15 2 0 i 0 224 0 0 241 49%
Scottsville 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 2%
Stone Robinson 11 0 0 0 86 i 0 0 97 20%
Stony Point 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2%
Wood brook 4 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 4 1%
Yancey 4 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
TOTAL 140 11 22 0 31'0 8 3 494 100%
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial Distdct and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. i NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
TOTAL
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL ' & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$
RIO 38 $ 5,195,600 19 $ 408.110 5 $ 3,995,0!_.2 21 $ 7,194~600 83 $ 16,793,3~'_~
JOUETT 4 $ 1,620,000 14 .~ 1,997,850 1 $ 150,000 3 $ 2,725,250 22 $ 6,493,100
RIVANNA 46 $ 14,252,507 41 $ 1,030,262 4 $ 406,000 22 $ 724,427 113 $ 16,413,196
S. MILLER 26 $ 5,t45,337 46 $ 2,535,518 0 $ 8 $ 667,502 80 $ 8,348,357
SCO']-FSVILLE 35 $ 15240,215 31 $ 597,587 4 $ 514,500 11 $ 439 81 $ 16,352,741
WHITE HALL 44 $ 7,999,683 53 $ 3,047,941 I $ 5,400 12 $ 371,770 110 $ 11,424,794
TOTAL 193 $ 49,453,341 204 $ 9,617,268 15 $ 5,070,912 77 $ 11,683,988 489 $ 75,825,509
Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in F ~esidential Alteration Category.
Prepared-by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
2OO2
YEAR END
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
Office (~f Geograph~[c Dath S~rvices~
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5823
INDEX
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart F)..
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF
SFA
SF/TH
DUP
MF
MHC
AA
Single-Family (includes modular)
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Townhouse
Duplex
Multi-Family
Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
Accessory Apartment
02-~' 3
During the year of 2002, 840 building permits were issued for 1720 dwelling units. In addition, 23 permits were issued for mobile homes in
existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $57,500.
Io Corn parison of Residential DWelling Units by Type
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
MO NTH 1994 1995 19'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
JAN 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 52 55
FEB 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 39 348
MAR ~ 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 54 74
APR 69 46 71 75 62 102 63 62 63
MAY 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 196 198
JUN 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 181 117
JUL 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 46 235
AUG 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 55 64
SEP 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 32 72
OCT 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 86 308
NOV 60 66 43 49 48 42 49 36 48
DEC 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 36 138
TOTAL 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 875 1720
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
IChart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Monthi
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG .SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
r r12000
[]200112002
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
Year End 2002
II, COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BYTYPE
Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGiSTERiAL ~ DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SFfTH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
'1
RIO 61 17 58 0 0 1 1 138 8%
JACK JOUETT 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 1%
RIVANNA 143 24 68 0 86 3 3 327 19%
SAMUEL MILLER 99 4 0 0 0 3 5 111 6%
SCOTTSVILLE 88 8 0 0 836 8 ' 1 941 ' 55%
WHITE HALL , 190 0 0 0 0 2 2 194 11%
,
TOTAL 589 53 126 0 922 17 13 1720 100%
I
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA' SF/TH DUP MF MHC AAUNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 39 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2
49 17 19 0 0 0 0 85 5%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 26 0 0 0 86 0 0 112 7%
URBAN NE GHBORHOOD 4 14 8 0 0 264 0 0 286 . 17%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 32 4 0 0 572 0 O 608 35%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
CROZET COMMUNITY 80 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 80 ' 5%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY ' 69 24 54 0 0 2 3 152 9%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 14 0 0 0_ 0 14 1%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 26 0 0 0 0 0 I 27 2%
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 296 53 126 ' 0 922 I 2 · 5 1494 82%
RURAL AREA 1 7-4 0 0 0 0 1 2 - 77 4%
RURAL AREA 2 · 60 0 0 0 0 2 1 63 4%
RURAL AREA 3 103 0 0 0 0 4 3 110 6%
RURAL AREA 4 56 0 0 0 0 8 2 66 4%
· RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 293 0 0 0 0 15 8 , 18%
TOTAL 589 53 126 0 922 17 13 1720 100%
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
-4-
Year End 2002
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Chart E. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 24 17 31 0 0 1 0 73
Baker Butler 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0%
Broadus Wood 40 0 0 0 0 2 1 43 3%
Brownsville 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 3%
Cale 27 6 0 0 438 0 2 473 107%
Crozet 67 0 0 0 0 2 0 69 4%
Greer 31 0 35 0 0 1 0 67 4%
Hollymead 21 0 43 0 0 0 1 65 4%
Meriwether Lewis 52 2 4 0 0 0 3 61 4%
Murray 28 0 13 0 0 0 ' 2 43 3%
Red Hill 31 0 0 0 0 1 2 34 2%
Scottsville 39 6 0 0 398 0 0 443 26%
Stone Robinson 38 0 0 0 0 8 : 2 48 3%
Stony Point 61 0 0 0 86 2 0 149 9%
Woodbrook 42 22 0 0 0 0 0 64 4%
Yancey 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 27 2%
TOTAL 589 53 126 0 922 17 13 1720 179%
' I
* In spite of school district changes in September 2002, permits issued before redistricting were not reallocated to reflect new districts.
III, COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial Distdct and Construction Type
MAGISTE-I~-IAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL ' FARM BUILDING ,
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. TOTAL
No. ' Am0unt-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No.
, Amount-$ No. Amount-$
RIO 138 $ 16,164,576 85 $ 2,345,177 14 $ 6,052,262 65 $ 12,911~529 302 $ 37,473,544
JOUE'[T 9 $' 2,725,000 71 $ 6,782,800 3 $ 488,500 10 $ 2,880,700 93 $ 12,877,000
RIVANNA 242 $ 64,456,660 144 $ 5,076,399 9 $ 21,599,000 52 $ 2,305,962 447 $ 93,438,021
S. MILLER 110 $ 25,807,227 157 $ 6,660,164 7 $ 411,902 24 $ 1,536,512 298 $ 34,415,805
SCOTTSVILLE 147 $ 69,069,498 132 $ 2,680,807 25 $ 3,454,116 32 $ 536,439 336 $ 75,740,860
WHITE HALL 194 $ 41,389,285 221 $ 9,121,058 4 $ 155,400 23 $ 630,316 442 $ 51,296,059
TOTAL 840 $219,612,245 810 $ 32,666,405 62 $ 32,161,180 206 $ 20,801,458 1,918 $ 305,241,288
* Additional value of mobile homes olaced in e×L~tinn
~ntia Alteration Category.
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
FAX (434) 972-4t26
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-4012
February 19, 2003
A. C. Shackelford, Jr.
3977 Stony Point Road
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -Tax
Map 48, Parcel 19 (Property of A. C. Shackelford, Jr., Mary L. Shackelford, ETAL)
Section 10.3.1
THIS DETERMINATION REPLACES THE DETERMINATION OF PARCELS FOR
THIS PROPERTY DATED JANUARY 5, 1993.
Dear Mr. Shackelford:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 48, Parcel 19 is comprised of three (3) separate parcels as described in Deed
Book 189, page 285. Each of these separate parcels contains five (5) development
rights. The approximate locations of the parcels are shown on the attached sketch.
The portion of the property located to the west of Route 600 is zoned VR, Village
Residential. The property located to the east of Route 600 is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The development rights identified in this determination am associated with the portion of
the property that is zoned PA. Them am no development rights associated with land
that is zoned VR.
Our records indicate Tax Map 48, Parcel 19 contains 367.364 acres and three
dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District The most recent deed
for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1300, page 15.
This determination begins with Deed Book 189, page 285, dated March 10, 1925. That
deed conveyed portions of the real estate known as Dovetail Farm in accord with the
terms of the will of Dr. W. C. Shackelford to J. W. Shackelford, A. C. Shackelford and
Mary A. Shackelford. The property is described as containing three parcels, one
containing 273 acres, another 85 acres and another 22.16 acres.
h\DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel\48-19 Shackleford REVISED.doc
A. C. ShaCkelford, Jr.
February 19, 2003
Page 2
The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980)is in Deed Book 601, page
354. This Deed of Gift, dated July 15, 1976 conveyed a one-sixth interest in and to that
certain tract of land known as Dovetail, from Leslie M. Shackelford to A. C. Shackelford.
The property is further described as containing 381 acres and being in all respects the
same property conveyed by Deed Book 189, page 285.
On the basis of this deed, it is determined that Tax Map 48, Parcel 19 consists of the
three separate parcels identified in the 1925 deed. The reference to "that certain tract" is
not sufficient to combine the parcels. The property has not been platted as a single
parcel. The provisions of the will of Dr. W. C. Shackelford are not sufficient to combine
these parcels.
The January 5, 1993 letter found that Route 600 divided the property into two separate
parcels based on Sanford v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County. This
determination supercedes the January 5, 1993 determination. It is determined that the
parcel bisected by Route 600 is a single parcel, based on Chesterfield County v. Stigall.
Deed Book 1030, page 206, dated November 7, 1988, conveyed 2.693 acres from
Alfred C. Shackelford, Jr. & Mary L. Shackelford, Mary S. Tise & Frank P. Tise, Alfred
C. Shackelford, III & Anne R. Shackelford and Lillian M. Shackelford to the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The land was for improvements for Route 20.
