HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-11
.. I Ii A L
7100 P.M.
January 11, 1995
Roo. 7, Coun~y Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6) Public .e.ring on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 6, etc.
Elections, to change the name of the Charlottesville Magisterial
District to Rio Hill Magisterial District, rename the Rio Hill
Precinct to the Agnor-Hurt Precinct and rename the Berkeley Precinct
to the Commonwealth Precinct.
7) Public .earing on the proposed tax-exempt financing by Bast Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., in the amount of $120,000, in order to
assist the Fire Company in the acquisition of a new fire truck.
8) Public .earing on the proposed Capital Improvement Program for FY 1995-96
through FY 1999-2000.
9) Aàep~ FY 1995 9S Gapi~al 1Mpre7emeft~. Pr8§ram Btià§.~. (Delete from
agenda.)
10) ZMA-94-15. Philip A. Sansone. Public .e.ring on a request to rezone
7.87 ac from R-l to R-I0 with proffered plan showing 34 dwelling
units. Located off Rt 20 & Garnett Center Drive N of Wilton Country
Homes. Site is recommended for low density residential (1-4 du/ac)
in the Comprehensive Plan. TM78,P581. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred
fro. Deceaber 21, 1994.)
11) ZMA-94-16. Charles W. Hurt. Public .e.ring on a request to amend
existing Planned Residential Development agreements of ZMA-88-04 to
allow reconfiguration of access which is currently permitted through
the Franklin development; access is proposed through Ashcroft.
Property of approx 89 ac located W of & adjacent to Ashcroft.
TM78,P57 (part). Rivanna Dist. Site located in Rural Area 2.
12) ZMA-94-18. Donald Robertson. Public .e.ring on a request to rezone 4.34
ac from RA to L1 for purpose of establishing a mini-warehouse
facility. Located on S sd of Rt 250 W, about 2/3 mi E of Yancey
Mills at 1-64. TM55B,PI7. White Hall Dist. Site outside of the
Crozet Community Growth Area and is designated Rural Areas in the
Comprehensive Plan.
13) SP-94-31. George Hall. Public .earing on a request for public garage on
0.676 ac zoned RA & EC. Located on N sd of Rt 250 E approx 150 ft W
of Albemarle/Fluvanna county line. TM95,P12Bl. Rivanna Dist. This
site is not located in a designated growth area.
14) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
14a) Bx.cu~iv. Sessionl Legal Ma~~.rs.
14b) C.~ify Bxecu~ive S.ssion.
15) Adjourn.
(The Board will hold an Execu~iv. Session pursu.n~ to Sec~ion 2.1-344(A)
of ~he Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) ~o discus. a legal ..t~er.)
CON S E N T
AGBNDA
FOR APPROVAL I
5.1 Borrowing resolution for purchase of election voting machines.
5.1a S~a~..en~ of Bxpenses for the Departaen~ of Finance, Sheriff, eo..on-
weal~h'. A~~orney, Regional Jail and Clerk, circui~ Court, for ~he .on~h
of Deceaber, 1994.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.2 Letter dated December 28, 1994, from Julie L. Vosmik, Director, Division
of Survey and Register, Department of Historic Resource., to Walter F.
Perkins, Chairman, rea Longhouse, Albemarle County.
5.3 Letter dated December 29, 1994, from The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres,
to Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, regarding the Governor'. proposal to
eliminate the Business- and Professional Occupation License (BPOL) tax.
5.4 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 13, 1994.
5.5 Me~randua dated January 9, 1995, froa Patrick K. Mullaney, Direc~or of
Parks and Recrea~ion, ~o ~he Board of Supervisors regarding ~he .ka~e-
board park.
L
CH
, '" . - 'r.?'.J~:i<ç.
/ 7"/ ~ _. __. ____
ç{'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5844
ß'.ffi 00 Œ 0' Ls
ìJ {
. ..-9111)
~
\RD OF SUPERV'C-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director ;¡J7t1n¡
January 9, 1995
Skateboard Park
DATE:
RE:
I wanted to take a moment to explain how the difference
occurred in the proposals presented to the Board and City Council
and also to describe the action taken by the City.
Enclosed you will find a memo from Gary O'Connell to City
Council that is consistent with the recommendation made to the
Board. As you can see this was dated December 14 and in it Mr.
O'Connell says that unless Council advises otherwise they will
pursue this recommendation. Since the deadline was the end of
December, I was advised that if there were any problems they
would be discussed at the meeting on December 19. It was not
discussed by Council on December 19 and no problems were brought
up prior to the Board's discussion on December 21. I just
finished listening to the tape of the December 21 meeting and
that is how I explained the City's approval during the Board's
discussion.
After the Board's discussion, several City Councilors
contacted Mr. O'Connell with concerns. As a result of those
concerns the City staff refashioned their recommendation to
include the options suggested in the enclosed December 27 memo
and scheduled a discussion for the January 3 Council agenda. At
that meeting Council approved the use of property at Towe Park
subject to the following conditions:
1) That there be a private fund raising effort
to construct the skateboard park, without any
public funding being necessary;
,.
