HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-06 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of September 6, 2000
September 7, 2000
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order.
4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
· There were none.
5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation.
Certfficates presented to PDR Committee members and
Meredith Gunter from the Commission on Children and
Families.
6.1 Set public headng to amend County Cede, Business,
Professional and Occupation License, Tax, to redefine
Amusement activities as a service business and change the
license rate.
· SET public hearing for October 11, 2000.
6.2 Set public hearing to amend County Code to establish Daily
Rental Tax.
· SET public hearing for October 11, 2000.
6.3 Set public headng to amend County Cede to change local taxes
required by Utility Deregulation.
· SET public hearing for October 4, 2000, 10:45 a.m.
6.4 Set public headng to allow County to grant City of Charlottes-
ville Gas Division Brookway Drive Gas Line Easement.
· SET public hearing for October 4, 2000, 10:55 p.m.
6.5 Adopt resolution to accept Graomont Lane in Gmemont
Subdivision, into the State SecondanJ System.
· ADOPTED the attached resolution.
6.6 Approve donation of $4,000 from the Neighborhood Grant
Program fund to the Esmont Odd Fellows and authorize County
Executive to execute agreement to purchase .44 acres adjacent
to W. D. Ward Center.
· APPROVED as recommended by staff.
6.7 Apprepdation: Education, $11,540.11 (Form #99084) and
$30,849.90 (Form fr20010).
· APPROVED.
6.8 CPA-00-04. Historic Preservation Plan: proposed text
revisions to address Board ooncems regarding ordinance and
related issues referenced in the proposed plan.
· Ms. Humphds mentioned that the word "the" is spelled incorrect
on =Attachment A", page 1, second paragraph, second
sentence.
· APPROVED revised text as part of the proposed Historic
Preservation Plan which is scheduled for public hearing on
October t8, 2000.
8a. Route 29 South Corddor Study Presentation.
· RECEIVED - no action.
Meeting was called to Order at 9:05 a.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present.
None.
Clerk: Mail certificates to PDR Committee
members.
Clerk: Advertise for public headng.
Clerk: Advertise for public headng.
Clerk: Advertise for public headng.
Clerk: Advertise for public heedng.
Clerk: FonNard resolution to Engineering and copy
VdoT.
Melvin Breeden: Forward appropriation to Board.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Margaret Pickart: indude revised text with
preposad Histodc Preservation Plan.
None.
8b. Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase I.
· VdoT's three dimensional model of the County's portion of
Meadow Creek will be located in Room 214, at the County
Office Building for about two weeks, to allow people to come
and look at, and then retumed to the VdoT office located on
Route 250.
· APPROVED proceeding with Scope of Work #2, but staff to
negotiate a reduction in the number of presentations and
workshops.
8c. Other Transportation Matters.
· Mr. Perkins asked VdoT to look at bdnging Corville Farms into
the State Secondary System of Highways.
· Mr. Dorder asked for up-to-date traffic counts on the
intersection of Monticello High School and Route 20 South.
· Ms. Themas said there will be a meetin,~ of the Morgantown
Road residents on Fdday, September 8 .
· Mr. Bowerman cemplimented the Culpeper Distdct residency
for its public process on the segment of the Meadow Creek
Parkway called the Free State Road to Rio Road connector.
He and members of Fairview were involved in their preliminary
meeting at the rasidency.
· Mr. Bowerman thanked Ms. Tucker and VdoT for the new
Richmond exit sign located off of the Route 250 bypass, near
Bellair. It is a great improvement.
· Ms. Humphds said the Board will miss Ms. Tucker, whose last
day at VdoT is September 8th.
· Ms. Tucker said Mr. Bill Mills will be the Acting Resident
Engineer.
· Ms. Tucker said the bids for Grassmere Road came in over the
engineering estimate. The project will be readvertised. This
delay should not impact the Six Year Road Plan.
· Ms. Tucker introduced Ms. Melissa Badowe, the newly hired
Assistant Resident Engineer for Construction, who replaces
Richard Caywood.
9. Legislative Presentation by Dave Blount.
· Ms. Themas suggested adding freight train service as well as
passenger rail service to the legislative program.
10. Schod Board Report. RECEIVED.
11. SP-00-48. South Fork Soccer Fields (Sign ~40).
· APPROVED subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission.
12. Allocation of Two Percent Funding For Classified/
Administrative Employees.
· APPROVED staff's recommendations as set out in the
Executive Summary.
13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the BOARD.
· ADOPTED a Resolution to Deny Claim of Kurt and Jane
Kroboth.
· Ms. Thomas said she recently attended the Southeast
Watershed Forum and learned some interesting things. The
Federal government essentially stopped funding major projects
Lee Catlin: Prepore public announcement to
inform dtizens.
Engineednq staff: Proceed as directed by Board.
Clerk: Include in letter to Angela Tucker.
None.
None.
Clerk: FortNard conditions to Planning Deportment
(Attachment B).
Human Resources: Implement the
recommendations.
Clerk: Forward resolution to County Attomey's
office (Attachment C).
several years ago and consumers are now paying for those
projects.
· Mr. Perkins expressed concerns about the Board's motion on
June 7th to adopt the pdndples of the Neighborhood Model. He
thinks the Board's action should have been to "accept" not
"adopt".
· Mr. Tucker mentioned plans for resurfadng the parking lot at
the County Office Building and upgrading of the landscaping.
14. Presentation: Police Department Accreditation.
· HELD outside on Front Lawn.
17. Appoirfffnents.
· APPOINTED the fallowing persons to the Route 250 West
Task Force: David Carr, Chades B. Mitchell, David A. Rash,
Bonnie W. Samuel, Diana Stdckler, Chades M. Toms and
William Viasis.
18. Adjoum.
· Meeting was adjoumed at 2:25 p.m.
County Executive's staff: Inform staff that
applications should not be held up or denied
because they do not meet these standards. The
standards are to be used as part of the staff's and
Commission's review.
None.
Clerk: Notify individuals of appointment.
/ewc
Attachment A -
Attachment B -
Attachment C -
Resolution for Graemont Subdivision
Planning Actions.
Resolution to Deny Claim - Kroboth
ATTACHMENT A
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemade County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day
of September, 2000, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Graemont Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-
5(A) dated August 30, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference, am shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemade Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the mad in Graemont, as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 30, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to E]33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Rec~uirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads descdbed on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Graemont Lane from the intersection of Route 661 (Station 10+00) to the cul-de-sac
(Station 22+18, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 4/29/88 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemade County in Deed Book 990, pages 203-207, and plat
recorded on 7/17/00 in Deed Book 1944, pages 313-316, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.23 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.23 mile.
ATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-00-048. South Fork Soccer Fields (Sian #40 ). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to extend the approval pedod for SP-98-18, South Fork Soccer Fields, approved by the
Board of Supervisors on September 9, 1998. SP-98-18 was approved to locate 5 soccer fields, a 2,000
sq ft storage bldg, & 216 parking spaces on approx 72 acs. This activity required a SUP in accord w/§
10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord. TM 46, Ps 22&22C. Znd RA. Located on S sd of Rt 643 (Polo Grounds
Road) approx 1.1 ml E of Rt 29. (The property is not in a designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist.
APPROVED SP-00-048 subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
11.
12.
13.
No extedor lighting shall be installed;
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted;
No pertion of any field shall be located doser than 75 feet to any lot line;
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16;
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and dudng flood events;
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as wall as copies of the
correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA;
Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-
development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager;
Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road) shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from
Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed pdor to the applicant
making use of both SP-98-18/SP-98-22 (Soccer Fields) and SP-90-35 (Church). The applicant
may make use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643 (Polo
Grounds Road);
The owner shall reserve a 100 foot wide stdp of land the length of the property abutting the
northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenway. The width of the reserved area
shall be measured from the edge of the Rivanna River at its normal flow level. When the County
decides to establish a public area or park, including canoe access, within the reserved area, upon
the request of the County, the owner shall dedicate the reserved area to the County and such
property necessary for ingress and egress to the reserved area;
Phase I archeolegical survey shall be completed, followed by appropriate mitigation measures,
as directed by Planning staff, pdor to issuance of a grading permit;
The special permit shall be void upon notice by the Board of Supervisors that a road design plan
which conflicts with this use has been approved by VDOT encompassing this property;
The use of the building shall be limited to restrooms, equipment storage and concession counter;
The concession counter shall be open only dudng use of the soccer fields; and
A tot lot shall be provided.
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ATTACHMENT C
WHEREAS, Kurt and Jane Kroboth by letter dated September 1, 2000 have demanded that the
County of Albemade pay to them $4,940 to reimburse legal expenses incurred by them in 1998 in a
dispute adsing out of whether their property at 186 Terrdl Road East could be sewed by public water;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered such demand; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the demand has no basis in fact or law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemade County Board of Supervisors hereby
denies the claim of Kurt and Jane Kroboth as demanded in the attached letter dated September 1, 2000.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance Amendment - Business, Professional and
Occupation License Tax
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSAL/REQU EST:
Request adoption of the proposed ordinance redefining
amusement activities as a service business and
changing the license rate from $0.20 cents to $0.36
cents per hundred.
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes
The Albemarle County Business, Professional and Occupation License ordinance has always placed amusement
activities in a separate classification with a tax rate of $0.20 cents per hundred, equal to the retail tax rate.
DISCUSSION:
Changes in state legislation relating to the license tax over the last severel years have redefined amusement
activities as a service business which has a maximum tax rate of $0.36 cents per hundred. This rate was not
increased when the County ordinance was amended to bdng it in compliance with the comprehensive revision of
the BPOL enabling authority.
The major intent of state legislation has been to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications statewide. The
proposed amendment to the County Ordinance is consistent with that intent and would impose a $0.36 cent tax
rate on amusement activities similar to surrounding localities and other service businesses within the County.
This increase would have an impact on approximately 25 businesses in the County. The County would recognize
increased revenue of approximately $27,000. In order to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications with
both surrounding localities and the State as a whole, staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be set for public hearing on October 11, 2000.
00.182
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
ORDINANCE NO. 00-8( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF
TAXES, 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 8, Licenses, Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Repealing:
Sec. 8-608 Amusement occupations, business or trades.
By Amending:
Sec. 8-616 Repair, personal, business and other services.
CHAPTER 8. LICENSES
ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES
DIVISION 2. AMUSEMENTS
Sec. 8-608 Amusement occupations, busincss or trades. (Reserved)
Each person engaged in an amusement occupation, business or trade shall be subject to
the applicable license tax, and other provisions, set forth horcin:
A. Each person engaged in an amusement occupation, business or trade, as identified
in paragraph (B), shall be subject to a license tax of twenty cents ($0.20) for caeh one hundred
dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts.
B. The following amusement occupations, businc$os or trades shall be subject to the
license tax imposed by paragraph (A):
Amusement park.
Arcade or building devoted to general amusement or entertaining.
Auditorium.
Billiards or pool.
Bowling alley.
Cable television.
Dance halls, except restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages having a dance floor
with an area not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of the establishment
and for ~vhieh no admission is charged.
Dog or water raceway.
Drive in theaters.
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
Furnishing closed circuit telcvision entertainment.
Furnishing clcw~od circuit musical cntertainmont.
Gardens.
Golf driving range.
Miniature golf.
Movic theaters.
Parks, athletic fields.
Riding academy.
Rifle ranges or shooting galleries, cxcept those operated by private or nonprofit gun
Skating rink.
S~vimming pools open to the public.
Theaters.
Theatrical performances.
(3 15 73, § 59; 3 10 82; Ord. 96 11(1), 11 13 96, § 11 '18; Code 1988, § 11 '18; Ord. 98 A(1), 8
State law ~efercnec Va. Code §§ 58.1 3700, 58.1 3729.
DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS. AMUSEMENT OR
REPMR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
See. 8-616 Repair, personal, business. amusement and other services.
Each person engaged in a repair, personal. amusement or business service shall be subject
to the license tax, and other provisions, set forth herein:
A. Each person engaged in a repair, personal. amusement or business service shall be
subject to a license tax of thirty-six cents ($0.36) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross
receipts.
B. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
1. Repair service. The term "repair service" means repairing, renovating,
cleaning or servicing of some article or item of personal property for compensation, unless the
service is specifically provided for under another section of this chapter.
2. Personal service. The term "personal service" means rendering for
compensation any repair, personal, business. amusement or other services not specifically
classified as "financial, real estate or professional service" in section 8-615, or rendered in any
other business or occupation not specifically classified in this chapter unless exempted from
local license tax by Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.
3. Business service. The term "business service" means rendering for
compensation any service to any business, trade, occupation or governmental agency, unless the
service is specifically provided for under another section of this chapter.
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
C. Repair, personal_~ and business. and amusement services include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Addressing letters or envelopes.
Advertising agencies.
Airline passenger carrier.
Airplane repair.
Airports, private.
Ambulance services.
Amusement park.
Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables.
Arcade or building devoted to general amusement or entertaining.
Auctioneers and common criers.
Auditorium, arena or coliseum with a maximum seating capacity less than 10,000
persons and open to the public.
Auto repair, engine repair of any type.
Automobile driving schools.
Barbershops, beauty parlors and hairdressing establishments, schools and
services.
Bicycle repair.
Bid or building reporting service.
Billiards or pool.
Bill poster or distributor.
Blacksmith or wheelwright.
Booking agents or concert managers.
Bookkeeper, public.
Bottle exchanges.
Bowling alley.
Brokers and commission merchants other than real estate or financial brokers.
Business and office machine repair.
Business research and consulting services.
Buyers, gold and silver.
Cable television.
Chartered clubs. Licensee hereunder may without additional license operate
service of retail merchant and restaurant. The term "chartered club" means any
nonprofit corporation or association which is the owner, lessee or occupant of an
establishment operated solely for objects of a national, social, patriotic, political
or athletic nature or the like, but not for pecuniary gain, the advantages of which
belong to all the members; the term shall also mean the establishment so operated.
Child care attendants or schools.
Cleaning chimneys, fixmaces.
Clinical laboratories.
Clothes, hats, earpets or rags, repair of.
Collection agents or agencies.
Commercial photography, art or graphics.
Commercial sports.
3
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
Computer service operated for compensation.
Correspondence establishments or bureaus.
Dance halls, except restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages having a
dance floor with an area not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of
the establishment and for which no admission is charged.
Dance studios and schools.
Data processing, computer and systems development services.
Day nursery (other than foster homes).
Detectives and watchmen. Each person shall be registered by name and service
with the county chief of police.
Developing or enlarging photographs.
Dog or water raceway.
Drafting services.
Drive-in theaters.
Engraving.
Eradication or extermination of rats, mice, termites, vermin or bugs.
Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings.
Freight traffic bureau or agency.
Fumigating or disinfecting.
Funeral services and crematories.
Furnishing clean diapers.
Furnishing closed circuit musical entertainment.
Fumishing closed circuit television entertainment.
Furnishing house cleaning service.
Furnishing janitor service.
Furnishing labor service.
Furnishing statistical service.
Fttmiture, upholstering, repair of.
Gardens.
Golf driving range.
Gunsmith, gun repairing.
Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt.
Hauling or transfer, not in connection with taxicab business.
Holding companies, including holding company for mass media communications.
Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses, trailer parks and
campsites.
Information bureaus.
Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art, sewing, sports and
the like.
Interior decorating.
Job printer, printing shop, bookbinding, duplicating processes.
Laundry, cleaning and garment services including laundries, dry cleaners, linen
supply, diaper service, coin-operated laundries and carpet and upholstery
cleaning.
Locksmith.
Machine shop, boiler shop.
4
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
Mailing, messenger and correspondent services.
Marinas and boat landings.
Mattresses,~ repair of.
Miniature golf.
Motor vehicle transportation of passengers.
Movie theaters.
Music teacher.
Newspaper delivery service.
Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating.
Nurses and physicians registries.
Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convalescent
homes, homes for the retarded, old age homes and rest homes.
Operating a scalp treating establishment.
Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others.
Paint shop, other than contractor.
Parcel delivery services.
Parking lots, public garages and valet parking.
Parks. athletic fields.
Personnel services, labor agents and employment bureaus.
Photographers and photographic services; the license tax on photographers with
no regularly established place of business in the state shall not exceed thirty
dollars ($30.00).
Piano tuning.
Picture framing and gilding.
Porter services.
Press clipping services.
Private hospitals.
Private schools (other than religious and nonprofit).
Promotional agents or agencies.
Protective agent or agency.
Public relations counselor.
Publicity service, fumisher of; booking agent, concert manager.
Radio engineer.
Radios, televisions, refrigerators, electrical appliances, home appliances, repair of.
Realty multiple listing services.
Recorder of proceedings in any court, commission or other organization.
Refrigeration engineer.
Renting airplanes.
Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property.
Renting bicycles.
Renting or furnishing automatic washing machines.
Renting wall signs or billboards.
Reproduction services.
Reweaving.
Riding academy.
5
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
Rifle ranges or shooting galleries. except those operated by private or nonprofit
gun clubs.
Road machines, farm machinery, repair of.
Rug cleaning.
Sales agent or agency.
Saws, tools, repair of.
Scales, repair of.
Scientific research and development service.
Sculptor.
Secretarial service.
Septic tank cleaning.
Shades, repair of.
Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops.
Sightseeing carriers.
Sign painting.
Skating rink.
Stenographer, public.
Storage, all types.
Supplying clean linen, coats, aprons, towels.
Swimming pools open to the public.
Tabulating service.
Tax consultant.
Taxicabs.
Taxidermist.
Telephone answering service.
Theaters.
Theatrical performances.
Theatrical performers, bands and orchestras.
Tire repair.
Title abstract company.
Title insurance company.
Towing services.
Translator of foreign languages.
Transportation consultant.
Transportation services including buses and taxis.
Travel bureaus or tour agents.
Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services.
Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors.
U-drive-it firm or business.
Umbrellas, hamesses, leather goods, repair of.
Undertaker, embalmer.
Vehicle title service.
Vehicular advertising, electric advertising, bus advertising, commercial
advertising.
Wake-up services.
Washing, waxing, auto; cleaning of automobiles.
6
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
Watches, clocks, repair of.
Welding shop.
Persons accepting or offering to accept or place orders, which such person will deliver at
a later date, for the sale of medicines, perfumes, salves, liniments, cosmetics, cookware, plastic
wares, brushes, books, magazines, vacuum cleaners or any other merchandise and not having a
regular place of business in the county but who sell or offer to sell from house to house, or at
parties or meetings arranged for that purpose.
All other similar personal service, business service. amusement service or repair service
occupations, trades or businesses not included herein and not otherwise taxed by this chapter.
(3-15-73, §§ 39.1, 53; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-66;
Code 1988, § 11-66; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98. Ord. 00-8(1). 10-11-00)
State law referenee-Va. Code §§ 58.1-3706, 58.1-3727.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
__ to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance- Daily Rental Tax
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request adoption of an ordinance establishing a Daily
Rental Tax.
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTI O N:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes /~
The .Virginia Code provides that a locality may impose a daily rental tax at the rate of one percent of the gross
rental proceeds. This tax is similar to the sales tax in that it is collected from the user by the merchant and
remitted to the locality on a quarterly basis.
DISCUSSION:
This tax would be applicable to those businesses that rent items such as movies or music videos, uniforms or
costumes,' lawn or construction equipment, and household appliances, etc. on a daily basis.
Imposition of this tax would exempt this equipment from the business personal property tax currently imposed.
Our review of the major businesses indicate that annual revenue would be approximately $83,000 compared to
$22,000 currently collected as Business Personal Property.
The City of Charlottesville and most of the more urban localities statewide impose this tax.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reco'mmends that the attached ordinance be set for public hearing on October 11,2000.
00.177
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
ORDINANCE NO. 00-15( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDING ARTICLE XV, SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
15, Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, as
follows:
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX
See. 15-1500 Definitions.
The following words and phrases. when used in this article. shall have. for the purposes of
this article. the following respective meanings. except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
(1) Affiliated. The term "affiliated" means any common ownership interest in excess of five
percent (5%) of any officers or partners in common with the lessor and lessee. For purposes of this
test. (i) any rental to a person affiliated with the lessor shall be treated as rental receipts but shall not
qualify for purposes of the eighty percent (80%) requirement. and (ii) any rental of personal
property that also involves the provision of personal services for the operation of the personal
property rented shall not be treated as gross receipts from rental. For purposes of this section. the
delivery and installation of tangible personal property shall not mean operation.
(2) Daily rentalproper.tv. The term "daily rental property" means all tangible personal
property held for rental and owned by a person engaged in the short-term rental business. except
· trailers. as defined in Virginia Code § .46.2-100 and other tangible personal property required to be
licensed or registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. the Department of Game and Inland
Fishcries. or the Department of Aviation.
(3) Gross proceeds. The term "gross proceeds" means the total amount charged to each
person for the rental of daily rental property. excluding any state and local sales tax paid pursuant to
the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act.
(4) Short-term rental business. The term "short-term rental business" means a business in
which a person is engaged if not less than eighty percent (80%) of the gross rental receipts of such
business in any year are from transactions involving rental periods of ninety-two (92) consecutive
days or less. including all extensions and renewals to the same person or a person affiliated with the
lessor.
See. 15-1501 Levied: amount.
Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3510. 1 . there is hereby assessed and imposed on every
person engaged in the short-term rental business a tax of one percent (1%) on the gross proceeds of
such business. Such tax shall be in addition to the tax levied pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-605.
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
See. 15-1502 Taxation of rental property that is not daily rental property.
Except for daily rental passenger cars, rental property that is not daily rental property shall
be classified for taxation pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3503.
See. 15-1503 Collection. return and remittance of tax.
Every person engaged in the short-term rental business shall collect the rental tax from the
lessee of the daily rental property at the time of the rental. The lessor of the daily rental property
shall transmit a quarterly return to the finance director, indicating the gross proceeds derived from
the short-term rental business and shall remit therewith the payment of such tax as is due for the
quarter. The uarterly returns and payment of tax shall be filed with the finance director on or
before the 20t~ day of each of the months of April, July, October and January, representing,
respectively, the gross proceeds and taxes collected during the preceding quarters ending March 31,
June 30, September 30 and December 31. The return shall be upon such forms and setting forth
such information as the finance director may require, showing the amount of gross receipts and the
tax required to be collected. The taxes required to be collected under this article shall be deemed to
be held in trust by the person required to collect such taxes until remitted as required in this article.
See. 15-1504 Procedure upon failure to collect. report or remit taxes.
If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under
this article and to make, within the time provided in this article, the remms and remittances required
in this article, the finance director shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts
and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the finance director shall
procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any
tax payable by any person who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such return and
remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such person the tax, penalty and
interest provided for by this article and shall notify such person, by registered mail, sent to his last
known place of address, of the total amount of such tax, penalty and interest and the total amotmt
thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date of such notice. In the event such tax is
not paid within ten (10) days from the date of the notice, the Finance Director shall proceed to
collect same in accordance with Chapter 39 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 15-1505 Penalty and interest.
If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to remit to the finance director the
tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time specified in the article, there
shall be added to such tax a penalty in the amount often percent (10%) of the tax past due or the
sum often (10) dollars, whichever is the greater. The assessment of such penalty shall not be
deemed a defense to any criminal prosecution for failing to make any remm or remittance as
required in this article. Additionally, interest on late payments of all taxes due shall be added at the
rate often percent (10%)per year. Penalty and interest for failure to pay the tax assessed pursuant
to this article shall be assessed on the first day following the day such quarterly installment payment
is due.
Sec. 15-1506 Exclusions and exemptions.
No tax shall be collected or assessed on (i) rentals by the Commonwealth, any political
subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States or (ii) any rental of durable medical
2
DRAFT: August 31, 2000
equipment as defined in subdivision 2 of Virginia Code § 58.1-609.7. Additionally. all exemptions
applicable in Chapter 6 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (§ 58.1-600 et. seq.) shall apply
mutatis mutandis to the daily rental property tax.
See. 15-1507 Renter's certificate of registration.
Every person engaging in the business of short-term rental of tangible personal property
shall file an application for a certificate of registration with the finance director. The application
shall be on a form prescribed by the finance director and shall set forth the name under which the
applicant intends to operate the rental business. the location and such other information as the
finance director may require.
Each applicant shall sign the application as owner of the rental business. If the rental
business is owned by an association. partnership or corporation. the application shall be signed by a
member, parmer, executive officer or other person specifically authorized by the association.
partnership or corporation to sign.
Upon approval of the application by the finance director. a certificate of registration shall be
issued. The certificate shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the place of business for
which it is assessed.
The certificate is not assignable and shall be valid only for the person in whose name it is
issued and the place of business designated.
See. 15-1508 Criminal penalties for violation of article.
Any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of
a Class 3 misdemeanor. Provided however. if the amount of tax due and unpaid for any quarterly
installment exceeds $1,000, any person failing to remit payment when due shall be guilty of a Class
1 misdemeanor.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
__ to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Utility Deregulation
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Local Tax Changes Required by Deregulation
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Davis, Breeden, Waiters, White, Cavaliere
DISCUSSION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY: F
Legislation deregulating the electric and gas industries passed the 1999 and 2000 General Assemblies. This legislation affects
several local taxes - the local consumer utility tax, the utility license (or gross receipts) tax, and real and personal property
taxes. The changes are effective January 1, 2001. With one exception, local ordinances and revised tax rates are required
to generate revenue neutral receipts. The legislation exempts federal, state, and local governments from paying the tax. Many
agencies such as UVA were formerly subject to taxation. At this time, we are unable to quantify the revenue loss from the
exemption. However, we believe it to be immaterial relative to total utility revenues and will not have a significant impact on
the 2000/01 budget.
There are 5 electric proriders: Appalachian Power, Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, Potomac Edison Company,
Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, and Virginia Power, and 2 gas proriders: City of Charlottesville and Columbia Gas
operating in the County of Albemarle.
The tax rate changes are required to be advertised and a Public Hearing held prior to the adoption of the revised ordinance.
The Public Hearing is set for October 4, 2000.
Consumer Utility Tax:
Localities must convert their electric and gas consumer utility taxes from a tax based on the amount of the bill to one that
is based on the amount of energy consumed. The County of Albemarle Consumer Utility Tax Ordinance must be
amended by October 31,2000 to comply with the state statutory requirement that the tax will not be effective until the
utility provider has received sixty days written notice. The utility providers were required to analyze 1999 transactions
and provide revenue neutral rates by August 1,2000. Once adopted, localities will be unable to change rates until 2004.
Utility License Tax:
The Utility License Tax revisions were adopted at the state level. Local revenues would be affected only if localities were
not imposing the maximum tax rate on December 31, 1999. The County of AIbemarle was imposing the maximum rate
and should receive revenue neutral receipts in the future. The 2001 license tax will be paid by providers directly to
localities. Beginning January 2001, the license tax will be collected by the state and remitted monthly to localities. This
will result in approximately $144,000 additional one-time revenues for the 2000/01 fiscal year which will more than offset
the slight reduction for the federal, state, and local exemption.
Property Tax:
Property tax for regulated proriders has been assessed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). Unregulated
providers have been assessed by local governments. The law now requires all proriders, regulated and unregulated, to
be assessed by the SCC. At this time, there are no unregulated 3roviders sited in the County; therefore, there should
be no tax effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the revised Utility Tax Ordinance be advertised and a Public Hearing be held on October 4, 2000.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Set Public Hearing to Approve Brookway Drive Gas Line
Easement
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
S U BJ ECTIP RO POSALIRE Q U EST:
To set public hearing for the County to grant the City of
Charlottesville Gas Division a gas line easement.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
IN FORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Trank, Kelsey
'ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: /
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville Gas Division has requested from the County an easement for natural gas lines to be installed upon
and across the public right of way known as Brookway Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia. The City is requesting a fifteen-foot
wide easement for a two-inch P.E. gas line.
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code Section 15.1-262 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-
owned property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board set this matter for public hearing on October 4, 2000.
00.180
Prepared by Charlottesville City Attorney's Office
March 6, 2000
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made and entered into on this ~"g" day of
//14/Dr~(2)4- ,2000, by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE,
VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR does hereby GRANT and
CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY to the GRANTEE, subject to the reservations
hereinafter set forth, the permanent easement of right of way to construct, maintain,
operate, alter, repair, inspect, protect, remove, and replace certain natural gas line
improvements, upon and across the public right of'way known as Brookway Drive in
Albemarle County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
Permanent natural gas line easement in the public right of way
known as Brookway Drive, located off Rio Road in
Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the attached plat of
the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated February 29,
2000, and identified as "A 15.0' Wide Easement for a 2" P.E.
Gas Line"; said road~vay being dedicated to the public by
recordation of a plat dated February 1, :1974, of record in the
Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Deed Book
546, page 272.
Page I of 4
The GRANTEE reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, all of the
aforementioned rights until such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation has
issued a permit to the GRANTEE subject to the following two conditions which shall also
be covenants running with the land:
1. That the above-described improvements of the GRANTEE may continue to
occupy such street or highway in the existing condition and location.
2. The GRANTEE shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the County of
Albemarle, its employees, agents, and officers from any claim whatsoever arising from
GRANTEE' S exercise of rights or privileges stated herein.
3. In the event GRANTOR shall hereafter require, for its purposes, that
GRANTEE alter, change, adjust, or relocate the above-mentioned improvements~ across
or under such street or highway, the nonbetterment cost only of such alteration, change,
adjustment, or relocation will bethe responsibility of the GRANTEE~
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code
§§ 58.1-801 and 58.1-802, pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 58.1-81 l(A)(3) and
58.1-811(c)(3).
The City of Charlottesville, acting by and through its City Manager or his
designee, duly authorized by resolution of the City douncil of the City of Charlottesville,
does hereby accept the conveyance of this easement, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-
1803, as evidenced by signature hereto and the City's recordation of this deed.
Page 2 of 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused its name to be signed
hereto and its seal to be affixed and attested by its appropriate officers, all after due
authorization, on the day and year first above written.
Grantor:.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Accepted by:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:
W. Cly "e Gou~ty Attorney
STATE OF VIRGINIA
City of Charlottesville, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for
the aforesaid City and State by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, on this day of ,2000.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Page 3 of 4
STATE OF VIRGINIA
City of Charlottesville, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for
City of Charlottesville, Virginia, on this ,2000.
My commission expires: April 30, 2001
Notary Public
Page 4 of 4
PLAT SH 0 WING
A FIFTEEN-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR A 2" P.E, GAS MNE
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY KNOI4/N AS
'tBROOKW'A Y DRIVE"
-SUBDIVISION PLAT IN DEED BOOK 546 PAGE 272 / /
.:
FROM / ,.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA / /
DATE.' FEBRUARY 29, 2000
SCALE: I"= 80' /
//
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer
Department of Engineering & Public orks
September 7, 2000
MENOnANDUM
· At its meeting on September 6, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following
resolution:
(1)
to accept Graemont Lane in Graemont Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
Attached is the original of the adopted resolution.
/EWC
Attachments
cc: Bill Mawyer
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting
on the 6th day of September, 2000, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Graemont Subdivision described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated August 30, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Graemont, as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 30, 2000, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Ms. Humphris.
Seconded by: Ms. Thomas.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
Form SR-5(A)
IIIIT
SECONDARY ROADS DIV.
Notes:
Name of Street
Gzaen~nt Lane
ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A) - PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
[] SUrety Instrument
Attachment to (check one only) ~ Board of SuperviSors Resolution
Name of Subdivision: Graemont
Street ~aaition Termini
Frc~: lntezseotion of Rt.661 (station 10+00)
To: cul-de-sac (station 22+18 end of cul-de-sao)
Plat Recorded Date:4-29-88 Deed Book: 990 Pages: 203-207
Plat Recorded Date:7-17-00 Deed Book: 1944 Pages: 313-316
From:
TO:
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Pages:
To:
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page:
From:
To:
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page:
From:
Plat Recorded Data: Deed BOok: Page:
R-O-W Width (ft.)
50
Misoellaneous Notes
Total Mileage
G~aaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage.
Dated: 30 Aug 2000
Attachment I of 1
Albemarle County
~4tionLength
CenterlineMiles
0,23
.CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT
This attachment is certified as a part of the documen,t indicated above:
and Title)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Donation: WD Ward Center Parking Expansion
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/RE QUEST:
Donation of $4,000 to the Esmont Odd Fellows Lodge to
purchase .44 acres adjacent to WD Ward Center.
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, and Mr. Mullaney
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
In 1996, the Albemarle County Neighborhood Team began working with the Esmont community to help determine the
needs and improve the level of County services. One of the major needs identified by the community was the need for
an increased police presence. This need has been addressed by the creation of a police substation at the WD Ward
Community Center. The WD Ward Community Center is owned by the Esmont Lodge NO. 7444 of the Grand United
Order of Odd Fellows. As part of the agreement between the Odd Fellows and the County on the use of the WD Ward
Center, the County agreed to make improvements to the Center and grounds to enhance its function as a Community
Center. Currently the Center is used regularly for meetings by four different benevolent fraternal organizations, the
Greencroft Garden Club, and the Southern Albemarle Organization. Future plans are for the Center to also serve as
a JABA meal site.