Deed Book 1032, page 436, dated December 16, 1988, conveyed 0.380 acres from
Alfred C. Shackelford, Jr. & Mary L. Shackelford, Mary S. Tise & Frank P. Tise, Alfred
C. Shackelford, III & Anne R. Shackelford and Lillian M. Shackelford to the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The land was for improvements for Route 20.
Deed Book 1237, page 402, dated June 8, 1992, conveyed 5.88 acres from Alfred C.
Shackelford, Jr. & Mary L. Shackelford, Mary S. Tise & Frank P. Tise, and Lillian M.
Shackelford to Alfred C. Shackelford, III & Anne R. Shackelford. This parcel is shown on
a plat by Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc. dated April 29, 1992. No development rights
were conveyed With the 5.88 acre parcel because this portion Of the property is zoned
Village Residential.
The most recent instrument recorded for this property is in Deed Book 1300, page 15.
This Deed of Gift, dated April 9, 1993, conveyed a two-thirds, undivided interest in that
certain tract known as Dovetail Farm, from A.C. Shackelford, Jr. to A.C. Shackelford, Jr.
and Mary L. Shackelford as tenants in common. The property is described as the
residue of a tract of approximately 381 acres containing 367.36 acres +/- after the
following off conveyances: (1) 1.917 acres of record in Deed book 1030, page 206;
I:\DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel\48-19 Shackleford REVISED.doc
A. C. Shackelford, Jr.
February 19, 2003
Page 3
(2) 0.265 acres of record in Deed Book 1032, page 436; (3) 5.88 acres of record in
Deed Book 1237, page 402. There have been no off conveyances since this
transaction.
Based on this history, Tax Map 48, Parcel 19 is determined to be comprised of three (3)
parcels. Each of these parcels contains five (5) development rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do
represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty-one acres allowed to
be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, as many parcels containing
a minimum of twenty-one acres may be created as the property can support, if all other
applicable regulations can be met.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If
you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
,John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department,
Ella Cary, Clerk for Board of Supervisors
Reading File
l:\DEP'RBCZS\Determin of Parcel\48-19 Shackleford REVISED.doc
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
70
81
80 :
~o
2O
/
/
,, /
3O0
T.M 48, ?. I~
FEA. 19,
March 2003
I
Mission
Essential Tasks Assessment
Construction & Maintenance
Planning & Traffic Engineering
Issues
Mission
The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains
roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory
authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for Albemarle
and Greene Counties in ways that are:
· focused on public safety
· fiscally and environmentally responsible
· supportive of alternative transportation means
· supportive of neighborhood and regional development
ESSENTIAL
TASKS
TASK
MAINTAIN SECONDARY &
PRIMARY ROADS
o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim,
signs, patrols
o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch
o EMERGENCY OPS
o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES
o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
Legend:
Green: 90-100% Excellent
Ar~b~r: 80-90% Good
Red: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
~(A)
REMARKS
- Tree trimming & removal due
to ice & to improve sight distance
- Snow removal operations
February 6-10,14-20,25-28
-Flood operations 2/21-23
- Rt. 626 bridge, 50% complete
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
MANAGE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM
o PE Activities
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
· (G)
REMARKS
- Secondary Six Year Plan
under review by County
o Project Construction
- Limestone and Carroll
Creek bridges on 250
were advertised for
construction
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
Task
3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
o Issue and review permits
o Review site plans and rezoning request
o Conduct studies and advise
o Inspect and monitor subdivisions
Assessment
(See legend below)
O(G)
Remarks
- 33 land use permits issued
- Revised plans reviewed & comments
provided as needed
- 3 new site plans reviewed
- 16 Special Use Permits
reviewed & comments provided
- 8 developments in planning stages
- 8 subdivision plan reviews
- 0 subdivisions inspected for
acceptance
t
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
· (G)
o Request and advise on signals & signs
o Request and advise on studies & data
o Assist with design
REMARKS
- 13 Traffic issues submitted
- 9 Traffic issues outstanding
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
i AIbem ri Co nty Si
March 2003 i a e u x-Year Plan Project Status
i ~ i ~ Primary Pr ects I 1
Route[ PPMS Designer ProjectNumber Description Scoping Survey Review P.H. Inspect. R/W Adv. Comments
53 18897 B^^ 0053-062-i~i,I~-6~i ....... i~}i~gRe¢'fa-cement-BucklslandCreek 9-03 7-03 9-04 OnSchedule (Updated9-02)
250 50569 DWS 0250-002~114,115~C501 Bridge Repl.-Carroll&Limestone Ck. Adv. 01-03 (Updated 01-03)
Widening pave So o ulder
20- "g059}~' °-BXX" 0052605~2~,~56i ..... Rte.2b-~'VariousLoc-at~io'h~ ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-04 On Schedule (Updated 02-03)
Widening pave Shoulder
-'~250 .... 60~9'~ ..... I~X~'~ 0556-o~02~5i7,~¢'6'i Rte250EVarious Locatio,ns N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7-04 On Schedule (Updated 02-03)
................ Secondary Roads
Airport Road
4-lanes w/sidewalks &bike lanes
0708-002-P
en and~P ave
R/W no t available
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
March 2003 i = ~
I Greene County Six Year Plan Project Status I I Secondary Projects
Field Field
Route PPMS Designer Project Description Scope Survey Review P.H. hsp. R/W Adv. Comments
B ace n Ho 11o w Re ad Widen and straighten 2-lane re adway
627 51022 RDL 0627-039-195,C501 Fr. Rte. 615 to Rte 632 I l I I ..... (0-3 ..... 6103 ........ 12-'0~" ~' (~;-'d'i't'e-"d--10102i .......................
Dyke Road Widen and straighten 2-lane roadway
· . I0-039-146,C501 . to ~ll l l l l__ __ ............................................................................. (updated 7/02)
810 2920 DWS 08 Fr. 1.7 km E. Rt 624 .Rt 624.. 8-03
Gravel Roads
0.35 Mi. E. Rte 619 : Widen and Surface Treat - Gravelroad
618 0618-002-P ,N Orange Co. Line N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A . 11-03 (updated 7-02)
................................ WatsonRoad Widen and Surface Treat - Gravel ro ad
640 2515 0640-039-137,N501 Fr. Rte.633 tO Dead End 06-03 i~J~ N/A N/A '~l N/A N/A 11-05 (updated 9-02)
CONSTRUCTION
PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ! 2003 I ! Percent
Street Name Project Description i Durati°nl Complete Contract
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ............
Various (NFO)U000-104-114,C501; (NFO)0029-104-104,C501 Traffic Signalization
lnte~ecti0ns Remarks: Field work startup, has been postponed due to inclement weather conditions.
inthe Cry Of' PIan t° Corn'~enc'~'W°~:k~ ~J[J~:i~-~h~'"~ond ~eek ~{~'C~ ..... . ~ ~ ~ ~]'~
Charlottes~lle
Ten Bridge BP-7A-03 I Bridge Painting
StrU~'tU~S ~n [-~ Remarks: The Commonwealth Transpo~ation Board awarded th s contract to
in Al'~ma~ e co-. MTA I~U~'trial Paintin'~-~-~ber 21, 2002 f~ '$-~41 9~9 00-th re~'6~ 'and rep'~ini ........... ~ ~ ~
Mountain Vista 0737-002-P68,N501 I Seconda~ Road Impro~ment I
Remarks: Award Recommendation to Pearson Construction, Inc. ~r $233,491.80 for
.... grading"; ~-~'iR-~e--~'nd su~c~{F~[ment imp~bv~e~{~-{o R~e.~737 fr0'~t~em~-q~i0n ................ ]~'~ '.~
West Leigh Dri~ 1641-002-269,N501 ~Seconda~ Road Impro~ment
.................. Remarks: Award Recommendation to Atkins Exca~ting, Inc. for $184,704.00 ~r
grad ne dca nage and asphalt paine; .... 'lmpro~ments to Rte. 1641 from intersection ~
Mayo Road 0650-039-P56,N501 lSeconda~ Road Impro~ment
~emarks: Award recommendation to Rock & Raines Construction Co., Inc. for
MOWING
PATCHING
GRADE/MACHINE/ADD STONE
DITCH/PIPE
GUARDRAIL
EQUIP MAINT
EMERGENCY CPS
OTHER
MAINTENANCE
Yancey Mills Headquarters
FEBRUARY
FINIS HED
RT. 810,684,691,
RT. 634,637,688,682
Repairshoulder164 Ramps
RL611,689,827,824
NONE
Cleanup & repairs from sn ow operations
Snow operations 2/6,7,8,9,10,14,15,16; 17,18,19
20,25,26,27,28
Cleanup & repairs from snow operations
CUT LIMBS RT. 634, RT.633.
REPAIR RT. 708 R.R. BRIDGE 02/06/03
MARCH
FINISHED
RT. 708,691 635,694,693,635,164.
RT. 683,751,682,636,611.
Shoulder w orkRt. 240,250
RT. 692,811,636.
~.708,710,682,693,634,1170,1620, F175
As scheduled
Cut lirr~bs 250 from RI. 689 to 690.