Iii ~ ).?¡ .. Th,at there be a concrete plan for the
.i_,:. ',' . 'oþe:tations of the skateboard park that
includes how it will be supervised and a plan
~ f:: ". .or !adequate private funding (of which some
"'~
or all may be generated by user fees) for
those operating expenses including liability
"~3~;Ue =K) Clfisurance;
3) No construction work on the skateboard park
begin until an appropriate legal agreement is
developed between the City, County and the
Skateboard Association outlining the
financial and operating requirements and how
each will be met.
Since the City Council has decided not to fund operating
expenses for the skateboard park, we will be withdrawing our
request for the County share of those expenses in the 95-96
budget. Since that is one of the contingencies that County
approval was based on, then County approval is null and void.
The legal agreement that the City proposes is a whole
different matter that the Board has not discussed. I would
suggest that the Skateboard Association consider whether it is
feasible for them to operate under the conditions approved by the
City, and if so, approach the County to seek approval of the use
of Towe Park under those same conditions.
I hope this adequately explains what has occurred to this
point. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or
would like to discuss this further.
/"
for information
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
MEMO.
i1I~
. .
- ~
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary O'Connell, Deputy City Manager
DATE: December 14, 1994
RE: Skateboard Park Request - Status
As you will recall out of the September discussion by City Council of banning
skateboarding on the Downtown Mall, a request was made that the City help in the
possible location of a skateboard facility. Ms. Daria Brezinski, a Crozet resident,
addressed Council, and voiced concern over not having a place for skateboarders to
, use. Once the Council heard that a number of the skateboarders were County
residents, Mayor Toscano suggested that the skateboard group approach the County
Board of Supervisors to make known their concerns. Ms. Brezinski and the
skateboarders did approach the County Board at their mid-September meeting. As a
result of these skateboard concerns, the City and County Parks and Recreation
Department staff began meeting with the skateboard group to investigate the options
available for a skateboard facility to serve the community. Several meetings have been
held to look at possible skateboard facility options with the skateboard group and
others interested within the community_
In these meetings the City and County staffs have explained to the skateboard
group that no funds have been set aside for such a facility, either operating nor capital
costs. Ms. Brezinski has moved forward on a fundraising campaign with the intent that
the entire facility would be donated. Estimates range anywhere from $50,000 to
upwards of $300,000. We also estimate that there would need to be an annual
operating budget of about $20,000 to cover supervision expenses, insurance etc. Some
of the operating costs could be offset by a fee, and we estimate based on other similar
facilities within the state that the fee might offset expenses by reducing by 1/3. The
facility that is being discussed would fit on a site of about 120' by 140', or approximately
3/8 of an acre. Both Mcintire and T owe Parks were being looked at as possible
locations. Mcintire was favored due to it's central location, yet there are two very real
issues that make it's use difficult to pursue. The city staff is concerned about the use of
Mcintire due to commitments to similar space for the little League Baseball program,
and the pending urban water line construction this spring in Mcintire. We also believe if
this is going to be a joint use facility that Towe Park as a joint City-County Park is a
logical location for such a facility. The City and County staffs met at Towe this week
and have found a workable location for the skateboard facility and are recommending
that T owe Park be designated as the site. In the wake of the media coverage of this
issue over the past few days we have also had a discussion with Ms. Brezinski about
Towe Park being the designated location. She has a local architect that will be
exploring that site as a possible location, and developing a plan for which they would
raise private funds to construct such a facility.
The status is that the City staff is recommending to the Council that Towe
Park be the designated location for a skateboard facility subject to the following:
* Albemarle County approval of the site location
* Adequate proof that the private fundraising efforts can complete the
project without any public funding being necessary
* Approval by the City and County of an operating budget to cover the
supervision and annual operating expenses (to be developed with the
annual budget if the fundraising efforts are successful)
At this point unless we hear differently from the Council we will pursue working
with the skateboard group for a possible location within Towe Park. Once we
begin to get some more definite information we will be sending that to you.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE MEMO
DATE: December 27,
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary O'Conn ,
RE: Skateboarding Park Proposal
Attached is some background information on the skateboard park request to use
T owe Park as a location for the park. The issue of approving the location of the
skateboard facility in Towe Park is on your January 3 Council meeting agenda.
Since the attached status report was prepared, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors has approved the use of Towe Park for the location of a skateboard facility
subject to the assurance that the skateboard facility would be completed at no cost to
the County, and that it be subject to approval of operating funds for the facility in the
1995-96 operating budget. The County Board's approval was also contingent upon the
City approving the Towe Park location as well.