The Center has very limited space for parking. There is a small adjacent property of .44 acres. The owner of that
property is willing to sell to the Odd Fellows to allow for the expansion of the parking area in the future. The Odd Fellows
are willing to accept the property but have no money for the purchase. The owner of the property has agreed to sell and
absorb all costs associated with the property transaction for the $4,000 County appraised value.
The County Attorney's Office has determined that the County can legally donate funds to the Odd Fellows for this
purpose and has drawn up the attached agreement governing this donation. The Odd Fellows have verbally agreed to
the contract, but will officially meet with their board for approval in mid-September.
The Board's Building Committee composed of Board members Walter Perkins and Lindsay Dorder met with Pat Mullaney
and Roxanne White on August 31 ,t to discuss the County's donation for the expanded parking needs of the center. The
Property Committee approved the County's donation to the Odd Fellows using remaining end of-the-year funds from
the Neighborhood Grant Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Building Committee recommends that the Board approve the donation of $4,000 from the Neighborhood Grant
Program fund to the Odd Fellows and authorize the County Executive to execute the attached agreement. If approved,
the appropriation will come back to the Board after the agreement has been signed by both the Odd Fellows and the
County Executive.
00.181
follows:
1.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and executed this 6 th day of s ev t ember 2000 by
and between the ESMONT LODGE NO. 7444 OF THE GRAND UNITED ORDER OF ODD
FELLOWS, a benevolent fraternal nonprofit organization (hereinafter the "Odd Fellows") and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "County").
WITNESSETH THAT:
The Odd Fellows and the County do hereby mutually covenant, promise and agree as
Donation. The County agrees to donate to the Odd Fellows the sum of Four
Thousand Dollars ($4000.00) as a charitable contribution pursuant to Va. Code § 15.2-953(A), to
be used by the Odd Fellows to purchase in fee simple the property adjacent to the WD Ward
Community Center (the "Center') owned by Charles B2 Brown, Jr. and Phyllis Brown Rogers,
described as .44 acres, more or less, located on the west side of State Route 627 in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia and identified further as Tax Map Parcel 128A1-32 (the "Property").
As consideration for the County's donation, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the Odd Fellows agree to assume full ownership of and responsibility for the Property once acquired
and permit the use of the Property for parking and related purposes by authorized users of the Center.
2. Use. In addition to the uses set forth in section 1 above, the Odd Fellows agree that
the County may use the Property for any law enforcement or public safety-related purpose without
any additional consideration, including but not limited to use by the County Police Department in
connection with the satellite office maintained at the Center.
3. Liability and Indemnification. The Odd Fellows shall at all times indemnify and hold
harmless the County, its employees, officers and agents from any and all claims whatsoever arising
from the use or condition of the Property by the Odd Fellows, users of the Center or any other
person(s) or organization(s). The Odd Fellows shall at all times assme full responsibility and
liability for the ownership and maintenance of the Property, including but not limited to title and
property insurance, real estate and personal property taxes, and specifically agrees that the County
is relieved of any responsibility or liability arising from the ownership or use of the Property by the
Odd Fellows or for any activities occurring on the Property at any time.
Furthermore, the Odd Fellows acknowledge that, as further consideration for'the County's
donation, nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the County' s ~overeign immunity
nor subject the County to liability, exposure or obligation to third parties under federal, state and/or
local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.
4. Approval by Board of Supervisors. This Agreement is subject to approval by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
5. Entire A~reement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the
parties hereto. This Agreement may be modified only by mutual consent evidenced in writing.
6. Notices. All notices and other communications which may or are required to be
given by one party to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given
if and when delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
(a)
If to the County:
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation
Albemarle County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
2
(b) If to Odd Fellows:
Lloyd Feggans
6924 Porter's Road
Esmont, VA 22937
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first
written above.
ESMONT LODGE NO. 7444 OF THE GRAND
UNITED ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS
Title: "~C_ CY)~Z~
Title: County Executive
3
/
/29///29A
-/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSALIREQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99084 and #20010 for
various education programs, donations, and grants.
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Castner, Breeden, White, Cavaliere REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County School Board approved the following appropriations at its meeting held on June 26, 2000:
1999 - 2000
Donation - Murray Elementary
Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $70.00. These donations will be used to purchase
music stands for the After School Band Program and to purchase books for the literacy program.
Adult Education Proqram
The Adult Education Program, which provides educational opportunities to adults and assist them in preparing for the General
Equivalency Diploma exam has received revenue in the amount of $1,046.00 from books sales to their students.
Project Return II Proqram
The Project Return II Pr.e~gram, which provides instruction at home for students who require alternative education, has collected
tuition fees from these" students in the amount .of $2,002.50. This tuition helps to cover the expense of this alternative
education.
Individualized Student Alternative Education Program
State funding for the Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP) was increased by $3,164.00 from the
original budget amount of $23,576.00. It is requested these funds be appropriated in the
1999-00 fiscal year to cover expenses.
Miscellaneous Grants
The Miscellaneous Grants fund balance includes two People Who Read Achieve Southland Corp. grants in the amount of
$1,000.00 for Woodbrook Elementary School, $2,000.00 for Cale Elementary School, and the International Reading
Association's grant in the amount of $2,257.61 for Murray Elementary School. These funds were not fully expended in the
1998-99 fiscal year. These funds will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension.
It is requested that these funds be re-appropriated for the 1999-00 fiscal year.
2000-2001
Agnor Hurt Elementary School Grant
State Farm Insurance Company awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the amount of $25,000.00. These grant
funds will help to implement the mobile classroom project, Do Drop In. The Do Drop In is a bus equipped as if it were a
classroom. The goals of the program are to improve the academic performance of students through extending the time
available to learn into the community and to provide parents another means to support their children academically.
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
September 6, 2000
Page 2
Donation - Yancey Elementary School
The Albemarle County Public Schools has received a donation from the Yancey Elementary School's PTO in the amount of
$1,400.00. These funds are to maintain the services of a school nurse at Yancey for the Extended Learning Time Program
this summer.
Miscellaneous Donations
The Albemarle County Public Schools has received donations from Carolyn T. Kelly for $25.00; L.J. & Margaretta Bourgeois
for $40.00; Lawrence and Kristina Lawwill for $20.00; and Larry and Maria Wiliiams for $15.00. These funds are for the Strings
for Students Program.
Donation - Albemarle County Adult Basic Education
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private
companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Donations were received in the amount
of $213.00 from Intemational Cold Storage Company and $1,636.90 from Farmington Country Club for the English as a Second
Language class.
Agnor Hurt Elementary School Grant
Agnor Hurt Elementary School received a grant award in the amount of $2,500.00 from 7-Eleven, Inc. The grant, entitled
People Who Read Achieve, will fund programs that will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading
comprehension skills.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $11,540.11 and $30,849.90, respectively as
detailed on Appropriation #99084 and #20010.
00.178
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99084
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: SCHOOL/GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EDUCATION DONATIONS AND GRANTS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 2215 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions $10.00
I 2215 61101 800200 Furniture/Fixtures 60.00
1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 1,046.00
I 3122 63349 112100 Wages-Teacher 1,849.31
1 3122 63349 210000 FICA 153,19
I 3142 60410 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,704.00
1 3142 60410 800100 Equipment 1,460.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 1,000.00
I 3104 60214 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,000.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 2,257.61
TOTAL $11,540.11
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations $70.00
2 3115 16000 161233 Misc. Revenues 1,046.00
2 3122 18000 189900 Misc. Revenues 2,002.50
2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEPGrant 3,164.00
2 3104 51000 510100 Approp. Fund Balance 5,257.61
TOTAL $11,540.11
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR ~ ~/l~, ~)
DATE
AUGUST 24, 200
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS, DONATIONS, ETC.
CODE
I 3104 60215 132100
I 3104 60215 133900
1 3104 60215 210000
1 3104 60215 601300
1 3104 60215 800100
NUMBER 20010
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
VARIOUS
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
PFF-Wages-Teacher $7,200.00
P/T-Wages-Other Prof 6,600.00
FICA 1,055.70
Ed/Rec Supplies 1,623.50
Mach/Equip 8,520.80
1 3310 60213 133100 PFFWages--Nurse 1,292.90
1 3310 60213 210000 FICA 107.10
1 '3143 61101 540410
Rental-Instruments 100.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Teacher Wages 1,708.38
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA 141.52
1 3104 60215 601300
Ed/Rec Supplies 2,500.00
CODE
2 3104 51000
2 3310 51000
2 3143 51000
2 3116 51000
2 3104 51000
TOTAL $30,849.90
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
510100 State Farm Grant/Fund Balance $25,000.00
510100 Yancey PTO/Fund Balance 1,400.00
510100 Strings Program/Fund Balance 100.00
510100 Tuition-Adult Ed/Fund Balance 1,849.90
510100 7-Eleven Inc/Fund Balance 2,500.00
TOTAL $30,849.90
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
AUGUST 24, 200
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
CPA 2000-04, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN:
Requested Text Changes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Proposed text revisions to address Board concerns regarding
ordinance-related issues referenced in the proposed plan.
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY'.f~""""~'~""'
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Pickart ' /
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors held a work session on the proposed Historic Preservation Plan on August 2, 2000. Comments
focused on two sections of the plan: 1 ) discussion on Historic Overlay District Ordinances (pages 29-31 in the May, 2000
draft) and 2) discussion of voluntary historic preservation programs (page 38 in the May, 2000 draft). The Board voted to
schedule the plan for public hearing on October 18, 2000 and directed staff to revise the plan to 1 ) more clearly distinguish
between the general discussion of historic preservation ordinances and the Committee's recommendations regarding a
historic overlay district ordinance for the County; and 2) to move the Committee's commentary on voluntary measures to a
footnote.
Comment was also made regarding the Committee's recommendation on civil penalties (page 31 in the May, 2000 draft). It
was suggested that the recommendation was no longer required because changes had been recently made to the
penalties section of the zoning ordinance. In addition, questions were raised regarding the plan's proposed incentive
programs.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has revised the text to address concerns regarding the ordinance and voluntary program sections of the proposed
plan. The revised text is included as Attachment A.
The section on civil penalties has not been deleted from the plan. The most recent change to the zoning ordinance
regarding penalties is already reflected in the plan. The committee's recommendation is that a more meaningful penalty
should be established (i.e., $100 is not a meaningful fine for unapproved demolition of an irreplaceable historic resource),
and that corresponding enabling legislation be requested.
The recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee form a balanced program of regulation, incentives,
education, and voluntary action. Once the plan is adopted, the details of each of the plan elements will be refined as the
items are scheduled on the County's work program. However, some additional preliminary information regarding historic
preservation incentives, which will be considered at a later date, is included as Attachment B.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In accord with the Board's direction, staff recommends that the revised text be approved as part of the proposed Historic
Preservation Plan which is scheduled for public hearing on October 18, 2000.
00.185
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 1
Historic Overlay District Ordinance
The most important recommendation of this Plan is that Albemarle County should adopt
a Historic Overlay District zoning ordinance to ensure protection of its outstanding
collection of historic and cultural resources. The legal power to protect historic resources
lies chiefly with local: govemment. Localities in Virginia may adopt zoning regulations to
protect their historic resources. Historic district ordinances are usually written as
"overlay" districts that add restrictions to the underlying zoning category. An overlay
district is a zoning category applied in addition to, or "over," the zoning already in place.
The term "district," specified by the state code, applies to a single building, structure,
landscape or site, as well as to a group of buildings, structures, landscapes or sites. Thus,
a Historic Overlay District ordinance may protect an individual property, or property in
all or portions of a larger historic area, such as a village.
The steps for implementing a Historic Overlay District ordinance may vary among
localities, 2but hte .typical steps (which Albemarle County may choose to follow if an.
ordinance is to be adopted') are as follows..First, Thc first step in implcm. cnting a .Historic
Overlay District ordinance is to an~cnd the existing zoning ordinance is amended to
include the .district regulations. Next, specific districts are would bc identified,
designated by the Board of Supervisors through a zoning map amendment process, and
delineated on the zoning map.
Sound preservation practice suggests that the :r-he-boundaries of a Historic Overlay
District should be clearly delineated to encompass areas that have demonstrated historic,
architectural, archaeological and/or cultural significance. Careful study of the physical
resources and their surroundings, and associated historical records, provides the basis for
determining district boundaries. Provision of a written justification for the boundaries is
standard practice.
Sound preservation practice also suggests that a A-Historic OVerlay District Ordinance
should include a'listing of the criteria that will be used to determine whether or not a
property or group of properties qualifies for designation as a district. Criteria typically
require a specific association with significant historic events or persons, and/or the
embodiment of distinctive architectural or artistic characteristics. Boundaries are
carefully drawn to encompass only the land area that is associated with the significance
of the district. Unrelated extraneous land area that does not add to the significance of the
district is not included. Establishing district boundaries according to specific criteria
ensures that parcels of land that have no significant relationship to the district are not
subjected to district regulations.
In this Plan, the Historic Preservation Committee has recommended that state and
national register properties be amon~ tl~e first overlay districts designated first. Then,
historic resources within those designated overlay districts would_become subject to
regulations administered by a review board. The benefit in designating already registered
properties first, particularly those recently registered, is that the bulk of the survey and
research work has been completed and the physical integrity of these properties is more
29
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 2
certain. Guidclincs should bc ridopted to cnsurc that rcvicws are objectivc and consistcnt,
and rcfleet what the community values about its visible history.
Owners of historic properties that are being considered for inclusion in an' historic
overlay district have an important role to play in the designation process. Owner
participation early in the process can cla~.'fy historical information, improve the
delineation of district boundaries, and provide insight into potential-preservation issues
specific to a particular property or area. It would also offer an oppommity to discuss
County a locality's preservation policies, to disseminate .general preservation
information, to obtain the owner's view on designation, and to explore related incentive
programs.
It is recommended that a A formal process should be established to solicit owner
participation in each district that is proposed for designation in Albemarle County, and to
incorporate the results of such participation into the documentation presented to the
Planning Commission for consideration. In addition to the right to speak at the public
heating, this process would affoi'd a property owner an opportunity to provide initial
input into designation procedures affecting his property. Owner participation could
consist of a meeting of the owner(s) with a combination of staff and representatives of the
Historic Preservation Committee and the Review Board, as well as visits to the site.
A hHistoric overlay district ordinances is-are intended to protect historic structures from
irrevocable exterior alteration, razing, demolition or moving. To protect against
inappropriate alterations or restorations, the ordinances ,may require mandatory.. review
and approval by a review board for specified chan, ges to buildings and structures,
including signs, within a designated district. .Most ordinances include re~,ulations to
ensure that :~alterations and restorations are... must bc compatible with the historic
landmarks, buildings or structures of the district,, and that ~_a:~lterat. ions to contributing
historic buildings and structures should be are reversible. Typically, mfidelines are also
adopted to ensure that reviews are objective and consistent, and to ensure that the process
reflects what the cominunity values about is visible histo~w.
Thc Historic overlay district ordinances may also protect the setting of historic structures
from incongruous new construction by providing for review of new construction in
designated districts. With this type of provision in place, new buildings and structures
are reviewed for compatibility with existing historic struct~es and the historic character
of the overall district. This provision is especially important in a village setting.
Many :A-historic district ordinances should also require review of proposals for razing,
demolition, or moving. Resources threatened with this type of irreversible change may be
protected for a specified time period during which a bona fide attempt must be made to
sell the endangered property. If an offer is not made on the property during that time
period, then the review board is required to allow the razing, demolition or moving to
occur. Some ordinances require documentation of a resource prior to its demolition.
3O
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 3
In addition, some ordinances' outline a minimum maintenance requirement to protect
historic structures from "demolition by neglect." This term refers to structures that are
deliberately allowed to deteriorate to the point that a demolition permit must be issued to
prevent a public safety hazard. By including an affirmative maintenance provision in the
ordinance, this situation can be prevented. Building elements typically included in
affirmative maintenance provisions are: exterior walls, vertical supports, roofs, horizontal
supports, external chimneys, exterior plaster or mortar, waterproofing elements, windows
and doors. Localities without g-minimum maintenance requireme.nts can is not required
by an ordinancc, then prop~-ty ow~aers should bc provide~ educational materials
(pamphlets, workshops. etc. ) and encourage~ owners to voluntarily maintain their historic
structures against decay, deterioration, and structural damage. Rather than. make
maintenance a mandatory regulatory requirement in Albemarle Cotrely, it is
recommended that a variety of prom'ams be established to educate o~vners of historic
· properties about the importance of voluntarily maintaining their historic resources.
Although cases of demolition by neglect do occur. it is also often true that F'Zfinancial
constraints may impair an owner's ability to perform necessary routine maintenance on a
historic property_.; and verbal warnings uUnder such these-circumstances. verbal warnings
are generally futile: and t;M_irect financial assistance may be appropriate: under such
conditions i.~ the interest of retaining a widc apcctrum of historic architccturc or a
pOrticularly significant cultural rcsourcc. It is recommended that q:the County s~nc, ul'j
thercforc pursue the establishment of a program to provide funding for maintenance of
historic resources, and that the County seek enabling legislation to authorize the program.
It is further recommended that the goals' of the progran~ be: 1 ) the retention of a wide
spectrum of historic architecture, and 2) the protection of particularly si,~nificant cultural
resources.
Additional protection csula can be afforded to any resources subject to t~he-historic
overlay district ordinances if the County could impose a civil penalt~,ies are imposed
when such resources are moved, razed or demolished without proper approval. It is
recommended that the Board of Supervisors request enabling legislation to permit the
County to impose a meaningful civil penalty for demolitions of historic resources
undertaken without County approval. A civil penalty in the amount of the replacement
value of the structure as a historic resource, rather than its immediate value to the owner,
would be appropriate. Some localities are enabled to charge twice the fair market value
of the structure. The current maximum civil penalty for violation of the Albemarle
County zoning ordinance is $100 for the first violation and $150 for each successive
violation, with a $3000 cap. It is recomme.nded t.hat ta~enalties collected in this manner
would be dedicated to funding components of the County's historic preservation
program, such as a revolving fund or a matching grants program.
The purpose of an historic overlay district ordinance is to protect irreplaceable historic
resources. An ordinance need not be intrusive if the County also stresses the value of
education, incentives, and assistance to property owners in selecting options that are
practical, aesthetically pleasing, historically accurate, and affordable.
31
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 4
Strategies: .,
Adopt a Historic Overlay District ordinance to recognize and protect historic,
architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources, including individual sites and
districts, on the local level
Designate locally significant districts and sites. Start with properties already on the
State and National Registers. Consider recommendations from Historic Architeaural
Survey of Albemarle County Villages for additional districts.
Establish a formal process to obtain owner participation and comment early in the
designation process.
Rather than make maintenance a mandatory regulatory requirement, educate the
owners of historic properties about the importance of voluntarily maintaining historic
structures against decay, deterioration, and structural damage to avoid possible loss of
historic resources.
Pursue the establishment of a financial program to provide funding for maintenance
of historic resources.
The Board of Supervisors should request enabling legislation that would allow
Albemarle County to impose a meanin.~fu! civil penalty for inappropriate demolition,
razing or moving of any designated historic resource. This enabling legislation' should
also authorize the County to use the civil penalties collected to fund components of the
County's historic preservation program.
32
ATTACHMENT A
Effectiveness of Voluntary Measuresz
PAGE 5
Voluntary programs,' whether at local, national, or state levels, primarily provide direct
protection only for the setting of a historic resource; protection for the actual historic
resource is indirect. The principle exception is Virginia's Historic 'Easement program,
which is available exclusively to those historic resources listed on the Virginia
Landmarks or National Registers. The Certified Local Govemment (CLG) program
operates only if the local govemment has the qualifying procedures in place, starting with
a Historic Overlay District ordinance. In thc ab~ncc of a local historic prcscrvation
ordinanco, direct protection of historic rcsourccs in Albemarlc County thcreibrc dcpcnds
on the cfforts of individual propcrty owncrs and groups ofeonccrnod citizcns.
Thc Historic Prcscrvation Committcc bclicvcs that a voluntm-y ordinancc is' inhcrcntly
inadcquatc. It would diminish both the number and divcrsity of :protected historic
resdurccs, and would allow individual decisions to aff~t, in pcrpctuity, which clcmcnts
ofthc various cultm'al and economic sc~ncnts ofthc County'z historical character will be
protected.
Historic resources listed on the Virginia Landmark and National Register. and those non-
listed properties cited in A.v.t~endix .B as examples of successrid preservation, attest to
commendable voluntary, action by their owners. These resources show that some property
owners do voluntarily preserve their historic resources. However, properties on register
lists primarily reflect the high end on the economic scale of our cultural heritage. The
threat appears greatest for the unlisted and lesser-known properties, those local and
traditional buildings and structures used by the majority of our citizens in the past. It is
precisely those historic resources with which the bulk of todav's residents can identify.
and which would be under-represented in anv volunta~, scheme.
The cultural heritage of Albemarle County draws from the blend of diverse individual
cultures and economic status of its people across the ages. It is these people, their stories,
and the buildings associated with their daily activities that make the County's heritage
The Historic Preservation Comnfittee believes that a voluntary ordinance is inherently inadequate.
It would diminish both the number and diversity of protected historic resources~ and would allow individual
decisions to affect, in perpenalty. which elements of the various cultural and economic segments of the
County's historical character will be protected.
To pemm an individual property owner to choose whether or not to allow ~e inclusion of his
property in a historic overlay district undercuts the pml0ose of providing protection for a wide specmlm of
the County's historic resources. The number of historic resources destroyed in recent years indicates that
the threat is real, and that it is increasing. (See Appendix B. List 4.') Adopting an ordinance to which no
proDerr?; is subject is not a serious me~od tbr protecting d~e County's heritage. There is no known example
of an effective voluntary, historic preservation ordinance in Virmnia.
The Historic Preservation Comminee concludes that voluntary measures are necessary and the
plan en.couratzes their continued and expanded use, but as several other localities in Vir~zinia have already
learned. thev are not sufficient to effectively protect the broad spectrum of our cultural hefitac, e. It should
be noted..however. that the mandatory aspects of the historic preservation process we propose also include
clear provisions for the property owner to participate actively in anv action that affects his property. This
participation xvould begin at the initial comment sta~e and includes ~e right of appeal.
38
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 6
unique, and therefore worthy of protection for our own benefit and for that of future
generations. It is recommended that :t:the historic resources v~-that are designated for
protection should reflect the same broad cultural and economic spectrum as the people
who built and used them. This is an important step in fostering a sense of community
contribution, continuity, and belonging in the maximum number of our current and future
citizens.
In the absence of a local historic preservation ordinance, direct protection of historic
resources in Albemarle County will depend on the efforts of individual property owners
and ~roups of concerned citizens. Established regulatory measures, balanced with
voluntary efforts, can better ensure that a broad spectrum of the County's significant
historic resources will be protected tbr future generations.
To permit an. individual property owner to choose whether or not to allow thc inclusion of
his propcrty in a historic overlay district tradercuts the purpose of providing protoction
for a wide spectrum of thc County's historic resources. The number of historic resources
destroyed in recent years indicarcs that the threat is real., and that it is incrcasing. (Sec
Appendix B, List 'l.) Adopting an ordinance to which no property is subject is not a
serious method for protecting the County's heritage. There is no known example of an
effective vol~ntary historic preservation ordinance in Virginia.
Historic resourccs listed on the Virginia Landmark and National Register, and those non
listed properties cited in Jppc~utix B as exam.pies of successful prcsc.r~'ation, attest to
conm~endablc voluntary action by their owners. Propertics on register lists primarily
reflect the high end on thc economic scale of our cultural heritage, but as explained
cattier, cvcn register listing provides little o.r no real protection fi'om. cvcr increasing
tin'eats, The tin-cat appcars greatest for the unlistcd and lesser known properties, those
local and traditional buildings and structures used by thc majority of our citizens in the
past. It is precisely those historic rcsourccs with which fine bull< of today's rcsidcnts Can
idcnt!~', and which would bc under represented in any voluntary scheme.
Wc conclude that voluntary measures m'c n.eccssaD' and thc plan encourages their
continued and expanded usc, but as several other localities in Virginia have alrcady
lcarned, they arc not sufficient to effectively protect thc broad spcctrum of our cultural
hcfi. tagc. It should bc noted, however, that thc mandatory aspects of thc historic
preservation process wc propo_sc also include clear provisions for the property owner to
participate actively in any action that affects his property. This participation would begin
at the initial comment stage and includes the right of appcal.
39
INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 1
TAX INCENTIVES
Federal and State Rehabilitation Tax Credits
The tax codes of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia provide incentives
in the form of tax credits for taxpayers who contribute to the preservation of Virginia's
old and historic buildings. Buildings must be certified historic structures and
rehabilitation must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
rehabilitation.
*The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that information regarding tax
incentives should be made available to the public at the County Office Building.
Local Tax Exemptions
The Code of Virginia authorizes localities to provide a partial tax exemption for certain
historic properties that have undergone substantial rehabilitation. By excluding the value
of the building's rehabilitation from its assessed value for a specified number of years,
owners are encouraged to undertake major improvements because any tax increase will
be significantly postponed.
* The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that an ordinance be enacted with
provisions for a partial local real estate tax exemption.
REVOLVING FUNDS
A revolving fund is a pool of capital created' and reserved for a specific activity, with the
restriction that the money is returned to the fund to be reused for similar activities.
Historic preservation revolving funds are typically used for either the acquisition/resale
of endangered historic properties (a good method for avoiding demolition and
unsympathetic development), or for lending to individuals or groups seeking to buy and
rehabilitate historic properties. Agreements, covenants, easements, or other techniques
are typically employed to ensure appropriate rehabilitation and long term protection of
assisted properties.
*The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that enabling authority be obtained
from the General Assembly to authorize the County to establish a revolving loan fund, or
to allow the County to contribute to a private revolving fund, to assist owners of historic
properties with rehabilitation and repair work.
,1
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 2
EASEMENTS
A preservation easement is a legal agreement between a property owner and a
preservation organization, and a useful tool for protecting buildings and sites beyond the
present generation. The owner donates partial interest in the property to the preservation
organization in perpetuity, insuring that' it will be protected from inappropriate
development or demolition. The owner maintains private ownership and all the rights and
duties of ownership, except the right to alter the portions of the property protected by the
preservation easement. If the appropriate guidelines are followed, the value of the
easement maybe deducted as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes.
*The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that the County promote historic and
conservation easements.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
It is often the case that historic properties are not maintained or are inappropriately
altered due to a lack of information and experience. By making technical support readily
available, historic property owners are .more inclined to proceed with appropriate repairs
and alterations.
* The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that an Expert Advice Program be
established. The program would include the creation and maintenance of a list of
volunteer preservation professionals that could be called upon to offer advice to owners
on how to proceed with particular preservation projects or issues. The Historic
Preservation Committee has been undertaking this function informally since its creation.
* The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that a Work Bank Program be
established with the goal of protecting the County's historic resources through appropriate
maintenance: The program would work in a manner similar t0 a revolving fund, where
resources (time, money, materials) are available to many participants because they are
continually replenished, and would require' some type of contribution from the recipient
of the service. The program could tie into other county preservation programs and local
student, community, and construction groups and businesses.
* The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that an Awards Program be
established. The program would recognize the achievements of local preservationists and
in so doing would emphasize the County's position that historic sites and structures are
significant resources that are worthy of identification and protection.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Juvenile Detention Facility Project Status Report
S U BJ ECTIPRO POSAL/REQU EST:
Progress Report
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION: X
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, White, Mawyer, Lilley, Hart
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes /
DISCUSSION:
1. Project Background: Based on a 1995 Needs Assessment, a 40-bed Juvenile Detention Facility for Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville was approved by both localities. The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Commission (BRJDC) was formed in 1998, which includes Charlottesville and AIbemarle, Fluvanna and Greene
counties.
2. Current Status: A 6-acre parcel adjacent to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail has been purchased and
design of the facility has been completed (see attached site plan, floor plan, and elevations). The design includes
a small assessment center component added by the BRJDC and provides for a future expansion of 40 additional
beds. Due to the extensive sitework involved with the selected site and the tight project timeframe, an initial
sitework project was issued early. Site work began in July and is scheduled for completion in late October. The
main building project is currently being bid, with bids due September 13t~. The scheduled completion date for the
facility is January, 2002 with a Superintendent expected to be hired in January, 2001.
With cost updates, including first year operational costs, the total cost of the project is approximately $8.4 million
with a state share of $3.2 million and a local share of $5.1 million. A copy of the current Project Budget/Expense
Report is attached.
o0.184
PIng. Study
Budget
BUDGET/EXPENSE REPORT
for
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Report Period: June '1. 2000 - August 3'1, 2000
Previous Paid
Report Current Prior
Budget Budget Change Periods
Construction
Sitework -- 1,335,000 1.335.000
Building 5.793,587 4,466,000 4,465,000
sub-total 5,793.587 5.800.000 5,800,000
Architectural Consultants
Architect - Design 511,575 474. 182 478,775
Architect - Pdnting 20,000 16,500 16,500
Value Engineering 0 0 0
Constructabilty/Estimating 0 15,000 4,000
Planning Study 81.019 81,019 81.019
sub-total 612.594 586,701 580,294
Technical Consultants
Geotechnical 22.000 26,425 26.425
Environmental 0 0 0
Special Inspections/Testing 37,500 40,000 25,000
sub-total 59,500 66.425 51,425
FurniturelFIxtures 198,500 200,000 200,000
Computer Equipment 80.850 85.000 85,000
Project Administration
County Project Admin. 0 160,000 160.000
Project Inspection 0 60,000 60.000
Construction Trailer
Rent 0 5,400 5,400
Phone/Fax 0 3.000 3,000
Elec 0 5,000 5.000
Supplies/Equip 0 1.500 1.500
moving/set-up 0 1.500 1.500
Advertising 0 2.500 2,500
Photos 0 500 500
Permit/Ran Review Fees 0 10,000 10.000
sub-total 0 249,400 249,400
Financing
Bond Counsel 0 17,500 17.500
Finand al Advisor 0 10,000 10.000
Interest 0 140,000 140,000
sub-total 0 167.500 167,500
Land Acquisition 350.000 500,000 425.000
Miscellaneous 0 2.500 2,500
Operations
Salary/Fringes 0 111,510 111.510
Phone, Lights, etc. 0 29,400 29,400
Legal Services 0 45,000 45,000
sub-total 0 185,910 185,910
Subtotal 7.095.031 7,843,436 7.747,029
Contingency 445,284 556,564 652,971
TOTAL $7.540.315 $8.400,000 $8,400.000
DJJS share 2.080,000 3,293.351 3,290.147
Local share 5,460,315 5,106.649 5,109.853
Paid
Current
Period
4.593
0
0
(11,000)
0
(6,407)
Total
Paid
to Date
0
0
(15,000)
(16.000)
0
0
0 -- 373,350 373.350
0 0 0 0
0 0 373,350 373,350
237,669
1,110
0
0
81,019
319,798
152,161
1,208
0
0
0
153,369
0
0
0
0
(75,000)
0
24,950
0
0
24,950
0
0
0
0
0
0
(96,407)
96,407
$0
389.830
2,318
0
0
81,019
473.167
24,950
0
0
24,950
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 O 0
0 1,900 2,805 4,705
0 1,900 2,805 4.705
0
0
0
0
418, B05
0
0
0
0
765.453
$765,453
0
0
0
529.524
$529.524
0
0
0
0
418,805
0
0
0
0
0
1,294,977
$1,294,977
Budget
Balance
961,650
4,465,000
5,426,650
88,945
14,182
0
4.000
0
107,127
1.475
0
25,000
26,475
200,000
85,000
160,000
60,000
5,400
3,0O0
5,000
1,500
1,500
2.500
500
5,295
244.695
17,500
10,000
140,000
167,500
6.195
2,50O
111.510
29,400
45.000
185,910
6.452,052
652.971
$7,105,023
Architect Change Orders Pro_lected Issued
Assessment Center 15,800
Avon Street/Jail ant. Survey/design 10,982
Avon Street easement plats/Jail front parking 4,593
sub-total 0 31,375
Construction Change Orders Pro_iected Issued
sub-total 0 0
Total Projected Changes 0
UNOBLIGATED CONTINGENCY 652,971
(Contingency minus projected changes)
NOTES:
1. Land acquisition, special inpsections. and construcability review costs all decreased from previous budget.
State share decreases accordingly.
, .\,, -.\t~.~ // " .... \ \ \/~\ I~I I~l t
"' ~""'7"., .':. -. j~-., ~ ~-~:_-L=:__- ....