MAINTENANCE
Free Union Headquarters
MOWING
PATCHING
GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD
STONE
DITCH/PI PE
GUARD I~1 L
EQUIP MAINT
EMERGENCY OPS
OTHER
FEBRUARY 2003
Sight Distance -1430 (Hessian Hills)
Remove brush from median 29, 649, 641
Pot holes- 29, 250,660, 840. 291250 BP
Repair Shoulder - 656
643, 671, 776, 821
Repair mailbox sites w/stone - 665
Clean drains- 664. 676, 614. 649
Clean drains - 674 (Clark Road)
Replace entrance pipe -601
Route 29 - Complete
Route 601 - Complete
Route 676. 743- Complete
Snow plow and equipment repairs made at
he adq uarte rs
Equipment PUs
Snow Event - 2/6 through 2/8; 2/10; 2/14-2/20;
Flood Event -2121 through 2~23
29, 250, 604, 673, 810
Re pa ir Washout~-668,673,824, 672,671
Trinlrnlng brush -29, 614. 674
MARCH 2003
Mowing complete
601,810,664,665,29, 250,844,
4 554 cul-de-sac
Shoulder Work - 614,676,743,654,665
Machine and Add Stone - 606. 643, 661.
662, 668, 671, 672, 673, 675, 756, 764.
766. 776, 666
Weather delayed November Schedule
Install drop inlet - Rte. 29 ~ Airport Motors
Pipe replacement- 668, 671, 764
Per Schedule
MAINTENANCE
Boyd Tavern Headquarters
FEBRUARY 2003
MOWING
PATCHING
GRADE/MACHINE/ADD
STONE
DITCH/PIPE
G UARDRAI L
EQUIP MAINT
EMERGENCY OPS
OTHER
164, Rts. 20, 631, 1520, 231
Rts 640, 600
Rts 615, 53
Per schedule
Snow Operations 2/6,7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,25,26,27,28
TREE REMOVAL Rts. 744,20
MARCH 2003
Rt 20, 231
164, Rts 250, 20, 600
Rts 784, 747, 640, 600, 612
Rts 600, 640, 747
As scheduled
As scheduled
MOWING
PATCHING
GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD
STONE
DITCH/PIPE
G UARDRAI L
EQUIP MAINT
MAINTENANCE
Keene Headquarters
FEBRUARY - 03
COLD MIX RT. 712, 708, 631, 632, 620, 742, 729,
618, 620
MACHINE RT. 708,795,713,633,631,792,793,717,670.
717,721,630,714,627,716, 717,735,724,617,778,813,
711,7t 2,760,856,722,723,708,638, 712,718,
HAULED STONE RT. 722,723,699,718,697,774,
INSTALLED PIPE RT.627,
CLEAN PIPE RT. 724,723,
Clean and repair equipment from snow
operations
MARCH - 03
CUT R/W RT. 715, RT. 20-BETWEEN
CARTER'S BRIDGE TO RT.720
SHOULDER WORK ON RT.20
BETWEEN RT.742 & RT. 708
COLD MIX RT. 712,708,620.729,29,726
MACHINE RT.708,712,795,713,704, 774,
699, 737, 633, 722, 723, 697. 805, 7617,
728
HAUL ROCKS RT. 733, 728, 633, 699,
774, 737, 792, 793, 723,
CLEAN PIPE RT. 1t3
As scheduled
EMERGENCY OPS
OTHER
CLEANED UP TREES ON RT.717
CLEANED HQ.
SNOW DUTY-02~06, 07, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 25, 26, 103
HIGH WATER DUTY 02122,23,24,25, / 03 - ETS.
602,712,713,704,633,737,735,717,617,774,699,761,
728,622, 795,626, 631,715,728
STOCK SALT AT KEENE & COVESVILLE, STOCK
ROCK AT COVESVILLE & KEENE
PATCHING
GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD
STONE
DITCH/PIPE
G UARDRAI L
Malntenanc
STANARDSVILLE HEADQUARTERS
Patched pot holes on Rt.29, 604, 810 cold mix. Patch potholes on Rt. 29,33, 230
604,622,810,629
Mach & Replaced stone on Rts. 642,634,637,638,
628,630,634,806 & 605 due to snow storm & flood.
Machine & replace stone on Rt. 614
676,637,638, 632,642
Shoulders Rt. 29
Guardrail hits on Rt.29 & 33
EQUIP MAINT
EMERGENCY OPS
Other
Per schedule
Cleanup & repairs from snow operations
Cleaned and repaired equipment
Snow Operations 2/6r7,8,9,10=14r15~16,17r18
19,20,25,26,27,28
As scheduled
Clean & repair equipment from snow
storms.
Equipment %
AREA HO ~ ......... ~ :~jl_~l~,l-"i III Ir'Jli:.l/_JE ~ "~ DAY~ ..... ~ F~TI NO ~
~ pOSSIBLE ~ OF ~ DAY8 IN THE -' ~'~cO~LG'R) t
EQui'P M ENT iT~ ~ ..... DA~ ' ' ~ SHOP ......
................ · .......... 0 28
56
O 28
KI I NE ~ .... ~ - 4 19[-- ~ -97-96%¢ereen
56 0
mowers
Project
' Ai-13ema'rle ~wne
i (Sperry)
Peter Jefferson/Mar[ha
Jefferson Site
~ Rivanna Village at
Olenmore
North Pointe
Hollymead
Blue Ridge Hospital /
Monticello Visitors Center
PLANNING
' ~ffi(~ ~ --';r~-affi¢~ Site
Study Study ; Plan
$coping i Review ~ Review ! Current Status
...... i-~{~'C S{'i~a~-~e~e~-~o~ th~ c-0m'p~e'~'nSi~ Plan Amendment stage
~has been completed. Additonal submissions will be made at the
management plan.
Waiting for- P~:~ffe~-s {o)~e subm(t{ed for comment.
'Iir~-p~0:~e~ent c0r:n'~ eni ~ p-r(Jvi d ed t0' c~fi~:t 9'-i~ {~ff.~
study comments p
~ubmissions underway.
Staff,
Route
2o
2o
29
29
53
53
25o
250
614
614
631
631
631
631
664
674
743
810
1315
TI IFI.C ENGINEERING
Kev ew: albemarte
Traffic Engineering Issues
Location Issue Type Received
Between Route 1150 and Route 742 Speed Limit 12/19/02
Intersection with Route 250 Pavement Markings 1/9/03
29 Bypass exit 12/3/02
I nt of Route 1575 Signal Warrant 2/10/03
Intof Rt. 53 and Rt. 795 1/14/03
nt. of Rt 53 and Rt 20 South Signage 1/14/03
Int of Rt 250W and Rt 786 Inadequate 1/7/03
Geometrics
East and West of Route 738 Signage 1/15/03
Intersection with Route 810 Signage 10/31/02
Between Route 676 and 810 Speed Limit 12/10/02
Intersection with East Rio Court Signal Warrant 10/15/02
From end of 4-lane to Forrast Lodge Speed Limit 11/20/02
Road
At Putt-Putt Lane
.75 miles north of Plank Road
From Route 663 to 604
Between Routes 810 and 671
Int of Hydraulic Rd and Georgetown Rd
In Whitehall
Before crossing Route 851 Dominion Dr
Signal Warrant 12/10/02
Guardrail 1/13/03
Speed Limit 1/13/03
12/10/02
10/3/02
Speed Limit 1/9/03
Signage 2/12/03
Description
Reducing the speed limit
Add left turn lane
Traffic flow
Request for traffic signal
Difficult turning onto Rt. 53 from Rt 795
Confusing Signage
Sight distance problems at the ivy Store,
Restrict truck traffic on Route 738
Addition 35 M.P.H. sign
Speed Study
Signal Warrants
Reduce Speed Limit
Signal Warrant Analysis
Requesting installation of guardrail
Reduced speed limit
Traffic Count
Pedestrian Crossing Signal timing
Reduce speed limit to 25.
No Through Street
Reviewer
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Charlottesville
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Res.
Route
Traffic Engineering Issues Under Review: Greene
Location
Intersection of 622,623, and 633
Issue Type Received Description
Pavement Markings 1/29/03 Add right turn lane
Reviewer
Advance Mills Bridge
Snow Operations AAR
· Standards
· Subdivisions
· Control of Hired Equipment
· Vehicle Maintenance
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Six Year Secondary Plan
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Worksession on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for
2003-2009 and County's Priority List of Road
Improvements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs.,Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE:
March 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the County's Priority List and VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan at
/.,,,their January 28, 2003 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the attached Six Year
Secondary Road Plan for 2003-2009. (Staff Report, Attachment I)
DISCUSSION:
As part of its review of the Six Year Priority List and Plan, the Planning Commission discussed the Rural
Rustic Road program. The discussion focused on how to prioritize unpaved roads, giving higher pdodty to
those eligible for the rustic road criteria as recommended by staff. Staff recommended making rustic road
eligibility a high priority criterion in the rating system for unpaved roads.
Based on the Board of Supervisors past practice of not impacting roads that are currently in the Six Year
funding cycle when a new policy is implemented, staff has created a new Priority List (Attachment II) using
the rural rustic roads criteria as the second highest criteria for all unpaved roads afterthose roads that
currently have an estimated advertisement date. Several of the unpaved roads that are currently in the Six
Year funding cycle are also eligible for the rural rustic road program (Gilber~ Station Rd, Heards Mtn. Rd,
Beam Rd., Wood Edge Rd., and Doctor Crossing Rd.). Because it costs considerably less to improve a
qualifying rural rustic road, additional funding would be more available for other unpaved road projects.
Mr. Charles Proctor, Assistant Resident Engineer, was present at the worksession. Mr. Proctor stated that
VDOT would likely be directed to first evaluate all projects for eligibility for the rural rustic road treatment.