As I understand it several members of the City Council have concerns over the
implications of approval of the Towe Park site, and the additional costs that might be
needed to operate the skateboard facility. The city staff has the same concerns about
the future costs for such a facility given our coming budget. One approach for the
Council to take would be to approve the use of Towe Park, subject to no city funding
being required for either the capital costs of building the skateboard park (estimated at
anywhere from $50,000 to $300,000 depending on size and design), nor for any city
funding of the operating budget for the facility ( the operating budget is estimated to
cost up to $20,000 minus whatever fees that might be charged). Also if Council takes
this approach, there could be a legally binding agreement such as a lease between the
City/County as owners of the Towe Park and the skateboard group to insure the
financial and operational viability of the project (both capital and operating) before any
work on constructing the park occurs. In Albemarle County's approval of Towe, they are
requiring that the skateboard group obtain a bond to assure the construction of the
facility, and to assure the County that no public funds would be needed later for
completion of the construction.
Obviously Council could decide not to support the location of the skateboard
facility at Towe Park, or support the funding in some way for the development and
operation.
t'V!LLt. lIlY Hlly U~l ItL;~U4-'j(l-'j~¿j
Jan U~,~~ 11;~~ NO.UUb ~.U¿
,
6
Ms. Daugherty stated that the City Market Manager had recommended that the vending
size a1Jowed be inçreased to 8 feet by 10 feet in order to accommodate tents used by City
Market participants.
It was agreed that the Board of Architectural Review would be asked to make
suggestions about the size linùtation and location of vendors as well as the desiøn guidelines.
Mr. James Woodfolk recommended that vendora be given aJJ rules and regulations at
the time they are issued a license.
Mr. Lany Engd urged CounciJ to enforce vending regulations.
REPORT: SKATEBOARDING FACILITY IN TOWE PARK
Mr. Gary O'Connell. Deputy City Manager, ltatcd that staff recommended that a
portion of Towe Park be approved for use as a skateboarding facility, subject to certain
conditions. Mr. O'ConneJl noted that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
approved using the Park for this use, subject to City approval, raising of private funds for
construction of the facility, and availability ofoperating funds.
Responding to a question fTorn Ms. Slaughter, Mr. O'ConneU stated that the Towo Park
Committee has not discussed the issue, but no development is scheduled for that portion of
the park in the Master Plan.
Responding to a question ftom Ms. Daugborty, Mr. O'ConncU stated that other
skateboard facUities surveyed are gencraJly fenced and supervised when open.
Mr. Toscano asked whether there is any prohibition against leasing property in TOM
Park and Mr. O'Connell replied that he was not aware of any prolúbition.
Mr. Toscano stated that he would prefer to have someone other than the City bear the
responsibility of operating a skateboardiDs facility in œtum for a $1 per yoar leue. Mr.
Toscano asked whether a proposed operatins bud8fIt has been developed for the facility.
Mr. O'ConnolJ stated that the City and County Parks and Recreation Department ataff
have only estimated an operating budget of 520,000 annually.
Mr. Toscano stated that he fee&t it wiD be VfÆy diffiaJlt for the City to find money for
operating a skateboarding facility, and Mr. O'Connell stated that City staWbave
recommended that the facility be scIf·fimded.
Ms. Slaughter agreed that the facility shou1d be acIf·funded given other COIIUDUDÍty
needs at this time. Ms. Slaughter stated tbat did not think the City should be takin¡ on such
an enterprise at tlùs time other than providing the If*C, and would support the fàciIity 011 the
condition that it be operated by a skateboarding aaociatåon.
-~
...... .. ';1 ..
.' ." '....,. u ., -..¡.. I.
",. . -......... 14" .. III
-
... V1LLt. l,111 Hili ur... It.L·Ç'V<.4-;J11-;JJLJ
JO.II V;J.;JJ
11·JJ I.U.VVV r .V.J '.
7
On motion by Mr. Vandever, seconded by Ms. Daugherty, Council unanimously
approved, with Rev. Edwards ab~ granting use ofpropeny at Towe Park for a
skateboarding facility with the following conditions as recommended by Mr. O'CoMeD: I)
that there be a private fundraising effort to construct the skAteboard park. without any public
funding being necessary~ 2) that there be a concrete plan for the operations of the skateboard
park that includes how it will be supervised and a plan for adequate private fundins (ofwbich
some or all may be generated by user fees) for those operating expenses including liability
insurance; and 3) no construction work on the skateboard park begin until an appropriate
legal agreement is developed between tbe City. County and the skateboard association
outlining the financial and operating requirements and how each will be met.
RESOLUTION: AMENDMENTS TO ADA PLAN (CURB CUTS)
On motion by Ms. Slaughter, seconded by Mr. Vandever, the ADA Transition Plan
revision. including the following amendment language, was unanimously approved, with Rev.
Edwards absent: To the extent required by Jaw, whenever streets, roads, and highways are
"altered" within the meaning of the AD~ curb cuts win be provided. To demonstrate ita
ongoing interest in providing all necessary cwb cuts, the City will continue to mstaIl curb cuts
on a systematic basis with a plan to provide aU of the needed curb cuts within a reuonable
time. No Jess than 550,000 annually shaJJ be devoted to installation of such curb cuts on
existing streets until the plan is completed. In additioa. the City will continue its CUJTeDt
practice of adding curb cuts to all sidewalk reconstruction projects.