" %",' "~'~.:"---~;/" '7 "'[""="""'~'='-=---
\ '~'~ "''"'"""' t ' ' ~' :"":""~""~ ""'
, ~. - , , "",'.. "--"E22
', / --,,"'--,, / ; ',~, ,,, --,:,,
,, , --- ZT, '-'-
.. ~., ..'- ..<---- r~,,,-,;' ;, ,', -..
,,-,' '-,, \,, ..... // , 7t'''''
: -",
, / '.'..' ..' / ,' ,;,,
'~ ', . ' ' ~', ', " ' ../' ,,"~ "',,,"," "
/// x :. '~ ,'/RECREATION. //,/ /,4/~ "~.
t ..' ' ,, ,,
...', ', ,,,,~,,,"""","!,."// ._..- "",I -', > ,'
i. ", "'"""'~ !~:';,."7" ,/...-' "":: ;':; :~'
, - ......':.:,.,, , ,/'
· ".: / . ' ".-.' .,d / ///
', '-. , :./j:E:::?.t .....' '...:-. " ,." : j i
~ .......':..:. ',. :~.:i,~::/.!:j ,,t:,~M".'./~::!i.':::.:.://.,,'~/..'
; """-, ,"-, ' ' ......"'~:": <,:, ..::-.-:,- < -,.,:',-,i..,",:'~ / ,~' ,'
,"" ",.,, . /7 !~. ,,~/-'~'
~ ~'~, , ",, //,/ ,k? ! / ~,",~'//~//
,, ',., " ',,,, ,, ' ,,,.- -i ',/,~2; ,'
~ - ,, ,/ r' i ,,,,~, o,,,,
"' ...... '2 L ' , -''':ii"~'`'~'; : ,',;'~,';' ,'
.... ..~.....' .;:' ,,5,:;~ y ,"'
,%~ ......./ ,, ,'
,,, ~L~, ~, ,/ j~'
,- ~-~.,-../ ,',,',?,'
' ~"=.. ,," "V +
,- "X:-~t ;':.-.-. ,-,,2' ,;',,
,, - ,""'-,,,Z\,, "~jj"" ~"';~' ,'
' -' "~-, "Z V /
/ // \ //// // /
/ ', /// 2/ /
,, ""'-, ,,"~' ,-"' ,, SITE PLAN
~LOT DATE :13 DEC 1999
/ //
/ //
//
//
;D'~
~0~
ZTM.
i'"
,7;
FLOOR PLAN
I/8"=1 "0"
SECURE
INTAKE
4
ASSESMENT
CENTER
ENTRANCE
LEGEND
HOUSING
PROGRAM/MULTI-USE
INTAKE/MEDICAL/CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION (NON-SECURE)
ASSESMENT CENTER
SUPPORT (NON-SECURE)
AREA CALCULATIONS
ADMINtSTRATION~NTAKE/SUPPORT 10,122GSF 8~ [~
HOUSING 17,000 GSF F
TOTAL 28,486 GSF
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
!
James S. ~ilmore, HI
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Secretary of Natural Resources
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221
August 11, 2000
H. Alexander Wise, Jr.
Director
Tel: (804) 367-2323
Fax: (804) 367-2391
TDD: (804) 367-2386
The Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Mount Walla, Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Martin:
The Department of Historic Resources, Virginia' s historic preservation office, has been requested to
consider the above referenced property for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and the
Virginia Landmarks Register. Please find enclosed the completed National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form for the property and a copy of the letter to the owner(s) of the property.
These enclosures are being forward to you for your information. The State Review Board and the
Historic Resources Board will consider the property for nomination to the registers at a meeting on
Wednesday, September 13, 2000, at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Boulevard and Grove Avenue,
Richmond, Virginia 23221, beginning at 10:00 a.m. The meeting is open to the public.
If you have any comments or concerns you may write to me at the above address or contact me at
804/367-2323, extension 115.
Sincerely,
Marc Christian Wagner
National Register Manager
c: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Executive
Albemarle County
Enclosures
Petersburg Office
10 Courthouse Avenue
Petersburg, VA 23803
Tel: (804) 863-1620
Fax: (804) 863-1627
Portsmouth Office
612 Court Street, 3rd Floor
Portsmouth, VA 23704 ·
Tel: (757)'396-6707
Fax: (757) 396-6712
Roanoke Office
1030 Penmar Avenue, SE
Roanoke, VA 24013
Tel: (540) 857-7585
Fax: (540) 857-7588
Winchester Office
107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203
W'mchester, VA 22601
Tel: (540) 722-3427
Fawz (540) 722-7535
James S. Gilmore, HI
Governor
john Paul WoodIcy, Jr.'
· Secretary of Natural Resources
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221
August 9, 2000
H. Alexander Wise, Jr.
Director
%1: (804) 367-2323
Fax: (804) 367-2391
TDD: (804) 367-2386
Mr. James P. Hogan
604 Poplar Springs Road
Scottsville, VA 24590
RE: Mount Walla, Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Hogan:
At a meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, in the auditorium of the Virginia Museum of
Fine Arts, comer of the Boulevard and Grove Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221, the State Review
Board and Historic Resources Board will consider Mount Walla for nomination to the National Register
of Historic Places and for inclusion in the Virginia Landmarks Register. The national and state registers
are the official lists of places in Virginia recognized as having architectural, archaeological, or historic
significance at the local, state,. or national level.
The enclosed material, explaining the register programs contains information about the results of
listing in the registers and describes the process by which property owners may comment on or object to
listing in the registers.
You are welcome to attend the meeting which starts at 10:00 a.m. on September 13th.
· If you have any questions or need additional information before the board meeting, please
contact Jack Zehmer at the Capital Region Office, telephone 804/863-1621.
Sincerely,
M. Catherine $1usser, Director
Resource Information Division
Enclosure
10 Courthou~ Avenu~
Pet~.~hn'g, VA~
Tel: (804) 863-16~0
Fmc (804) 863-1627
Portsmouth Office
612 Court Street, 3rd Floor
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Tel: (757) 396-6707
Fax: (757) 396-6712
Roanoke Office
1030 Penre-- Averme, SE
Roanoke, VA 24013
Tel: (540) 857-7585
Fax: (540) 857-7588
W"ughesterOtrge
107 K K2nt Street, Suite 203
Wmchest~ VA -22601
Te~ (540) 722-3427
Fax (540) 722-7535
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Natiomd Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
Thi~f~mi~f~u~in n~min~""g~t~eques~i~gd~termi-~n~nemf~tim~ividugpt~pe~ie~ddi~ric~s~ ~eeingng~minH~wt~c~mple~etheArari~r~l~gis~Hl~rl~1~we~Re~i~ra~F~rm~~ 16A),
Comple~each itcmb3t marklng"x'in the app~box et by emu'ing~te infetmatian teqtteg=d. lfanyitemd0eg not apply totlae ptegerty be~doo,m_~ent~'N/A'fot'notapplicable.' Fer f~mcfiem, archiltctural
1. Name of Property
historic name
other names/site number
Mount WaHa
VDHR file no. 298-0009
2. Location
street &number 604 Poplar Springs Road. N/A not for publication
city or town Scottsville N/A vicinity
state Virginia cede VA county Albemarle code 003 zip code 24590
3. State/Federal At. ency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986,. as amended, I hereby certify that
this X nomination ...... request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering
properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth
in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets does not meet the National Register Criteria, I
recommend that this property be considered significant __ "~nationally statewide X~ locally. ( , See
continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title
Date
In my opinion, the property __
for additional comments.)
meets
__ does not meet the National Register criteria. ( __
Signature of commenting or other official/Title
Date
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
Signature of the Keeper
_ entered in the National Register.' See continuation sheet.
__ determined eligible for the National Register.
See continuation sheet.
__ determined not eligible for the National Register.
__ removed from the National Register.
__ other (explain):
See continuation sheet
Date of Action
Mount W~lla
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
Category of Property
(C~c~ ~ cm box)
X'private X building(s)
, public-local. district
public-State site
public-Federal __ structure
__ object
Name of related multiple property listing
N/A
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
Category Subcategory
DOMESTIC single dwelling
DOMESTIC secondary structure
FUNERARY cemetery
Albemarle Co., va.
Number of Resources within Property
Contributing Noncontributing
2 1 buildings
0 1 sites
0 0 structures
0 0 objects
2 2 Toe
Number of contributing resources previously listed
in the National Register
Current Functions
Category
DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC
FUNERARY
Subcategory
single dwelling
secondary structure
cemetery
7. Description
Architectural Classification
Federal
Greek Revival
Materials
foundation Brick
walls Wood
roof Metal
other Stone
Narrative Description
Mount W'alla
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
atype, period, ~rme~Mdconstrm:tim~r
Areas of Significance
ARCHITECTURE
TRANSPORTATION
Albemarle Co., Va.
Criteria Considerations
(Mm, k 'X' in -n the boxes emt apply.)
wA
~B
~D
Period of Significance
Ca. 1820-1861
Significant Dates.
1836
Significant Person
(Compb~ifCri~imBismaetalabove)
Jefferson, Peter Field
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explainthesignifies~edthepto!~mme~mfe~sheeU.)
Cultural Affiliation
N/A
Architect/Builder
unknown
9. Major Bibliorraphical References
Bibliography
Previous documentation on ~e (NPS):
. preliminary determination of individual listing
(36 CFR 67) has been requested
previously listed in the National Register
previously determined eligible by the National
Register
designated a National Historic Landmark
recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
__ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record
# ·
Primary location of additional dam:
X State Historic Preservation Office
Other State agency
__ Federal agency
__ Local government
__ University
Name of repository:
Mourn Walla
10. Geo_~raphical Data
Albemarle Co., Va.
Acreage of Property
approximately 13.4 acres
UTM References
(Ptaceaddifio~UTMn~esmaccntlntmt~sheet)
Zone E~g No~g
1 17 72~ 418~80
2 17 72~10 4186550
Zone Fasting Northing
3 17 720960 4186310
4 17 720660 4186290
Verbal Boundary Description
(De~fil~fi~boundark~hel~!~Wenac~mimmionsheet.)
Boundary Justification
(Exphin why lhe boundt~e. selee~d ma cmlinuatkm sheet.)
11. Form Prepared By
name/rifle J. Daniel Pezzoni
organiTation Landmark Preservation Associates date
street &number 6 Houston St. telephone
city or town Lexington state VA zip code
June 29, 2000
(540) 464-5315
24450
Additional Documentation
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch mp for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items
Property Owner
· name James P. Hogan
street & number PO BOx 610. telephone (804) 286-6355
city or town , Scottsville state VA zip code 24590
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
lilational Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 page 1
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
Mount Walla is a story-and-a-half frame house located on a 13.4-acre parcel on a 'hill
overlooking the town of Scottsville and the James River. The 42-by-18-foot core of' the house
most likely dates to the ca. 1820-ca. 1840 period, as suggested by documentary evidence and
visible architectural fabric, although a late eighteenth-century date of construction and extensive
nineteenth-century remodeling are plausible. The house features beaded weatherboard siding, a
metal-sheathed gable roof, a brick foundation and gable-end chimneys, and classical entry
porches on the south river front and the north elevation. The hall-parlor interior features Federal-
style treatments such as a three-part mantel and elaborate door and window surrounds, as well
as an enclosed winder st_air. The house was enlarged several times during the second half of the
twentieth century, and a one-story frame guest house of complementary design was erected next
to. it in 1970. Also on the property are an antebellum frame smokehouse and a nineteenth-century
and later family cemetery enclosed by a Victorian iron fence. The property slopes away from the
house on the south, east, and west sides, and it is improved with brick walkways and walls
dating to the 1960s and 1970s. Trees including tulip poplar, walnut, magnolia, white pine,
hemlock, cedar, and holly ornament the grounds near the house, the periphery of the property.
is wooded, and flower beds and other landscaping have recently been added.
Inventory
1. Mount Walla. Ca. 1820-ca. 1840; 1950s-1960s; late 1980s;late 1990s. Contributing building.
2. Smokehouse. Ca. 1820-ca. 1840; ca. 1970. Contributing building.
3. Cemetery. Late 19th and 20th c. Noncontributing site.
4. Guest house. 1970. Noncontributing building.
Exterior
Mount walla's historic core is characterized by a three-bay window-door-window arrangement
on the south-facing river front and the landward north front. Rising on the gable ends (now
partially obscured by the 1950s-1960s' additions) are brick Chimneys with double stepped
shoulders and stretcher-bond brickwork on their visible faces. Comparison to a 1930s WPA
photograph suggests rebuilding of the upper parts of the stacks. The brick foundation is laid in
three-course American bond (repeated under the twentieth-century additions) and is interrupted
by windows with glazed sash behind horizontal wood bars.
The dominant features of the north and south facades are the three-bay entry porches. The south
NPS.F~rm 10-~0~a OM~ At~ N~. 1024-0018
(~-~)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
'National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7. page 2
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Description (continued)
porch stands on a solid brick foundation with brick lattice vents and modern brick and slate steps.
Turned wooden classical colunms and pilasters on modern replacement square-section pedestals
support a pedimented roof with a skirting of wood shingles at the base of the plain tympanum.
The north porch is raised on brick piers and features square-section wood columns with entasis.
Both porches have exterior and interior cornices, railings with recta_ngular~section banisters, and
ceilings sheathed with beaded' slats.
Other exterior features of the original section include six-over-six windows with louvered wood
shutters, small square four-light windows in the gables, a cornice omamented with convex and
concave quarter-round moldings, beaded rake boards (apparently with a slight taper), and a
reedera paint scheme of Palace Tan on the weatherboards and white on the porches and trim.
The north and south entries have six-panel doors, modern wooden screen doors with Chinese
Chippendale latticework in the lower panels, and surrounds with complex symmetrical moldings
and faceted lozenge carvings in the comer blocks. Tucked into the comer on the north face of
the west chimney is a srnsII pent room (a closet inside) with beaded comer and rake boards, a
brick foundation, and other features'suggesting it is original to the house or, alternatively, an
early nineteenth-century remodeling~ Under the pent room is a doorway to the basement with a
diagonal batten door under a bracketed stoop.
The various twentieth-century additions were designed to harmonize with the 'original fabric and
consequently they have brick foundations and chinmeys, beaded weatherboard siding, and divided
muntin windows. The 1950 s-1960s additions have old siding; the siding on the later additions
is modern. Somewhat more medemistic in character is the late 1990s garden room addition on
the east end, which has multiple t_a_!! glass doors and windows affording views of the James
River.
Interior
Mount Walla's hall-parlor interior is characterized by plaster wall and ceiling fini~es (some on
split lath), wood floors, brick fireplace linings and hearths, and six-panel doors on butt hinges.
The north and south entries open into the home's largest original room (the hall), which has as
its focal point a three-pan Federal mantel. The projecting center and end tablets of the mantel
frieze are. carved with etliptical sunbursts above a reeded band and below a heavy bed molding
that-supports a shelf with. a reeded edge. In place of pilasters are pairs of slender turned
colonnettes with entasis that are joined at the top by small arched elements. Additional
refinement is provided by the door and window surrounds, which feature symmetrically molded
(8-~-')
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Description (continued)
trim and heavy entablatures with cornices that reference the mantel bed molding~ The window
surrounds are carried below the cb3irrail by tapered pilasters with unornamented faces. The
reeding of the mantel is repeated on the room's chairrail. On the ceiling is a simple annular
plaster medallion. The enclosed stair to the garret opens into the room, with a fluted trim board
at the axis of the winders. A door to the right of the mantel opens into a 1950s-1960s addition
that-now serves as a connector to a 1980s bedroom, bathroom, and closet wing. The 1980s
bedroom has a canted ceiling, Georgian Revival architrave-type door surrounds with denill
moldings in the entablatures, and a brick fireplace with a Georgian Revival mantel.
The smaller room or parlor, which occupies the west end of the first floor, features a formerly
exterior doorway with symmetrical moldings in the surround and a design of nested squares in
the corner blocks. This doorway now opens into a 1950s-1960s addition containing a bathroom
and closet. Another door opens into the pent closet, which has a dark stained interior finish and
large cut nails that once served as clothes hooks. The parlor also features a vertical beaded board
wainscot, molded chairrail and baseboards (apparently a mix of old and modern trim), and the
top of a modern stair to the basement located under the garret stair.
The garret contains two small bedrooms with a 1950s-1960s bathroom and closets inserted
between them. The stairwell is provided with a board railing of pegged construction. Each room
features a small architrave' mantel, beaded baseboards and door and window trim, and small
.hatchways in the knee walls leading to narrow attic spaces at the eaves. In these spaces are
visible straight-sawn and hewn common rafters and straight-sawn roof boards, the latter studded
with cut nails suggesting former existence of wood roof shingles.
The remodeled basement features brick floor pavers (some 'set in herringbone pattern), raised
paneling on the walls, and exposed hewn ceiling joists. The smaller west basement room, into
which the. modern stair from the main floor descends, has a segmental-arched fireplace (probably
original) with a modern mantel. The stair has a square-section newel post and square-section
banisters set at a diagonal. A doorway at the east end of the larger east basement room (the
present dining room) opens into a small kitchen under the 1950s-1960s addition, which in turn
connects to a larger kitchen and sitting area with a Georgian Revival mantel and paneled
overmantel under the 1980s wing. French doors open from this wing into the 1990s garden
room, which has rough textured plaster walls, an exposed roof structure, and a brick chimney
breast.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 4
Mount Waila
Albemarle Co., Va.
Description (continued)
Outbuildings and Landscape Features
Directly off the west end of the house, separated from it by a walkway and gate, stands a one-
story frame guest house built in 1970 to a design by a Philadelphia architect. The building stands
near a former kitchen, bricks from the foundation and chimney of which are said to have been
used as a facing on the guest house foundation. The building has a metal-sheathed gable roof,
beaded. weatherboard siding, stretcher-bond brick facings on the foundation and a gable-end
chimney with two stepped shoulders, a basement garage, and eight-over-eight windows with
louvered wooden shutters. The front (south elevation) entry porch has a gable roof supported by
narrow classical columns and features a Chinese Chippendale railing and a brick and slate floor
and steps. The front entry has a six-panel door and a screen door similar to those on the main
house. Inside are drywall wails and ceilings, wood floors, hewn ceiling beams (decorative), and
chairrails and door and window surrounds with stock moldings. The mantel appears to be a
recycled Greek Revival piece with symmetrical moldings on the faces of the pilasters.
A short distance northwest of the house, across a driveway, stands a frame smokehouse that
appears to date to the ca. 1820-ca. 1840 period. The tall building has a metal-sheathed gable roof
with a weathervane, beaded weatherboard siding, corner boards, and rake boards, and a ca. 1970
foundation of cinder blocks faced with historic bricks laid in stretcher bond. A historic batten
door and a modern six-over~six window have beaded surrounds, and the former is reached by
a set of modern brick steps that fie into a low wall that borders the driveway. A modern batten
dutch door with grated window opens into the basement.
The unfinished interior shows evidence of charring consistent with past use for smoking meat.
The heavy hewn corner posts, studs, and 'down braces are connected with mortise-and-tenon
joints and large pegs. Heavy joists, a few of which are missing, span above a modern light-frame
ceiling structure. The common rafter couples are pegged and either lapped or mortise-and-
tenoned at the ridge, and the collar beams are lapped and nailed to the rafters. As in the main
house, only cut nails have been observed in the build_ing's construction.
The smokehouse door is hung on wrought strap hinges, the upper one with a spade-Shaped end
and wrought nails attaching it to the door, the lower one with a broken end and bolted to the
door. (One'or both hinges may be modern additions.) There is a large wooden lock box with
decorative iron end plates, and the keeper consists of a carved wooden board attached to the left
jamb by multiple cut nails for strength. Attached to the right jamb is a vertical board with two
crudely cut holes, apparently attachment points for some son of work table, rack, or other built-
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number .7 Page ~
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Description (continued)
in feature that once stood in the space. The basement interior has unfinished cinder-block walls
and a concrete floor.
The cemetery lies to the north of the house and is enclosed by an iron fence with decorative
~eur-de-Hs finials and gates with plaques identifying them as the work of the Stewart Fence
Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. The oldest tombstone appears to be that of Mary EHen Foland
(1873-91), a rounded marble headstone framed by carving in the form of velvet rope with
tassels. The segmental-headed marble tombstones of long-time Mount Walla occupants Peter V.
Foland (1845-1915) and his wife Elizabeth C. Foland (1845-1921) are decorated with simple
floral designs. Also in the cemetery stands a marble monument dedicated to Peter Field Jefferson
(presumably Jr.) and his wife Elizabeth Wood. It is unknown whether individuals associated with
the property before Peter F. Jefferson Jr., who died in 1867, are buried in the cemetery. Down
slope from the cemetery next to the driveway stands a short marble obelisk that appears to have
originated in a cemetery context but now serves as a garden ornament. At the northeast corner
of the nominated parcel, framing the entrance drive, are brick gate pffiars.
Integrity Statement
The historic core of Mount Walla retains a high degree of architectural integrity from the
antebellum period. Character-defining exterior features and finishes such as beaded
weatherboards, double-shouldered chimneys, and the two entry porches remain in place, as do
· interior features such as the halI-parlor plan, mantels, and door and window surrounds. Post-
1950 additions to the house, though extensive, are scaled so as not to overpower the historic
core, or are screened by planrings and topography. More change has occurred to the grounds.
Extensive brick walkways, walls, and other landscape features were added about 1970, and a
guest house was constructed next to the main house. The' classicism of these elements is not out
of keeping with the architecture of the historic fabric, however. The frame superstructure of the
smokehouse survives virtually unaltered from the antebellum period. Mount Walla preserves its
. historic visual connections to Scottsvffie and the James River.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
l~ational Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 page 6
~ Apparel No. 1~24-001S
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Summary
Mount Walla is an originally small but finely detailed Federal-style house overlooking Scottsville
and the James River in southern Albemarle County, Virginia. The hali-parlor-plan dwelling is
graced by classical entry porticos on both the river and land fronts, and inside are door and
window surrounds with entablatures, a plaster ceiling medallion, and a three-part Federal mantel
with sunbursts and colonettes. Mount Walla most likely dams to the period 1820 to 1840. when
Scottsville emerged as a regional river and canal port, although the house may' incorporate
eighteenth-century fabric. In 1821 the property was acquired by Scottsville businessman Richard
Moon, whose early life in the west earned him the nickname 'Tennessee Dick,' and in 1836 it
was purchased by Peter Field Jefferson, grandnephew of the president. Jefferson made a fortune
by speculating in James River and Kanawha Canal scrip, and his income was supplemented by
ownership of the town's ferry and a fleet of canal boats as well as a tobacco warehouse and mills
in Albemarle and neighboring Buckingham counties. Mount Walla passed to Jefferson' s grandson
Peter V. Foland and his descendants, and in 1966 it was acquired by popular hostess Mildred
C. Brown. The house received a series of additions during the second half of the twentieth
century, more than doubling its size. Today a guest house joins the main house, a family
cemetery: with Victorian iron fence, and an antebeHum smokehouse on the beautifully landscaped
grounds..
Applicable Criteria
Mount Walla, which is included as a contributing building in the Scottsville Historic District
(state and national designations), is. individually eligible for listing under Criterion C in the area
of architecture for the richness and sophistication of its Federal styling. Also of note is the
home's diminutive hall-parlor form, -which may be evidence of eighteenth-century fabric. The
property is eligible under Criterion B in the area of Iransportation for its association with Peter
Field Jefferson. Jefferson was involved in many aspects of Scottsville's economic development
during the town's antebeilum heyday, but his ownership of canal boats and the town ferry and
his relationship to the construction of the James River and Kanawha Canal provide a common
transportation theme. The period of significance extends from ca. 1820, reflecting the possibility
that the~house was built in the 1820s by Richard Moon, until 1861, the year of Peter F.
Jefferson's death~ The. nomination acknowledges the possibility that the house dates to before ca.
1820, but the architectural qualities for which it is significant date to ca. 1820 or later. Mount
Walla is eligible at the local level of significance. information in support of designation appears
throughout the historic context,
NPS ~ 10-900;u OM~ Apls~al Ntk I024-001g
United 'States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8.. page 7
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
Acknowledgments
A number of individuals and organizations assisted in the preparation of this report. Foremost
among these was the owner of the property and the nomination's sponsor, James P. Hogan.
Others who provided assistance included Fletcher J. Wright III, Scottsville; Margaret M.
O'Bryant of the Albemarle County Historical Society, Charlottesville; Olive Graftam, Curator
of Collections, Daughters of the American Revolution, Washington, D.C.; and Suzanne Durham,
June Ellis, Marc Wagner and Jack Zehmer of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources..
Historic Context
Most written accounts of Mount Walla's history suggest a date of construction in the late
eighteenth century. However, most primary source materials, and the visible architectural
evidence of the house itself, point to an early nineteen~ centth*y date of construction. Two
sources of documentary information have a particular bearing on the date or period of
construction: deed records from 1828 and 1836, and tax records from the 1830s-1840s period.
Curiously, the deed and tax records are contradictory-the deeds suggest Mount Walla was in
existence in 1828 and the tax records suggest the house was built in 1840--but contradictions
aside the information can be interpreted to imply that Mount Walla was built between 1820 and
1840, a period that accords well with the Federal styling of the house (especially the end of the
period), as explained in the architectural analysis section of the report..
The 13.4-acre parcel presently associated with Mount Walla is part of a much larger holding
assembled by John Scott beginning in 1764. Scott had moved to his Albemarle County property
from Cumberland County by 1789, and some historians believe it was Scott who built Mount
Walla during the 1770s or 1780s. The Scott family gave their name to Scottsville, originally
known as Scott's Landing or Scott's Ferry, According to Scottsville historian Virginia Moore,
the eighteenth-century community was a "little riverport run by John Scott (or two. Johns, father
and son) who had just built Mount Walla on a hill out of the way of floods and was busy
promoting his ferry, tavern~ and other business enterprises."x
Town lots were surveyed at Scottsville in 1815 and 1818, and the town was incorporated in
~ Woolion, "Mount Walla;' Lay, Architecture of Jefferson Country, 43; and Moore,
Scottsville on the lames, 36.
NPS Fe~m
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 .. page ....
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
1818. A year later John Scott sold a ten-acre parcel including the site of Mount Walla to James
B.' Holeman, who in 1821 sold 77.25 acres adjoinirtg Scottsville to Richard Moon. Believed to
be a son of William and Charlotte Moon of the Scottsville-area plantation Stony Point, Richard
Moon emigrated to Bledsee County~ Tennessee as a young man and then returned to Albemarle
County. As a result of his travels he was nicknamed "Tennessee Dick," and cotin records often
record the initial T in parentheses after his name to distinguish him from another Richard Moon
who died in 1819. Richard Moon petitioned the county court to build a grist mill on the
Hardware River in 1823, an enterprise known as Albemarle Mills in 1828, and he owned a brick
store at the ferry landing in Scottsville and considerable. real estate in the town. In 1832 a
Richard D. (Dinges?) Moon, presumably Tennessee Dick, served as a tobacco inspector in
Scottsville.2
The property Moon purchased in 1821 adjoined his relative Littleberry Moon, who between 1816
and 1819 built a two-story brick house that stands today approximately 700 feet east of Mount
Wa!la. Richard Moon is known to have lived on his tract adjoining Scottsville in February 1828.
A deed of that year contains the earliest known reference to a dwelling that may be Mount
Walla. If the house is indeed nineteenth century in date, it may have been built by Moon shortly
after he acquired the site in 1821, during the period of Scottsville's early development.3
On October 8, 1836, to satisfy a debt, Richard Moon's agent Thomas Gilmer sold at public
auction an 88-acre tract including "the Dwelling house of the said Richard Moon T." to Peter
Field Jefferson (ca. 1785-1861), a grandnephew of President Thomas Jefferson. Tax records for
the early years of Jefferson's ownership suggest. that it was lefferson, not an earlier property
owner, who built the house. In 1838, the first year Jefferson's 88-acre tract. appears in the tax
records, the.value of buildings on the parcel was given as $0; In 1839 the value appears to' have
increased to $300, and in 1840 buildings on the tract were valued at $1,600. Tax records of the
2 Albemarle County Deed Book 22? p. 2, 302, Deed Book 23, pp. 65 and 475, Deed Book
27, p. 74 Deed Book 30, p. 123; Albemarle County tax records for 1836; Woods, Albemarle
County, 282; and Moon, "Sketches of the Moon and Barclay Families," 8-9, 55-58.
~ Albemarle County Deed Book 27, p. 74; Sandra J. and. Timothy M. Sm_all personal
communication. The Littleberry Moon House at 600 Poplar Springs Road is today owned by
Timothy and Sandra Small. Some accounts identify Mount Walla as Littleberry Moon's house
(WPA, "Mount Walla").
Form 1O-~a ~ AI~ N~. 1024-0~1~
United States Department of the' Interior
National Park Service
National Register-of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8... Page . 9
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
era are open to considerable interpretation, however, and in the case of Mount Walla may simply
have failed to record the existence of a dwelling at first. Several secondary accounts do however
credit Jefferson with adding the fine Federal-style finishes to the house.4'
Like Richard Moon,. Jefferson was intimately involved in the economic life of Scottsville, and
vicinity'. Virginia Moore described him as an "eccentric with a streak of genius in business." In
1825 Jefferson purchased from Moon a small parcel adjoining Scottsville's ferry landing, and
in 1829 he purchased the ferry itself, which was still known as Scott's Ferry. Jefferson profited
handsomely from the James River and Kanawha Canal, which was built through Scottsville in
the mid-1830s. The canal company purchased river-front property from Jefferson and it built a
road from his ferry landing to a bridge that crossed the canal. According to Moore, Jefferson
made $75,000 speculating in the scrip used to pay the canal workmen, and with fellow "river
baron" John O. Lewis he owned a large share of the two hundred or so canal boats that plied the
canal. Jefferson was also involved in the storage and processing of two of the region' s principal
crops: tobacco and wheat grain. In 1834 he built an impressive two-story brick tobacco
warehouse in Scottsvffie, and in 1856 he (or his son Peter Field Jr. ) purchased Alhemarle Mills,
which came to be known by the alternate name Jefferson Mills.' At the lime of his death he also
owned a mill across the James River in Buckingham County. If, as Virginia Moore asserts,
Scottsville was the largest flour market in the state during the late antebelhm period, then
Jefferson was web placed to profit from his milling activities.s
The 1850 census lists Peter F. Jefferson as a 65-year-old "farmer" living with his wife Jane (b.
ca. 1785) and sons Thomas (b. ca.. 1825) and Field (ca. 1830-1867). According to tradition,
Peter Field Jr. ("Little Field") operated the mill on the Hardware. The census does not list the
value of Jefferson's real estate (perhaps he chose not to divulge the figure). After Peter F.
Jefferson's death Mount Walla and the ferry passed to his grandson, Peter Valentine Foland
(1845-1915). In the 1870 census Foland listed himself as a "ferryman" and owner of $8,000 in
real estate, which from other sources is known to. have included a brick store in ScottsviHe.
' Alhemarle County Deed Book 35, p. 59; Alhemarle County tax records; and Stevens,
Virginia House Tour, 88.
s Alhemarle County Deed Book 27, p. 74, Deed Book 28, 202, Deed Book 55, p. 81, Will
Book 26, p. 245; Moore, Scottsville on the James, 65-66, 72; Lay, Architecture of Jefferson
Country, 214; and WPA, "Jefferson Mills."
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National RegiSter of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Sectionnumber 8 page
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
Living with him at Mount Walla were his wife Elizabeth (Betty) Clarke (1845-1921), two infant
children, and a merchant named J. W. SWaton. According to tradition, a schoolhouse stood in
the yard at Mount Walla after the Civil War, perhaps-for use by the Foland children who would
have been school-aged during the 1870s and 1880s. The Folands are said to have named Mount
Walla from a supposed Indian word mea__ning "high point overlooking a fertile valley."6
Mount Walla remained in the hands of the Foland family and their descendants until 1951.
Pictorial sources from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries show a surprising regularity
to the house and its surroundings through the years. The earliest source, an oil on board painting
that probably dates to the mid-nineteenth century, shows the hall-parlor core of the house on an
open hill top surrounded by a few shade trees, with a weatherboarded kitchen off its west gable
end and a smaller building, probably the smokehouse, standing in its present location. A
springhouse, now gone, may be represented downhill. The house and kitchen were virtually
unchanged in 1907 when they appeared in the distance in a photograph commemorating the last
crossing of the town ferry, except that the cornice, shutters, and south porch were painted a
darker color than the body of the house. At that .time a walkway extended downhill to a board
fence that defined the southern boundary of the property., and a wood post and wire fence led
uphill to the east of the house.7
The most detailed photograph from the period was taken as a pan of the Works Progress
Administration documentation of the house in 1937. The hall-parlor core remained unelaborated.