The proposed guidelines and draft resolution the County will need to adopt for rural rustic roads can be
found in Attachment Iii.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends the Board approve the Priority List for Secondary Roads
/"'Nmprovements, and staff recommends this approval be as amended to include the new unpaved road
priorities (inclusive of those qualifying for Rural Rustic Roads) in Attachment I1.
Staff additionally recommends that the Board approve the resolution for rural rustic roads found in
Attachment III.
ATTACHMENT I
STAFF PERSON:
WORK SESSION:
JUANDIEGO WADE, DAVID BENISH
JANUARY 28, 2003
WORK SESSION: SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD PLAN FOR 2003-2009
Introduction
The purpose of this work session is to prOvide:
Initial overview of the Six Year Road Plan process;
· General review of the existing projects on the County's priority list of road
improvements and potential projects to be considered for inclusion in this year's
revision of the list; and
· Opportunity for Planning Commission to discuss the County's existing priority list or
other potential proj cots/issues.
Six Year Plan Process
The Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan is VDOT's Plan for the allocation of road
Construction funds for a six year period. It consists of a priority list of projects and a financial
implementation plan. The Plan is based on local priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The
County typically reviews/his priority list of projects every year. Attachment A is the current
adopted VDOT Secondary Road Construction Plan.'Attachment B is the current adopted County
Priority List for Secondary Road Improvement. The focus of this annual review of the Six year Plan
is the County's priority list. The VDOT Six Year Road Construction Plan is the implementation tool
for this list.
Since 1986, the Commission and Board of Supervisors have approved a priority list of road
improvement projects that would cost, in total, in excess of available funds over the six-year
planning period. With such a list developed, subsequent VDOT Six Year Plans can be prepared and
revised in.response to ava/lable annual funds. The County has used a locally derived criteriazbased
rating system to prioritize road improvement projects in the COunty. This system, with some
modifications and refinements, has been used since 1988. Once the proposed improvement has been
prioritized in its particular category, all of the projects are comb{ned for each category to make one
priority list. These categories include spot improvements, major reconstruction, unpaved road,
raikoad crossing, and bridge improvements,.
VDOT's Draft 2003-2009 Secondary_ System ConstrUction Plan
There are several changes in VDOT's draft 2003-2009 Secondary System construction Plan
(Attachment C); Staff has outlined these changes in the table below. You may recall that VDOT
submitted a revised 2002-2008 Secondary Construction Plan in June 2002 due a funding shortfall
from VDOT. This revision had a tremendouS impact on the construction schedule of the Priority List
the Board of Supervisors adopted in April 2002. Due to VDOT's interim rev/sion in June 2002, there
are no major changes to their draft Construction Plan.
CHANGES IN VDOT SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION PLAN 2003-2009
PROPOSED
PRIORITY PROJECT CHANGE REASON
1 CountY wide Allocation r-edUced from Overall allocation
~ new pipe install. $825,000 to $600,000 reduced, this category
new plant mix over six years would not impact Projects
on the priprity l~st. .
5 Airport Road ' ' COst increased $1,159,900 Construction Cost
· ' increased
6 Free. State Estimate ad date (EAD) R-O-W not provided by
· ConnectOr Removed developer/property owner
8 ! Jarman's Gap Road Cost increased $1}'0}000 - Updated cost ;'
New EAD from 6/1/06 to 8/1/05
i6 /)id Ivy Road. New EAD moved from 8/1/08 Reduced allocation/
to 8/!/10 · Budget shorffal~.
11 Georgetown Road New EAD from 12/1/08 to 12/1/10 Reduced allocation/
. Budge_t shprffall
12 Sunset Avenue New EAD from 10/1/08 to 10/1/11 Reduced allocation/
.... Budget shortfall
N/A 631 Old No longer in VDOT's 6 Yr. Const ' Reduced allocation/
Lynchburg Rd (631) Plan due to funding issues,. Budget shortfall/proj.
but still identified on Moves outside Six Year
County PrioritY List plan
16 Secretary's Road' Cost increased $305,000 · Upda.te.d COst estimate
New EAD from 12/1/04 to 12/1/06 Updated cost estimate and
17 Reservoir Road I and cost decreased $18,414 Reduced allocation/budget
shortfall
18 Gilbert Station Road New EAD from 10/1/o5 to 10/1/o6 Reduced allocation/
t Budget shortfall
'19 Heards ' . New EAD from 10/1/06 to 10/1/07 Reduced aliocation/
Mountain Road Budget shortfall
20 Dickerson Road . New EAD from 10/1/07 to 10/1/08 Reduced allocation/
-' , ,Budget shortfall
21 Beam Road. · · New EAD from 10/1/08 to 3/1/08 Reduced allocation/
' ~' Budget. shortfall
22 Woods Edge Rd NeW EAD 10/1/09 ' New project on 1/st
23 Doctors Crossing Rd New EAD 10/1/11 . New project on list "
Nearly all of the changes are a,result ora reduction in allocations from VDOT. In the case of Old
Lynchburg Road, the:funding shortfall results in the project no longer being listed in the Six Year
Construction Plan (the estimated ad date in the prior plan was 12/1/08). The forecast for additional
funds in the near future does not look optimistic at this point. The reduction in allocation did not l/ave
as great impact the unpaved road projects and VDOT was able to add two new unpaved roads to the
Priority List, Rt. 623-Woods Edge Road, and Rt. 784-Doctors Crossing Road.
New County Priority_ List for Secondary Road Improvement
There are proposed changes in the County's Draft Priority List for Secondary Improvements
(Attachment D). In addition to the changes noted in the section above, staff received several
requests from the public during the year for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to
consider for inclusion on the priority list.
Public/VDOT Requests for consideration received include:
Name From-To Proi ect
738 Morgantown Rd
654 Barracks Road
.732 Milton Road
790 Holly Road
806 Estes Ridge Rd
774 Bear Creek Rd
747 Preddy Creek Rd
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 20
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt. 20
735 Mt.'Alto Road Rt. 602Rt. 626
Rt. 795-Dead End
Rt. 663-Dead End
Nelson CL Dead End
Rt. 600Rt. 6
Rt. 250 cul-de-sac project
Rt. 1001 intersection improvement
Rt. 53 intersection improvement
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
There are a total Often (10)new public requests, seven(7) of which are road paving projects. The
three non-road paving are ali intersection improvements, which staff agrees merit inclusion in the
Priority List of Road Improvements. Staff used the criteria-based rating system to Prioritize these
public requests. They have been added (bold and italicized) to the draft County Six Year Secondary
Priority List (Attachment D)~. The Morgantown Road project is a result of County staff and VDOT
working with the Ivy Community AssoCiation to determLne the desired improvement. Several other
m/nor improvements are being considered along Morgantown Road. The Barracks Road/Colhurst
Drive intersection improvement (turn lanes) is the result of concerns raised with the review and
approval of a special use permit for a church near this intersection. Based on concerns with the
safety of this intersection, the Board of Supervisors requested this project be included in the County
Priority List of Road Improvements. The Milton Road/Rt. 53 intersection improvement was
requested by residents that drive this road daily and believe that the site distance is poor. This project
may be able to be done as a spot safety improvement. Staff agrees these projects merit inclusion in
the Priority List of Road Improvements.
.Three other projects that staff paid particular attention to this year are the Southern Parkway, the Rio
ROad intersection improvement at Pen Park Lane, and the Dry Bridge Road bridge project.
VDOT has informed the County that Southern Parkway is eligible for Revenue Sharing Funds.
This means that VDOT Revenue Funds would pay for half of the project cost. The County must
pay the remaining cost (the program requires a dollar for dollar local match). In order for this
project to meet the criteria for full VDOT funding in the Six Year Plan, the County has to meet
two additional criteriaj(Attachment E).-Staff is working with VDOT to address the outstanding
criteria. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors prioritize the Park3v. ay as new priority #13,
after the Sunset Avenue project (priority #12).
The Rio Road project is important because of development that has been approved or under
consideration in this area, particularly the 150 Meadow Creek subdivision in the City. The Meadow
Creek subdivision is located in the City, but is proposed to access Rio Road via Pen Park Lane, a
County road. This intersection is inadequate to handle this additional traffic. Staff is anticipating an
intersection improvement with a traffic signal. The newly constructed Charlottesville Catholic
School, recently approved Waldorf School, and the undeveloped area adjacent to CATEC when
developed would also generate impacts to this intersection.
Dry Bridge Road is a bridge replacement project. The County School Department iequested th/s
project be given a high priority because the weight I/mit affects the abihty to pick up pupils in this
area; The weight iestriction on the bridge does not allow a bus loaded with pupils to use it; therefore,
other less desirable routes need to be used. The weight limitation on this bridge is als0 a concern for
fire and rescue service. Staff moved each of these projects up on the priority list.
Charlottesville City Council adopted a resolution in support of transportation improvements in the
area (Attachment F). Most of the improvements are in the City, but several projects are located in
the County. Those projects in the County had been identified in the County Primary or Secondary
Priority Lists and are addressed by the Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville Albemarle Area
Regional Transportation Study (CHART).
Rural Rustic Roads:
VDOT implemented the rural rustic roads with the concept to pave more roads with limited funds
and doing so with no or minimal encroachment beyond existing ditches and without compromising
the safety of the road. The General Assembly approved the rustic roads program in 2002 for a pilot
project for one year. The pilot program was very successful with the guidelines VDOT established.