ORDINANCE: ROAD ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENT - SHAMROCK ROAD (SALBI
EASEMENT)
Mr. Larry McElwain. attorney for owners oftbe property at 115 Shamrock Road,
explained that the property owners had reoonfigured the property and had mistlkeo1y
misaligned the house so that it does not meet the required setback requirement of 13 feet.
Mr. McElwaîn stated that the variance request to tho Board ofZonfng Appeals was denied
and the options remaining to the owners are: 1) cut ofF7 feet oftbe ftont of the house;
2) r~nfigure the Jot lines to gain additional rear Ietback and move the house; or 3) purchase
a strip orland trom the City, granting an easement for the land back to the City, which woutd
bring the house into compliance with the setback "'IUIations. Mr. McElwain stated that
option '# 1 is not an acceptable option, and option ##2 . would be prohibitively expeaaive. In
.-.....b. &.. ..... lit... nf."I,..,d. "'r ".n12I..""" eYI\1.¡natI th.t thp nW1V'n' nrioina' nrnnnMl
was to complete the sidewalk construåion on the remainder of the street, but this was found
to also be prohibitively expensive when the City OItimated the cost of sidewalk construction
at $40.000 due to the need to build retaining wall. and handrails. Mr. McElwain stated that
the owners are now proposing to contribute SJS,OOO to the City's sidewalk CODJtrUCtion fund
which would bcneftt the neighborhood, would maintain tbe integrity of the stnwture, and
would help the City increase funds for sidewl!k CODItrUctiOI1- Mr. McElwain noted that the
owners are contjnuins to explore the COlt of privately constn.acting the sidewalk and if the
~w;~=:~-j~~~~~J:=!I!~~~.!~ ~~.~: ~ thoP the owners would asree to eitber
·1~
, ·, /~_'';';I+èL'_II·.
David P. Bowennan
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H Thomas
Samuel Miller
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~~
FROM:
DATE:
January 12, 1995
SUBJECT:
Board Actions of January 11, 1995
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on January 11, 1995, the following
actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.1. Call to Order. Called to order at 7:05 P.M.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
There was no one to speak.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Borrowing resolution for purchase of election voting
machines. ADOPTED attached resolution.
Agenda Item No.6. An Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 6, Elections, of
the Code of Albemarle to change the name of the Charlottesville Magisterial District
to "Rio Hill Magisterial District", and to rename the Berkeley voting precinct as
the "Commonwealth" Precinct, and the Rio Hill voting precinct as the "Agnor-Hurt
Precinct." ADOPTED, but named magisterial district "Rio". Copy attached.
Agenda Item No.7. Tax-Exempt financing by East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Company. ADOPTED the attached resolution to approve tax-exempt financing, and
AUT.ORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached certificate as to qualified tax-exempt
obligations.
Agenda Item No.8. Public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement Program
for FY 1995-96/1999-2000. HELD. To be discussed again on February 1. Hot topics
of public hearing: Forest Lakes residents are adamantly opposed to a road across
the dam into Hollymead; the people in Scottsville want help with their new park;
John Carter wants to drop all highway revenue sharing projects from the CIP; several
people requested that renovations to Western Albemarle High School go forth post
haste; improvements are needed immediately to the playground at Greer Elementary;
funds for Crozet Park pool; playground improvements at Red Hill Elementary School
and picnic shelter at Walnut Creek Park; landscaping on Route 29 North. Several
Board members thought the unfunded park projects at schools had been put into a bond
*
Printed on recycled paper
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
January 11, 1995
issue; Mr. Martin wants a report from VDOT on Hollymead traffic; no enthusiasm on
part of Board members to conduct the study relative to construction of a golf
course.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-94-15. Philip A. Sansone. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone 7.87 ac from R-1 to R-10 with proffered plan showing 34 dwelling
units. Located off Rt 20 & Garnett Center Drive N of Wilton Country Homes. Site is
recommended for low density residential (1-4 dujac) in the Comprehensive Plan.
TM78,P58I. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED request to rezone 7.87 acres from R-l to R-I0
with proffer dated November 29, 1994, addressed to Ron Lilley, Senior Planner, plan
showing 34 dwelling units.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-94-16. Charles W. Hurt. Amend existing Planned
Residential Development, agreements of ZMA-88-04 to allow reconfiguration of access
which is currently permitted through the Franklin development; proposed access
through Ashcroft. Property of approx 89 ac located W of & adjacent to Ashcroft.
TM78,P57(part). Rivanna Dist. Site located in Rural Area 2. APPROVED subject to
the eight agreements recommended by the Planning Commission.
1. Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwellings subject to conditions contained
herein. Locations and acreage of various land uses shall comply with the
Approved Application Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process,
open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved;
2. No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur within any area
until the final Stormwater Detention and drainage plans for subject sub-
drainage basin have been approved for concurrent construction;
3. No grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or greater except as
necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer;
4. All lots shall be served by public water;
5. Access may be provided through either the Franklin or Ashcroft development
subject to approval of road design for roads in the affected development.