Concrete steps rose to the south porch and wood steps descended from the west gable-end
entrance towards the kitchen, which was outside the. range of view (or already torn down). A tar-
paper chickenhouse stood off the northwest corner, and beds of daffodils led in a double row
downhill from the house along the course of the walkway that shows in earlier views. The WPA
6 Moore, Scottgrille on the James, 97, 100; Wootton, "Mount Walla,' 2; and Friedman,
~High Point Views Valley.' In the mid-twentieth century a variant of the name--~Mount
Wallows--gained currency. As one writer explained: 'The unlovely label is said to be a facetious
play by Peter Field Jefferson.. . respecting his literally wallowing in the filthy lucre produced
by the Jefferson enterprises~ (Stevens, Virginia House Tour, 88). According to one tradition, the
smokehouse served as the Foland's schoolhouse (James P. Hogan personal communication).
7 Wootton, ~Mount Walla,~ 2; Martin, 'Mount Walla,' 60.1-O2; Moore, Scottsville on the
James, plate 32; and ca. 1910 photograph of Scottsville in private collection.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8.. Page 11
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
write up on Mount Walla, which is largely erroneous, suggests a date of "prior to 1800" for the
house. s
In 1951, Peter and Elizabeth Foland's daughter Harriet (Hattie) Foland Moulton (1869-1955) and
other heirs sold Mount Walla and seventy acres to John A. Christoffel, and a year later
Christoffel sold the property to William H. and Brady F. Brown. The Browns are known to have
made some modifications to the house, hiring Tom Hale to install indoor plumbing and the stair
to the basement. In 1960 the Browns sold a reduced tract of approximately thirteen acres to
Henry C. Lowry. With the Browns and with Lowry, who was curator at Shadwell (Thomas
Jefferson's reconstructed birthplace), Mount Walla entered its present phase as a cherished
historic home. Either the Browns or Lowry made the first additions in the I950s or early 1960s:
small hip-roofed wings on the two gable' ends of the house, the east appendage thought to have
been constructed out of materials from a building that formerly stood in the Free Union area.9
In 1966 antiques 'dealer Mildred C. Brown acquired Mount Walla and made additional
improvements to the property. She hired a Philadelphia architect to design a guest cottage, which
was constructed in 1970 with timbers and floor boards from a demolished Richmond warehouse.
According to a 1978 newspaper article, Brown also added Williamsburg paint colors to the
interior of the main house, rehabilitated the smokehouse, added Colonial Revival brick walls and
walkways, and "recultivated" the flower and boxwood gardens. Also during Brown's tenure, in
1974, the house was documented by the Historic American Buildings Survey. Mrs. Brown is
remembered for her hospit_a_lity to students in the architectural history curriculum at the
University of Virginia and many others with whom she shared her home and its beautiful view
of the' James RiverJ°
After Mildred Brown's death in 1984 a pan of her extensive collection of antiques, including the
nineteenth-century 'painting of the house, was donated to the Daughters of the American.
s WPA photograph at the Library of Virginia, Richmond.
9 Wootton, Mount Walla;' Stevens, Virginia House Tour, 88; and James P. Hogan person~
communication.
~o Wootton, "Mount 'w alla;" Friedman, "High point views valley;" and James P. Hogan,
Fletcher J. Wright III, and Jack Zehmer personal communications.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number. 8 .... page 12 .
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
Revolution and curated at the DAR's Washington headquarters. Later in the 1980s Charlottesville
architect Henry I. Browne .designed a bedroom wing that was added to the east end of the house.
The present owner, James P. Hogan, acquired the property in 1996, tapped Browne again to
design a garden room addition built on the east end of the 1980s bedroom wing. Hogan. made
other enhancements to the property including burying power lines and clearing and landscaping
a five-acre area around the house. Today Mount Walla ranks among Scottsville's more gracious
historic homes."
Architectural Analysis
Although ca. 1770 is typically given as the date of Mount Walla, no architectural or documentary
evidence has been uncovered to support such an early date. AH visible exterior and interior
features and finishes are Federal Style in inspiration (with some Greek Revival influence) or are
consistent with architectural practice during. the first half of the nineteenth century. The Federal
decorative features may represent a thorough remodeling of an earlier house, but cryptic details
such as the cut nail.~ used to attach the floor boards in the presumably undisturbed attic spaces
under the eaves (where earlier features such as hand-wrought nails would be expected to survive
if the house was eighteenth century) suggest otherwise. Documentary evidence for the house
tends to support a nineteenth-century date of construction, as discussed above in the historic
context section.
Assuming a nineteenth-century date of construction, two scenarios seem most plausible:
construction of the house by Richard Moon in the 1820s or by Peter Field Jefferson about 1840.
Moon purchased the Mount Walla property in 1821 and is known to have lived somewhere on
his 77.25-acre tract by 1828, presumably at the prime Mount Walla site overlooking the town
and the location of Moon's many activities there. In the Jefferson scenario, Moon would.have
lived in an earlier and no longer extant dwelling on the property, and Jefferson would have built
Mount Walla from scratch about 1840, when tax records register a significant increase in the
value of buildings on the property. Historians of the house beginning with Henry C. Lowry have
assumed that Jefferson remodeled the house in the Federal style. A 1964 newspaper article
reported: "It was Peter Jefferson who hired an itinerant woodcarver to produce the fine mantels
and moldings." The Federal style is often thought to have passed out of favor in the 1820s, but
as Albemarle County architectural historian K. Edward Lay notes, the popularity of the Federal
Martin, "Mount Walla," 532-533, 602; James P. Hogan personal communication.
United States Delmartment of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number. 8 page 13
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Statement of Significance (continued)
style extended beyond 1820 "by a decade or more" in rural areas such as Albemarle County. The
presence of symmetrical moldings in the exterior and interior door surrounds indicate a Greek
Revival influence and suggest that the home's finishes date towards the end of the ca. 1820-ca.
1840 perled.'~
Richard Moon was. a well-to-do merchant, and Peter F. Jefferson was probably one of the
county's wealthiest individuals in the late antebeHum period. It seems odd that either of them
would have built a residence as small as Mount Walla, but wealth did not always translate into
architectural grandeur in traditional Virginia. Moon's neighbor and kin.~m~n Littleberry Moon
also began small, with a one-story brick hall-parlor house that later owners expanded. Another
factor may have been Mount Walla's proximity to Scottsville, which in the 1820s was a newly
established town with uncertain prospects. The builder of a large house in or adjacent to a town
that failed would likely have been unable to recoup his investment. What Mount Walla lacked
in size it compensated for with the refinement of its Federal styling.~
'~ Lay, Architecture of Jefferson. Country, 107-109. It is also plausible that Jefferson
remodeled a slightly earlier dwelling--perhaps a plainly finished spec house--built by Moon.
Litfie is known about the kitchen that stood at Mount Walla into the early twentieth century, but
it is not inconceivable that this building represented an earlier dwelling on the property; older
houses were often retired to serve as kitchens or in other support capacities when newer houses
were built.
~' Ibid., 124.
(S-~e~)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register-of Historic Haces
Continuation Sheet
Mount Walla
Section number 9... page 14 Albemarle Co., Va.
BIBHOGRAPHY
Albemarle County deed, tax, and will records. Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Historical Society. Collections. Charlottesville.
Friedman, Dan. "High point views valley." The. Daily Progress (Charlottesville), February 2, t978.
Gilmer., Jeremy Francis. "Map of Albemarle." 1864.
"Glendower tour will offer estates not previously open to the public." Richmond 7~mes-Dispatch, · April 22, 1964.
Hogan, James P. Personal communication with author, April and June 2000.
Lay, K. Edward. The Architecture of Jefferson Country: Charlottesvale and Aibemarle County,
Virginia. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 2000.
Martin, Jean. "Mount Walla." DAR Magazine (October 1984): 532-533 and 602.
Moon, Anna Mary, comp. "Sketches of the Moon and Barclay Families." 1939.
Moore, John H~mmond. Albemarle, Jefferson's County, 1727-1976. Charlottesville: Albemarle
County Historical Society, 1976.
Moore, Virginia. Scottsville on the James: An Informal History. Charlottesville: The Jannan'
Press, 1969..
Peyton, G. "A Map of Albemarle County, Virginia." 1875.
Small, Sandra J. Personal communication with author, June 2000.
Small, Timothy M. Personal communication with author, June 2000.
Stevens, William T. Virginia House Tour. Charlottesville: Stevenpost, ca. 1965.
Stevens & ComInmy. "Mount Walla." Real estate brochure, ca. 1995.
NPS Verm lo,~s ~ ~ No.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9.. page
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Major Bibliographical References (continued)
Taylor, Thomas Ulvan. "The Moons of Albemarle County." Richmond ~mes-Democrat,
February 6, 1916.
United StateS Census. Albemarle County flee population schedules for 1850 and 1870 and slave
population schedules for 1850. Microfilm at Roanoke Public Library, Roanoke, Va.
Woods, Edgar. Albemarle County in Virginia. Bridgewater, Va.: C. I. Carrier Company, 1900.
Wootton, James E. "Mount Walla: SCottsviHe, Virginia." Paper for Colonial American
Architecture course, University of Virginia_, 1979.
Works Progress Administration (WPA). "Mount Walla." 1937. Original notes at the Albemarle
County Historical Society (R. E. Halmum probable researcher).
Wright, Fletcher J. HI. Personal communication with author, June 2000.
Zehmer, lack. Personal communication with author, June 2000.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 10 page 16
Mount Walla
Albemarle Co., Va.
Verbal Boundary Description
The nominated parcel corresponds to Albemarle County tax parcel number 13100-00-00-080A0.
Boundary Justification
The boundaries of the nominated parcel correspond to the present property lines for the parcel
on which Mount Walla, the smokehouse, and other resources stand.
!
"85 I
41~4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
COUNTY OF ALP, EMAR[.E
~,~,,...~ AUg
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
MEMORAND UM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
P,E:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr,, County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
August 10, 2000
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 1999Annual Report
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at their meeting on August 8, 2000, unanimously
approved its 1999 Annual Report. Attached please find a copy of this report.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcf
ATTACHMENT
1999 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that local Planning Commissions shall make recommendations
and an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the
status of planning within the jurisdiction. This report is a brief summary of what the Albemarle
County Planning Commission accomplished during 1999 and some of the issues which are being
addressed during 2000.
II. PERSONNEL
The Commission is composed of seven members, one member from each of the six
magisterial districts, and one member "at large." The Commission members during 1999 were:
COMMISSIONER
Hilda R. Lee-Washington
William W. Finley, Chairman
Dennis Rooker
William J. Nitchmann
Willliam D. Rieley
Rodney S. Thomas
Jared Loewenstein
DISTRICT
Rivanna
White Hall
Jack Jouett
Scottsville
Samuel Miller
Rio
At-Large
CURRENT TERM
2/7/96 - 12/31/99
1/3/96 - 12/31/99
1/7/98-12/31/01
12/13/95 - 12/31/99
1/7/98 -12/31/01
8/19/98-12/31/01
2/7/96 - 12/31/99
III. EXPENSES
The Commission does not have a separate budget. Expenses for commission members
were a total of $24,600.00, all of which was spent on commissioner salaries.
IV. ' REGULAR ITEMS
The Planning Commission held 40 regular meetings in 1999 primarily to review
development proposals. A total of 183 items were reviewed
, Major zoning/special use permit reviews included:
ZMA-99-02 Value America - Request to rezone 12 acres from RA, Rural Areas to
LI, Light Industry to allow a 100,000 square foot office building. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
ZMA-99-03 Value America - Request to rezone 15 acres from RA, Rural Areas to
LI, Light Industry to allow a 100,000 sq. R. office building. PLANNING
COMMISSION. RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
ZMA-99-06 Mill Creek Industrial - Request to rezone 6.06 acres from PLrD
Planned Unit Development to R-1 Residential to allow construction of a juvenile
detention facility. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ZMA-99-07 Victoria Burton - Request to rezone 23.62 acres from RA, Rural Areas
to R-4, Residential to allow residential development. PLANNING COMMISSION
RE COMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
ZMA 99-09 Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge - Petition by Westminster
Canterbury to amend the existing Planned District (ZMA 97-03) to allow for
additional independent professional office buildings along the frontage of Route 250
East. The site is on a 7.65 acre portion of Westminster Canterbury zoned PRD,
Planned Residential Development, and EC, Entrance Corridor. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
SP-99-44 Riverbend Garden Apartments - Request for a special use permit to
allow approximately 130 rental apartments, club house, pool and associated parking
in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses
permitted in the R-15, Residential, district in compliance with regulations set forth
therein. PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
SP-99-54 Covenant Upper School - Request for special use permit to allow private
school (upper school campus) in accordance with Section 14.2.2 (5) of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for private school. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
SP-99-66 Monticello High School - Request for special use permit to allow
temporary leasing for office usage in accordance with Section [ 18.2.2.11] of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for professional offices. PEANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
· Zoning text amendments addressed the following issues:
ZTA-98-08 Fees - Proposal to amend Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish
fees for wireless service facilities. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
APPR 0 F'AL.
ZTA-98-09 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Proposal to amend
Section 29, Planned Development Industrial Park PD:IP of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow, as a part of the planned development process, the modification, variation or
waiver of Section 26.0 Industrial Districts - General and Section 29.0 PD-IP.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
ZTA-99-01: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend section 35.0 Fees of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate all
application, inspection and other fees for any project owned by Albemarle County or
the Albemarle County Public School System. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
· Subdivision Text Amendments addressed the following issues:
STA-99-01 -Amend Section 14-203 Fees of the Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate all
application, inspection and other fees for any project owned by Albemarle County or
the Albemarle County Public School System. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
An important procedural measure implemented in March, 1988 was the Consent Agenda.
In 1999, the Planning Commissions use of the Consent Agenda resulted in agenda timesavings of
about 6 hours or the equivalent of about 3 meetings.
The Commission also took action on other proposals outside of the development review
area. These included:
· AgriculturaFForestal Districts -
Review:
South Garden AgriculturaFForestal District - 1,265.13 acres. Recommended approval--
August 17, 1999.
Nortonsville Local AgriculturaFForestal District - 9.2.575 acres. Recommended
approval--August 17, 1999
- Chalk Mountain AgriculturaFForestal District
approval--August 24, 1999.
- 1,238.145 acres.
Recommended
- Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District - 4,871.97 acres. Recommended approval--
August 24, 1999.
Additions:
- Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District - 7.12 acres. Recommended approval--
January 5, 1999.
- Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - 42.0 acres. Recommended approval--
January5, 1999.
- Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - 39.71 acres. Recommended approval--January
5,' 1999.
- Yellow Mountain AgriculturalfForestal District - 43.770 acres. Recommended
approval-- April 6, 1999.
- Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - 110.442 acres. Recommended
approval-- April 6, 1999.
Carter's Bridge AgriculturaFForestal District- 117.69 acres. Recommended
approval-- April 6, 1999
Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - 13.5 acres.' Recommended approval--
August 17, 1999.
Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - 154.638 acres. Recommended approval-- August
24, 1999.
Withdrawal.'
- Yellow Mountain AgriculturaFForestal District - 84.003 acres. Recommended
approval--April 6, 1999.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan (15.2-2232 Reviews):
Foster Central Sewage and Well System at former Cooper Industries Site in
Earlysville - The site is located on the east side of Route 660, approximately one mile
south of the intersection of Route 660 and Route 743. PLANNING COMMISSION
FOUND COMPLIANCE.
4
Highlands Subdivision - Crozet - Water service and public road.
COMMISSION FOUND COMPLIANCE.
PLANNING
SDP 99-101 White Hall Post Office Preliminary Site Plan_-Request for preliminary
site plan approval for a building to be used as a U.S. Post Office, consisting of 784 sq. It.
on 1.385 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND
COMPLIANCE.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhoods 4
and 5 to change the designation of land located in the east side of 5th Street north of and
adjacent to 1-64 from Industrial Service to Regional Service. PLANNiNG COMMISSION
RE COMMENDED APPR 0 VAL.
CPA-98-04 Chapter Two, The Natural Environment - An Amendment to Chapter
Two of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, "The Natural Environment," as part
of the state-mandated 5-year review, to revise the language of the chapter as it currently
exists in the 1989 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. PLANNiNG COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
v. XCT ON SUMMARY
The number of actions considered by the Commission during 1999 and in each of the
previous four years is shown by category in the following table. Consent agenda items are
listed separately.
ACTION CONSIDERED
Comprehensive Plan Amendments/5 Year
Review (includes worksessions)
Zoning Text Amendments
Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Compliance Reviews
Zoning Map Amendments
Special Use Pe~rmits
Preliminary Site Plans
Final Site Plans
Preliminary Plats
Final Plats
Site Plan Extensions
Site Plan Amendments
Final Plat Extensions
Subdivision Waiver
Agricultural/Forestal Districts
1999 ] 1998 1997 5 1996 [ 1995
10 2 1 1 4
6 8
1 2
1 3
12 26
66 74
5 9
1 1
5 12
1 3
0 0
1 6
0 0
1 2
13 8
Consent Agenda Items (Separate from Action Considered Above )
Preliminary Site Plans
Final Site Plans
Site Plan Waivers
Preliminary Plats
Final Plats
Agricultural/Forestal Districts
(Referral of application)
Planning Commission Annual Report
6 0
1 0
20 23
4 3
1 0
13 5
1 [ 1
2 2 7
0 0 1
2 0 1
15 34 32
57 52 48
8 6 3
5 2 2
5 12 6
3 5 0
0 0 0
3 3 3
0 0 0
2 1 0
4 3 8
2 2 4
8 9 9
8 5 2
4 0 3
0 4 3
3' 0 6
1 1 [ 1
~ VI..OTHER PLANNING ACTIVITIES
The Commission discussed a number of immediate and long-range planning issues in 1999.
Ten work sessions, typically of 1.5 - 2 hours' duration, were held in addition to regular items to
address the following:
· Wireless Telecommunication Policy
· CPA-98-03 Post Office Land Trust
· Rural Areas Policy
· Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS)
· Capital Improvements Program
· Joint Worksession with Greene County
Planning Commission members also served on the following committees:
Bill Nitchmann:
CIP Technical Committee
William Finley:
Communication Tower Task Force
Purchase of Development Rights Committee
Jared Loewenstein:
Court Facilities Study Committee
Historic Preservation Committee
Hilda Lee-Washington:
Bypass Design Committee
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee
Dennis Rooker:
Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee
Fiscal Impact Committee
Court Facilities Study Committee
Will Rieley:
Design Standards Handbook Committee
Rodhey Thomas:
Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS)
City/County/University Planning & Coordination Council (PACC Tech)
Eastern Planning Initiative Advisory Committee
VII. PLANNING ACTIVITIES FOR 2000:
These activities are over and above the normal case workload and annual projects:
,Review and action on the Development Areas Initiative Study recommendations.
,Review and action on the Historic Preservation Plan.
, Review and action on the Wireless Policy.
, Review and action on the Rural Areas Policy as part of the Comprehensive plan review.
C:UANICEXPC Info\1999 pc anual report.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Reading List for September 6, 2~
September I, 2000
March I, 2000
April 12, 2000
April 18, 2000 (A)
June 7, 2000
july s, 2o00
July 12, 2000
August 9, 2000
Pages I - 17 (end Item I O) - Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
pages 1-34 (end Item 7.2 I) - Mr. Perkins
pages 34 (beginning Item 8) - end - Ms. Humphris
pages 1-22 (end Item 7. 18) - Mr. Bowerman
pages 22 (beginning Item 8) - end - Mr. Martin
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Dorrier
/ewc
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsa~ G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
COUNTY OF Ai RElvlARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel M~hr
September 11, 2000
Mr. Bill Mills
Acting Resident Engineer
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear M. Mills:
At its meeting on September 6, 2000, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions and
comments regarding transportation matters:
. Adopt a resolution to accept Graemont Lane in Graemont SubdMsion, into the State Secondary
System (resolution will be forwarded to VdoT from the County Engineering Department).
· VdoT's three-dimensional model of the County's portion of Meadow Creek will be located in Room
214, at the County Office Building for about two weeks, to allow people to come and look at, and
then returned to the VdoT office located on Route 250. In addition, the Board approved
proceeding with Scope of Work #2 (with staff to negotiate a reduction in the number of
presentations and workshops) for a consultant to provide assistance in the analysis of the design
and alignment of the County's section of the proposed Parkway.
· Mr. Perkins asked VdoT to look at bringing Corville Farms into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
Mr. Dorrier asked for up-to-date traffic counts on the intersection of Monticello High School and
Route 20 South.
· Ms. Thomas said there will be a meeting of the Morgantom Road residents on Friday, September
8~h'
· Mr. Bowerman complimented the Culpeper District residency for its public process on the segment
of the Meadow Creek Parkway called the Free State Road to Rio Road connector. He and members
of Fairview were involved in their preliminary meeting at the residency.
· Mr. Bowerman thanked Ms. Tucker and VdoT for the new Richmond exit sign located off of the
Route 250 bypass, near Bellair. It is a great improvement.
· Ms. Humphris said the Board will miss Ms. Tucker, whose last day at VdoT is September 8th.
· Ms. Tucker said Mr. Bill Mills will be the Acting Resident Engineer.
Printed on recycled paper
Mr. Bill Mills
September 1 I, 2000
Page 2.
· Ms. Tucker said the bids for Grassmere Road came in over the engineering estimate. The project
will be readvertised. This delay should not impact the Six Year Road Plan.
· Ms. Tucker introduced Ms. Melissa Barlowe, the newly hired Assistant Resident Engineer for
Construction, who replaces Richard Caywood.
/EWC
Ella ~.fiarey, Clerk, ~
Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Combined Phases II/III)
Draft Study Recommendations Overview
July 10, 2000
The draft study recommendations were developed to:
Reflect the proj ect's purpose and need and guidelines for improvements
n Reflect safety, capacity, and mobility requirements Reflect public input
Reflect local government input
Cover all transportation modes
These draft recommendations are conceptual at this stage for review purposes. The final
recommendations, which will be presented to the public at a final set of meetings, will include
a higher level of detail. All recommendations from this study will require follow-on studies
(location, design, and/or environmental studies, or more detailed feasibility and
implementation studies). Funds have not been identified for implementation of improvements.
Roadway Recommendations:
Freeway from North Carolina to north of Colleen
Upgrade Danville Bypass to 4 lane freeway (15.8 miles)
- Interchange at Elizabeth Street
- Add the other 2 lanes
New alignment freeway from Blairs to Chatham (7.6 miles)
Upgrade Chatham Bypass (3.6 miles)
New alignment freeway from Chatham to Gretna (5.9 miles)
Upgrade Gretna Bypass (4.3 miles)
Existing alignment freeway from Gretua to Hurt (7.3 miles)
Upgrade Hurt/Altavista Bypass (7.4 miles)
New alignment freeway from Aimvista to Route 24 (9.2 miles)
- Connect with South Lynchburg Bypass
Lynchburg/Madison Heights Bypasses (25.3 miles)
Upgrade Amherst Bypass (3.9 miles)
New alignment freeway from Amherst to north of Colleen (11.0 miles)
Parkway from north of Colleen to southem Albemarle County (17.1 miles)
Upgrade from southern Aibemarle County to 1-64 (15.4 miles)
Rail Recommendations
Construct grade separations at Route 24 (Campbell), Route 56 (Nelson)
Straighten track between Elma and Faber
n Encourage industrial use of rail (local zoning, subsidies for construction of rail sidings)
Double-track the entire rail line
Implement TransDominion Rail service
Study long-term relocation of train station to Lynchburg Airport
Provide subsidies to allow for one additional AMTRAK train per day through the corridor
TransitfRide-Share Recommendations
Increase route mileage of fixed-route and para-transit service in urbanized areas
Increase support for ride-share services
Add commuter van service from Amherst and Route 24 into Lynchburg
Add commuter van service from Blairs to Danville
Construct park-and-ride lots at Route 6 North, Lovingston, Amherst, Route 24, and Blairs
Bicycle Recommendations
ca Construct bicycle lanes alongside parkway lanes in Nelson County
ca Allow bicycle travel on multi-modal shoulders in Albemarle County
Pedestrian Recommendations
ca Construct a pedestrian overpass at Lovingston
ca Construct sidewalks and trails in urbanized areas
Other Recommendations
~a Traveler Information and Services
- Virginia Welcome Center
- Comprehensive signing for traveler services, visitor attractions
ca Intelligent Transportation Systems
- Speed control and notification at intersections
- Activated pedestrian and bicycle warning signage
- Internet ride-share systems
- Truck pre-clearance, weigh-in-motion, electronic eredentialing
ca Wayside at proposed Virginia Blue Ridge Railroad Trail
Route 29 Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases II/III
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
July 10, 2000
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Existing Conditions
Existing U.S. Route 29 in Virginia is a four-lane divided highway providing vital linkage to
population and economic centers through central Virginia and beyond. The roadway's variable
geometry reflects its evolutionary development over time based on changing design standards
and differences in the character of land uses and terrain along the corridor. Some sections of the
highway are limited-access bypasses (freeways) around urbanized areas; other sections are like
city streets with many driveways, commercial entrances, and connecting roadways. Route 29
serves multiple transportation functions, including interregional and interstate mobility as well as
local community access. As traffic volumes increase, it becomes more difficult to serve these
multiple and often conflicting functions.
1.2 Purpose and Need
The importance of Route 29 has been recognized in national transportation legislation, which
identified the highway from Greensboro, North Carolina to Washington, DC as a corridor of
national significance and an element of the National Highway System. As such, funding was
provided to conduct studies of how Ronte 29 could best fulfill its role. This study, the Route 29
Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases II and III, examined Route 29 through south
central Virginia between the North Carolina State Line and 1-64 at Charlottesville. During the
course of the studies, and based on analysis of existing conditions, projections for what the future
holds, public input, and guidance from the Steering Committee, nine elements of purpose and
need were identified [the order of the list does not imply a ranking]:
ca Keep people and goods moving smoothly and efficiently within and through the corridor.
Reduce accidents and enhance travel safety.
Expand transportation choices.
ca Expand the market reach of existing and prospective companies in the corridor.
Expand the area from which a skilled labor pool can be drawn.
Help steer growth to desired areas.
Preserve and enhance the attractiveness of the region to tourists and residents.
Provide better traveler information and services.
Ensure that Route 29, as a viable part of the National Highway System, helps the nation
compete in the global economy and move people and goods in an energy-efficient manner.
1.3 Alternatives Development
To meet the identified needs, a comprehensive multimodal approach was taken to identify
alternative improvements. The following guidelines, based generally on input from citizens, the
Technical Committee, and the Steering Committee, were used in developing the alternatives:
1
n Achieve and maintain uninterrupted traffic flow on Route 29
Meet mml principal arterial design standards to ensure safety.
Maintain an acceptable level of traffic service.
Be proactive, rather than reactive, in implementing transportation improvements in the
corridor.
Preserve the natural and scenic assets of the corridor.
Promote and enhance the use of, and interconnections with, other modes of transportation.
Reflect local comprehensive plans.
Alternatives were developed through an itemtive process whereby a number of preliminary
altematives were developed and subjected to a screening process, including public meetings and
several intensive workshops with elected representatives and planning officials from localities
along the corridor. The final set of conceptual altematives included 11 combinations of
improvement types ranging from no-build, to nonhighway-mode improvements, to full freeway.
Based on assessments of the altematives and feedback from the third set of public workshops, the
following improvements are recommended for the Route 29 Corridor from North Carolina to 1-
64 in Charlottesville.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended improvements are comprised of a combination of roadway improvements,
improvements to other transportation modes, and other recommendations consistent with
meeting the identified transportation needs and the guidelines for meeting those needs, as
identified during the study. The map at the end of this recommendations report shows the
locations of the recommended improvements, with numbers that correspond to the following
descriptions.
2.1 Recommended Roadway Improvements
Recommended roadway improvements are described from south to north.
1. North Carolina State Line to Route 726 just north of Blairs (following, Route 29 Bypass):
15.8 miles. From the North Carolina State Line to Route 58 near the Danville Airport, upgrade
the existing four-lane roadway to rural principal arterial freeway standards that are compatible
with Interstate System standards [four 12-foot-wide lanes, paved shoulder 10 feet wide on the
fight, paved shoulder 4 feet wide on the left]. Provide an interchange with Elizabeth Street,
which currently is an at-grade intersection. From Route 58 to Route 726, at the north end of the
Route 29 Bypass just before it rejoins Route 29 Business, widen the existing two-lane Route 29
Bypass to 4 lanes of rural principal arterial freeway.
These improvements utilize an existing limited-access corridor, and thus provide the most
economical means of achieving free-flow at a high level of service, safety, and efficiency. The
proposed freeway design standards are compatible with Interstate System standards. Such
standards would be consistent with local desires and efforts to have this section of Route 29
designated as an Interstate Highway, which would be a continuation of North Carolina's
Interstate-standard section from Greensboro to the Virginia state line. These improvements
2
would enhance mobility between the Danville area and the Piedmont Triad (Greensboro,
Winston Salem, High Point) region of North Carolina, including 1-40 and other Interstate
highways to the south. These improvements could thus enhance certain economic development
prospects for the Danville region. An Interstate designation is perceived by economic
development and elected officials as a marketing tool to help attract industry and commerce to
the region, which has suffered for some time from population declines and limited economic
growth, especially with the ongoing decline of the textile industry, historically a major
employment sector in the region. These recommendations also conform to the Danville Area
Long-Range Transportation Plan (Year 2020) which was adopted by the Danville Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization in May of 1999.
2. Route 726 to Route 29 Business (south of Chatham): 7.6 miles. Construct roadway to rural
principal arterial freeway standards on new alignment. Preliminary analysis suggests that a
location east of existing Route 29 would be most feasible. However, as with all of the
recommended improvements described herein, the specific alignment of the roadway would be
determined through detailed follow-on location and environmental studies. A new interchange is
proposed at Route 863 (an extension of Route 863 eastward from its existing intersection with
Route 29 would be required). The Danville Area Transportation Plan includes proposed
improvements to Route 863 from Route 29 to Route 58, so that it would serve essentially as a
westem bypass of Danvitle. An interchange is also proposed at Route 703, which would provide
access to existing commercial development in the Tight Squeeze area. Interchange upgrades or
modifications would be required at Route 726 (the current northem end of the Danville Bypass)
and at Route 29 Business south of Chatham (south end of Chatham Bypass).
Building the freeway on new location appears preferable in order to avoid disrupting extensive
development along existing Route 29, particularly in the Tight Squeeze area, where strip
shopping centers, gas stations, and fast food outlets have developed. There are currently
approximately 191 access points (about 25 per mile) along this section of Route 29. Also,
portions of the alignment of existing Route 29 through this section are substandard and would
require substantial reconstruction if the existing alignment were used. The proposed locations of
the interchanges would serve existing development areas. The design of the proposed freeway
would be compatible with future designation of the roadway as part of the Interstate System.
3. Chatham Bypass. Route 29 Business south of Chatham to Route 29 Business north of
Chatham: 3.6 miles. Upgrade this existing limited-access roadway to add sufficient paved
shoulders so that it would be compatible with Interstate System standards. Upgrade interchanges
at Route 832, Route 685, and Route 29 Business north of Chatham. These improvements utilize
an existing limited-access corridor, the primary requirements to bring the roadway up to
Interstate standards would be the addition of paved shoulders and ensuring adequate vertical
clearances undemeath the interchange bridges.
4. Route 29 Business north Of Chatham to Route 29 Business south of Gretna: 5.9 miles.
Construct roadway to rural principal arterial freeway standards on new alignment. Preliminary
analysis suggests that a location east of existing Route 29 would be most feasible. However, as
with all of the recommended improvements described herein, the specific alignment of the
roadway would be determined through detailed follow-on location and environmental studies. A
new interchange is proposed at Route 649 roughly midway between Chatham and Gretna.
Upgrade the interchange at Route 29 Business south of Gretna to connect with the existing
Gretna Bypass.
Building the fleeway on new location appears preferable for this section to avoid disrupting
extensive development along existing Route 29. There are currently approximately 131 access
points (about 22 per mile) along this section of Route 29. Also, portions of the alignment of
existing Route 29 through this section are substandard and would require substantial
reconstruction.
5. Gretna Bypass. Route 29 Business south of Gretna to Route 29 Business north of
Gretna: 4.3 miles. Upgrade this existing limited-access roadway to add sufficient paved
shoulders so that it would be compatible with Interstate System standards. Upgrade interchanges
at Route 40 and Route 29 Business north of Gretna. These improvements utilize an existing
limited-access corridor, the primary requirement to bring the roadway up to Interstate standards
would be the addition of paved shoulders.
6. Route 29 Business north of Gretna to Route 29 Business south of Hurt: 7.3 miles.
Construct roadway to rural principal arterial freeway standards on existing alignment.