VDOT is likely to recommend support to the General Assembly. The rustic road program will be
implemented throughout the State on July 1, 2003. Staff is using this annual review of the Six Year
Plan to discuss this program and identify projects eligible for it. Jim Bryan, the Charlottesville
Resident Engineer, presented information on the rural rustic roads program to the Board of
Supervisors at their November day meeting. This program has the potent/al of saving an enormous
amount of money. Examples from Augusta County (County where pilot program was/mplemented)
show the potential cost saving of this program.
ConVentional Paving Cost Rural Rustic Program Cost
(Estimate) (Augusta County)
Rt. 617 $814,248 $99,305
Rt. 721 $471,000 $62,239
Rt. 742 $655,000 $69,541
Candidates for the rural rustic.roads 'program must meet the folio.wing criteria.
The road must be in the County's Six-Year Plan
The road must Be part of the secondary system of state' highways
The road must have an average daily trip of between 50 and 500
· Local roads that are familiar to most drivers and serve low density land uses
The Board of Supervisors must pledge to:
Designate road a rural rustic road
· L/mit growth along the road through planning and zoning
· Pas resolution for each Candidate road
Siaff has been working with VDOT to identify.roads in the existing County Priority List for
Secondary Road Improvements that is eligible for the rural rustic road program. VDOT prepared a
spreadsheet that addresses eligibility (Attachment G). There were seven new unpaved roads
projects added to the Draft County Priority List Attachment D). The eligibility, for the rural rustic
program for these roads has not been determined at this time. Staff will work with VDOT to
determine the new project's eligibility upon approval of the Priority List.
-Staff needs the Board of Supervisor's direction on how to address those roads eligible for the rural
rustic road program. The Board of Supervisors uses the following policy for unpaved roads.
1. Growth Management Policy
2. Functional Classification
3. Traffic Count
4. Road Width
5. Shoulder Width
6. Surface Type
7. -Right of Way
Staff recommends the rural rustic road eligibility be added as a criterion with high priority
weighting, so that projects that meet rustic road standards will receive greater emphasis
for development in the Plan. Staff uses the criteria based rating system to prioritize all
transportation projects. For unpaved road, the County's-growth management policy
(Development Area vs. Rural Area location is the most important. Staff recommends the
rural rustic road program eligibility be placed as the second priority of criterion. If
supported by the Board of Supervisors, there will be eight criteria that staff will use to
determine the priority of unpaved roads With rural rustic road eligibility being the second
most important criteria. The Proposed Priority List has not been prioritized based on this
change. Should the Planning Commission agree with this modification, staff will
rePrioritize this list.
Summary'_:
The focus of this annual review of the Six Year Plan and work session is to review and
approve the CountY's Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements. The VDOT Six
Year Road Construction Plan is the implementation tool for this list, and will be adjusted
to be consistent with the County's Priority List noted above.
Staff will take the Commission's comments on the proposed Priority List and make the
necessary adjustments to both the County's Priority List and the VDOT Secondary Plan.
An additional work session(s) will be scheduled to complete the Commission's review, if
necessary. Ultimately, the Commission's recommendation on the Priority List and Plan
will be fonvarded to the Board of Supervisors. TypicallY, the Commission has not held a
public hearing on the Priority List and Six Year Plan. The Board will hold a work session
and public hearing on the Commission's recommended Priority List and Six Year
Construction Plan prior to adoption.'
AttachmentS:
A. VDOT Adopted Six Year Construction Plan
B. County Adopted Six Year Priority List
C. VDOT Draft Six Year Construction Plan
D. County PropoSed Six Year Priority List
E. VDOT Letter on Southern Parkway
F. Resolution from the Charlottesville City Council for transportation improvements
G. County Rural Rustic Roads Criteria Eligibility
ETED A8 PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJEOT OOMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING]
Location Estimated Estimated
Description/Comments
From . To Advertisement Cost
Date
Month-Year
wide Jun-09 $600,000 signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding
i lgmt. Program Jun-09 $300,000
: :erry Jun-09 $120,000
t:o .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Dec-02 $500,000
(Dreenwood Rd-D.E. Mar-03 $150,000
r ne Rd to Rio Road Jun-05 $14,505,100
; ,ver Meadow Creek Jun-05 $2,204,500
,c! to Route 606 Dec.03 $12,103,950
~1 te Road $3,350,000
3 t to Route 29
$37,500,000
l 0 to Route 684 Aug-05 $5,300,000
11.6 miles east Jun-08 $9,500,000
to 250/29 Byp Aug-10 $7,200,000
~ l to Route 743 Dec-10 $3,200,000
i' ffh St Extended Oct.11 $1,650,000
to Fifth Str. $4,000,000
-~ ~outh of Rt 738 Aug-02 $100,000
. 1-64 to Rt.708 Dec-08 $1,500,000
to Route 1302 Dec-08 $800,000
~ction with Rt. 22 Feb-02 $10,000
Staff working with VDOT for traffic calming in the Hollymead area in 2001-02 multi-stops, ped. X-walk
operation of ferry '
rural addition
rural addition
two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR
(associated with project above)
widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [7,200]
proposal to construct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge [420]
new road, County also petitioning for eligibility for primary road funding RS 97198
serve increased traf w/mia widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 '[2,200]
improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk, RS 200612007 [6,300]
widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01 [4,300]
spot improvement, pedestrian access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [16,000]
spot and inter. Improve., urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane. RS 2005/06, peal/bike access[I,100]
Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [250]
spot improvements at various locations,RS 2001/02 [2,100]
spot improvement to improve sight distance, RS 2002/03 [2000]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. hazard elimination safety funds[640]
Date
,, der Dr. to Seminole Sq.
: '.tion of Route 790
$300,000
~ '.40 to Route 250
N/A
i~ Pen Park Lane $1,000,000
I overpass
[ ~ to Route 649
$1,500,000
[ ion of Route 250
$200,000
:1 ion of Rt. 676 N/A
i on of Route 658
' 250
, ~n of Route 601
¢)ute 759
!! 9 to Route 743
$1,2oo, ooo
i on of Route ~00~
~n of Route 250 $650,000
) n of 762
~ n of Route 789
$550,000
,~ q of Route 53
Jacob Run $350,000
· Jacob Run $440,000
i' ver to Rt 643 $60,000
t.. 1120 $1,000,000
: ~t. 797
. ~thern RR
-~uth Route 626
i thern RR
new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, most of project is located in City limits
intersection improvement. [670]
interconnect of future neighborhood streets
Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [23,000]
school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit
public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS 2004/05 [1000]
intersection improvement, RS 2003/04 [4,800]
intersection improvement, public request [3100]
add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm.
intersection improvement, cul-de.sac road
intersection improvement
improve alignment
[6,300]
[~2oo]
[54oo]
[4,600]
improve to handle projected traffic, CHART recommendation, RS 2002/03 [6,000]
intersection improvement, cul-de.sac road
intersection improvement [3,400] [6400]
spot improvement, requested by public [1,000]
Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[1,800]
recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/06 [2,700]
install box culvert, RS 2005/06, not a County priority,a VDOT recommended safety project
install box culvert, no County Priodty,a VDOT recommended safety project
public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related. RS 2004/05 [8,400]
improve road geometdcs, two Fane rural section
[4400]
spot/safety improvement to serve Increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680]
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [340]
[4101
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [1701
Date
Month-Year
northeast Rt. 708
: tion of Route 665
!3 to Route 7'12
() to Route 29
1'4 to Route 1050
~ ~d to Route 250
:i on of Route 676
,,' s Run
~, r. with Rt. 20
$650,000
$825,O00
$1,401,586
$360,OO0
$360,000
$1,336,073
$200,000
$365,000
()n of Route 795
()n of Route 773
~ Rt. 810
.~ 691
.";outh of Rt. 6
~ ¢oods Road
1712
· 726 Dec-02
to Route 620 Aug-03
~ 9ad end Dec-06
t:o Route 747 Oct-06
l:o Route 29 Oct-07
t o Route 1030 Oct-08
',13 north Mar-08
1 :o dead end Oct-09
are in the Development Area,
Railroad crossing with no gate
intersection improvement [80]
spot improvements, safety related [370]
improve alignment [1,200]
[1,500]
spot improvements at several points, CATS recommendation [2,500]
extend to eastern 240/250 street system [640]
improve intersection, located near school, CATS recommendation [140]
improve approach to bridge
spot improvement, requested by Scottsville [1,000]
[630]
intersection improvement, public request
[ ~ 000]
intersection ~mprovement
intersection improvement [1000]
[1000]
spot improvements, public request [700]
Railroad crossing with no gate [210]
Railroad crossing with no gate [80]
spot improvements, public request [140J
school request,needs turn-around space [60]
unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [210]
unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [230]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks [1900]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined -RRR [300]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined -RRR [80]
unpaved road, public request, R~O-W undetermined [360]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined _ RRR [780]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined -RRR _ [420]
Date
300 to Route 640
to Rt. 692
164 to Dead end
to Rt. 824
~ to Dead end
95 to Rt. 1807
16 to Dead end
:o Deand End
o Dead End
) to Dead End
~ Rt. 784
) dead eno
4 to Route 20
) dead end
5 to Route 646
~ End
~ Rt. 626
Rt. 640
Rt. 692
east to Rt.