Access connecting Franklin to Ashcroft may occur subject to approval of road
design by Virginia Department of Transportation;
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners Association agreements. All property
owners shall become members of the Ashcroft Homeowners Association and shall
be subject to all regulations governing said association;
7. Minimum yard regulations shall be as follows: front - 25 feet; side - 15
feet; rear - 20 feet. A separation of 100 feet or more between dwellings
shall be maintained for fire protection provided that such distance may be
reduced by the Fire Official in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. (Yard regulations shall not be reduced.) Fire Official approval
of the fire prevention system. Such system shall be provided prior to any
certificate of Occupancy;
8. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each
lot. The Health Department shall either supervise or test each lot utilizing
soil tests by a qualified soil scientist and undertake or supervise percola-
tion tests as they may be required. Such tests must demonstrate that two
septic drainfields shall not be located on any slope of 25 percent or greater.
Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be combined with a
building lot and/or added to the common open space.
Memo To:
Date:
Page 3
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
January 11, 1995
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-94-18. Donald Robertson. To rezone 4.34 ac from RA
to LI for purpose of establishing a mini-warehouse facility. Located on S sd of Rt
250 W, about 2/3 mi E of Yancey Mills at 1-64. TM55B,PI7. White Hall Dist. Site
outside of the Crozet Community Growth Area and is designated Rural Areas in the
Comprehensive Plan. DENIED.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-94-31. George Hall.
zoned RA & EC. Located on N sd of Rt 250 E approx
county line. TM95,P12Bl. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED
by the Planning Commission.
For public garage on 0.676 ac
150 ft W of Albemarle/ Fluvanna
with eight conditions recommended
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of
vehicles. No body work or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No
sale of gasoline or sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing building;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts or inoperable vehicles except
those awaiting repair. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropri-
ate containers;
4. Fire and Building Official approval;
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance;
6. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday and no operation of the garage
on Sunday;
7. Engineering Department approval of waste collection and disposal methods;
8. Not more than four vehicles awaiting repair shall be parked on the property
outdoors at any time.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an update on the Berkmar Drive project and the
Mountaintop Protection Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Executive Session: At 11:09 p.m., move by Bowerman,
seconded by Thomas, for executive session under S 2.1-344A.7 to discuss a legal
matter pertaining to a certificate of appropriateness.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Certify Executive Session. CERTIFIED.
Attachments (5)
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Larry W. Davis
Jim Heilman
File
/ -£../s
21'!/¿R¿Jb' .:3
RECEIVED
.;(': I d 1'194
Planning Depf.
November 29, 1994
Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Wilton rezoning, Phase III
Dear Mr. Lilley:
Attached is the preliminary subdivision plat for the development of Parcel 581
Tax Map 78, dated October 31, 1994, and revised November 28, 1994, subject
to approval of rezoning application ZMA-94-15.
1. I hereby proffer to develop this parcel in accordance with this
preliminary subdivision plat.
Thank you for assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
pt:/; ans ~~ fW
Propert Owner & Principal of
Wilton Country Homes
PS/mr
206æ YlNl!J:flA. '1T1IA.S3UO'"iMO ~~1d ()ft'l
DYœ OTmI!J04 "(6 SOOA3AI:i1S ~.Ð-4t!:N]
. ::JNI ,. ::JOSSV ~ 31VÐ'HSnSVOnm:l
I
,
~
~
~
. i:;
....:::::: ~
Q]
'~
I~~_,.
¡
~ ,~.~ ~ ~ !~
'Î fl· .~
~ ~I ~ ~oh~h~
5 ~ ~', ~ ¡~foI,~
"¡~, ~ ~¡ !~hHr:
I ~dH ~~i ~~ii~hh
~~~h ' . 1 ~ ~~,. ~. h
dl~ ~~.~à~ } I~~~~~~ ~
"~~ H. n .,~I"~'
!\ i!¡ ~~~~ ~~~¡~~~~~~
~L .E f~' ~ t ~~~HI
. ¡ ~! h~
~~ ~~. ~~~
~ ~ ~.~ ~~~
~ i J ~~ ~!
~¡ -.~ ,,~
[]~~
~:8
~ ~
B N
YfHI""U ·.IIQJ~ J,.,....""
l~ld NOISIAlosns A~~NIHI'3~d
I II 3SVHd
S3WOH A~lNnOJ N011IM
BŒlœ
>\.
\
.'
~~
~1
u
...
Z
w
:E
J:
U
~
ict
-
~ë~ !~ ~
r ¡' ~
. ....
... \..: Q
! '~it}. vi
"':' J;
if ¡
~
t
~
~~ ~
~~ :
~h
~..
I..:~~
~
j )
i\
~ ~ ¡~
I ~ \~
~ H~~
I ~~~!