Preliminary analysis suggests that utilizing the existing alignment for this section would be
feasible for several reasons. The number of existing access points (71, or less than 10 per mile)
is relatively low compared to other sections of Route 29. Development is especially limited
along the east side of Route 29 due to the proximity of the Norfolk Southern Railroad which
closely parallels the road. Development along the west side of the road could be served by a
parallel frontage road. A secondary road (Route 665) that runs within a mile or less west of and
parallel to Route 29 all the way from Gretna to Hurt has the potential to serve as the local road
after Route 29 is upgraded to a freeway with full access control. Most of Route 665 currently
consists of 20 feet of pavement with areas of substandard vertical and horizontal geometry, so
this facility would need to be upgraded to serve this local access function. A new interchange is
proposed at Route 643, roughly midway between Gretna and Hurt. Interchange upgrades and/or
modifications may be required at Route 29 Business south of Hurt.
These recommended improvements maximize use of the existing transportation corridor, taking
advantage of the low development density and the proximity of an existing parallel secondary
road.
7. Hurt-Altavista Bvpass. Route 29 Business south of Hurt to Route 29 Business north of
Altavista: 7.4 miles. Upgrade this existing limited-access roadway to add sufficient paved
shoulders so that it would be compatible with Interstate System standards. Upgrade interchanges
at Routes 924, 43, 714, and Route 29 Business north of Altavista. Since these improvements
utilize an existing limited-access corridor, the primary requirement to bring it up to Interstate
standards would be the addition of paved shoulders.
8. Route 29 Business north of Aliavista to Route 24:9.2 miles. Construct roadway to rural
principal arterial freeway standards on new alignment. Preliminary analysis suggests that a
location west of existing Route 29 would be most feasible. However, as with all of the
4
recommended improvements described herein, the specific alignment of the roadway would be
determined through detailed follow-on location and environmental studies. A new interchange is
proposed in the vicinity of Route 696, roughly midway between Aimvista and Route 24. This
new roadway is intended to tie into the South Lynchburg Bypass. Several alignments of the
South Lynchburg Bypass are currently under consideration and are the subject of an ongoing
location study. The specifics of the roadway and interchange locations at the north end of this
section are dependent on the chosen alignment for the South Lynchburg Bypass.
This section of Route 29 has the largest number (365) and highest density (about 40 per mile) of
access points, which reflects its ongoing evolution to a more urbanized corridor leading into
Lynchburg. Turning the existing alignment into a limited-access highway therefore would be
very disruptive to the existing and proposed development.
9. Lynchburg and Madison Heights Bypasses, Route 24 to Route 29 Business south of
Amherst: 25.3 miles. For this section of the corridor, this study assumes that one of the South
Lynchburg Bypass alignments that is under consideration (extending from the vicinity of Route
24 to Route 460 east of Lynchburg and immediately south of the James River) will be
constructed. In addition, the Madison Heights Bypass, which is under construction and will
extend from Route 460 to Route 29 at Amherst, is assumed to be fully operational by 2020. Both
of these limited-access roadways will be built to rural principal arterial freeway standards. With
the addition of appropriate paved shoulders, these bypasses could be made compatible with
Interstate standards should this section of Route 29 be designated as part of the Interstate System
in the future.
Although the proposed bypasses will provided the desired mobility around the Lynchburg
urbanized area, improvements will nevertheless still be needed along existing Route 29,
particularly to the section between Route 24 and the south corporate limits of Lynchburg. These
improvements are described in separate documentation.
10. Amherst Bypass, Route 29 Business at the northern terminus of the Madison Heights
Bypass to iust north of the Buffalo River: 3.9 miles. Upgrade this existing limited-access
roadway to add sufficient paved shoulders so that it would be compatible with Interstate System
standards. Upgrade interchanges at Route 60 and Route 29 Business north of Amherst. Replace
bridge on northbound lanes over Buffalo River.
11. North of the Buffalo River to Route 653 north of Colleen: 11 miles. Construct roadway
to rural principal arterial freeway standards on new alignment. Preliminary analysis suggests that
a roadway that runs east of existing Route 29 would be most feasible because of the presence of
several significant historic properties along the west side of Route 29 between Route 151 and the
Nelson County Line. This alignment would include a new bridge over the Tye River. New
interchanges are proposed at Routes 151/608, 610, 739, 655, and existing Route 29 at Route 653
north of Colleen.
This section of Route 29 has approximately 179 access points (about 16 per mile). Turning the
existing roadway into a limited-access facility would be highly disruptive to existing business
and residential development. Also, the sensitivity of the historic properties in terms of Section
5
4(f) and Section 106 considerations' renders improvements along the west side of the existing
road problematic. Although a new-location roadway is recommended, care must be taken in
developing the alignment so that other potential historic properties in the vicinity of New
Glasgow, one of the early settlements in Amherst County, are taken into account. In addition, the
terrain in the vicinity of the Tye River, as well as the Tye River Elementary School and other
environmental considerations must be carefully considered in choosing a suitable alignment for
this section of Route 29.
12. Route 653 north of Colleen to Route 632 in southern Albemarle County: 17.1 miles.
Reconstruct existing Route 29 to parkway standards with access limited to interchange locations.
New interchanges are proposed at Route 29 Business south of Lovingston, Route 623, Route 6
West at Woods Mill, and Route 6 East.
Because of the terrain surrounding this section, the existing alignment is virtually the only
feasible location for the roadway without incurring tremendous costs and visual impacts to cut
through mountains. There are approximately 214 access points (about 13 per mile) along the
existing road, which would be served by access roads alongside the proposed parkway or by
other connections to secondary roads. The limited access feature of the proposed parkway will
preclude the proliferation of new driveways that would tend to diminish the mobility function of
the highway. And because alternative routes for a new limited-access highway are not available,
the only suitable alternative that preserves mobility is to convert the existing roadway to limited-
access.
13. Route 632 to 1-64:15.4 miles. Upgrade existing Route 29 to meet rural principal arterial
design standards, providing a full pavement width of 24 feet for two general travel lanes in each
direction, along with inside and outside safety shoulders. An outside 12-foot-wide paved
shoulder would be constructed to serve multiple functions, including bicycle travel, bus pull-off
for school and transit buses, mm lanes, and emergency puil-offs. There are approximately 221
access points (about 14 per mile). The number of driveway access points would be reduced
through access consolidation where possible and stringent access management measures would
be implemented to limit new access directly onto Route 29. All crossovers would be closed
except at intersecting secondary roads. Traffic forecasts show that year 2020 traffic volumes
may warrant traffic signals at Route 692, Route 708, and Route F-178. As part of the upgrade
process, sufficient right-of-way should be purchased to preserve future options for construction
of diamond interchanges at these locations.
As with the preceding section, the terrain surrounding this section of Route 29 severely limits the
options for new roadway alignments. These improvements would utilize the existing highway
corridor and would correct existing geometric deficiencies and localized safety concems by
bringing the roadway up to a consistent rural principal arterial standard throughout the length of
the section. Currently, some sections have lanes less than 12 feet wide, little or no shoulders, and
limited sight distance. Although these improvements would not result in a limited-access
highway, they would provide a more consistent, safe, and more efficient roadway. However,
because access would not be fully controlled, measures would need to be implemented to prevent
the addition of many more access points to roadside properties, which would deteriorate the
desired flee-flow aspects of the highway. Albemarle County officials have expressed their intent
6
to minimize the amount of new development in this part of the County, a goal which is reflected
in the County's Comprehensive Plan and zomng ordinances. The County's recently passed
initiative to fund purchase of development rights may be one tool the County could use to
preclude development directly along Route 29. Another tool, already used to some extent on this
portion of the corridor, is the designation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts, a designation that
restricts the Iandowner's development options in exchange for reduced property taxation. The
rough terrain along much of this section also will help limit the spread of additional roadside
development. Finally, VDOT should consider, if possible, its access approval process and
guidelines for any new access applications along this section of Route 29.
2.2 Recommended Improvements To Other Modes
Rail Improvements: There are few impediments to fast, uninterrupted train travel in the
corridor. The urbanized areas of Danville, Lynchburg, and Charlottesville are the only locations
where reduced train speeds occur. There are also no apparent high-hazard at-Fade highway/rail
crossings. Accident data at rail crossings reveals no locations that are particularly susceptible to
crashes and most of the crossings are on relatively low-volume secondary roads. There are only
two grade crossings of the railroad on primary routes within the Route 29 corridor. These occur
at Route 24 in Campbell County (#14 on the map) and Route 56 (#15 on the map) in Nelson
County. This study recommends implementing grade-separations at these two locations. This
study also recommends consideration of straightening several minor sections of curved track
between Elma and Faber (#16 on the map) to assist in increased train speeds.
Rail already accounts for a high percentage of the total freight tonnage passing through the
corridor. However, a state rail official has noted that most of this freight has remote origins and
destinations (i.e., beyond the study corridor) and very little local freight is carried by rail. This
likely is due to the relatively higher levels of speed, convenience, and flexibility and lower costs
offered by trucks in comparison to rail for local shipments. This study recommends that VDOT
and VDRPT encourage local governments to provide zoning for industrial uses for land that is
served by rail and encourage businesses to ship raw materials and finished goods by rail through
such measures as subsidies for constructing rail sidings.
This study recommends the long-term action of moving the Lynchburg train station to the
Lynchburg airport (#17 on the map). This would allow for increased ease in intermodal travel in
the Lynchburg region and allow the train service to take advantage of the good highway access to
the airport (this access will be substantially improved once the Route 460 interchange in south
Lynchburg is complete). This recommendation was also included as part of the Bristol-to-
Washington, DC rail study.
Existing passenger train service in the corridor is limited to a single train per day at inconvenient
hours. Even with the inconvenient service hours, however, the AMTRAK train that serves the
corridor is sometimes full or very close to it. This study recommends that VDOT and VDRPT
coordinate with AMTRAK to study the feasibility of adding one additional passenger train per
day from Danville to Washington, DC and provide a subsidy for this service should it prove to be
viable.
Transit and Ride-Share Improvements: To provide meaningfi~ alternatives to travel in single
occupant vehicles in the corridor, this study recommends that continual attention be paid to
increasing the route-mileage of existing fixed route and para-transit services in Danville,
Lynchburg, and Charlottesville. Within the study corridor, the most viable service to the
Charlottesville area (based on the low densities in southern Albemarle and Nelson Counties)
would be increased para-transit service. Within the Lynchburg region, opportunities exist to
increase transit service to major new retail areas both south and west of the City. The potential
for providing transit service to new employment opportunities north of Danville should also be
studied.
Encouraging ride-share in the Route 29 Corridor is also recommended by this study. In addition
to continued support for ride matching services in the corridor, this study also recommends
additional study of the following (#18 on map):
Add commuter van service from Amherst and Route 24 (Campbell County) to Lynchburg.
Add commuter van service from Blairs to Danville.
Build park-and-ride facilities at Lovingston, Amherst, Route 24, and Blairs.
Bicycle Improvements: As part of the altematives development process, this study assessed the
costs and planning-level impacts of providing bicycle facilities over the full length of the
corridor. The cost for providing facilities over the entire corridor are relatively high [these costs
are currently being reviewed]. Based on the cost of these facilities, and differing local desires for
bicycle facilities on or immediately adjacent to Route 29, this study recommends that bicycle
facilities be provided in the following areas:
ca From Route 653 in Nelson County to Route 632 in Albemarle County, bicycle lanes will be
provided adjacent to the travel lanes of the parkway, but separated by a rumble strip.
Providing for bicycle travel immediately alongside a limited-access highway may require a
change or exception to current VDOT policy on bicycle lanes on such highways.
ca In Albemarle County from Route 632 to 1-64, bicycle travel would be provided for on the 12-
foot paved multimodal shoulders.
Pedestrian Improvements: Pedestrian travel is best suited to trips of short distance and time
and those that have the most flexibility in terms of when they can be made. Pedestrian
improvements are, therefore, most cost-effective in areas of relatively high densities of housing,
retail, and, to a lesser degree, employment. Based on local government and public input, this
study makes the following recommendations for pedestrian travel in the corridor:
Build a pedestrian overpass at Lovingston (#19) - this would connect residential areas on the
west side of Route 29 to the Town of Lovingston's retail and service areas. Sidewalk or
pedestrian trail connections should also be provided from these residential areas to the new
retail area associated with the Food Lion grocery store.
ca Contim, ally identify locations within the urbanized areas of Lynchburg and Danville where
pedestrian access can be safely accommodated and encouraged through the construction of
8
sidewalks. Within these urbanized areas, the roadway environment should be developed with
pedestrian (and bicycle) amenities so that travel by these modes is not discouraged.
2.3 Other Recommendations
Traveler Information and Services: Construct a Virginia Welcome Center in the Danville area
(#20) with easy access to and from Route 29. The welcome center should feature tourist
attractions in the Route 29 corridor, including historic sites, wineries, recreational opportunities,
or other areas of interest. The welcome center could perhaps double as a regional marketing
center for the chambers of commerce in the corridor.
Provide comprehensive signing for traveler services, historic attractions, and other locations of
traveler interest throughout the corridor.
Intelligent Transportation Systems: The most cost-effective Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) applications for the corridor relate to traveler information, whether through
roadway signing; or transit and rideshare information that is made available through signage or
telephone, television, or the Interact. ITS applications that are recommended for further study
are:
Speed control and notification system at isolated rural intersections
Pedestrian and bicycle warning signage activated only when pedestrians and bicyclists are
present
ca Internet ride-share match systems
ca Truck pre-clearance systems, including weigh-in-motion and electronic credential checking
Enhancements: In conjunction with the proposed interchange at Route 739 in Nelson County at
the Tye River, provide a wayside that will complement the Virginia Blue Ridge Railroad Trail
(#21 ) being developed by others along the abandoned railroad bed along the Tye River.
3. FURTHER ACTIVITIES
Further refinements of these recommendations are ongoing. These activities include:
Checking and refining cost estimates for individual segments of the corridor.
Further development of improvement recommendations for what will become Route 29
Business in Madison Heights and in Campbell County north of Route 24.
ca Identification of some additional improvement specifics including the potential location of
service roads and the location and termini of bicycle facilities.
f'i" :...":"...:...:.. ...........:...,.....
:,., ?~' ~ ":'::.';=" ,:,;.,::x'..T:. '. ~:'~:'E ' :s . .2. ... ;' ':L".''
c( .. "': ' "%.:, ' '?';t ;~"" ".. "' :'~ ;"4 :: 05.."
.. "=, .: :;y... ,~=.,, ::,~,. c; ~" ,:~..,
. . ,'..
t. ,.,.~%~;47.~C.."*' ' "" ~f'~"~'
'~ YZ., ,~:..~
. ..':"" ... ,..::' ;a t:"..,iS~.,...:2;~.;. ~.~
%2) "' ..... " ..... '5 ;.:... EK'~:''. ~.,'",~2'"'
. ,..2.,...,
..... ..
',... ,' ./ , .,, ....., , ,. ,~;~
.. ....
. ..; ': .' .'Z""" ~ . ;',~z'Y ""' :'' ':'~ 27'
'~' ~ .- ' .....'d;~~ ':' .:"" "'
~:. 72~F . .:.""Y .....;~:'::"" :' ....': ;' . .,
. ,..:y."" . ..... /~ ~:" .., .:...
,..;:~:¢:'.' '.~,:'H.'. ',U...v .,;;:.' "'~¢ .: ,'
..,..... ,, .~.: ..,,., .,.,. ,.... ,, ,,,..,: , . ..
, 'Sc¢~;.d "' ........,""'t-'.'. ' ... '~];"'
~: ~.. "':" . ~ ' ' ,':.,.{,.' ,.. ,5"' .:
2.~ . ' . ,,
' "' '' ; ' ' ". i."k"
. 7.. .. .:'. '::. ,~,,, .. ~"~ .... :.:~; .(..:'..~.
.:~ .. ,'.. ~': ~..,"~' .:..'.
.
.,.,.
.:, .':.,...,'7.'.:"' .YlK~tisoa'
. ,,. Heights
., . . ' i,,.. .. ";::',:i
i,.. 7 ~:'~ ,.'.: ';,.,', :t.,,. '.i .~ F!i ..,4".',...b':~!.,~,
...... · /
~i';2~,~" '..~" , ," '%'"
..... , ,..~ ~ . . ~ ',', ..
....
.... :?. /....:: ' ....: ':,".V,';;%ih',:.
' .'c.'. "~:""~ ".' ': ....~L':..; '...f..%..'
"'"""""' i.~ '~2 ~!"" ,... ,, .o.~:%
..... ,..~ .:, .,,-,,~.,.' &',.'c.,";""'::;:':
~.. ,:' '. 7 ::' .':;~!i,!;;,;".",::",:; k Bt, I ...
.: ':...;.;/..,~., '., ,,..4 %
· ~. .... ,
· . ;:,. ':,,~
:'~ ~.., ..... ~.';":";~;::"' 3
:...' 2' .; .......~ ......' ''~'" '
B ass
% ~!---~!~.! :~' ~}':'t' '- '".! . :' ..:" ."."":.:...., .;:..,: "' :':", "'~' ',:," !
:.% :.,%. .!: ~ '~:~=...,.~.: ...~......':':.. /-' . ..,.:,...~ .......' ., .,, :.,.,. :..; "....
t.'.';~.~:~ ~ ~ ":'.' "'%,,,'E~:;. ,.::~,~;~;,~'.;';:~,~,s. '.,"'
..... P'Ux~on :.:]:' :~;%F':z:'~:-kr:';:':''' ::' ':.'"'
Z .... RoadWay and inte~eCtion ,,'
:~v~l~s ~'.,.,~. ~" '. Ioc~ions near Route 2~',
;-.~.t',2,%%~2bt'rg '.
.... 't~L~2Z;, ,_, s': .' ~12-~ 'chOs~n location 'fdr ~
,"--2--.~ .,~q "b ~ '~ ~, ,
y" "' ;~ ...: .,...,-'~I
. .. ', :' .:: %..: ',',/.
~ ;~f~ d '. f'~ . """'
' "" , ~ Mo~.i,.l~q: ~; .....
;' '-. ,~' .~?~;',', Route 643
i'.. ' '~ .' ' ,,: . '.,?
i..h"'.~/,.", . .
....... ., "' "F~,-:~-,u~ ,:~ ......' ~ ~ou~ 2~'.'B~ie~
.: .-.:: ...........:;.~,, .:... ,'
:,:.
{'~ Route ~9
.... $
Route
...Goodyiiar B!vd.
. ,. . "' ... Route
'~,L .......' 'Eii~altlth/~treet.
' C'Y%'.:: ,.."~',::;;':. ' ....~
5 ~:, c, u~: ::"". / ' ' . "".;...'!:' ":"'. ,:
~ '.' S,,,5;ir q~ :,~,',.!~.t:.'..','.~r~.~'~:.'::~='.' F'rcsO¢c': .' '. "'.." .' "" v.b";',""
.~ , ;"~:'. '::, " .-~"~'(";~ t ., .~:.c'.,=.;;i~.'~r-";2E~!.-.:'i.';.~,.%x..:'2:T , ',;
., ! ~ ,..'..: ......,. ,, ;. '~,t.".,.,¢,,, ': ...;~:=,.'.,': ..........F,: .' ....':'~ '~ ....,v,'.
j '/:, ~ ........ ' ' 5"' '.':.'. ., . ":'..../:,'f , . ....:7:.' '... -,,L:~.. ,:
,',..~"..'' :'..,' ': ...:..', '. ,." .' '.,..."..'::,'%... ......"......;"!..;:.,.': ....,,i,,...','.;' "' ...'
~"" ;' = .',:%'~.:' '.."" ,'' ' ' ' '.' .......:~.Z""",'=,v': 7;'/..' '.;' q'..i':...:,.'.... :"..:"..Z ?"
.... "'~ ~'"3~amtio~.".. ~ ~' '~ .":'Z ".:"'.. ~".'-',"':',':"':':~:i:~:L...'.." ..,' .;,,.,'.:";?'"":":-"::"'
~ ,' .!",...,:'.",,. i "'""" .' ,"'i..:.:.':':~,;:"!.., .,.:!.u:. ., ?: ~L.'.i~ ''='':' :" '/..4-:'..,"' i/:' ~ ........
'-..--, ........; _.. """" ":' . , ,,"7.-,-
......... :~~"'' ' Green
; Phenix % Ahadotte
!sland'
..... . '% " :' .:~ . ./" ' k "~',," ;" ~ : , ~ .. ,,..: .,~,,~...,.::; · ........ ~
· /, .... !' .;..' , . .... .,,,~ ~,;," ~,.,. ' ,... ....;
, . .... ...%~ ' ,,.: .....
t - ........,,.., ;~kr,p,¢"K z '. "'}...,· :' .' ,.:--""......"""""" """, ' ..........' :: .......
......... ~\"~'2-- ~ = Upgrade to 4 Lane Freeway on Existing Alignment
:~ ~,}~ Legend:
....:....:~. ' %, ' . 4
.... :...'.. ,:i,.%~,,.': ......emeeeee. = Upgrade to 4 Lane Freeway on New Alignment*
~ ' ' ~ ............!'' =
Upgrade to 4 Lane Parkway on Existing Alignment
Upgrade to Rural Principle Arterial Standards
Interchange Location (Existing or Proposed)
Traffic ~ignal MaY Be Needed in Future
Roadway Recommendations (See Text for More
Detailed Descriptions)
e = Other Recommendations (See Text for More
Detailed Descriptions)
The locations of roadways are conceptual and for planning purpos,emsine ;. ' %, ?
only Actual location of roadways on new alignment would be dete~ , :?: ~ , ~
...... · " "' .....":"~"' .' .";:"'"~"""""'; ''''''~'''' "'' ': """ ":':: ""'::""" "" ""'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Architectural/Engineering Consultant for the
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I, County Section
Melbourne Road to Rio Road
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
S U BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Proposal to Approve the Scope of Work and Budget
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENT: Yes
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer ,Kelsey
BACKGROUND:
REVIEWED BY:/j~
The Board of Supervisors requested staff to hire a consultant to provide assistance in the analysis of the design and alignment
of the county section of the proposed parkway, to consider the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park, and to review
the relationship of the parkway to the development of adjacent urban land in the county. In accordance with the procurement
procedures required by the Virginia Public Procurement Act, the following steps have been completed:
March 1,2000
March 5
April 4
May 9
May 30
July 25
August 14
Board of Supervisors requests the Engineering Division to hire a consultant
Request for Proposals advertised in Charlottesville and Richmond newspapers
Responses received from five consultants
Interviews completed and consultants ranked by the Selection Committee. The Committee included
County staff (Tom Foley, Bill Mawyer, Wayne Cilimberg, Jack Kelsey, Pat Mullaney) and Planning
Commissioner Will Rieley
Draft Scope of Work distributed to the Selection Committee by Engineering
Detailed scope of work completed by the Selection Committee and forwarded to the top-ranked
consultant
Fee proposal received from the consultant
DISCUSSION:
Based on the scope of work developed by the Selection Committee (attached), the initial fee proposal from the top-ranked
consultant was $248,000. Since this fee proposal greatly exceeded the anticipated budget ($50,000 - $100,000), negotiations
were held with the consultant to reduce the fee and to develop alternative scopes of work to better reflect the level of effort
anticipated by our budget. Three alternative scopes of work and commensurate fees were developed as follows:
Scope of Work #1
Provide a detailed analysis of this roadway project to ensure it reflects the art techniques and practices for parkway design,
analyze the corridor for its potential as a linear park and consider the relationship of surrounding urban development. Develop
two independent parkway alignments and designs while also providing a comparison of those designs with the proposed VDOT
parkway alignment and design. Provide presentations / work shops for the Board of Supervisors (3), Planning Commission
(1), MPO Design Advisory Committee (2), County staff (2), VDOT (2), and the public (2).
AGENDA TITLE:
Architectural/Engineering Consultant for the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I, County Section Melbourne Road to Rio
Road
September 6, 2000
Page 2
Budget:
Time for Completion:
approx. $200,000
Road Alignment Recommendations in 3 months
Full Scope of Work Completed in 6-8 months
Scope of Work #2 (attachment 2)
Provide a general analysis of this readway project to ensure it reflects the art techniques and practices for parkway design,
analyze the corridor for its potential as a linear park and consider the relationship of surrounding urban development. Develop
one independent road alignment and road design while also providing a comparison with the proposed VDOT road alignment
and design. (This scope of work requires a decreased level of analysis than Scope of Work #1. In addition, the consultant will
participate in fewer meetings as follows: Presentations/work shops for the Board of Supervisors' (2), Planning Commission
(1), MPO Design Advisory Committee (1), County staff (2), VDOT (2), and the public (1).
Budget:
Time for Completion:
approx. $140,000
Road Alignment Recommendations in 3 months
Full Scope of Work Completed in 4 -6 months
Scope of Work #3 (attachment 3)
Provide a general analysis of this roadway project to ensure it reflects the art techniques and practices for parkway design,
analyze the corridor for its potential as a linear park and consider the relationship of surrounding urban development. Provide
a review of the proposed VDOTroad alignment and design with recommendations for opportunities to enhance the project.
(This scope of work does not require the same level of independent road alignment and design evaluation and requires a
decreased level of analysis and participation in fewer workshops and public meetings.)
Budget:
Time for Completion:
approx. $130,000
Road Alignment Recommendations in 2 months
Full Scope of Work Completed in 4 - 6 months
RECOMMENDATION:
VDOT has recently made revisions to the alignment and design of the parkway and believes that these revisions address
concerns previously expressed by the Board. In particular, they feel that the most recent changes have minimized the land
disturbance necessary to construct the Parkway and resulted in a greater number of trees and vegetation being retained for
the parkway and planned pedestrian path that follows the Parkway alignment. VDOT will be present at Wednesday's meeting
to review these changes and a model which has been developed to clearly demonstrate the latest design.
After the Board has had an opportunity to review the latest revisions made by VDOT, two options are recommended for
consideration:
Option 1: If the Board does not feel that the most recent changes are adequate to addross previous concerns, proceed with
Scope of Work ~r2. The information provided by this level of detail will enable the Board and others to reasonably consider the
varied aspects of this project.
Option 2: If the Board does feel that the most recent changes developed by VDOT are adequate to address previous
concems, focus the review on the linear park and urban planning elements of the project, with minimal review by the consultant
of the VDOT parkway alignment and design. Under this scenario, purchase of right-of-way for the parkway by VDOT should
begin within 90 days and the consultant fees can be reduced to a level within our original budget.
00.183
SCOPE OF WORK FOR:
RFP 99-37; Landscape Architectural and Engineering Services
Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase 1 - Park & Urban Planning
RIP 00-001 (Melbourne Rd. to Rio Rd.)
General Parkway Criteria
The intent is to develop alternatives for the design of the County portion of the Meadow Creek
Parkway with the three major elements including:
· Park
· Roadway
· Adjacent Urban-scale Design
The design of the Roadway is the most pressing issue and one that will require the greatest level of .
resolution. However, consideration for the relationship between the three elements is vital. The Park
must be envisioned as the framework for the Roadway. The configuration of the Urban-scale Design
must be developed concurrently and sufficiently to establish a strategy for its interface with the Roadway
and its influence on the Roadway design.
Consultant shah establish the Roadway alignment design alternatives with consideration for design
characteristics, such as:
· A two-lane parkway, within a right-of-way to accommodate a four-lane divided parkway, along its
entire length.
· State of the art techniques and practices for parkway design
· Design criteria established by the MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee, as
provided in Attachment # 1
· The characteristics established in the Rieley Report including:
· Using a 35 mph design speed.
· Coordinating the centerline location and the horizontal/vertical alignment to create a pleasing
three-dimensional line, in the tradition of parkways such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the
Natchez Trace Parkway.
· Coordinating stormwater management with road design.
· Incorporating transition spirals.
· Incorporating widening on horizontal curves.
· Incorporating variable side slope grading to blend road with adjacent landscape.
· Recommending elements of roadside development such as planting, retaining walls, fences, etc.
· With consideration for the current VDOT alignment.
Consultant shah strive for a design that is true to the idea of "Parkway" that has guided the
development of our finest National parkways (i.e. a linear park that contains a scenic road).
Consultant shah design the "Parkway" within the framework of AASI-ITO and VDOT standards
and in accordance with County objectives. Should design waivers be necessary from VDOT,
consultant shall provide' the necessary justification.
Consultant shah advise the County Board of Supervisors and represent their design objectives to
the MPO Design Advisory Committee and to VDOT.
Consultant shali coordinate the design elements of the County portion of the Meadow Creek
Parkway with the City of Cbarlottesville's on-going design work on the Parkway and Mclntire
Park.
Consultant shah provide recommendations for:
· Land to be acquired within the project's right-of-way to support the portions of the linear park
adjacent to the road and connections to related areas.
· Land that should be acquired outside the proj ect's right-of-way which would connect the linear park
to other parks, open space and urban development in the area.
· Alternate funding sources for aspects of the park such as land acquisition, landscaping, public access,
and other.
Project Initiation
· Background research, site visits, photographs, review of existing reports, studies and plans
· Start-up meeting with the County Staff
· Review and discuss, with the County, the goals, objectives and vision for the project
· Identify key issues and constraints
· Identify construction' budget parameters
Inventory and Data Collection
· Compile an inventory of the corridor's land form, soils, vegetation, orientation, adjacent land uses and
cultural history.
· Obtain existing mapping, aerial photography, and utility information
· Identify any additional constraints
Parkway Corridor Evaluation
· Evaluate the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park and its relationship to future
development of adjacent urban land.
· Analyze the land's capacity to support recreation, maintain and enhance ecological integrity as well as
the rural and historic quality of the area.
· .Meet with County Staff to summarize the results of the evaluation, establish a baseline position on
design issues, and refine the goals, objectives and vision for the parkway.
Development of.Schematic Plans & Specifications
Generate alternate parkway scenarios that meet the project parameters, goals and objectives.
Scenarios should also attempt to:
· Link historic, cultural and scenic elements.
· Provide a geometry that is sensitive and reflective of the natural terrain and is adjusted to
minimize the impact to the inherent and visual quality of the existing landscape.
· Provides a smooth flowing alignment without abrupt changes.
· Provides cross-sections that are blended into the existing terrain.
Scenarios should include:
· Right-of-way, horizontal & vertical alignment, typical cross-sections, intersections.
· Annotation and graphics to explain design intent, approach and enhancements.
· Identification and explanation of the differences between the alternate parkway scenarios and the
current VDOT plans.
· Identification of design features that will require justification and/o evidence of precedence to
obtain VDOT concurrence.
· Preliminary cost estimates.
· Present and review the scenarios in workshops with the County, Advisory Committee, and V'DOT.
· Work with the County to identify a preferred alternate parkway scenario.
· Conduct public work sessions to present the alternatives, discuss the preferred alternative, and receive
public input.
Finalize The Selected Alternative
· Develop the preferred alternate parkway scenario into the full conceptual design. In addition to items
previously listed, the scenario shall include information on lighting, traffic management, utilities,
recreation improvements (ex. bike & pedestrian paths, public access, parks, etc.),
wetland/environmental reservations or mitigation, and land uses.
· Generate a construction cost estimate for the project.
· Generate a narrative report for the selected alternative.
· Conduct a design review work session(s) and graphics presentation with the County, Advisory
Committee, and VDOT.
· Finalize and submit the selected alternate parkway scenario design and report. Finalize the
presentation if necessary, based on work session comments.
· Make a presentation to the County Board of Supervisors.
Urban Planning/Land Development
· Suggest strategies for land planning and design of the privately owned parcels designated for urban
development as they relate to the linear park and parkway. These strategies should consider:
· Preserving continuous band of open space along each side of the Parkway
· Maintaining the linear park atmosphere while meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and
perhaps enhancing the overall value of future developments.
· Planning for access to the linear park from future developments.
· Concepts recommended by the Development Areas Initiative Committee in its Neighborhood
Model transmitted to the County Board of Supervisors on 3 May 2000.
· Meet with County Staff On the urban planning/land development component.
Provide graphics and a narrative report demonstrating the strategies.
· Present this information with the alternate parkway scenario presentations.
Graphics for Public Display
· Create graphic displays of the current VDOT design, proposed altematives, and the ~nalized selected
alternative that will help the committee, the public, and local decision-makers gain the best possible
understanding of how the road will appear and function, how it will affect the surrounding landscape,
and demonstrate the relationship between the horizontal alignment, vertical alignment and the driver's
perspective.
· The report entitled "A Study of Roadway Alternatives for the Meadow Creek Parkway in Mclntire
Park" by Rieley & Associates should be used as a guideline for the type and quality of the graphics.
· Displays should include products such as computer-assisted photographic renderings of the proposed
roadway and landscaping, video simulating the driving experience, and pamphlets for distribution at
meetings and workshops.
· Displays should be in formats which can be easily reproduced and posted on the Internet by the
County and/or VDOT.
Deliverables
· Narrative report ?
.'-PPa'rrs-forth~-setre'cted-attc~ hate parl<xv. ay-~,oh~a~-.
· Handouts/pamphlets/display boards for meetings
· Linear park and landscaping details for construction
Workshops and Public Meetin~,s
The consultant's proposal will need to include participation in workshops and public meetings. The
purpose and quantity of the meetings will be negotiated with the contract. For the purpose of the fee
estimate, we suggest the consultant consider the meetings or workshops as provided below:
Design Advisory Committee meetings to participate in the discussions as the Committee's technical
consultant. There will an initial "start-up" meeting to develop goals and processes, at least three (3)
additional working meetings are anticipated, and a presentation of the final products.