~ad end
=4. 635
) Route 760
Month-Year
Oct-11
are in the Development Area.
$1,238,105
$45O,O00
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
unpaved
road, public request,
road, public request,
road, public request,
read, public request,
road, public request,
road, public request,
road, public request,
road,
R-O-W undetermined - RRR
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined -RRR
R-O-W undetermined- RRR
R-O-W undetermined- RRR
R-O-W undetermined- RRR
R-O-W undetermined- RRR
BOS request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
unpavedroad
unpavedroad
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
R-O-W not available- RRR
unpaved road Scottsville request, R-O.W undetermined. RRR
unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined. RRR
unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined. RRR
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined- RRR
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, R-O-W not available
[2801
[2001
[2701
[360]
[46]
[17o]
[210]
[120]
[120]
[16o]
[200]
[14o]
[260]
[230]
[1 lO]
[~40]
[2O]
[co]
[20]
[5Ol
[470]
[340]
[14o]
RS - Revenue Sharing
Date
Month-Year
I~ to Rt. 795
to Orange CL
~ to Route 626
to Dead End (incl, section n. of Rt. 636)
;82 to Route 708
to to current paved sections
to Swift Run (including bridge)
76 to Route 614
14 to Route 673
o Dead end
s west to Rt. 20
unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, R-O-W not available
unpaved road, R-O-W not available
unpaved road, R-O-W not available
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined
[16o]
[14o]
[90]
[200]
[36o]
[14o]
[~20]
[14o]
[lOO]
[70]
[$o]
$119,029,314
ATTACHMENT III
Draft Resolution for Rural Rustic Road
The Board of Supervisors of
dayof
, in regular meeting on the __
., 19. ~. , adopted the following:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise
~§33.1-72.01 to include a special designation and treatment of certain roads deemed to qualify for
and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and
Whereas VDOT has expressed a willingness to utilize this program on a pilot basis until the
program is fully implemented to assist ha evaluating this program and refining the guidelines.
WHEREAS, such roads must serve local traffic only and be located in a Iow-density
development area, and have no more than 500 vehicles per day; and
WHEREAS, a road that traverses an area known for its scenic vistas or a historic and relaxed
ambiance is one that should be considered for designation as a Rural Rustic Road; and
Whereas, this Board believes should be designated a Rural Rustic
Road, From: To:
owing to its characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary
system of state highways; and
WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have indicated their support of this road being
paved with minimal improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby requests the Department's
Resident Engineer to concur and designate the aforesaid road to be a Rural Rustic Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the
fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as
much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the
road in their current state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board pledges to discourage development on this road that
would significantly increase the existing traffic and agrees that if further development should
dictate further improvements within 15 years then further improvements to this road will not be
funded by the Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote A Copy Teste:
Moved By:
Seconded By: Signed
Yeas: Printed Name
Nays: Title
ATT ACI~I~EI~T III
Rural Rustic Road Pilot Program
(In accordance with HB659 of 2002 Virginia General Assembly Session Effective July 1, 2003)
Criteria
o Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System.
o Must carry at least 50 but no more than 500 vehicles per day.
o Must be a priority (line item) in an approved Secondary Six-Year Plan, even if funding is
not from Secondary allocations.
o Governing body of County, in consultation with VDOT's Resident Engineer or designee,
must designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road.
o Road must be in area that is low-density, and should be evaluated for appropriate warning
signs or posted speed limit that is consistent with topography and features of the road.
o Roadway or roadway section must be predominately for local traffic use.
o The local nature of the road means that most motorists using the road have traveled it
before and are familiar with its features.
o County Board of Supervisors will endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the
Rural Rustic Road program and cooperate with the Department through its comprehensive
planning process to develop lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts.
o Requires a special Resolution by County Board of Supervisors for each individual road.
VDOT Review
o ~ Consider the views of the governing body making the request and of the residents and
owners of the adjacent property.
o Consider the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its surroundings.
o Leave trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed
to the maximum extent possible.
o Improvements along 'Rural Rustic Roads may be less than minimum design standards, as
outlined in the Chief Engineer's memorandum dated June 11, 2002. AASHTO's
Guidelines For Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT <= 400)
may be used as a guide for roads up to 500 vpd.
o Encouraged to look for evidence of site-specific safety problems and to focus safety
expenditures on those sites where a site-specific safety problem exists.
o Low volume local roads have very few crashes. Even when 5 - 10 year crash data are
available, this data will often be so sparse that other indicators of safety problems should
be considered as well.
o Such other indicators may include field reviews to note skid marks or roadside damage,
speed data (which may indicate whether speeds are substantially higher than the intended
design speed), or concerns raised by police or local residents.
ATTACHMENT III
Rural Rustic Road Pilot Program
Approval Process
o Resident Engineer shall be VDOT's designated representative in dealing with County
Boards of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads.
o The Board of Supervisors requests the Resident Engineer to evaluate a section of road as
a candidate for the Rural Rustic Roads program.
o Resident Engineer evaluates the request and agrees or disagrees with the approach.
Resident Engineer determines if improvements can be made according to Rural Rustic
criteria
o Board of Supervisors designates road as Rural Rustic Road by resolution or determines if
it should appeal the determination of the Resident Engineer.
o If the Board of Supervisors does not agree with the Resident Engineer's position, it may
request the District Administrator to review that position and may appeal the District
Administrator's decision to the Chief Engineer for a final determination by the
Commissioner.
o Resident Engineer requests assistance from other divisions, as needed.
o Requires State Environmental Review Process.
o Requires permit determination by Environmental staff of VDOT.
o Requires scoping documentation (either LD-430 package or other documentation as
established by Committee and approved by VDOT Management).
Note: (In Northern Virginia, the Transportation Manager will be the designated representative)
ATTACIIMENT III
Rural Rustic Road Pilot Program
Environmental Requirements for Rural Rustic Road Proiects
All projects being considered for this program should be reviewed by the Residency Environmental
Specialist or District Environmental Staff for consideration of the following:
SERP (Requires 60-90 days)
* Is not required if there are:
i. No improvements (no earth moving activity)
ii. No horizontal/vertical realignments
iii.No widening
iv. No acquisition of right of way
Water Quality Permits (Requires 1-135 days) · Are not required if there are:
i. No streams
ii. No waterbodies
iii.No wetlands
iv. No water in pipes/culverts/ditches
o
Cultural Resources (Requires %30 days)
· No coordination is required if there are:
i. No water quality permits
ii. Project is not located within a Rural Historic District listed in the Virginia Landmarks
Register and/or the National Register of Historic Places. Such districts include, but
may not be limited to, the Green Springs Historic District (Louisa Counties), the
Catoctin Rural Histori: District (Loudoun and Fauquier Counties), and the Madison-
Barbour Rural Historic District (Madison and Orange Counties).
Threatened and Endangered Species (Requires 30-135 days)
· A database search on the Deparmaent of Game and Inland Fisheries website must be
conducted by the Residency Environmental Specialist for all projects.
· No further coordination is required if there are:
i. No water quality permits
ii. No threatened and endangered species identified in collections on the DGIF database.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts (Requires 30-60 days)
· No coordination is required if there will be:
i. No purchase of right of way
ii. No exchange of right of way for work performed by VDOT
I. Straight donation of right of way is acceptable
VPDES Permit (Requires 14 days)
· Is not required if there is:
i No clearing, grading, or excavating (earthwork or manipulation of subgrade and
shoulders) that results in land disturbance equal to or greater than I acre on one
project or any combination of adjacent projects
Hazardous Materials (Requires variable amount of time)
° No coordination is required if there is:
i. No obvious signs of contamination within the project vicinity
'narle
4 ogram
.= Itions
Other
$345,0O0
$170,000
$170,000
$170,000
$209,445
$220,000
$1,284,44,~
Total
$3,34O,845
$4,283,721
$4,029,256
$3,984,697
$3,998,400
$4,005,261
$23,642,18O
1/1/02
/ Previous Funding ] ~ _ -
! ! Funding _ PROJECTED F~SCA- .... ~
Total $2,204 500
,'~50,000
$0
CON $1,830,500
Total $1,880,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
alance to [ Scope of Work
Complete / FH~'A #
IComments
2-lane Bddge
$0
$1,237,400
:~3,743,209
CON $0
Total $4,980,$05
PE $600,000
$502,c341
$ON $0
To~l $1,102,r~.1
$1,502.365
RW $0
CON $0
~'otal $1,502,36S
$308,209
$0
CON $0
Total $308,20S
$0
$5,963,441
$2,247,359
$2,697,635
-~f.,841,791
$0
$2,000,000
$43,613
$20,000
$354,990
$o $o
$2,963,441 $1,000,000
$57,001 $1,146,745
$20,000 $20,000
$354,459 $765,429
$0
$0
$0
$20,000 $20,000
$o
$o
$o
$0
$20,000
$0 $0
$0
I REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 1998~
99
Paid
URBAN DESIGN FY/S. W. & BIKE LANEs
$1,000,000
REVENUE SHARING $1 000 000
96 , , 1995.
Paid
REVENUE SHARING $800 000 1997.
98 ,
Paid
REV. S/-I. $I, 000, 000 2007-08
$2,$77,635 P.E. Only
REVENUE SHARING 1999-2000
$1,000,000
2-LANE URB~Iv w/~ ~.~, .........