I 'I'~'
~¡ ~ ,¡
. ~ ~H¡~
"'I ' H
~ !¡~,
~ ~~\ ~ ¡1
. ¡ ~ I
~ ~~~~~~~
~ ~. d,~
< ",' ~,
~ ¡W~L
~ i;
:i!t ,~.
r. .~_
:~.fI
ð' L.~j
:.~~
..
c::>
I;J
¡HI ("
n
¡Ü
n
i"
,
/ Z- -/ b -7 f
9<f, (,;)..;>./ 7~(
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
December 9, 1994
Dr. Philip A. Sansone
# 1 Garnett Center Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-94-15 Philip A. Sansone
Tax Map 78, Parcel 581
Dear Dr. Sansone:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 6, 1994, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors and approved the use of private roads for the
proposed development. Please note that this approval is subject to the following proffer with the understanding that
this proffer may be revised for clarification:
Attached is the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the development of parcel 581, Tax Map 78, dated
10/31/94 and revised 11/28/94, subject to approval of rezoning application ZMA 94-15. 1 hereby proffer
to develop this parcel in accordance with this Preliminary Subdivision Plat, contingent upon approval of
the subdivision plat.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on December 21. 1994. Any new or additional infonnation 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,
__r /L~7.
~L/ {f J~/
Ronald A. Lilley 0
Senior Planner
cc: Ella Carey
e
e
e
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RON LILLEY
DECEMBER 6, 1994
DECEMBER 21, 1994
ZMA 94-15 PHILIP SANSONE
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has proffered to develop property on Route 20 North in
accordance with a preliminary subdivision plat (Attachment C), which provides for 38 dwelling
units on 19 lots (later to be divided into 38 lots), served by private roads, and involves some
adjustments to the access to the Garnett Day Treatment Center on the adjoining parcel. Gross
density ofthe development would be 4.83 units per acre.
Petition: Philip Sansone petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 7.87 acres from R-1
(1 dwelling unit per acre) to R-lO (10 dwelling units per acre), with proffered plan showing 38
dwelling units. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 581, is located off of State Route
20 and Garnett Center Drive, immediately north of Wilton Country Homes, in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is recommended for low-density residential (1 to 4 dwelling units
per acre) in Neighborhood 3.
Character of the Area: This is a wooded site adjoining the Wilton Country Homes
development and the Garnett Day Treatment Center (both zoned R-lO, with proffers) and would
become Phase III (the final phase) of the Wilton Country Homes development. The parcel is
bounded on the north and east by a large parcel which is zoned R-1 on the portion immediately
adjoining the subject parcel and RA on the remainder. The Darden Towe Park is across Route 20
from this site, which would be accessed from the existing entrance road off of Route 20.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval.
Plannin~ and Zonine History:
November 16, 1988 - ZMA 88-12 and SP 88-76 approved, which rezoned, with proffers,
15 acres to R-lO and permitted a day care, school and professional offices.
April 4, 1990 - ZMA 89-24 approved, which rezoned, with proffers, approximately 22
acres from R-1 to R-10.
..
August 10, 1994 - ZMA 94-07 approved, which amended the proffers of ZMA 89-24 to
permit development adjacent to Route 20.
The Wilton Farms Apartments have recently been completed, and construction of the
Phase II single family attached units has recently started.
e
e
e
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for low density residential (1 to 4 dwelling
units per acre) in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's proposed density
for the area under review is 4.83 dwelling units per acre. However, previous phases, shown as
medium density (4.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre) in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-lO
(up to 10 dwelling units per acre) were only developed at about 8.2 units per acre (178 units on
21.72 acres), so the total development (including this phase) results in 32 units less than could
have been allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. The overall proposed level of development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area.
STAFF COMMENT:
The proffered plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee to ensure that it is
acceptable as a subdivision. The applicant has worked with the adjoining property owner on the
north (Dr. Charles Hurt) to provide for an entrance off of Route 20 that would serve future
development on the adjoining property as well as the subject parcel, and a scheme has been
devised that the Virginia Department of Transportation has preliminarily approved.
The proposal anticipates private roads, and the proffer has been made accordingly. Since private
roads need Planning Commission approval at the time of subdivision review and a preliminary
plat has been submitted, the Planning Commission can decide on private road approval in
conjunction with the review of this rezoning request. The preliminary plat has not been
requested for review by the Planning Commission and is otherwise eligible for administrative
approval. The Engineering Department has reviewed this request for private roads and
recommends approval (allowed under 18-36-b(4), serving lots occupied exclusively by other than
single-family-detached dwellings -- see attached letter from Engineering Department,
Attachment D).
Staff opinion is that approval of this request will provide for additional housing in the urban area
and that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in that the total development for
Wilton Country Homes will result in a similar number of units to that envisioned by the Plan.
Development Impact to Public Facilities:
At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning staff reviews rezoning requests for their
fiscal impact on public and transportation facilities. This analysis is limited to those rezonings
that have some effect on facilities that are identified in our Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
or Six Year Road Plan and have a cost associated with them.