· Workshop/presentation with the County Planning Commission. At-least one (1) meeting is
anticipated.
· Workshop/Presentation with the Board of Supervisors. At least two (2) meetings are anticipated.
Public Workshops to educate and receive public comment on the parkway and linear park concept
and design features, and the urban planning/land development component. At least two (2) meetings
are anticipated.
Schedule and Milestones
The Consultant's proposal will need to include a schedule and milestones. The deadlines will be
negotiated with the contract. For the purpose of the fee estimate, we suggest the consultant consider the
schedule provided below:
Weeks After NTP
Project start-up meeting
Parkway corridor evaluation summary
meeting with the County
Presentation of alternate parkway scenarios
Work session and graphics presentation for
the selected alternate parkway scenario
Submittal of ~nalized parkway scenario and report
Board of Supervisors presentation
( * County estimate~)
Fees
The fees will be a lump sum amount and will be established through the competitive negotiation process
for professional services described in the Virginia Code, Section 11-37.
Contract
The County of Albemarle Contract Between Owner and Architect/Engineer for Professional Services will
be used.
Attachment #1
MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee
Design Criteria for the Meadow Creek Parkway
At the beginning of its work with VDOT, the Committee developed design criteria provided herein.
Criteria-Based Evaluation
Overall Goal: The development of the Meadow Creek Parkway is an opportunity for VDOT and
Charlottesville-Albema~e residents to work together in the design of an important piece of our
community's landscape. In order to ensure the road is compatible with the community's natural and built
environment, and enhances multi-modal mobility for area residents, each component of the design should
be evaluated in light of the following criteria and suggestions:
Protection of Natural and Historic Resources: The construction process and completed facility
must have the smallest possible impact on natural and historic resources such as water, air, soils,
wildlife and their habitats, archeological and historic sites. Particular care should be taken to protect
Meadow Creek and its tributaries through construction and design strategies Such as diverted drainage
routes, stormwater management systems, and sedimentation prevention methods; for example,
stormwater facilities could include filtering vegetation to prevent creek pollution. The design should
Consider recommendations of the Meadow Creek Basin Study conducted by the City.
Integrity of Neighborhoods, Schools, Businesses, and Public Facilities: The design should
minimize disruption of neighborhoods, schools, and businesses as much as possible, avoiding such
effects as the physical division or prevention of circulation within communities. The road, bicycle,
and pedestrian access it provides should improve mobility for neighborhood residents near the
Parkway. In addition, the integrity of public recreational facilities including the existing walking trails
should be protected as much as possible.
3. Size and Scale: The height, width, depth, and other size and scale indicators of the Parkway and its
facilities should be consistent with and not violate local planning guidelines for land use and design.
Materials: The texture and appearance of building materials of the Parkway and associated facilities
such as intersections, bridges, fences, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be visually
complementary to the built and natural environments. Fences in the right of way should be avoided
wherever possible, and, where necessary for safety reasons, made of aesthetically appropriate
materials and at an unobtrusive scale. Porous paving materials for bicycle/pedestrian facilities should
be examined for their potential to reduce runoff impacts, provided safety and accessibility are not
compromised.
Landscaping: The excavated roadway should incorporate smooth rolling shoulders and slopes.
Wherever possible, the natural landscape should be preserved or replanted in a manner consistent
with current vegetation and designed to reduce noise and visual impacts. The plans should provide for
effective, safe, screening of the Parkway from surrounding areas as well as along the median, to
shield drivers and nearby residents from headlight glare. The committee supports the itemized design
approach outlined by the consultant team in a memo dated October 21, 1996, which reads as follows:
Landscaping for the Meadow Creek Parkway should:
· Reflect a park-like setting
· Create a gateway setting at the City/County line
· Meet agency guidelines
· Be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly
· Respect and reinforce existing natural settings
· Be aesthetically pleasing in all seasons
· Screen undesirable views
· Preserve desirable views
· Shield adjacent areas from vehicular headlights
· Complement existing and planned improvements
· Be low-maintenance
Visual Impacts: The design should have minimum impact on day and night views from residences
and businesses in whose viewshed the Parkway falls. Utility lines should not be visible. Highway
signs should be included in this assessment. The height, depth, and width of the facility (see "Size and
Scale") also affect visual impacts.
Lighting, Visibility and Safety: The need for roadway lighting should be studied where visibility
and safety are of concern in the following cases: a) at all intersections where pedestrian or bicycle
crossings occur; b) along pedestrian facilities in addition to intersections; c) roadway lighting along
the Parkway including (a) & (b) above. Where lighting is warranted for any of the above cases, it
should be provided for by using appropriate mounting heights, cutoff optics, and other techniques to
minimize light pollution in adjacent areas.
Noise: The design should have the smallest possible noise impact on homes, commercial properties
and other facilities. The study process should provide information and opportunities for the
community to participate in developing and designing for noise mitigation strategies. Plans should
include strategies such as gentle slope changes and using berms and landscaping to minimize all noise
impacts including traction and braking noises.
Property Takings and Lost Revenues: The design should take the smallest amount of property
while meeting aesthetic goals. The design should have the smallest possible projected loss of tax
revenues to local governments. The ability of residences and businesses to .relocate successfully
should be assured. Opportunities to use acquired properties for public park and recreation use should
be examined.
10.
Traffic Capacity and Movement: The Parkway should enhance efficient traffic movement and
appropriate capacity for current and projected needs by linking the downtown and Seminole Trail
area, as well as linking growing neighborhoods to each other with alternatives to major arteries,
without inviting higher speeds. Traffic calming measures should be in place on the Parkway, to
support the posted speed limit, and on Mclntire, Melbourne, and Rio Roads, to avoid unwanted
through traffic in the city, particularly the North Downtown and Ridge Street neighborhoods. It
should be noted that the City has ad6pted a position that through trucks will not be permitted on its
portion of the Parkway. Traffic signals and intersections should be designed to enhance efficient
movement at all times of day, with particular attention to the southern terminus at the heavily traveled
Route 250 Bypass. Safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings should be assured at all intersections.
11.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: The design should be consistent with national, state, and regional
bicycle plans, regional pedestrian plans, and the Americans With Disabilities. Act. Bicycle and
pedestrian paths, with safe crossings (including the Route 250 bypass .intersection), and fie-inS to ·
existing facilities and trails should be provided. In addition, a paved lane with a stripe and appropriate
signage should be included on the roadway to serve high-speed cyclists. As noted in #10 above, safe
pedestrian and bicycle crossings should be assured at all intersections.
12. Needs for Future Facilities: The Parkway alignment tic to Rio Road in the vicinity of CATEC
should be fine tuned to accommodate later development of the planned Phase II continuation of the
Parkway to Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), with minimal impact on existing neighborhoods.
13. Public Presentations: Presentations should include the following:
· Specific information about potential impacts in order to prevent misinterpretation. For example, if
a line represents a location but not a specific alignment, information should be shown as to the
possible outcomes (such as "location could vary east or west by 500 feet"). This will help allay
fears of property takings when none may actually occur. If it is known a property will be taken
regardless of design variations, this should be made clear at the earliest possible time.
· The best available likenesses of design alternatives, such as three-dimensional computer images,
superimposed photographs, or photos of facilities in similar locations.
· Specific information about noise impacts and recommendations, especially upon schools and
homes. As this is an issue of particular concem, it would be helpful to include information about
policies, procedures, and funding for noise mitigation.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060
July 7, 2000
Mr. James D. Campbell, CAE
Executive Director
Virginia Association of Counties
1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL 20
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1928
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Based on Albemarle County Board of Supervisors discussion on July 5, we are submitting the following
proposals to be considered for inclusion in VACo's 2001 Legislative Program:
State Funding for Education - Request legislation that will raise the Standards of Quality
(S.O.Q.s) and increase percentage of state funding for programs to assist localities to
successfully meet the requirements of the S.O.L.s. Request the state strengthen commitment to
school construction funding.
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the state enhance CSA funding.
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth
management tools, including changes to VDOT road standards, and to provide statewide funding
for the Purchase of Development Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such
a program.
E911 Request that state not erode localities' ability to levy a surcharge for emergency
telecommunication services.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement_ - Continue to request enabling legislation to provide
for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to
protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would
provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas
when the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) - Request that the state stabilize the VRS rates and reimburse
school systems for VRS-related costs for positions that exceed those required by the current
SOQs' regulations.
Photo-red Traffic Light Proqram - Request that the State pass legislation to enable counties to
establish traffic light signal photo-monitoring programs.
Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and 6ndorses the provision of passenger rail
service from Bristol, VA to the Richmond, VA and Washington, DC areas with links to
communities along the way. :.
, ::
Mr. James D. Campbell, CAE
July 7, 2000
Page 2
Income Tax - The County supports legislative revisions which would require the state to return
a portion of the Virginia individual income taxes collected in each city and county in Virginia to
the locality.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important process. Please feel free to contact me at
(804) 296-5841 if you have any questions concerning these proposals.
Sincerely,
Lori S. Spencer
Executive Assistant
LSS\
00.001
CC:
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Ms. Roxanne W. White
Mr. David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison, TJPDC
?C -30A2D
September 6, 2000-10:30 a.m.
A Monthly Communications Report ofactivitiesfrotn the Albemarle County School Board to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Recent
Highlights: School Board Briej~ (Attachment 1 ) - August 14 & 28, 2000
Opening Day of School: Current enrollment is 12,082 or 308 students below
projection, which is normal for this time of year. By September 9, enrollment
figures should increase and stabilize. 170 teachers were hired for this school
year; this is about 20 more than last year. As of August 28, there were still six
teacher vacancies. Transportation and Building Services ran smoothly, with few
problems. The opening day of school was the best ever, with the primary focus
on student learning.
Board/Superintendent Priorities: The School Board continues its review of the
2000-2001 Board/Superintendent Priorities. The Board is scheduled to approve
the priorities at its September 14 meeting. A copy will be forthcoming to the
Board of Supervisors. The Board is placing more emphasis on measurable
academic goals within the priorities.
Long-Range Planning Committee: The Board is seeking applications to the
Long-Range Planning Committee (Attachment 2). The Committee's charge is to
analyze enrollment trend data, population growth trends, building capacities,
staffing standards, Capital Improvement Program and redist~cting needs. The
Committee would work cooperatively with the Superintendent and redistricting
recommendations from both the Committee and Superintendent would be
presented directly to the Board. The deadline is September 29.
Policy KG: Community Use of School Facilities: During the spring, the Board
requested staff to review Policy KG, Community Use of School Facilities, and
bring proposed changes to the Board for consideration. Revisions recommended
to the policy address the classifications of groups for the purpose of facility use,
the fees charged to the various classifications, and protocols for the use of
athletic fields. Clarification has also been provided regarding school facilities
that cannot be used. Further, specific fee amounts have been adjusted to reflect
actual costs. At this time, it is difficult to determine the impact of the amount of
rental fees collected. However, it is likely that actual operational costs for
facility use, particularly for custodial services, will be recovered. The Board
provided the following direction:
· To notify all groups affected by the policy and to obtain input;
· To delay the policy implementation date for at least six months;
· To provide an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to provide input at the
September 6, 2000 Chairman's Board-to-Board Presentation; and
· To schedule Policy KG on the Board's September 14 agenda for information,
with possible action at the September 28 meeting.
A copy of the policy was provided to you, through Mr. Bob Tucker,
approximately a week ago. Your input is appreciated. The Board is scheduled to
approve changes to the policy at its September 28 meeting.
Capital Improvement Program: The School Board thanks Ms. Roxanne White
and Mr. Courtney Rogers, Davenport and Company, for attending the August 14
Board meeting and presenting the County' s study concerning long-term planning
to meet Capital Improvement Program needs. The Board is interested in being
kept up-to-date regarding the progress of the study and possibly participating in
the study at a later date, given the Board's interest of exploring changes to the
Capital Improvement Program process. In addition, the Board suggested that a
joint meeting be scheduled in November to discuss this issue in addition to the
long-range compensation issue.
2
AI,BEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available-at http://k12.albemade. org
"WE EXPECT SUCCESS'
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. August 14, 2000
BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES
The Board expelled a middle school student for 30 days for using
computer equipment to communicate a bomb threat.
The Board adopted a resolution authorizing an application to be
filed with the Virginia Public School Authority in a principal
amount not to exceed $2,605,000 to finance various capital
improvements for the County's public school system.
The next joint meeting with local legislators is scheduled for
Friday, September 8, 200.0 at 12:00 p.m., in Room 235 of the
County Office Building. The agenda will include biternative
Education Programs/Nontraditional Schools.
The Board received a teacher vacancy report. Currently, there are
four full-time positions and eleven part-time openings that need
to be filled. Position openings include media specialists, French,
Special Education, physical education, gifted, Spanish, music,
readir~ and social studies. For additional informadorg please call
the Human Resources Department at 296-5827.
The Board continued 'its review of the 2000o2001
Board/Superintendent Priorities. At its August 28, 2000 meeting,
the Board may approve the priorities for implementation during
the 2000-2001 school year.
The Board adopted a Department of Education Grant
Reimbursement Program Resolution in the amount of $674,000.
The grant will focus on establishing a computer-based
instructional and testing system for the Stardar~ 0fL mm/ng and
connecting high schools (and middle schools as appropriate), Best
'Practices Centers, and the Central office of the Department of
Education. School divisions are expected to use this funding to
meet the following goals at the high school level: a) providing a
5:1 student to computer ratio; b) internet-ready local area
network (LAN) capability;, and c) Network Virginia or Web-
equivalent access to the Internet.
The Board adopted revisions to Policy FB, Fac//zi/e~ P/am/rg that
provides for a Committee whose membership includes the citizen
members of the Long-Range Planning Committee and
representatives from possibly affected schools, with staff
involved in an ex-officio capacity. The Committee would work
cooperatively with the Superintendent and redistricting
recommendations from both the Committee and Superintendent
would be presented directly to the Board. (Applications for
citizens to apply to serve on the Long-Range Planning
Committee are being solicited through September 29, 2000.
For more information, please call the Clerk's office at
9.72-4055.)
The Board reviewed the 200002005 Gifted Education Plan for
submission to the Department of Education at its July 10 and
August 14 meetings. A copy of the Plan is posted on the
Division website. The Gifted Plan will be Board-approved at its
August 28 meeting. In addition, the Board approved the
1999-2000 Annual Report for Gifted Education.
The Board approved $5,756 in additional funds to support the
Albemarle Adult Basic Education (ABE) Program that offers
instructional setvices in basic Reading and Math skills and GED
(General Education Development) preparation for area re. sidents
who have not graduated from High School. The program also
offers English as a Second or Other Language 0ESOL) classes for
non- English speaking Adults and Family Literacy classes targeting
at-risk students and their parents.
The Board continued its July 11 discussion regarding the Budget
Review Committee recommendations and couseusus was reached
on the recommendations. A summary can be obtained by calling
the School Board Clerk's office at 972-4055.
Policy KG: COMMUNITY USE
OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
During the spring, the Board requested staff to review Policy KG and
bring proposed changes to the Board for consideration. Revisions
recommended to. the policy address the classifications of groups for
the purpose. of facility use, the fees charged to the various
dassificatious, and protocols for the use of athletic fields.
Clarification has also been provided regarding school facilities that
cannot be used. Further, specific fee amounts have been adjusted to
reflect actual costs. At this time, it is difficult to determine the impact
of the amount of rental fees collected. However, k is likelythat actual
operational costs for facility use, paxticularly for custodial services,
be recovered. The Board provided the following direction:
· To notify all groups affected bythe policy and to obtain input;
· To delay the policy implementation date for at least six months;
· To provide an opporttmity for the Board of Supervisors to
provide input at the September 6, 2000 Omirman's Board-to-
Board Presentation; and '
· To schedule Policy KG on the Board's September 14 agenda for
information, with possible action at the September 28 meeting.
THE ENTERPRISE CENTER
The Division has employed a number of altemative leg options
to address the needs of studentS with behavior problems, including
homebound insttuction, Project Retum II, sending students to the city
alternative program, and an evening program for high school students.
the dry schools; however, in June 2000 k was decided that the county
would begin a program, the Enterprise Center, utlb. lng space at
Murray fftgh School. Discussion with the city schools about future
colhboration in this area will continue during the 2000-01 school year.
The Enterprise Center will serve 60 students in grades 6-12. Two
programs will meet the needs of these students, one for middle school
students and one for high school students. Both programs will
include academic instnaction, counseling, and social skill development.
Each student will have a personal education plan developed in
collaboration with the student, parents, and the Center staff. Similar
to the IEP concept, the personal education plan will include an
assessment of the needs of the student and goals to reach academic
and behavioral success. The plan will include goals while in the
program, criteria and requirements for exiting the program, and
transkional goals after the student leaves the Center. The Enterprise
Center is expected to result in: the following: 1) increased academic
performance; 2) reduction in the number of discipEne referrals; 3)
improved social skill development and decision-making; 4) improved
attendance; and 5) ability to successfully re-enter the regular education
program or the Individual Student Akemadve Education Program
CiSAEP) program at CATEC
The Phoenix Program will provide services for up to 30 students in
grades 6-8 and includes two teachers and a teacher assistant. It
emphasizes the development of personal responsibility, the acquisition
of academic skills in the four core areas with a focus on the Stardarts
9cL mrrdrg; and the improvement 0f social sldlls and personal decision-
maldng. Other features include group counseling, interdisciplinary
instruction, and parent involvement.
The Endeavor Program will serve the needs of up to 30 students in
grades 9-12. The program will include academic instruction in the
core areas of the high school curriculum, GED preparation,
workplace reduction, and work-based learning. Individualized
instruction will be provided to meet the needs of students with
different transition plans with some students returning to the base
school and others going directly into the workforce. Many students
will participate in a combination of academic study (GED
preparation) and work The teacher will be responsible for both
instruction and development of work-based learning opportunities.
A referral process is used for all students entering the Enterprise
Center. Students can be referred to the Center through a direct
referral by the Superintendent or School Board or through the referral
of a middle or high school principal. Students referred to the Center
by the principals must have demonstrated a pattem of misbehavior as
evidenced by 15 or more discipline referrals in one year and at least
two incidences of out of school suspensions. Principal referrals are
limited to three students each year at the middle school level and four
students each year at the high school level.
Financial support for the Center is through existing altemative
education allocations ($147,582) and available resources through the
Division.
The Enterprise Center is a new initiative; the first year will be used to
develop baseline dam regarding student' academic and behavioral
success and program effectiveness. Program evaluation will include
a comparison of student progress before and after leaving the Center
for students who remain in the program for at leg a semester. Other
evaluative information will be gathered from students, parents, staff,
and base school surveys.
COMMENDATIONS
Resolutions of Appreciation were presented to Will McConnell,
Albemarle Education Assochtion, and Barnes and Noble Bookstore
for sponsorship of the Book Blast Program. The Book Blast
Program is a one-day event fundraiser where a portion of Barnes and
Nobles sales proceeds is donated to the Division. Funds are used to
buy books foi' school media centers.
The Virginia School Boards Association Media Honor Roll Resolution
of Appreciation was presented to Mr. Peter Savodnik, Da//y PtW~s
Reporter. Mr. Savodnik worked in a dual capacity this year in
reporting news, not onlyfor the County but the Division as well.
coverage of school-related events provided for accurate, responsive,
and balanced coverage.
Patde Watson, a teacher at Stony Point Elementary School, was
accepted into the "Courage to Teach" professional renewal program
for the Southeast region of the United States. Ms. Watson was also
awarded a full fellowship by the Center~ T&totaerF~to suppor~
her participation. The program retreats will be held in Chapel I-fdl,
North Carolina over the next two years.
HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS
These appointments are effective August 15.
· Anne Shipe was reappointed to represent the Jack Jouett
District. She is employed by the University of Virginia CUVA)
Heart Center as an Administrative Assistant.
· John Cormella will represent the Rio District. He is employed
bythe UVA as a Clinical Administrator and Business Manager.
· Dr. Mohan Nadkami will 'represent the Rivanna District. He
is the Medical Director of the University Medical Associates and
an Internal Medicine 'Associate Professor at the UVA Health
Center.
· Linda Martin ~ represent the Samuel lvliller District. She is an
Assistant Professor of Nursing for Lynchburg College.
· Lucy Coeke will represent the White Hall District. She is
employed bythe University of Virginia Hospice.
· Deborah Drake was appointed to serve as a Hoakh Professional
representative. She has a Bachelors degree in Nursing from the
University of Massachusetts.
· Ron Murray will represent the As-Large District. He is
employed by the UVA as Associate Director, Office of
Continuing Medical Education.
· Dr. Dennis DeSilvey will represent the Albemarle Medical,
Association. He is a Cardiologist at the UVA Health Center.
The School Health Advisory Board is charged m meet at least
semiannually and report annually to the School Board on the status of
health needs and services of school-aged children in the Division.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Ab o s ~ailable st http://Id2.aIbe~azte. org "WE E XPE CT SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. August 28, 2000
BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES
The Board received a brief report on the Opening Day of
School Current enrollment is 12,082 or 308 students below
projection, which is no ~rma! for this time of year. By
September 9, enrollment figures should increase and
stabili~.e. 170 teachers were hired for this school year;, this
is about 20 more than last year. As of August 28, there were
still six teacher vacancies. The first day of school went
smoothly, with the primary focus on student learning. For
additional information about teacher vacancies, please call
the Human Resources Department at 296-5827.
Beginning with the September Board meetings, the Board
will meet on Thtasday instead of Monday at 6:30 p.m., in
Room 241. The next Board meeting will be Thursday,
September 14.
The next joint meeting with local legishtors is scheduled for
Friday, September 8, 2000 at 12:00 p.m., in Room 235 of
the County Office Building. The agenda will include
Akemative Education Programs/Nontraditional Schools.
The Board continued its review of the 2000-2001
Board/Supe.rintendent Priorities. At its September 14,
2000 meeting, the Board may approve the priorities for
implementation during the 2000-2001 school year. The
Board is placing more emphasis on measurable academic
goals with in the priorities.
The Board received the quarterly financial Community
Education Fund Report, which includes the Before and
After-School Programs. User fees dire cry sustain the fund.
For a copy of the financial rdport, please call the School
Board Clerk's office at 972-4055.
The Board approved that the School Health Advisory
Board terms of office be staggered with Board members'
terms plus an additional six months. Member terms would
expire on June 30th of that school year. There are 17
members who serve on the School Health Advisory Board.
N'me members are appointed by the School Board, five
staff members represent the five middle school feeder
patterns (terms expire every three years), and three high
school students (terms expire everytwo years). The School
Heakh Advisory Board is charged to meet at least
semiannually and report anmm!!y to the School Board on
the status of health needs and' services of school-aged
children in the Division.
The Board offered recommendations regarding the
format of the upcoming Division Progress Report. The
Board is scheduled to receive the Progress Report at its
October 26 meeting, with additional follow-up at its
November 9, 2000 meeting. The Report includes an
Introduction and Overview, Report of Albemarle System
Data, School Improvement Planning Process and
Individual School Dam (School Profiles), and Reference
Guide.
The Board appointed Mr. Madison O,mnings to serve as
the Board's representative on the Commission on
C':h ildren and Families.
The Board continues to seek applications for the Long-
Range Planning Committee. The Comrnittee's charge is to
analyze enrollmont trend data, population growth trends,
building capacities, staffnag standards, Capital Improvement
Program, redistricting needs, etc. The Committee would
work cooperatively with the Superintendent and
redistricting recommendations from both the Committee
and Superintendent would be presented directly to the
Board. (Applications for citizens to apply to serve on
the Long-Range Planning Committee are being
solicited through September 29, 2000. For more
infon-nation, please call the Clerk's office at 972-4055.)
ADMINSTRATIVE APPRAISAL PLAN PILOT
The Board received a report on the Administrative Appraisal
Plan Pilot, including the following five revisions that have
been implemented since the last report to the Board:
1)
extend the administrative evahadon pilot plan'to include
all school division administrators thus allowing time for
the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to
develop the administrative prototypes forthcoming in the
fall of 2000;
2) revise the performance factors and indicators for
instructional staff to reflect the evaluation criteria
established by the Virginia Department of Education;
3) enhance the process of objective writing/goal setting
with the development of a performance objective/job
target planning form that would allow for more insight
and accountab'fiity into planning, monitoringo and
accomplishing the annual objectives;
4) develop a computer generated 360° feedback survey in
conjunction with the Department of School Technology;
5) expand the interpretation of the first objective from
School Improvement Plans and QuIP goals to include
relevancy to School B oard/Superintendent priorities.
distribution of the Bard Br/~. BatM Br/efi is a semi-monthly
two-page newsletter that includes the actions taken by the
School Board at its regula~y scheduled meetings. This
newsletter is distributed to more tbn 1,800 employees and
publiC. To respond to the Bard Br/~ Survey, please visit the
following webpage
http:/ /kl2.albemarle.org/ surveys/boardbriefs.html- The
survey takes approximately three mutes. Please enter your
E-Mail address or _n_ar~__- and telephone number if you would
like to be eligible to win a "th~nk~ for responding to our
survey" $50.00 gift certificate. The drawing will occur
October 16, 2000.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW STAFF
The Board asked that a Program Management category to ,
address financial management issues be added to the appraisal
document.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
The Board provided $100,000 to fund the Comprehensive
Services Act (CSA). The CSA implemented in 1993 is the
primary funding source for at-risk children and families who
are either in foster care, involved with the juvenile court
system, or require residential or day treatment services
because of their special education needs. Children and
families served with these funds are state mandated and
include:
· Rhonda Fo~ow - Assistant Principal at Greer Elementary
· Andy Grider - Assistant Principal at Henley Middle School
· Ashby Kindler, Assistant Principal at Walton Middle School
· Greg Domecq - Acting Assistant Principal at Monticello High
· Michael Hall - Assistant Principal at Western Albemarle
High School
· Patrick Farrell - Instructional Coordinator for Special
Education
· Mits uko Clemmons-Naze er - Recrutirnent Coordinator
· Phyllis Mondak - Instructional Coordinator for Special
Education
MEMORANDUTvl OF UNDERSTANDING
SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) children placed for purposes of special education;
2) disabled children placed by local social services or the
court in private residential facilities and whose Individual
Education Program (IEP) indicates such schooling is
appropriate and needed;
3) foster care children and; and
4) children and families served to prevent foster care
placement.
Mclifionally, certain groups of ckil&en and fales are
considered targeted groups and include:
1)
2)
children placed by a juvenile and domestic relations
district court; and
children committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice
and placed in a private or locally operated public facility
or nonresidential program- These children are not
considered mandated, but could easily become mandated
if they are not served.
BOARD BRIEFS SURVEY
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!
In June 2000, the School Board requested that the number of
Bc~rd Br/e~ distributed be reevaluated; however, ensuring that
the readership has the opportunity for input. Your
suggestions will help improve the purpose, content, and
The Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding
between the Division and the Department of Social Services.
The Memorandum establishes a partnership that would enable
the Department of Social Services to be reimbursed by the
federal governmere at a 50 percent rate, through Tide W of the
Social Security Act, for services already provided to the Division
related to early intervention and family support. The
reimbursement funding will enable Social Services to continue
to provide ten Family Support workers at the elementary school
level and to extend the services of Support workers serving the
"Bright Stars" (four-year-old, at-risk program) from ten to
twelve months.
POLICY IGAP, STUDENT
E .,tHANGE / TRA VE L/S T UD Y PROGRAMS
The Board received proposed revisions to Policy IGAP,
Student E x &ar~iTra~l/S tudy Prograra. The number of
students from other countries continues to increase who
participate in exchange, travel, or study programs. Likewise,
Division students have gone abroad on exchanges and or
traveL/study programs. As the number of students interested
in such programs increase, a clear policy is needed to guide
administrators. The Board reviewed the proposed policy. At
its September 14 meeting, the Board will adopt the policy for
impkmentation.
\ !
ALBEMARLE
PUBLIC
WEBSITE:
COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INFORMATION CENTER
h ttp : //lt l2. a lb e tn a tle.
ME DIA RE LEASE
DATE:
CONTACTS:
PHONE:
August 30, 2000
Frank E. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
School Board Office
(804) 296-5877; 972-4055
ALBEMARLE SCHOOL BOARD SEEKS LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
The Long-Range Planning Committee is comprised of seven citizens appointed by the
Albemade County School Board, one from each magisterial district and one at-large, along with
members of the School Division and Local Government staff. Citizens will be appointed for two-year
terms coinciding with the middle and end of the term of the particular School Board member.
The charge of the Long-Range Planning Committee is to analyze enrollment trend data,
population growth trends, building capacities, staffing standards, programmatic needs, and other
relevant information to develop recommendations for the School Board concerning facility needs for
the Capital Improvement Program as well as redistricting needs. In addition, citizen members of the
Long-Range Planning Committee will be part of any Redistdcting Advisory Committee that is
convened to develop redistricting recommendations for the School Board.
Applications are currently being solicited from citizens who would like to be a member of the
Long-Range Planning Committee. Applications can be obtained by contacting your school, calling
the Support Services office at 296-5877, School Board office at 972-4055, or Division Web Site
(kl 2.albemarle.org). Applications must be submitted to the Clerk of the Albemarle County School
Board by Friday, September 29.
Questions about the Long-Range Planning Committee should be directed to Dr. Frank E.
Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, at 296-5877.
401 McIntire Road · Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone (804) 972-4055, Fax (804) 296-5869 , WEB SITE: http://kl2.albemarle.org
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
TO
FROM
RE
DATE
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Executive
Dr. Frank E. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent
Building Rental Policy Draft
August 16, 2000
As you are aware, the School Board is currently reviewing its policy on
Community Use of Facilities. When Dr. Ward mentioned this to the Board of
Supervisors during a recent "Board to Board" presentation, the Supervisors
expressed interest in being informed about the direction the School Board was
taking with this policy.
On August 14, the School Board received the attached draft for first
reading. The School Board will be taking public comment on this draft on
September 14. I would ask you to forward a copy of the draft to the Supervisors.
-Mrs. Gallion will talk with the Supervisors about the draft at the next "Board to
Board" presentation.
Please let me know if you or any of the Supervisors have questions or
concerns.
CC/Dr. Charles Ward
Mrs. Susan Gallion
Assistant Superintendent far Support Services
401 Mdntire Road
Chartot'tesville, Virginia 22902
(804) 296-5877
KG Page 1
COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
The Superintendent, subject to the approval of the Board, may provide for or permit the
use of school buildings and grounds out of school hours during the school term or during
vacations for any legal assembly. School facilities also may be used as voting places in any
primary, regular, or special election.
The Board is authorized to permit use of school property under its control when such use
will not impair the efficiency of the school.
Requests for the use of any school facilities shall be made to the Superintendent or
designee.
Adopted: July 1, 1993
Legal Refs.: Code of Virginia, 1950, as mended, Sections 22.1-131, 22.1-132
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 2
COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
The School Board believes in the full and best possible utilization of the physical
facilities belonging to the citizens of the County. To achieve this end, the use of school facilities
for school and student-related activities as well as by outside organizations and groups shall be
encouraged when these activities will not interfere with the educational program in the schools.
Proper protection, sSafety of citizens, students, and employees and care of school
property shall be primary considerations in the use of school facilities. The Superintendent or
designee reserves the right to deny usage or terminate an existing contract. Failure to pay
promptly all rental charges or damages may be considered sufficient grounds for refusal to grant
further use of school property to an applicant.
A. Eligible Organizations
The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of
establishing priority for use and for the charging of fees.
1. Classifications
Type I Organizations
A. Albemarle County School Organizations
B. Albemafie County Parks & Recreation
C. Associated organizations such as PTOs, PTAs, and Booster Clubs
D. Youth agencies serving Albcmarle County students, such as Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts, '1 H Clubs, etc.
E. Other local governmcnt agencies serving Albcmarle County
citizens (Sheriffs Dcpartment, Fire Department, Rescue Squads,
· School and School Division sponsored organizations
· Associated organizations such as: - PTOs/PTAs
- Booster Clubs
· Non-school organizations such as:
- Boy Scouts
- Girl Scouts
- 4-H Clubs
- Local Government agencies and departments serving
Albema~e County citizens
- Virginia High School League (for District/Regional events)
- Neighborhood associations for meetings of less than 30
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 3
Type II Organizations
A. Albcmarle County charitable non profit organizations
B. · League sponsored youth athletic teams
· YMCA Summer Programs
Type III Organizations
A. Religious Organizations (including youth groups)
B. Other Albcmarle Count3' non profit organizations
C. League sponsored adult athletic tcams
All other organizations
Type IV Organizations
Tax supported educational institutions
All other organizations which do not fall into onc of the above
mentioned categories
2. Membership
The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of school
facilities must be largely from the County of Albemarle. This restfiction
does not exclude the use of certain facilities, as determined by the
Superintendent, by state and national organizations that have a local
sponsoring division of such organization.