~ost Previous Funding - Additional ; - PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATfONS Balance to Scope of Work
. ' Complete FHWA #
- Funding ..... ' ,
Required ] Commenfs
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
~_ GATES &LtGHTS
,000 PE $1.000
SO ~W $o
,Ooo CON $9,000
0oo Total $10,~0Q
$0 $0 SO $0 $0 SO $0
3~o PE $10,o00
100 RW $10,000 UNPAVED ROAD
QO CON $200,000 ~ RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE
00 Total $220,000 ,
$(3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
~e' PE $20,000 4
'0 RW $20,000 UNPAVED ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
0 CON $810,000 AVAILABLE
~ Total, SSS0,000
$o $o $o $o So $o $o Se,
PE $30,000
R W $50,000 UNPAVED ROAD PARTIAL RIGHT OF
CON $417,35S , _ , WAY
Total .$4~7,355
$327,C~t.5 $223,3S3 $10~t,252 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0
PE $20,000
RW $40,000 UNPAVED ROAD
CON $65,000 , , NO RIGHT OP WAY
Total
$1,29S,000 $353,~f9 $~[4,$38 $326,613 $0 S0 $0 . S0
PE SO
RW $0 UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY
CON $0
Total
$360,000 $0 S0 S323,877 $36.123
~ ~ (~ost J Previous Funding J Additional . ...'T"'""='"'~'~OJECTE
· / ~ Funding ~_.~_._,.._._~OJECTED ........... FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
$3,374,517
'- I I ' ~4 ~$_2_4~_, _1,42s $2,77=,474 _ $13,028,056
$o $0 ' '
Date
~onth-¥ear
rltersection with Rt. 22 Feb-02 $10,000 Railroad crossing with no lights or ga'to, hazard elimination safety'funds
;ction of Route 789
-'.~ction of Route 790
)der Dr. to Seminole Sq.
ction of Route 250
~tion of Route 250
~S49 to Route 743
:tion of Rt. 676
:;tion of Route 53
tr. to Fifth Str.
40 to Route 250
!;) to Route 649
~ Jacob Run
.~ Jacob Run
!~ Pen Park Lane
River to Rt 643
Rt. 1120
:, Rt. 797
)uthern RR
)verpass
south Route 626
;~uthern RR
'~ortheast Rt,708
n of Route 665
() Route 712
) Route 29
~ of Route 658
$550,000
$500,000
$200,000
$65o,ooo
$1,200,000
N/A
$350,000
$4,000,000
N/A
$1,500,000
$440,000
$60,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[2,000]
intersection improvement. [570]
new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, most of project is located in City limits
intersection improvement, RS 2003/04 [4,800]
intersection improvement [2,800]
improve to handle projected traffic, CHART recommendation, RS 2002103 [6,000]
intersection ~mprovement, public request [3100]
recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/06 [2,700]
Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed
interconnect of future neighborhood streets
public req. to improv align, spot improvo safety related, RS 2004/05 [750]
install box culvert, RS 2005/06, not a County priority,a VDOT recommendedsafety project
install box culvert, no County Priority,a VDOT recommended safety project
Inter. improve, requested by City, to be fun deal from private source [22,000]
public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related. RS 2004/05 [8,400]
improve road geometrics, two lane rural section
[4400]
spot/safety improvement to serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680]
bridge project with iow sufficiency rating
school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate
bridge project with low sufficiency rating
Railroad crossing with no gate
intersection improvement
spot improvements~ safety related
i .mprove alignment
[340]
[390]
[17o]
[80]
[370]
[1,200]
ri 2nm
Date
Month-Year
te 600 to Route 640
'11 to Rt. 692
.~ to Dead end
35 to Rt. 824
50.to Rt. 635 .,
~. 664 to Dead end
35 to Dead End (incl. section n. of Rt. 636)
: 795 to Rt. 1807
784 [o Route 20
616 to Dead end
~ to Orange CL
29 to Route 760
I to dead end
to Rt. 795
to Deand End
to 1-64
to Swift Run
to Dead End
76 to Route 614
;) to RHES
t5 to Route 646
4 to Route 673
:o Route 626
~ Dead end
[o Dead end
Rt. 692
$1,238,105
$450,000
7,697,594
unpavedroad,
unpaved road,
unpaved road,
unpaved road,
unpaved.road,
unpavedroad,
unpaved road,
unpaved road,
unpaved road,
unpaved road~
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpavedroad
unpaved road
unpaved road.
unpaved road
unpaved roae
unpaved road.
unpaved road
unpavedroad
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road
unpaved road,
public request,
publicrequest,
public request,
publicrequest,
publicrequest,
publicrequest,
publicrequest,
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W not available
public request, R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W not available
public request, R-O-W undetermined
BOS request, R-O-W undetermined
BOS request, R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W not available
R-O-W not avail able
public request, R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W not available
public request, R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
public request, R-O-W undetermined
[360]
[2501
[470]
[360]
[340]
[220]
[200]
[18ol
[170]
[15O1
[140]
[140]
[130]
E130]
[130]
[12o]
[120]
[120]
[120]
[12o]
[lOO]
[80]
[70]
[7o]
[45]
[201
Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED'FiSCAL YEAR ALLOCAT ONS Balance to Scope of Work
Funding Complete FHWA #
Required Comments
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
PE $0 BUDGET ITEM
RW $0
2003-04 $~50,000 SIGNAL ~ RT
CON SO , , 63~i/164
Total $0 [ t [ Rev. Sho 2003-4 $300000
r
$600,000 $t00,000 $100,000 $t00,000 $100,000 $100,000 $t00,000 $0
~E $0
~,W. $0 ] Prelim. Engineering 2001-02
;ON $0
eta/ $0 [ Hollymeade Dr.
· $300,000 $50,000 $50,000 950,000 $50,000 $50,000 SSO,000 - $0
$0
tal $0
' $120,000 $20,000 920,000 920,000 920,cc0 920,cc0 $2o,ooo $0
$20,000 .
/ $20,000
N 9460,000 RURAL ADD/T/ON
gl $500,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
92,000 Upgrade to minimum standers & add t
$4,000
Rural Addition Funds
J $144,000
I $150,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90 $0
......... NEW' ALIGNMENT-2 lanes
$1,205,000
92,403,000
$7,529,684 ,
911,137,684.
I=revious Fufiding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work
Funding ......... Complete FHWA #
Required Comments
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
PE $1,000,000
RW $0
CON $0 ..~ ~ REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 2004-
05
Total $1,000,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 2005-
06
$8,800,000 $0 $4.00,000 $t ,000,000 $1,700,000 $t ,900)000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 2-LANES RURAL W/~IKE LANES
PE $910,000 .