The analysis is based on the fair share determination of a particular development's impact on
affected facilities. It must be pointed out that this analysis is cursory, due to the lack of
information on revenues attributable to this development. The cost outlined by staff only
indicates the proportionate share of construction costs from the additional development generated
by the rezoning over by-right development.
e
The by-right development on this parcel is 7 dwelling units, so the proposed development of 38
dwelling units represents 31 units more than would be allowed by right. Based on average
household size and occupancy rate, this development would generate approximately 67 more
persons than would be generated by 7 dwelling units. Based on typical student generation
factors, this development would generate approximately 15 additional elementary school
students, 7 additional middle school students, and 8 additional high school students over those
generated from by-right development.
The following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request and have a cost
associated with them:
A. Schools
This development would be served by Cale Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and
Albemarle High School. Schools affected by this proposal which have costs identified in the CIP
are:
Project
Scheduled Cost
Burley Middle School Improvements
Albemarle High School Improvements
$162,000
$31,000
e Based on the estimated additional students generated by this development and the proportion of
students to school capacities, costs associated with this extra development are $2,167, or $69.90
per dwelling unit.
B. Libraries
This proposal is considered to be in the service area of the Central Library, which has scheduled
improvements of $97,500. Based on the proportionate impact to library capacity, costs
associated with this extra development are $327, or $10.54 per dwelling unit.
C. Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation facilities affected by this development which have costs identified in the
CIP are:
e
Proiect
Rivanna Greenbelt Access Path
Rivanna Park
Cale Elementary Basketball Courts
Scheduled Cost
$ 330,000
143,144
10,400
e
e
e
Based on the proportionate impact to these facilities, costs associated with this extra
development are $3,153, or $101.70 per dwelling unit.
SU1\fMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT
PROPORTIONAL COST PER
PROJECTS TOTAL COST SHARE OF ADDITIONAL
($) ADDED DUs DU
($) ($)
Burley Middle School Improvements 162,000. 2,021. 65.19
Albemarle High School Improvements 31,000. 146. 4.71
Central Library HV AC/Carpet 97,500. 327. 10.54
Rivanna Greenbelt Access Path 330,000. 2,211. 71.32
Rivanna Park Improvements 143,144. 872. 28.12
Cale Elementary Basketball Courts 10,400. 70. 2.26
TOTALS 774,044. 5,647. 182.15
Consideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be balanced against
considerations of the County's growth management policy and other County policies. Excessive
development exactions could have the effect of discouraging utilization of the holding capacity
of area, and thus, lead to accelerated development in the Rural Areas.
·
e SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors for this request. Staff opinion is that approval of
this request will provide for efficient use of urban land. The applicant's proffer adequately
addresses the potential impact caused by this development. Based on the above comments staff
recommends approval of this rezoning request subject to the acceptance ofthe applicant's proffer:
1. Attached is the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the development of parcel 581,
Tax Map 78, dated 10/31/94 and revised 11/28/94, subject to approval of rezoning
application ZMA 94-15. I hereby proffer to develop this parcel in accordance
with this Preliminary Subdivision Plat, contingent upon approval of the
subdivision plat.
Staff also recommends Planning Commission approval of private roads for this subdivision,
including application of Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain design
standards, based on the recommendation of the Engineering Department.
----------------
e
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Proffer Statement and Preliminary Subdivision Plat
D - Engineering Department letter regarding private roads
e
·(....
....,~
J~~?:
\ ,
\
. ~i
~
~'t'
.:;i'
~o
ZMA-94-15
Philip A. Sansone
-:>
.0
c.,
\>"
~
I ATTACHMENT AI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11",.,'
~
[7i5]
or
· .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
62
e
L.._ 29
.""-..
""-
""-._.j
R.!,yANN
-=-.
e
22
~
'\
)
/
.d~
/~ e \
,/ ,/Î,,- rr
MONTICELLO
ZMA-94-1S
Philip A. Sansone
HOO
~
92
SCOTTSVILLE AND I
RIVANNA DISTRICTS ATTACHMENT BI SECTION 78
...
---
SCAlf IN FEET
10. ',oe
..
. ,
.
November 29, 1994
Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Wilton rezoning, Phase III
Dear Mr. Lilley:
Attached is the preliminary subdivision plat for the development of Parcel 581
Tax Map 78, dated October 31, 1994, and revised November 28, 1994, subject
e to approval of rezoning application ZMA-94-15.
1. 1 hereby proffer to develop this parcel in accordance with this
preliminary subdivision plat, contingent upon approval of the subdivision plat.
Thank you for assistance in this matter.
Since rely,
j~
.0.
Property Own r & Principal of
Wilton Country Homes
PS/mr
e
I ATTACHMENT C I
I Page 1\
u
Z
H
U
o
(f)
(f)
<C
tð
W
...J
<C
(!)
Ì
(f)
:J
CD
<C
o
:J
o
a:
~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
:1
/\
/ / )
/ f" "---- >
/" :1_£-
/
/
/
/.'"