Applications and Approval
Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs,
societies, or organizations that reasonably can be held responsible for the payment
of charges, compensation for damages to property, and use of the property in
reasonable conformity with regulations on the application. All organized sporting
teams must complcte a Building Rental Application for use of school fields. All
groups using School Division fields or gymnasiums for activities not
sponsored by the Department of Parks and Recreation must complete a
Building Rental Application. These groups will be subject to established
rental and personnel fees.
Non profit organizations may be required to submit proof of their non
profit status.
In no cases may school property be leased to individuals or in ways
contrary the County's zoning ordinance or any other ordinance, law, or
regulation. Commercial use of school property is also expressly forbidden
unless approved by the School Board.
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 4
The Board authorizes the Superintendent or designee to approve all applications
for the use of school facilities that meet the requirements of the Board, that comply with
implementing regulations the Superintendent deems necessary to protect school property
and that do not conflict with established business or commercial interests of the
community. The Superintendent or designee shall design such application forms as are
required. The completed and signed form shall be a binding agreement upon the
applicant and the School Division. The School Division reserves the right to deny usage
of a facility if the application is received less than three (3) business days prior to the
start of the event. No rental application will be considered more than six months prior to
the desired rental date. Albemarle County Parks and Recreation may submit applications
for the whole season in advance. Field rental may be restricted to four days per week or
less to allow fields to rest and to provide for unorganized informal use.
School organizations and PTA's/PTO's, followed by the Albemarle County Parks
and Recreation Department, have priority usage of all school facilities.
The Superintendent/designee reserves the right to limit use of School Division
facilities during school vacations.
School Division facilities are not intended to be permanent locations for Type
HI organizations. Therefore, a Type III organization using School Division facilities
for more than forty (40) days per year for three (3) consecutive years may be
required to show evidence of plans to provide its own facility as a condition of use
beyond the third year.
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 5
The School Division reserves the fight to cancel a rental contract up to ten (10)
days prior to a scheduled rental. Use of schools will automatically be canceled when
schools close due to inclement weather or emergency conditions. The Superintendent or
designee reserves the fight to cancel field rental/usage because of weather conditions.
C. Fees
The Superintendent shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may make
additional adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional adjustments
shall be based upon classification of the group or organization, facilities to be used, size
of the group, objectives of the organization, approximate cost to the school division, and
the purpose for which the facility will be used. In general, the following will apply:
Classification Fees
*Regular meetings: No charge (during normal
operating hours)
Special Meetings/Fund Raisers:
Personnel Fees Groups IB, ID and IE
(after normal operating hours)
Field Usagc: No charge
*All school sponsored activities will be provided with four
(q) hours of custodial services after each event. After the
initial four hours, the group may be assessed personnel
charges.
No charge during normal building operating hours if
activities do not require supervision or excessive cleanup,
as determined by the Building Services Department. If
excessive cleanup is required, personnel fees will be
assessed at the established rate. Specific custodial needs
will be determined by the Building Services Department.
School and School Division sponsored organizations and
associated organizations listed in Type I may receive up to
four (4) hours of custodial service at no charge for a given
event that occurs outside of normal operating hours. Any
custodial service beyond four (4) hours will be charged at
the established rate.
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 6
Outside of normal operating hours, non-school
organizations will be assessed personnel fees at the
established rate. Specific custodiai needs will be
determined by the Building Services Department.
II
Regular Meeting: Personnel Fees
Fund Raising: Base Fee and Personnel Fee
Field Usage: No Charge
Personnel fees and fees for direct operational expenses.
III
Rcgular Meeting: Base Fee and Personncl Fee
Fund Raising: Basc Fee and Pcrsormcl Fee
Field Usagc: No Charge
Base fee and personnel fees.
IV
Base Fee and Pcrsonnel Fee: Threc~ hour minimum
Field Usage: Basc Fee Only
A full rental foe shall be charged to all classifications except Classification I when
school facilities are to be used for fund raising and/or when an admission chargc is
Personncl fees will be charged to all classifications except Classification I if when
thc workload created by the building rental requircs school employees to work beyond
normal hours. If the kitchen is to be used, a Food Service employee must be present to
ensure safe and sanitary operation of the food service equipment. All organizations will
be charged if a Food Service employee is required. The minimum personnel charge
for custodial services or Food Services workers for after hours use will be three (3)
hours.
Custodial services shall include unlocking and locking doors, operating ceiling
lights, maintaining heating and air-conditioning systems, setting up chairs, and normal
cleanup. Food service services will depend upon the needs of the organization. Rental of
facilities by large groups or organizations which require the services of more than one
custodian will result in additional personnel fees.
All fees must be paid in advance, and the sponsoring organization whose name
appears on the application shall be held responsible for any and all damages to school
property and equipment. For prolonged contractual agreements, payments may be paid
monthly in advance. Cancellation of a rental must be done a least three (3) business
days before the rental. Cancellation later than three (3) business days will result in
the renting organization being assessed three (3) hours rental fee and three (3) hours
personnel fees.
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 7
The building rental fees collected will be distributed as follows:
60% to cover out-of-pocket expenditures.
40% to the rented facility to be used toward the equipment replacement
effort (to be distributed quartc, rly annually).
D. Use of Athletic Fields and Gymnasiums
The use of athletic fields on school property and school gymnasiums by
outside sports groups will be scheduled through the Department of Parks and
Recreation. Scheduling of these spaces will be done in coordination with school
principals. School activities will be ~iven nrioritv in scheduling. School needs will
be determined by principals.
High schools, with the approval of the Assistant Superintendent for Support
Services, may designate specific athletic fields for limited use by outside groups
because of maintenance needs or use by high school athletic teams. High school
athletic directors, in consultation with their principals, will make all decisions
concerning the closure of these fields to use by outside groups due to weather
conditions or for other reasons. The Department of Parks and Recreation will make
these decisions for aH other fields. Groups that do not abide by these decisions may
lose privilege of using school athletic fields.
The use of athletic fields on school property and school gymnasiums for
activities not sponsored by the Department of Parks and Recreation or during times
not scheduled for use by the Department of Parks and Recreation will be subject to
established rental and personnel fees.
E. Protection of School Property
For use of indoor facilities, an employee of the School Board shall be on duty at
the school property at times when the school facilities are in use. Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation employees may be used in lieu of School Board employees. No
equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without the consent of the employee in
charge if such usage is not in conformity with the contracted agreement.
The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for crowd control measures,
including the employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be
arranged in advance by the sponsoring organization when deemed necessary by the
Superintendent or designee.
The sale or consumption of food and/or beverages will be limited to the cafeteria
area only. Alcoholic beverages and smoking will not be permitted on school
property at any time.
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 8
All groups using school facilities are required to have liability insurance.
Documentation of a group's liability insurance coverage may will be required.
F. Informal Usage of Outdoor School Property
The Board endorses the concept that outdoor facilities at the schools serve a
community and district park function in Albemarle County. It is understood that, in
general, these facilities will be available for free play or unstructured use during daylight
hours at no cost to Albemarle County residents, unless such use would conflict with a
reserved use as allowed for above or a school need inclusive of maintenance
requirements.
Albemarle County Public Schools
KG-AP Page 9
COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES BASE FEE
FACILITY
Classroom
Auditorium~
Elementary Cafeteria
--With Kitchen2
Middle/High Cafeteria
--With Kitchen
Media Center
Small Gymnasium
Large Elementary/Middle
Gymnasium
High School Gymnasium
--With Locker Rooms
Multi-Purpose Fields
CLASSIFICATIONS I/II
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
CLASSIFICATION III
$8.00/hour
$36.00/hour
$10.00/hour
$25.00/hour
$15.00/hour
$30.00/hour
$11.00/hour
$10. O0/hour
$15. O0/hour
$35.00/hour
$50.00/hour
$10.00/hour
PERSONNEl.; FEES
Custodial Services
Food Service Services
Lighting Technician
Student Lighting Technician
Audiovisual/sound Equipment
* Fees collected will be returned to school account.
$44:0~15.00**/hour
$12.ee13.50**/hour
$15.00/hour
$7.5O8.00/hour
$10.00' Type III (per machine/per event)
Based on overtime rate of the midpoint of the appropriate Pay Grade.
Adopted: July 1, 1993
Amended: May 9, 1994;
1
Lighting technician required
2 o
Fo d Service staff member required--three-hour minimum
Albemarle County Public Schools
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804).972 - 4012
August31,2000
Katurah Roell
Hurt Investment Co
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesille, VA 22911
RE:
SP-00-048 South Fork Soccer (SOCA)
Tax Map'46, Parcel 22
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 29, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted request for an 18 month extension to the Board of
Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the conditions previously approved by
the Board of Supervisors on September 9, 1998, as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
,
o
No exterior lighting shall be installed.
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted.
No potion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to. any lot line.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood
events.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and
the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as
copies of the correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA.
Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to
pre-development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager.
Route 643, Polo Grounds Road, shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-
2A from Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed
prior to the applicant making use of both SP-98-18/SP-98-22 (Soccer Fields) and SP-90-
35 (Church). The applicant may make use of one of the special use permits without the
need to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Road
The owner shall reserve a 100 foot wide strip of land the length of the property abutting
the northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenway. The width of the
reserved area shall be measured from the edge of the Rivanna River at its normal flow
level. When the county decides to establish a public area or park, including canoe
Page 2
August 31, 2000
10.
11.
12.
13.
access, within the reserved area, upon the request of the County, the owner shall
dedicate the reserved area to the County and such property necessary for ingress and
egress to the reserved area.
Phase 1 archeological survey shall be completed, followed by appropriate mitigation
measures, as directed by Planning staff, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
The special permit shall be void upon notice by the Board of Supervisors that a mad
design plan which conflicts with this use has been approved by VDOT encompassing
this property.
The use of the building shall be limited to restrooms, equipment storage and concession
counter.
The concession counter shall be open only during use of the 'soccer fields.
A tot lot shall be provided.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 6, 2000. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AI!shouse
Bob Ball
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 00-48, South Fork Soccer Field (SOCA)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to extend the approval period for SP 98-
18, South Fork Soccer Field, approved by the
Board of Supervisors on Sept. 9, 1998
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Planning Commission, June 29, 2000
· Board of Supervisors, September 6, 2000
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
David Benish
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
SP 98-18 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 23, 1998 to locate five (5) soccer fields, a
2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres. This activity required a
special use permit a in accordance with Section 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance (athletic facility). The
property (Tax Map 46, parcel 22 and 22C) is located in Polo Grounds Road (Route 643), approximately 1.1
mile east of Route 29 and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The prior staff report for SP 98-18 is provided and as Attachment. The Board of Supervisor' s action is
Attachment B. The application for the extension with the applicant's justification is provided in Attachment C.
DISCUSSION:
Since receiving approval from the Board of Supervisors, the applicant has been actively working towards
addressing the conditions of approval. One condition of approval was for the completion of an archeological
survey of the property. The phase one archeological survey was just completed this June, 2000. The applicant
in his justification stated: "The past two years have been spent largely organizing and completing a Phase I
Archeological Survey... The Phase I Report was submitted to staff on July 25, 2000. Additional archeological
work is currently in progress." The amount of time needed to complete the archeological work to date has not
allow the applicant to begin construction within the 18 months time period allowed for the original approval.
Staff opinion is that the applicant will need additional time to fully address the conditions of approval. The
applicant has been actively working towards meeting the conditions and there has been no major change in
circumstance to the area or County policies/regulations since the original approval that would impact the
review of this proposal. Therefore, an extension of the approval for this proposal is justified.
/
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends extending the approval of this request for 18 months with the same conditions as
previously by the Board. Those conditions are provided in Attachment B.
Attachments:
.' A- Staff report for SP 98-18
B- Board of Supervisor's action letter for SP 98-18
C- SP 00-48 Application with applicant's justification
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Fritz, AICP
August 4, 1998
August 12, 1998
South Fork Soccer Field Special Use Permit and Preliminary Site Plan
SP 98-18, SP 98-22 and SDP 98-055
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to construct 5 soccer fields and a 2,000 square foot building and 216 parking
spaces. The soccer fields and portions of the parking areas are located within the floodplain of the
Rivanna River. These improvements would be in addition to a previously approved 800 seat church.
Although this church has not been constructed the Zoning Administrator has determined that the special
use permit is still valid.
Petition:
SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate 5 Soccer Fields, an approximately 2,000 square
foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [This
activity requires a special use permit for athletic fields in accord with Section 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance.] The property, described as Tax Map, 46, Parcels 22 and 22C, is located on the south side of
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated development area.
SP 98-22 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate 5 Soccer Fields, an approximately 2,000 square
foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [This
activity requires a special use permit for activity in the Floodway Fringe of the Rivanna River in accord
with Section 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance.]
SDP 98-055 South Fork Soccer Field Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 5 Soccer Fields, an
approximately 2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Two special use permits, SP 98-18 and 98-22, have been submitted to permit
the activity in a Rural Area.
Character of the Area:
The area between Polo Grounds Rd. is predominately floodplain which is in a mixture of pasture and
woodland. Approximately 9 dwellings are located along Polo Grounds road including one dwelling
located across the road from the proposed soccer fields.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 and other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends denial.
Planning and Zoning History:
This proposal includes land which was previously reviewed for two churches. SP 90-35 for Covenant
3
Church was approved on June 6, 1990. That special use permit was for an 800 seat church. The Zoning
Administrator has determined that SP 90-35 has not expired. Another special use permit, SP 90-107 for
Unity Church, was denied on January 29, 1991. That request was for a 300 seat church.
Comprehensive Plan:
This area is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for the Hollymead Development Area states "The area between the southern boundary
of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open state as a
buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead.' This boundary is critical as it
preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous
development from the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna River." The
Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan, shows this area as floodplain and an important stream valley.
Critical slopes are also shown in the Open Space Plan on this site. [The applicant has submitted a waiver
request for activity on critical slopes.]
The Community Facilities Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan has identified the need to
"provide recreational opportunities in those geographic areas not effectively served, especially in or near
Growth Areas". This site is located between two designated Development Areas with high recreational
demands. The Parks and Recreations Director has commented that the need for additional play fields has
been established and that this proposal would help reduce overuse of existing County facilities.
The proposed Meadowcreek Parkway corridor lies within this general area. Based on the level of
information currently available the alignment does not affect this proposed development. However, the
final alignment of the road has not been determined to date. Unlike the church previously approved on
this site which was to be located along the high (ridge) area above the floodplain, most all of the
proposed development will be located in or near the floodplain. It is less likely that the ultimate road
alignment will be placed in this location. If the property is needed for road development and if federal
funds are to be used for road construction, recreational areas would need to be avoided. It should be
noted that ultimate development of the soccer fields and church may significantly limit the options for.
the road alignment in this area. The proposed Rivanna Greenway is also located on this property. Staff
has requested that the applicant make provision for the Greenway. At this time it is not known if the
applicant is willing to grant area for the Greenway. The layout of the proposed soccer field does not
impact the location oFthe Greenway and staff will insure that sufficient area is reserved for the
Greenway during the review of the final site plan. However, staff believes that if the intent of this
proposal is to address community recreational facility needs, the Greenway recommendation for this area
should also be incorporated into the planning of this community facility. Therefore, staff will
recommend that the applicant reserve for dedication, (upon demand of the County), 100 feet for the
Rivanna Greenway. The provision of the Greenway is important to address the intent of the plan to keep
this an open space buffer area.
STAFF COMMENT:
This report will address the following issues:
1. Special Use Permit for an athletic facility
2. Special Use Permit for activity in the floodplain
3. Preliminary Site Plan including activity on critical slopes
4
Special Use Permit for an athletic facility
Section 10.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the establishment of "Swim, golf, tennis or
similar athletic facilities" by special use permit. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent nropert3',
In order to reduce impacts caused by this development staff has included conditions which prohibit
outdoor lighting and the use of loudspeakers.
Property to the east of this site is currently used as a nursery. The location of soccer fields adjacent to
the nursery will. have no detrimental impact. Property to the west is owned by the applicant and has a
single dwelling. The dwelling is located at a higher elevation than the proposed soccer fields. Staff
opinion is that the elevation difference sufficiently separates the two;portions of the property and the
soccer fields create no detrimental impact. The property to the south is not impacted by this
development due to the physical separation created by the Rivanna River and its floodplain. The
property to the north is a mixture of woods and houses. The increase in traffic will be the primary
impact on the residences. -Staff has attempted to calculate the traffic volumes which would be generated
by this proposed use.
In calculating the vehicle trip generation for this site staff consulted the ITE manual. This manual
provides trip generation numbers for a wide variety of land uses. The land use which most closely
resembles the proposed soccer fields is county park. Trip generation is based on vehicle trips per acre.
At this time it is unknown how many acres will be included in the soccer fields. [The soccer fields are.
proposed for a portion of two parcels.] Therefore, in order to calculate trip generation staff assumed the
entire acreage of the two parcels will be used. This results in a higher trip generation number than is
likely, but allows staff to have a basis for review. The most recent (1992) traffic counts on Polo Grounds
Road were 915 vehicle trips per day. Based on this methodology staff calculated the following trip
generation rates for the soccer fields:
Weekday - 187 vehicle trips per day (The applicant estimates 94 vehicle trips per day)
Saturday - 995 vehicle trips per day (The applicant estimates 464 vehicle trips per day for weekend use)
Sunday. 339 vehicle trips pe[ day
As previously stated a church has also been approved for this parcel. Based on the ITE manual the
proposed church could generate the following trip generation rates:
Weekday - 285 vehicle trips per day
Saturday - 304 vehicle trips per day
Sunday - 1, 146 vehicle trips per day
Should this special use permit be approved, both the soccer fields and the church could be developed on
5
this property. The combination of the two uses could create a significant increase in weekend traffic
volumes on Polo Grounds Road. ~he daily traffic count, during soccer season, would also be increased
by 472 vehicle trips day.
Based on an evaluation of the trip generation rates of the two uses staff opinion is that the two uses
generate similar traffic volumes. Both of the uses generate traffic in peaks, around games/practices and
· services/events. Staff opinion is that the combination of the soccer field traffic and the church traffic
would change the character of the area and would create a substantial detriment to properties on Polo
Grounds Rd.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided comments addressing this application. [These,
comments assume the soccer field use only.] [Attachment E] Improvements at the entrance, sight
distance and a turn lane, will be required by VDOT. Improvements to Route 643 have been
recommended by VDOT. These improvements include upgrading the surface of Route 643 from Route
29 to the entrance to the site. Staff recommends a condition requiring these proposed improvements due
to the volume of traffic which would be generated should both the church and soccer field use be
permitted on this property.
Staff can find no significant changes in the character of the area since the approval of the special use
permit for the church. Staff assumes that the Board's prior action to approve the church was appropriate
and that the impac~ts caused by the church were determined to be acceptable. Therefore, should the
church use be replaced with the soccer fields staff is of the opinion that the soccer fields' traffic impact is
acceptable as it is similar in nature to the prior approved church's traffic.
If the proposed use were for the soccer fields only, staff would not recommend a condition requiring
Route 643 to be upgraded. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed soccer fields serve a public service.
As such, improvements to Route 643 would be an appropriate action of the County. Staff notes that
during the review of SP 90-35 for the church VDOT did not request or recommend any improvements to
the surface of Route 643.
Based on the above comments staff opinion is that the combination of soccer 'fields and church use will
be a substantial detrime. nt to adjacent property. However, if the site were limited to the soccer fields
· staff opinion is that this request would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed therebv,
This proposal involves the construction of a small, 2,000 square foot, support building and a large
parking area. The soccer fields will remain open and will require only minimal grading and striping.
Therefore, the major impacts of this proposal will be generated by the building and the parking areas. As
stated previously this area is intended to be preserved as a buffer between the Urban Areas around the
city and the Hollymead development area. None of this area is visible from Route 29. The soccer fields
will help to maintain the appearance of this area as an open buffer. The parking areas and building will
be somewhat visible from Polo'Grounds Rd. These features may change the character of the area, as
they are not features typical of a Rural Area.
The proposed improvements will have limited visibility from Polo Grounds Rd. and, therefore, staff is of
the opinion that the impact of the parking area and building is acceptable and will not change the
character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with
particular focus on Section 1.4.4 which states "To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire
protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools,
parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements." The Director
of the County's Parks and Recreation Department has provided comments on this request.
[Attachment C] Available field space within the County is limited and any efforts which increase the
amount of available field space increases the public's access to existing County facilities. As this
proposal will increase recreational opportunities within the County, staff opinion is that this request is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This proposal will not affect permitted uses on any adjacent property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.1.16 of the ordinance contains additional regulations for this type of use. Staff has included
conditions which will make this use consistent with the provisions of Section 5.1. I6.
and with the public health. safety and ~eneral welfare.
Staff has not identified any component of this proposal which is inconsistent with the public health,
safety and general welfare, other than potential traffic generation should both this use and the church use
be developed. [Staff notes that the applicant has filed for a jurisdictional boundary request which would
permit this Site to connect to public sewer which crosses the property.] The applicant has proposed the
use of subsurface drainfields in the event that the jurisdictional boundary request is not approved. The
drainfields would be located above the floodway.
Summary of Special Us, e Permit for an athletic facility
Staff opinion is that this request provides additional field space which is needed and is consistent with
the ordinance and goals of the County. Development of the soccer fields will have limited visual impact
on adjacent property or Polo Grounds road and is generally consistent with the provisions of Section
3 1.2.4.1 of the ordinance. The use of this site for play fields will remove rural land from potential
agricultural production. Of particular concern, the traffic generation. of the soccer fields when combined
with the previously approved church creates a substantial increase to traffic on Polo Grounds Road and a
detriment to properties in the area. Also, the combination of the church and soccer fields would limit
options for the routing of Meadow Creek Parkway. Therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of
the Special Use Permit for an athletic facility unless there is concurrent annulment of the special use
permit for the church.
Special Use Permit for activiW in the ~oodnlain
The installation of the soccer fields will require grading within the floodpl.ain of the Rivanna River. The
activity proposed is intended to crown the fields for drainage, install drainage systems and provide for
7
smooth play surfaces2 It has been determined that a special use permit will be required for this activity.
Section 30.3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the activity proposed. The Engineering Department
has reviewed the request for activity in the floodplain and stated "The Special Use Permit for fill in the
floodplain is supported by the Engineering Department. The fill and grading in the floodplain will not
cause a significant change in the floodplain or the floodway in this area. The following condition is
recommended for approval of the special use permit.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits; and the applicant
must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence
demonstrating approval by FEMA."
Staff has previously referenced the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area which includes a
statement that the aroa "is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the
Community of Hollymead". Staff opinion is that allowance of activity in the floodplain. does not violate
the intent of the buffer recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
P!annirig staff is able to support the request for activity within the floodplain should the athletic facility
special use permit be approved and has included conditions which are intended to address water quality
and protect against after-hour use of the parking area. [This recommendation assumes Board approval
of SP 98-18.]
Preliminary Site Plan including activity on critical slopes
The site plan for this facility has been reviewed by the site review committee. The site plan has been
determined to be approvable with standard conditions of approval and the approval by the Planning
Commission of a modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow activity on critical slopes.
The topography of the site consists of a large area of floodplain near the river and a plateau adjacent to
Route 643. An area of critical slopes rises from the floodplain to the plateau. The proposed building is
located at the base of this area of critical slopes outside of the floodplain. In order to accommodate the
building an area of the critical slopes is proposed to be graded.
The applicant has submitted a request and justification for activity on critical slopes. [Attachment F]
The Engiti~ering Department has reviewed this information and recommends approval. [Attachment D]
These slopes are not clearly visible from Polo Grounds Road and therefore, disturbance of these slopes
will have limited aesthetic impact. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed soccer fields are
not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations that this area serve as a buffer between
the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead staff is able to support the request for activity on
critical slopes.
SUMMARY:
Staff has noted previously that it can only support SP 98-18 with concurrent annulment of the prior
church special use permit. Provided such a condition is imposed staff can support the two special use
permits for the soccer fields.
The combination of church and soccer field traffic in the opinion of staff changes the character of the
district and creates a substantial detriment and for that reason staff is unable to recommend approval of.
SP 98-18 as requested.
8
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of SP 98-18 only with annulment of the prior special use permit for the
church. Should the Board approve SP 98-18 as requested by the applicant, staff recommends approval of
SP 98-22 subject to the following conditions which cover both SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP 98-18 and SP 98-22:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
No exterior lighting shall be installed.
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted.
No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the
.correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA.
Water qua_lily measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-
development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager.
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from
Route 29 to the entrance of the 'soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant
making use of both SP 98-19/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35 [Church]. The applicant
may make use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo
Grounds Rd.
Staff can recommend approval of SP 98-18 and SP 98-22 with the addition of the following condition:
1. Approval of SP 90-35 shall be null and void.
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SDP 98-055.
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative
approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until
the following conditions are met:
,
,
Engineering Department approval to include:
a. Approval of an Erosion control plan;
b. Approval of stormwater management BMP plans. This will include receipt of a
completed facilities maintenance agreement.
Health Department approval;
Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include:
a. Provision of one van-accessible barrier-free parking space with its adjacent access aisle
and accessible route to the building entrance, at the Storage and Rest Rooms Building.
Planning Department approval to include:
a. Landscape plan;
b. Notation to insure compliance with conditions of SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
9
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Parks and Recreation Department Comments
D - Engineering Department Comments
E - VDOT Comments
F - Applicant's information
G - Map of Meadowcreek alignment.
H - Zoning Administrator's Official Determination regarding SP 90-35
I - Letter from the public
o
./
U
Hall
7
f
SP 9848
· Eelshem~
ATTACHMENT A
11
45
ALBEMARLE
9
18
16C
// "'- .
SC;Ai,[ IN F[ET
CHARLOT TE:SVI LL~
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
,,, 47
146
/
/
38
oj
;.w
SDP 98-055 -
SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD ,o"~~
"~,,__ __ __, ,,,,,/'\
/
SECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5844
ATTACHMENT C
RECEIVED
MAY 9 6 1996
Planning De.Dr,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation
May 26, 1998
Polo Grounds Road Soccer Field
Thank you for the oppommity to comment on the proposal to develop 5 soccer fields on Polo
Grounds Road.
Keeping up with the growing demand for more and better field space is probably the biggest
dilemma facing our dephrtment in the future. Currently we need more fields for all sports just to
keep up with the demands for games and practices. In order to provide quality playing surfaces we
need to get to a point where we have enough fields to handle the various league demands, while still
being able to hold fields out of play for restoration. The only way we are going to get close to this
is through private efforts like this one.
Soccer is by far the single largest field user with 3400 participants, which is ~ilmost half of
the total participants in field sports. The high participation; the nature of the game, and the near year
round schedule, makes soccer play the leading contributor to the less than satisfactory' condition on
most existing fields and the lack of field space overall. The one step that would have the most
immediate impact on improving the field space situation for all sports would be the development of
a large soccer complex (10-12 fields) or several smaller complexes (4-5 fields). This would have
a spinoff effect of opening up field space County wide for other sports and reduce the overuse that
is occurring County. wide. As is occurring in other communities, this complex should be developed.
supervised, and maintained predominately by SOCA (Soccer Organization of Charlottesville
13
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 2
Albemarle), with only as much assistance as necessary from the City and County. The location of
a complex like this in the 29 North area would be ideal.
I hope we can find a way to provide the support to allow projects like this to succeed. I do
not believe that the City and County alone are going to be able to keep up with the growing demand
for field space. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist you with this.
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
~ MEMORANDUM
TO~
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~
22 May 1998
South Fork Soccer Field, preliminary site plan, waiver for development on
critical slopes, and special use permit for fill in the floodplain.
The revised preliminary plan, special use permit application, and waiver request received on 7 May 1998
and 13 May 1998 have been reviewed.'The Engineering Department recommends appro~)ai of the
preliminary plan as revised with notes indicating that Stream buffer areas and stormwater management
will be Worked out with the final plans.
In addition to the grading noted on the plan, it is our intent to encourage stormwater management
through properly placed grassed swales which are flat and wide and designed to allow infiltration.
The Engineering d~parhnent supports the waiver to allow development of the parking areas into areas of
critical slopes. The critical slope disturbance is at the base of the existing wooded slope and is a minor
disturbance as shown on the site plan. None of the items listed in the Zoning Ordinance, section 4.2, will
be of concem with this small disturbance. There is very little danger of 1) large soil or rock movement,
2) excessive runoff, 3) excessive siltation, 4) or septic effluent.
The Special Use Permit for fill in the floodplain is supported by the Engineering Department. The fill
and grading in the floodplain will not cause a significant change in the floodplain or floodway in this
area. The following condition is recommended for approval of the special use permit.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of
correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA.
The final site plan will be subject to Engineering Department review of all relevant final site plan
requirements and the following conditions:
a. [32. 7.4.3] Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan.
b. [Water Protection Ord.] Engineering Department approval of stormwater management BMP · plans. This will include receipt of a completed facilities maintenance agreement.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
GEB/
Copy: SDP-98-055
File: MEMO.WPD
ATTACHMENT E
· Page 2
May 18, 1998
Ron Xeeler
Public ~earin~ Submittals
~P-98-17 Blue Ridqe HeallnqArts, Route 240
This proposed facility is on narrow private roads, however these roads have
adequate sigh= distance at entrances to Route 240. There should not be a
major impact to traffic network in this area.
SP-98-18 South Fork Soccer Field, Route 643
In our letter from J. ~. Kesterson, dated A~ril 29, 1998 to Mr. Jack Kelsey,
we were requiring a 30 foot mln~mum commercial entrance with 100 foot by
-~oot right turn and taper lane for the Site Plan SDP-S8-055.
There will be 450 feet of sight distance required at the entrance which may
require some trimming of vegetation.
when Route 6~3 was improved from Route 29 to 1.S miles east of Route 29, the
road was improved to basically accommodate a traffic count, at that time,
200 ADT. The traffic count now is righ~ at 1000 ADT and we have found that
roads with an ADT that are 1000.VPD or over require a stronger surface
accommodate such impacts. Based Upon his s~zable increase in traffic and the
added impact of the soccer traffic, Route 643 should have an overlay of
inches of SM-ZA as a minimum, applied from Route 29 to =he proposed entrance
site.
SP-98-19 Brown Toyota, Route 250
Attached. See letter from J. H. Kesterson dated April 1, 1998, to Mr. Jack
Kelsey, in response to SDP-98-044.
16
CHARLES WILLIAM HURT
VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 8147
CHARLOTTESVII J-F-, VmCINIA 22906
ATTACHMENT F
AREA CODE 804
TELEPHONE 979-8181
FAX 296-3510
May 5, 1998
William D. Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesyille, Va. 22902-4596
RE: Proposed South Fork Soccer Fields - Critical Slopes
Dear Bill:
I hope the following information will be helpful regarding your comments on this property.
In reference to Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the proposed
development is to preserve the qualities of the existing fields by disturbing as minimal an
amount of earth as possible, to create a semi- level playing surface and an acceptable
drainage pattern. The majority of this. parcel and the proposed recreation area is in the
flood plain along the South Fork of the Rivanna River. The designated land of critical
slopes is a small area that is affected in order to create a more manageable grade around
the rear of the building There is no building located on critical slopes and we will not be
disturbing any area of critical slopes near the stream or river banks. This property is not in
the watershed. This proposed development is intended to conserve and maintain the
natural and scenic resources along the Rivanna River. The area of critical slopes that is to
be graded is more than 1000' fi-om the river and will not create an erosion condition that
would af[~ct the water quality. Any grading taking place in that area is intended only to
provide for better drainage around the improvements. Any area of critical slope that is
disturbed is not in the flood plain. The remaining flood plain wraps around the edges of
the tract. We have made every effort to confine the improvements to the area of the
property that would have the least amount of impact. The critical slope area is not
considered for use as a septic field, parking lot or building site. It is our hope that the
County and ACSA will permit the sewage effluent go to the sewer that crosses the
property. We feel that our intended use of the property will not create a danger to the
public health, safety and/or welfare. We will coordinate our improvements with the water
quality resource office.
17
ATTACHMENT F
PAGE 2
If you have any questions regarding these issues or about the proposed subdivision, please
feel free to contact me at 979-8181 or 981-5777.
Respectfully,
Katurah S. Roell
cc: Charles W. Hurt
SOCCER
~ PAGE 3
ORGANIZATION CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE
370 Greenbrier Drive, Suite B · Charlottesville,Virginia 22901
Phone 804-975-5025 Fax 804-975~-2619
ATTACHMENT F
June 26, 1998
William D. Fritz
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Koad
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RECEIVED
dUN 2 9 1998
Planning Dept.
RE: SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field.