~W $0
REV. SHARING $ ~, 000,000 2000-0
'~ON $0 3-LANES W/&W. & BIKE LANES
total $910,000
$6,290,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $450,000 $1,350,000 $1,670,000 $2,470,000
' ' SPOT iMPROVEMENTS
'E $600,000
'W $10o,0oo
REVENUE SHARING $200,000
ON $0 98
~a/ $700,000 REVENUE SHARING Sf, O00,o00 200.1'
03
$2,S00,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $60,000 $2,420,000 2-LANES W/S.W. & BIKE LANES
? $0 2-LANE URBAN W/SW & BIKE LANE
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 200d
)N $0 06
tal $o
$1,sso,ooo $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $1,930,000
' I LIG'HTS & GATES -
$3,000
' $1,000
¥ $96,000
{I $100,000
$o $o $o $o $o $o $o
GATES & LIGHTS
$1,000
r $9,000
$10,000
Previous Funding Additi~onal i PROJECTED FISCAL yEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work
Funding ' .... ....... Complete FHWA Cf
Required ] Comments
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 i 2008-09
~ ' I GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
~E $0
~W $0 ,
';ON $0 ~
"otal $0
I
$200,000 $0 $0 $0~ i $'I01,612 $48,4-88 $60,000 $0 '
~ $o
GRAVEL ROAD-NO RIGHT OF WAY
ON $0 POSSIBLE PA VE IN PLAGE
>tal $0
$365,000 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $200,000 $116,000 ,
.= $0 .... GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL
¥ $o
)N $o
tal $o
I
$1,288,t08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $118,291 $t,121,814
vlPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING]
Location Estimated Estimated
Description/Comments
From - To Advertisement Cost
Date
unty wide Jun-09 $600,000
~ ffic regret. Program Jun-09 $300,000
t ton Ferry Jun-09 $120,000
.;!50 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Dec-02 $500,000
t 991-Greenwood Rd-D.E. Mar-03 $150,000
,bourne Rd to Rio Road Jun.05 $14,505,100
~lge over Meadow Creek Jun-05 $2,204,500
~ te 29 to Route 606 Dec-03 $12,103,950
'- State Road $3,350,000
lie 631 to Route 29
$37,500,000
f:e 240 to Route 684 Aug.05 $5,300,000
:.~ to 1.6 miles east Jun'08' $9,500,000
[.oad to 250~29 Byp Aug-t0 $7,200,000
.,-~ 654 to Route 743 Dec.10 $3,200,000
1Io Fifth St Extended Oct-I 1 $1,650,000
· Str. to Fifth Str. $4,000,000
i'les south of Rt 738 Aug-02 $100,000
~1. S. 1-64 to Rt.708 Dec-08 $1,500,000
795 to Route 1302 Dec-08 $800,000
'~tersection with Rt. 22 Feb-02 $10,000
signs,pipe, plant mix projects, same funding
Staff working with VDOT for traffic calming in the Hollymead area in 2001-02 multi-stops, ped. X-walk
operation of ferry '
rural addition
rural addition
two lane d~sgin approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR
(associated with project above)
widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [7,200]
proposal to construct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge [420]
new road, County also petitioning for eligibility for primary road funding RS 97/98
serve increased traf w/min widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 [2,200]
improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk, RS 2006/2007 [6,300]
widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01 [4,300]
spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [16,000]
spot and inter. Improve., urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane. RS 2005/06, Peal/bike access[l,100]
Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/s peed
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [250]
spot improvements at various locations, RS 2001/02 [2,100]
spot improvement to improve sight distance,RS 2002/03 [2000]
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. hazard elimination safety funds[640]
Date
Month-Year
miles south Route 626
r l:olk Southern RR
miles northeast Rt.708
rsectJon of Route 665
.~te 29 to Route 712
te 20 to Route 29
~te 614 to Route 1050
: Road to Route 250
section of Route 676
~cobs Run
inter, with Rt. 20
t:53
~ection of Route 795
;ection of Route 773
"[0 to Rt. 810
~',oute 691
lies south of Rt. 6
ck Woods Road
)ute 712
o Rt. 726
795 to Route 620
to Dead end
641 to Route 747
CL to Route 29
Ap~02 $220,000
Aug-03 $1,130,000
Dec.06 $1,401,586
OCS06 $360,000
Oc~07 $360,000
Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [410]
bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [170]
Railroad crossing with no gate
intersection improvement [80]
spot improvements, safety related [370]
improve alignment [1,200]
[1,500]
spot improvements at several points, CATS recommendation [2,500]
extend to eastern 240/250 street system [640]
improve intersection, located near school, CATS recommendation [140]
improve approach to bridge [1,000]
spot improvement, requested by Scottsville
[630]
intersection improvement, public request [lO00]
intersection improvement
intersection improvement [1000]
[1000]
spot improvements, public request [700]
Railroad crossing with no gate [210]
Railroad crossing with no gate -
[80]
spot improvements, public request [140]
school request,needs turn-around space [60]
unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [210]
unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [230]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks [1900]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [300]
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [80]
~overtisement
Date
Cost
,ute 645 to Route 646
ute 614 to Route 673
;L to dead end
ute 6 to Route 626
600 to Rt. 640
691 to Dead end
miles east to Rt. 231
mileswest to Rt. 20
1484 to Dead end
391 to Rt. 692
~02 to Rt. 626
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road. public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, school request, R-O.W undetermined
unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined
unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined
[110]
Il00]
[100]
[90]
[80]
[70]
[50]
[46]
[20]
[20]
$118,904,314
PHILIP A. SHUCET
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH ,of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT .OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911
ATTACRMENT E
JAMES L'BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
January_ 7, 2003
Mr. Juandiego R. Wade
Senior Transportati°n Planner
Dept. 0fPla~ning & Conununity Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Southern Parkway
Dear Mr. Wade:
Thank you for your request for an update on the eligibility of the Southern Parkway for secondar3~ roads
funding.
We have conducted an analysis of ali pertinent aspects and criteria of this planned roadway and
determined that it is eligible for Revenue Sharing Funds. However if you do not want to participate in
revenue sharing, you should satisfy the open items on the enclosed checklist.
Please review the information provided and submit the appropriate documentation. Il'there are any
questions, please contact me at the residency office.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: File
RECEIVED iN
pLA2qNING JAN. 13, 2003
_ ~.~_. ..~tt~-' ATTACHMENT E
The Following Table Analyzes The Qualification Of A Connection
Between Avon Street And Rte631 (Fifth Street Extended)
For Use Of SecondaryConstrucfion Funds
' Not ! ............................
Met , (2~iding Principle
Met
I 'O " An integral part of the regional transportation network,
2 ; O Part of the comprehensive plan, official map, or a thoroughfare plan adopted by the
'local governing body, and
3 ! 0 Functionally classified as a collector ~r arterial road'as defined in VDOTs Road
~.............. _D_es~.'.~._Manual or SubdiViSion Street Requirements,_2_4 VAC 30-90-10, as mended,
Eli__gibli!ly. Cr'-'teria fi~r Projects Establishing a New Road
4 O- '- -] ......... '~,]----~e' public-at-large shal]l be the prominent beneficiaries 0fthe benefits created
by the new road, rather than abutting property owners or "for profit" interests.
-B. The county's current subdivision ordinance requires new streets to meet or
5 X
exceed VDOT's Subdivision Street Requirements.
C. The govem/ng body officially endorses the use of Secondary ConStrUctiOn Funds
to finance the project. Such financing may be supplemented by Revenue Sharing
6 P Funds, ifsaid funds are deemed by the State Secondary Roads En~neer to be
· appmpr/ate to the application.
' D. The road must create a connecting link between ex/sting pubticly maintained
7 X I . roads.
E. The n~w road,~hould sufficiently change currefit or future tra~/c patterns in
~ 8
, the area to alleviate the need to improve other, nearby, secondary roads.
[' F~ The design and construction ofth¢ road shall COmply with allapplicable VDOT
requ/mmems and standards as governed by functional classification, terraln~
projected traffic, and design speed. In certain sima_tions, the Secondary Roads
Engineer may atrthofize construction of the roadway with fewer lanes than the
I standard, provide&
· 9 7
{ I. Four or more travel lanes for motor vehicles co~ its complete
· development .
2. tt/s demonstrated that the proposed initial development of the roadway will
' safely and effectively accommrxiate the Wattic ant/cipated during the first 8
years of operation.
G. All street connections shall be established prior to constmccdon, in accordance
I0 . p w/th requirements for the selected design speed and projected traffic volume,
including those governing roi,imm separation (spacing) of in~rsecting streets,
· , and shall include appropriate med/an crossovers and turn lanes.
H. Except as provided'by planned public street connections, access to the new road
shall be controlled in accordance with a mtmm!!y agreed (county and VDOT)
11 P method of restricting access, including deed or plat restrictions, zoning
' requirements, or other accep~le approaches,
Guide to Met/Not-Met Abbreviations, placed in forecast position
? = Determination Unknown
O = Anticipated Determination
P = Probable Determination
X: Known Determination
ATTACHMENT F
[OPTION
A RESOLUTION
IN SUPPORT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
("MPO') is considering adoption of an updated Transportation Improvement Program
("TIP"), which is a list of transportation projects planned for the Charlottesville-
Albemarle. Study Area, drawn from the long-range .Charlottesville Albemarle Regional
Transportation Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the MPO is required by law to solicit comment on a proposed TIP _
from the public and affected public agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the voting membership of the MPO includes two City Councilors
who are designated by and represent the City, and who are vested with the authority to
speak for and act in behalf of the City Council on matters concerning area wide
transportation planning activities; and,
WHEREAS, it is the desire of City Council to formally express its position to the
MPO and provide direction to its designated representatives on those projects identified
in the TIP that are within the City, or are County projects wh/ch are especially relevant to
transportation within the Ci~.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Charlottesville as follows:
I. The Council supports for inclusion in the TIP the following City projects which
have been approved previously and are funded for construction: Emmet Street Traffic
Signal Coordination; Citywide Traffic Signal Installation; Park Street Bridge
Rehabilitation; Locust Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation; the University of Virginia
Pedes~an Bridge; Enhancement Projects (Court Square, Rivanna Greenbelt and Rugby
Road); and Transit Grants (Operating, Capital and Transit Center).
2. The Council supports for inclusion in the TIP the Jefferson Parld Avenue
Extended Bridge Replacement.
3. The Council supports for inclusion in the TIP the following City projects and
regional projects of interest to the City which are not yet scheduled for construction, in
the following pr/ority:
ATTACHMENT F
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(I2)
03)
(14)
Hillsdale Drive Extended
Proposed Eastern Connector Road
Meadowcreek Parkway; Meadowcreek Parkway / Route 250 Interchange
North Grounds Connector with' grade-separated interchange;'
Southern Parkway; Increased Urban Allocation for Transit
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I (Melbourne to Rio)
Hydraulic Road / U.S. Route 29 / U.S. Route 250 ImProvements
Intelligent Transportation System -~.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Rio Road / Pen Park Lane Intersection Improvement
Fontaine Avenue Widening
Millmont Connector '-
Ivy RoadWidening
Western Bypass, on the conditions stated in the Resolution previously adopted by
the MPO, and proposed in the 2003 TIP, which states that no federal funds ~for
construction of the Route 29 Bypass be allocated or accrued until the MPO and the
Virginia Department of Transportation have successfully addressed issues
identified in the MPO Resolution of September 9, 1996, regarding incorporation
of sa/d funds/nto the T~P
(15) Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (north of Rio Road)
4. The City Council requests that development and oversight of the design for the
above-referenced projects bejthe responsibility of an MPO committee which includes
representatives appointed by the affected localities.
.~ c~o =
m
~'°zz~'<z'<z '<'<'<z'<z'<'<z~'<'<'<z'<'<zzJl~°l~e c~ ~ m ,..-. _. <
, _-,,_ ~ ~-,,.,,~ =,,c: .., ,- m_,- 'am m m m_ m_. m_ m m
0
Z
Z