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I have been asked by Mr. Katurah Roell to address the questions raised in your letter of June 11,
referencing this project. Below please find my responses. Kesponses are numbered using the
same numbers as the original questions.
Total area of disturbance is estimated to be approximately 15.5 acres.
We are unaware of any archeological survey performed on the site. At this time there is
no plan for such a survey.
We are unaware of any converted wetlands which would be impacted by this project.
The building was sized to include the following uses: toilets, soccer equipment storage,
field maintenance equipment storage (must be large enough for a 24' long soccer goal),
concession booth, office space.
Parking spaces were determined from the empirical formula below. This formula has
evolved out of, and is supported by our historical observation.
Full Sized Fields
4 fields x 2 teams x 15 players/team x .75 cars/player x 2 game ,'verb^ = 130
,, .p cars.
Under 10 Sized Field
1 field x 2 teams x 10 players/team x .75 cars/player x 2 game overlap = 30 cars.
Referees
Max 6 cars for four fields.
Total=216 spaces.
,
Consideration will be given to making appropriate arrangements for canoe access to the
river.
We are aware that the proposed Rivanna Greenway crosses the property, and that proffers
have been requested in similar instances.
19
ATTACHMENT F
PAGE 4
Additionally, Mr. Roell has asked that I provide you with an estimate of traffic generated by the
proposed project. Estimates have been provided for maximum anticipated weekend and
weekday use. Traffic generation estimates are based upon the empirical information provided in
Item 5, above. Please note the car/game count below includes a referee estimate.
Weekend Use
4 full fields x 4 games/day x 24 cars/game = 384 round trips
1 U10 field x 5 games/day x 16 cars/game = 80 round trips
Total Estimated Weekend Use = 464 round trips
Start time: 9:00 am
Estimated completion time: 3:30 pm.
Weekday Use
4 full fields x 2 teams/field x 10 cars/team x 1 practice~evening = 80 round trips
1 U10 field x 2 teams/field x 7 cars/team x 1 practice/evening = 14 round trips
Total Estimated Weekday Use = 94 round trips
Estimated use is between 4:30 and 7:00 pm.
Please note that a lower multiplier of .67 is used to calculate cars/player for practices than that
used for games. It has been our experience that there is greater car-pooling and fide sharing for
practices, thereby reducing the number of cars used to transport players to these events.
Please also note that the primary use of the facility will be seasonal, with the anticipated
maximum activity outlined above being over an approximately twelve-week period in both fall
and spring. There are no anticipated significant winter activities. There are anticipated limited
summer activities.
If you require any further information please feel flee to contact me.
William K5 Mueher
Executive Director
Cc: Katurah Koell
2O
~31~H3VJ,,LV
/~,= C. · ,, \
--t ;,s,. x
\
-j
:
.00;?~: .i Yl~/3S l~; :alE: :80 866~ 'BU '[np uDP'ue[dlsoa\ue[~llllo3\uDp-',~\ :a
_=
,*'7--, -
- ~, ,,, ':
ATTACHMENT H
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Richard E. Tarbell, Senior Planner
Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator~
July 17, 1992
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Covenant Church of God
SP-90-35 - STILL VALID
After reviewing the applicant's letter dated March 17, 1992, I
have determined that SP-90-35 has not expired, due to the
applicant's good faith expenditures of time and money in
successfully pursuing the Board of Supervisors' approval to
include this property in the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Therefore, this special use permit is
still valid and will not expire.
co:
Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering
Harold L. Bare
22
AREA CODE 804
OFFICE TELEPHONE 295-613'7
FAX 977-7852
S. L. WILLIAMSON COMPANY,
1230 RIVER ROAD
P. O. BOX 648
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VI RGI N IA
22902
July. 8, 1998
INC.
RED HILL PLANT TELEPHONE 293-6834
SHADWELL PLANT TELEPHONE 295-.451'7
RUCKERVILLE PLANT TELEPHONE 985-3394
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
County of A!bemarle
Department of Planning & Community Dev.
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: South Fork Soccer Fields
Dear Mr. Fritz:
It iS my understanding thaC Dr. C. W. Hurt has applied for a
special use permit to allow the construction of a number of soccer
fields on property shown on Tax Map 46 as Parcels 22 and 22C. This
property is on the north side of the South Fork cf the Rivanna
River, directly across the river from the property to be developed
as Still Meadows. My property, located in CarrsbrooX and shown on
Tax Map 45B!2) as Section 1, Parcel 1, abuts the western property
line of the Still Meadows property.
Our residence, owned 'jointly by my husband, Stirling
Williamson and myself, is located at 313 E. Monacan Drive in
Carrsbrook on Lot 13, Block B, Section C (Tax Map Parcel 045B!-03-
0B-01300), and it abuts my property mentioned above. From our home
we have a clear view of the proposed soccer field property.
My husband and i do not oppose the construction of the South
Fork Soccer Fields. However, we would strongly oppose any lights
or amplified sound (i.e. PA system) that might accompany such a
facility, as they would pose a real nuisance to our home, as well
=~ ~ ~he homes of other residents of Carrskrook.
We are writing this letter to express our sentiments
regarding the proposed soccer fields because we plan to be out of
town on August 4th, when the South Fork Soccer Fields proposal is
scheduled to come before the Planning Commission. If you have any
questions of us, do not hesitate to call our home (973-5221) or
office (295-6!37).
RECEIVED
JUt 0 mc ',
Planning Dept.
Yours very trull;,
n c. Williamson
· Wil!iams , Jr.
September 23, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
ATTACHMENTB
William Mueller
SOCA 370 Greenbrier Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22901
SP-98-18 South Fork Soccer Field (Soccer Field Property)
Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C
Dear Mr. Mueller:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 9, 1998, approved the
above-noted request to locate five soccer fields, 2000 square foot storage building, and 216
parking spaces on approximately 72 acres. Please note that this approval is subject to the
following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
No exterior lighting shall be installed.
No loudspeakers or public address bystem shall be permitted.
No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5. I. 16.
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site utter hours and during flood events.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the applicant
must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence
demonstrating approval by FEMA.
Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-
development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager.
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from Route
29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant making
use of both SP 98-i8/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35 [Church]. The applicant may make
use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd.
The owner shall reserve a 100 foot wide strip of land the length of the property. abutting the northern
side of the Rivarma River for the Rivanna Greenway. The width of the reserved area shall be
measured fi'om the edge of the Rivanna River at its normal flow level. When the County decides to
establish a public area or park, including canoe access, within the reserved area, upon the request of
the County, the owner shall dedicate the reserved area to the County and such property necessary, for
ingress and egress to the reserved area.
24
Page 2
September 23, 1998
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Phase 1 archeological survey shall be completed, followed by appropriate mitigation measures, as
directed by Planning staff, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
The special permit shall be void upon notice by the Board of Supervisors that a road design plan
which conflicts with this use has been approved by VDOT encompassing this property.
The use of the building shall be limited to restrooms, equipment storage and concession counter.
The concession counter shall be open only during use of the soccer fieldS.
A tot lot shall be provided.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not
be commenced within eighteen (18) months 'after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes
of this section, the term "commenced' shall be construed to include the commencement of
construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the
date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department.
Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this
letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ovir w2 &,,comm mty
vwC/jcf
Development
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
David Hirschman
25
County of Albemarle
Sign# . Mag. Dist.
Department of Building Codees
,,L '
Application for Special Use Permit
Project Name (ho,~ shO.sd w,: tutor to this application'?)
*Existing Use
,Proposed Use ('~2,/~t~_ f-----------------~c,c,6~ ~-st~_Z~
*Zoning District ~ t,,/,~/,Lt. tA. *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested
(*staff will assist you with these items)
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit {it a potton it must he delineated on plat)
IS this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? a(Yes'~ No
Are you submitting a site 'development plan with this application? rn Yes,~No
Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?):
Address Xq6 ~-,nt~-~F_.g~ ~v~-
Daytime Phone ( 1~o4 ) ~7~ - ~,tbt
State VA Zip zz'~ll
E-mail
Owner of land <As listed in the Countv's records):
Address H~ ~ve~B~ ~s~ City C~v,~ State' VA Zip zz~tt
DaytimePhone(So4 ) q~-bt~t Fax~C8~Zq&-~alo E-mail
Applicant (who is the contact person representing? Who is requesting the special use?): k/,.~ # I.,-L. l At'-,'X ~ 0e. LI, ~
Address cjD6, A~. 570 ~'E,e,e:U~/,Ie.,it D~,.~ SuctE 1:5 CityC. nu.o'rmgu,u-E State V'A Zip
Daytime Phone ( ~04 ) qV~-/gZ-m
Fax # qTS'-2.&/q'
E-mail c~GDc~, c-dmne,ne't
Location of property (la~dlnarks. intersections, or other)
PhysicalAddress(if=signed) I"~' F'4'
ePee-,r ~F P---r'. '2-q e~ c~ovnq
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
those tax map and parcel numbers ,,.los'r ~ ia.~..-,~e-tD~ e,F- ~ V'enh~ea6 cr~ pna-cra_~ t,dcrr
Fee amount Date Paid CheCk # eceipt
~ Vmances: q~' ~ ~
Coneuncut review of Site Development Plan7 ~er g~Xthori~on
Section 3 1.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors"'-
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the distric~
will not be changed thereby and that such use wiI1 be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section
5.0 of this ordinance,' and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of'your request.'
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehen.sive Plan designation for this property? ~u~-~t. ~c. ~=~
Howwilltheproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentproperty? 'T,,.~r Muv_.9~:~'-t -r~ ~ \~r ~ ~
How will'the propo.sed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
How is the" .U~e in harmony with the uses permitted by rig'hi in the district? ~ ~ Pc~.t A-Sz~'A
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to t. his use?
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of. the community?
27
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ~e ~,e~..~_a~ r, ~e~ot~r ~-a
A~AC~ENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copi~ of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please'provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note:· If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion, of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing .the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify tharthe information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory -
28
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Allocation of 2% Funding for Classified/Administrative
Employees
AGENDA DATE:
September 6, 2000
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Implementation Proposal for the 2% Funding Pool approved
in the FY 00/01 Budget
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes (1)
STAFF CONTACT(S): /~y *
Messrs. Tucker, White, Gerome REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The annual salary survey report presented to the Board last fall recommended that 2% of salary for each of the next five years be
used to address competitive shortfall, progression and structural compensation issues. The 2000-2001adopted budget funded a 2%
annual salary pool for classified and administrative employees contingent on the staff presenting a plan to address specific issues.
~ The 2% funding in the Local Government Fund for 2000-2001 is $350,000 (of which $295,917 is direct salary and the balance is
benefit costs) intended to address these issues. Enclosure (1) is the staff recommendation for the first phase of addressing these
issues and estimates the salary cost to implement these effective September 1, 2000 - June 30, 2001 at $265,847, leaving a balance
of $30,070.
DISCUSSION:
In developing the following recommendations, the annual salary survey and local competitive market were reviewed. This analysis
focused on four facets of compensation:
Identify positions that are more than 10 percent below their competitive market and thus are candidates for reciassification
at a higher pay grade;
Review turnover/retention data in all positions for the past two years to identify positions that are not competitive at the pay
grade entry level;
Review incumbent salaries for specific positions that are candidates for in-range market adjustments; and
Review impacts of any reclassifications on internal equity within job families that are candidates for reclassification or
salary adjustments.
The attached report identifies the specific positions for the proposed salary changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following salary adjustments as described in more detail in the attached report.
· Implementation of an $8.00-per-hour minimum which impacts positions in paygrades 1-4 and costs $5,633.
· Positions below market and commonality with School Division-eight positions are included for cost of $34,922.
· Information Systems-in-range market adjustments of 5% for four incumbents at a cost of $6,813.
· Planning & Community Development-three positions reclassified one pay grade higher (5% increase) and nine positions
reclassified two pay grades higher (10% increase) at cost of $39,296.
· Social Services Department-three positions reclassified at a higher pay grade for 5% increase at a cost of $30,625.
· Police Department-in-range market adjustments of 5% for 13 positions and cost of $134,329.
· Engineering and Public Works Department-in-range market adjustments of 5% for seven incumbents, costing $14,229.
· Emergency Communications Center-three positions reclassified at a higher paygrades. Cost is not included, as this will be
funded out of the jointly funded E911 budget.
Enclosure (1) identifies the specific positions for salary changes and the proposed process in addressing the salary for each. Staff
recommends approval with implementation as outlined in the attached material.
Enclosure (1)
Allocation of 2% Funding for Classified/Administrative Employees
Total Cost is $265,848, effective 09/01/00
I. Positions impacted by $8.00-per-hour-minimum
While competitive salaries and retention are relevant to all positions, this analysis
identified critical impacts on positions in the lower paygrades. The extremely low
unemployment in this community is having a detrimental impact on both the size and
quality of our applicant pools, as well as our ability to retain staff in these paygrades.
With the City of Charlottesville decision to set an $8.00-per-hour minimum wage for their
employees, and the increased focus on this within the University of Virginia, the County
needs to be proactive in our efforts to be competitive in these positions.
The recommendation is:
1 ) to implement an $8.00 minimum for current employees, so that incumbents paid
below $8.00 per-hour would receive an increase to the $8.00-per-hour minimum
and;
2) to hire new employees at a minimum entry rate of $8.00 per hour for pay grades 1-4.
Positions in paygrades 1-4 were reviewed in terms of recommending $8.00 minimum
and include the following:
Senior Social Services Aide
Social Services Aide
Courier l
Grounds/Facilities Maintenance Worker l
Reproduction Equipment Operator
Office Associate I
$7.72
$7.20
$7.20
$7.72
$7.72
$6.71
In addition, current temporary part-time Parks and Recreation employees employed at
an hourly pay rate below $8.00 will receive a salary increase to the $8.00 minimum to
match comparable positions in the City. The cost of implementation for current
employees is $5,633.
II. Positions below market and commonality with School Division
Positions identified as below their competitive market are included in the following chart.
Since these same compensation enhancements were approved by the School Board
and implemented effective July 1, 2000, these recommendations achieve commonality
between Albemarle Local Government employees and Albemarle County Public School
employees in the same job classifications.
In reviewing the Office Associate series, the recommendation for an in-range
adjustment, rather than a reclassification to a higher paygrade, is intended to maintain
equity within the series. The Office Associate V was reviewed, however, data indicated
that this position was market competitive. The positions in the shaded area do not have
comparable positions or incumbents in the position on the school side, but are included
in this recommendation due to internal equity considerations. The cost to implement
these changes is $34,922.
Position Current Proposed Current Proposed # Market
grade paygrade Salary Salary Incum median
Minimum Minimum- -bents 11/99
-Midpoint Midpoint
Office 4 No change $16,078- No change 11
Assodate II $20,902
Office 6 No change $18,508- No change 10
Associate III $24,061
Office 8 No change $21,305- No change 9 $30,000
Assodate IV $27,696
Custodian 2 3 $13,967- $16,640- 6 $20,500
$18,157 $19,481
Maintenance 6 7 $t8,508- $19,857- 0 $33,000
Mechanic $24,061 $25,815
Courier II 3 No change $14,985- No change 1
$19,481
Recommendation Cost
Create 5% in-range $10,574
adjustment
Create 5% in-range $10,011
adjustment
Create 5% in-range $12,080
adjustment
Raise I pay grade for a 7.5% $5,639
increase and an artificial
minimum of $8.001hour
Raise I pay grade and $0
adjust salary by 5%
$8.00/hour minimum $0
Senior 7 8 $19,857- $21,305- 2 School does not have $2,755
Maintenance $25,815 $27,696 comparable position, but
Mechanic rational to include is internal
equity-5% in-range
adjustment
III. Information Services
Four positions were identified for market adjustments. The annual salary survey
(November 1999) indicated that the market midpoint for a Systems Analyst is $48,000.
Albemarle County's current midpoint for Systems Analyst is $45,329. Due to internal
equity concerns, a 5% in-range market adjustment is recommended, rather than a
reclassification to a higher paygrade. The incumbents in positions identified as below
market are two System Analysts, one Systems Engineer and one Senior Program
Analyst. The cost of the market adjustments is $6,813.
IV. Planning & Community Development
The annual survey identified several below market Planning positions. The market
midpoint for Senior Planner is $50,000, compared to the Albemarle County midpoint of
$36,702. In addition, Planner position turnover has been 25% over the past two
calendar years. To address the market competitiveness of the Planner position, internal
equity considerations necessitate other reclassifications. The reclassifications will raise
the paygrades so that new hires will be paid at the higher paygrade and incumbents in
the position (s) will receive a 5% increase for a one paygrade reclassification and a 10%
increase for a two paygrade reclassification.
2
The following recommendations address the internal and external equity and the cost of
implementation is $39,296.
Current Proposed Current
paygrade paygrade salary
Minimum
-midpoint
Design Planner 15 17 $34,868-
$45,329
Senior Planner 14 16 $32,499-
$42,249
Planner 12 14 $28,231-
$36,702
Planning Technician 8 10 $21,305-
$27,696
Manager, Info 17 18 $40,138-
Resources $52,180
Development Process 17 18 $40,138-
Manager $52,180
GI S Coordinator 14 16 $32,499-
$42,249
GIS Specialist II 11 13 $26,313-
$34,207
Graphics and 12 14 $28,231-
Resource Coordinator $36,702
Planning Aide 7 9 $19,857-
$25,815
GIS Specialist I 9 11 $22,858-
$29,716
Chief of Planning and 19 20 $46,205-
Community $60,067
Development
Proposed
salary
Minimum-
midpoint
$40,138-
$52 180
$37 411 -
$48 634
$32 499-
$42 249
$24 526-
$31 884
$43 065-
$55 984
$43 065-
$55 984
$37 411 -
$48 634
$30 291-
$39 379
$32 499-
$42 249
$22 858-
$29 716
$26 313-
$34 207
$49,574-
$64,444
incUm
-bents
Recommendation
Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
3 Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
I Raise 2 paygrades and t0%
increase
I Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
I Raise t paygrade and 5% increase
I Raise t paygrade and 5% increase
I Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
I Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
I Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
Vacant Raise 2 paygrades and t0%
increase
0 Raise 2 paygrades and 10%
increase
I Raise q paygrade and 5% increase
V. Social Services Department
Several positions were identified as below market, as the following chart illustrates. The
cost to implement is $30,625.
Social Worker
Senior Social
Worker
Social Work
Supervisor
Current Proposed Current Proposed # Market Recommendation
grade grade salary salary Incum- median
Minimum- Minimum- bents 11/99
midpoint midpoint
11 12 $26,313- $28,231- 12 $38,500 Raise 1 paygrade and
$34,207 $36,702 adjust salary 5%
13 14 $30,291- $32,499- 6 Raise 1 paygrade and
$39,379 $42,249 adjust salary 5%
16 17 $37,411- $40,138- 4 $58,000 Raise I paygrade and
$48,634 $52,180 adjust salary 5%
VI. Police Department
Several positions in the Police Department have experienced high turnover and were
identified in the annual salary survey with low salary to midpoint ratios. For Police
Officers, the average salary to midpoint ratio is 83.1%. In order to address this, as well
3
as internal equity within the department, a 5% in-range adjustment is recommended for
a series of positions. In addition, a 5% salary adjustment is recommended for Police
Records Clerk, as the average salary to midpoint ratio was 81.6% and intemal equity
concerns justify adjustments for the positions listed below. The cost of implementing
salary adjustments for all Police Department positions is $134,329.
Position Current Proposed Current Turnover Recommendation
grade paygrade Salary per year
Police Records 7 No
Clerk change
Police Evidence 7 No
Property Clerk change
Victim Witness 6 No
Program Assistant change
Police Department 10 No
Assistant change
Crime Analyst 12 No
change
Civilian 9 No
Investigative Asst. change
Senior Police 8 No
Records Clerk change
Police 11 No
Officer/Detective change
Police Officer 1st 12 No
Class change
Senior Police 12 No
Officer change
Master Police 12 No
Officer change
Minimum
-Midpoint
$19,857- 50%
$25,815
$19,857-
$25,815
$18,508-
$24,061
$24,526-
$31,884
$28,231 -
$36,702
$22,858-
$29,716
$21,305- 25%
$27 696
$26 313- 7%
$34 207
$28 231- 7%
$36 702
$28 231 - 11%
$36 702
$28 231-
$36 702
Proposed
Salary
Minimum-
Midpoint
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
No
change
5% In-range adjustment
5% In-range adjustment
5% In-range adjustment
5% In-range adjustment
5% In-range adjustment
5% In-range adjustment
5% In-range adjustment
5% in-range adjustment
5% in-range adjustment
5% in-range adjustment
5% in-range adjustment
Police Corporal 14 No $32,499- No
change $42,249 change
Police Sergeant 15 No $34,868- No
change $45,329 change
5% in-range adjustment
5% in-range adjustment
VII. Engineering and Public Works Department
A number of staff members with years of experience are significantly below the
Albemarle County current midpoint. A 5% in-range market adjustment is recommended
to bring them to or closer to midpoint. The chart below illustrates this and shows
proposed salary in relation to current and midpoint for the incumbent. Cost to
implement is $14,229.
4
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
70000
60000--
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
21 20 15 15 14 7 6
Yrs. Experience
[] SALARY
[] MIDPOINT
' [] PROPOSED
SALARY
VIII. Emergency Communications Center
The ECC has experienced high turnover rates (turnover in the Communications Officer
position over the past two years has been 50%) and difficulties in filling vacancies. In
addition, a review of the job responsibilities for the listed positions indicate that
'increased levels of technical knowledge are required. Recommendations are as
follows:
· Reclassify Communications Officer from paygrade 9 to paygrade 10 (7.5% salary
increase)
· Reclassify Communications Supervisor from paygrade 11 to paygrade 13 (10%
salary increase)
· Reclassify Operations Coordinator from paygrade 14 to paygrade 16 (10% salary
increase)
The share of Albemarle County's cost to make these changes is $26,972. However,
this will be funded along with the City's and the University's out of the ECC
Departmental budget and therefore is not included as a cost.
5
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
scottsville
Charlotte Y Humphris
Jack Joueit
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Cha~ottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Cha~es S. Martin
Rivanna
Waiter E Perkins
WMte Hail
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
September 11,2000
Mr. William Viasis "'
Rt. 1, Box 274
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Viasis:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your.willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouet~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Chades S. Martin
Rivanna
Waiter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Sarnud Miller
September 11, 2000
Mr. Charles M. Toms, Jr.
5476 Brownsville Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Toms:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your .willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White H~ll
Sally H. Thomas
September 11, 2000
Ms. Diana H. Strickler
Six Sunset Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Strickler:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your.willingness to serVethe County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
CO:
James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Char|o~te Y. Hurnphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX {804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
Whi~e Hall
Sally H. Thomas
September 11, 2000
Ms. Bonnie W. Samuel
P.O. Box 25
Greenwood, VA 22943
Dear Ms. Samuel:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your,willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Offic~ of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902,4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Chades S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samue~ Miller
September 11, 2000
Mr. David A. Rash
1444 Ballard Drive
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Rash:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Hurnphris
Jack Jouelt
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Cha~es S. Martin
Rivan~
Walter E Perkins
Wh~e
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel l~filer
September 11, 2000
Mr. Charles B. Mitchell
1645 Mint Springs Rd.
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your,willingness to serve the County .in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Pr/nted on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
scottsviue
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Jack aouett
COUNTY OF AI..BEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Cha~ottesville, V~rginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Chades S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter i.. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
September 11, 2000
Mr. David W. Carr, Jr.
1071 Allendale Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Carr:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 6, 2000, the Board appointed you to the
Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to run from September 6, 2000 through September 5, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your, willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Juandiego Wade
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie i~ee~t~,~,CCl~rMl~C~)
Senior
August 31, 2000
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through
November 30, 2000. Change date Please advise me if you want me to advertise any of the
VaCBFICieS. Thank you.
cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis
Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES
jORDAN DEVELOPM'E~I'~ '7 ...............' .....................................'.
CORPORA TION .
~ .....................~ ........................: .......' ............
(Applications due 9/20/00) David T. Paulson
;"jA'~/~:B'6>,'Rb" ........................: ......
)-- ....................... ....................... .............'---~ ...........................--F: ......................... ............; .....
! (Applications due 9/20/00) Rox, anne White 09-30-00 09-80-03
(Applications due 9/20/00) { Margaret Borwhat 09-30-00 09-30-03
i':'j~i~'L/f)'~)'i/I~T'fA')~'~R'~':." ....... "':" .............: ........~3:~,ea'r:'t~'~ms
(Applications sent under separate (New committee - 5
cover) vacanc~s)
WISH TO BE
NEW TERM RE-
EXPIRES APPOINTED?
~ ..
08-13-00 08-13-01 ........ N'o"
! ,.
No
No
AUTHORITY (RIVANNA)
.,_~..~_...' ................. .:_ _:__,..1 .............
(Applications due 9/20/00)
,'(~bXff, ijSSlON ON CHILDREN
(Applications due 1013100)
[":Aj~CNITECTURAL RE~ ............................ :: ...................................
BOARD ' '
Rudolph A. Beverly 11-14-00
Timothy M. Michel 11-14-00
Bethany C. Puopolo 11-14-00
Meredith S. Gunter ' 06-30-01
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT?
11-14-04 ?
11-14-04 ?
11014-04 No
Ken Clarry 01-19-02 Resigned ....
I
I
.............I
i Resigned
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board o Supervisors
DATE: August 31, 2000
RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions
I have attached copies of applications for the vacancies on the Route 250 West Task Force. Thank
you.
Attachments
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
BOARD OR COMMISSION
ROUTE 250 WEST TASK
FORCE (New committee)
Davi;d""~arr ('~ appliCation-former Rt.
250 West Citizens Advisory
Committee member representing the
Southern Environmental Law Center)
Paul J. Grady, Jr.
Kim Kepchar
Charles B. Mitchell
David A. Rash
Bonnie W. Samuel
Diana Strickler-(No application-former
Rt. 250 West Citizens Advisory
Committee member)
Charles M. Toms (No application-
former Rt. 250 West Citizens
Advisory Committee member)
William Viasis
NEW TERM
EXPIRE
DATE
(3-year
terms)
N/A
APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW,
INCUMBENT IF
SCHEDULED
N/A
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlotteswille, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
Board/Commission/Committee
Applicant's Name
Full Home'A;Jdress
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Employer
Business Aftdress
Occupation/Tide
Years Resident in Albemarle County ~'~
Previous Residence ~/~U_/Z/;6e'H/SL~F/Z,7
Education Degrees and Graduation Dates)
,,P/ f :,/--Y.4q,4 7& z Ac q 't.-/~57fz-a67,~
Date of Empbyment /q77 "~r/~'72L,, ,A/d'cd
Spouse's Name
Number of Children
Memberships in Fratemal, Business, Church and/or Sodal Groups
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests I!~' ~!7/~ ,l~t~-f~5~T~)~ ~F___
Reason(s) forWishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee ~ ~. Z./V.,e-Z) if'3/2672:)
OF-- 7'/ff- 7~t'd.- o-t-.F- 'Tlif_, 2, ~,~ 5gd?7:/tyA.~ Off: Zb"'D ~
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request. 7DJ__-Ye/',
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIndre Road
Charlotteswille, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMM/SSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or pit.)
.~lV'X V"~'~CI'ti~CZ HomePhone
Applicant's Name
Full Home Ad&ess
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Employer 5~,_kFr
Business Address G~-~'~-2 )4
Occupation/Tide ~A4~N]>/~t~t~/cr~MLP-,_
Years Resident in Albemarle County ]
Previous Residence C
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates)
Phone
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name ~ N
Number of Children
Memberships in Fratemal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Public, CMc and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests
14 u ~4
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee 'T
~ ~ ~/C ~ c~s, sr7 T~ ~T T ~ c c ~-u7
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Daflte
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
Jul Z~ O0 04:04R Charles B- Mituhell 884-e77-8147 R-1
County of Albemarle
Office of Board 0f~ Supervisors
401Mdmixe Road
Qaartotr~vilb, VA 229024596
(804) 296-51143
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Appllcam's Name
Full Home Address
Magismial Disuict in which your home residence is located.
Employer
Business Ac~ch'ess
Phone
Occupadon/'Tide A~Frj,e..,e/3
e-~'O Date of Employment
Years Resident ~ Albemarle County ~. Spouse's Name
Previous Residence __~._..e_..~'_.~..1/,/d, e, ',.g e., Number of Cluldren
__
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Uxtere~ t'~~t~-~
· The information provided on this appl/cation will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
%
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlotteswille, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee Z~'~
Applicant's Name"~D/4 V I ~ ~z~ .
v~U Home Ad&ess/Z/4Z/~' ZtJj tb2D 7"~,
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Occupation/Title
Home Vho.e 82 ~ 4/yS"'
Date of EmploymentL~/~
Spouse's
Number
Years Resident in Albemarle County
Previous Residence i~ I ~
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates)
Memberships in Fratemal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests 8 R4 2,~r'/.,t/~t-,u//fit Ftr ,d$~ t~ e.
S~i~~ rovi e ~ 's a 'ca 'on to
in rma 'o ~ d j~ppli u will be released the public upon request.
Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Char!ottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
Board/Commission/Committee
Applicant's Name "~ cOh~'x
Home Phone
rullHomeAa&ess ?.~, '~~t~" 9~a,? COl~'ll, io.
Ma~o~a Dig~ ~ wNch yo~ homo residence is located
Emplo~X~m~ C~, ~ ~ko&
Bus~ess Ad&ess ~ ~ _
Occupation/Tide
Years Resident in babemarie County ..qat y.
'F~Z - . o-{:i ,~¢~421u.- c.~.Number of Chil&en
Previous Residence U, ~d ~ ~f St ~
Education(Degrees~dGraduationDates) b~' k sok~ol ~ "~vc.e..
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups O ~Ok'~
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or C)ther Actixaies or Interests t/JldA~~ ~-~
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee "h
The information provided on this application will be releasealto the public upon request.
Signature Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
BOARD OF SUPERVISOp: ;
F~OM: IVYCORNER F~X NO.: Nov. 05 1~9 12:49PM P1
):Willia~ Vl~siS COMP~:
County of Albemarlc
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Offi~ of Board
September 6, 2000
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I move that the board go into closed session
pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia
· Under subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions; AND
· Under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the
Ivy Landfill and regarding specific legal matters
relating to a claim against the County.
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
WHEREAS, Kurt and Jane Kroboth by letter dated September 1, 2000 have
demanded that the County of Albemarle pay to them $4,940 to reimburse legal
expenses incurred by them in 1998 in a dispute arising out of whether their property at
186 Terrell Road East could be served by public water; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered such demand; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the demand has no basis in fact or law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby denies the claim of Kurt and Jane Kroboth as demanded in the
attached letter dated September 1, 2000.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by
vote of six to zero on September 6, 2000.
Clerk, Board of County Supervis~
Kurt and Jane Kroboth
186 Terrell Road East
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 296-5459
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
September 1, 2000
Dear Mr. Tucker:
In April 1998, the Albemarle County Service Authority approved our application for water
service for our property at 186 Terrell Road East, which lies partly within and partly outside the
Authority' s jurisdictional area. Such approval was pursuant to the Authority' s policy and practice
of providing a connection and meter to the part of a property lying within its jurisdictional area,
and was undertaken following consultation with the Albemarle County Planning Department.
After payment of the hookup fee, the Authority installed the service connection to our property.
Shortly thereafter, Supervisor Charlotte Humphris intervened personally to prevent the Authority
from honoring its contract to provide water service. She was aided in this effort by Albemarle
County, in the person of County Attorney Larry W. Davis. Because of this intervention, we were
obliged to file a lawsuit against the Authority to compel its performance under the contract. This
suit was filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court on September 25, 1998.
The County' s action in this matter was in clear violation of the provisions of the Albemarle
County Code, which states in Section 14-516 that the Service Authority is obliged to provide
water service to each lot in any subdivision which is, in whole or in part, within its jurisdictional
area.
Furthermore, the pendency of our lawsuit caused the Board of Supervisors, in a meeting held
October 7, 1998, to reformulate the County's policy concerning water service to properties split
by jurisdictional boundaries. Under the resulting new policy approved by the Board, water and
sewer service would only be available to dwellings lying "substantially within" the jurisdictional
area. This new policy likewise violates Section 14~516 of the Albemarle County Code.
The County's actions in this matter, in violation of the Albemarle County Code, forced us to
retain legal counsel to represent our interests in this matter, at a cost of $4940. By this letter, we
demand reimbursement of this sum by Albemarle County, since these legal expenses were
incurred solely as result of its illegal efforts, along with those of Ms. Humphris, to interfere with
the contract between us and the Service Authority.
Page 2
We further demand that the policy and water and sewer service approved by the Board of
Supervisors on October 7, 1998, in violation of the Albemarle County Code, be immediately
rescinded and annulled.
Shotrid the County fail to comply with these demands within a period of 15 days, we are prepared
and intend to pursue any and all legal remedies available to us.
Sincerely,