/,
<
V/C/.IJ/rY MAP
/~. LOOO'
t~
~S
,.".q/OJ
IV/~ rð/OJ CO<M./r¡('Y HQA.M$
........."'¿ /,p .SAA/.sO.4../4"
/ Go4E"A./£77'" C'A/T~Ai' ¿vtéÞ/VE
CH""Iß¿OTT~:SV/~ VA. r~/
.sOvAC¿- ~ T/T¿.£. ~~. ~~' ~¡Zf~-;~¿¿ 5ðI
ZOA/heJ( I 4"-P¿,/êP F~: .111-/0; é')(/.:I'T/A./ú 2ðA//A/G" "q-/
.$E78"qCK$· .&'AðA./7' 25'
A£4A? ZD'
~/,o£. /t:J'.. ~~~.;v~~C~~
7#1 Z'ðA//AJO t:ÞÆD/A/4A/cE'
M4ðl.sr4'¡(,/"q¿ o/.srA?IC7: A'1...."q,vA./"q
.-~O'O:S£O Naq.o~: '-A/V,4TE W/7.h' Ct/Að 'ðt.lT'7£A
v.:S4: JIt~~/DLAl7/¿¡¿- 4-4CN ¿or ~ALL COA./'T4/A/ A .;S/A./G¿&
~N1/.L Y 4rr"'1C~p PH/~¿¿/~ rt:Þ
~ .rt/4r~..e .st/ð¿:,,¡v/~o 4L0A./6 fNE
""-,,/,,qrY' K/4U - TOT4L Ml4X/.I\.o:1VA-'?
I\/VN7~~ 0,& O."..¿¿!f"¿'-/A../c:ï$ - '4
s&,vAçI/E ~ Tø..-øðAr,lf",l#,vy''' co.vr;tlO£ .. Y AOVD~4V~# I' o.4¿1'. 4SSdC. AVe-:
AL"Æ/JI¿ rð-'dG~4'NY' 6", ..NA.I'1 8~"
¿ov.l,S4. v.q. t'G/..:I.lí.$. o..qrvM)
s/r£ ~rA '
OWA/..rA/~V4!"LaP£N
I!
I ~
A£VISIONS
II/r~/u t:"~,~.
i
i
ill
;;/
~
~
I Page 21
FILE IUllEA
7456
t-
ct
-.J
a.
(/) z
w 0
~ H
o (/)
:r: H
>-H>
a:HH
t-HC
Zwm
::J(/}=>
O<{(/)
U:r:
za..>-
o II:
t- ct
...J Z
H H
X :E
H
-.J
UJ
II:
a.
At¿$"DvE
~"'" 74 ~.q.4? SIJ1
:-1-
\
, \
RE.$/DG/E
PAACEL ð 7.""""". 78
,~
TY;P/C.QL .sECr/CM./'
-40'.. so'
rslV'17':
-~ð' -¡.b:-
'In I ..../n:
I ~
I
~-
)' J!I: -""c.
a:' ",. c¡.,
/rC.-F.c.
~ T1R£_
ATTACHMENT C
)
,v",
/
/'
/,
/<~
/', \ '\
....
......--,¡i'
,.,.qQF/¿£ ~_/.íii
~ - - --ð~----_: Š;r.h
7:~. 7ð ....-4~L .$"7
.oð. ~7 Po 57~
,£).8. /Sc:í ~ /¿¡(Í
,o..q>IVEWAY OErAI¿
~
v~/E-'
G£A/£Æ.4L A/Or£".s '
..vo Fv~7H¿Aí! .:IvðP'/y'/.s/ðA./' W,/TNOt/'r P¿..:;¡..v-,.o\./,/A..IG CONlM/.:$.$/OA./
..qP"""'A'OV""L
OA/¿Y av4"" PI;V'4¿¿,/A./ð ,.,rA ¿or
,tI'¿L Lar.::l L'A...IT"4'Al ØV'7'o p~/v-'9r~ AOAD.
O/"""JEA/.:J'/ð;V.;S ..:$HðWA/'¡µ?4! AP~A'OX/MA7E o.v-,¿Y'.
ðV/¿O/iV6 "".vo ~/V4H/"'1o'" ¿ac"q7"/OA/.:S J,M't:)"'-""'-" ..q~4
COVClPTV"'9¿ dA/LY 4A./O ",q.qE Jvð.Jé"Cr 'TO CN4.1t,/t34',
oopt
jI~:~; rì1
It.",\..£.
\~9t\
.
annH\9
...-~. f-c·..,." \,¡¡<J \'\1'-
f.i ' ;;~ .... ,~~ .
d .. ~ -;:.~. ,~'
2&
,u
\
p
~' ...
e
e
e
L
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Lilley, Senior Planner
FROM:
Don Franco, Civil Engineer II ~
DATE:
November 29, 1994
RE:
Wilton Country Homes, Phase III
AlDemarle County Engineering has reviewed the plans and
computations (received 11/28/94) submitted in support of the
request for relief of VDOT Rolling Terrain Standards for Road
"B" in the referenced subdivision. The Department concurs wlth
the agent's analysis of the two alternative designs and
supports the conclusion that public interest is better serveè
by the mountainous terrain design. This conclusion is based ~n
the 73% reduction in the amount of earthwork required to
construct the mountainous terrain design versus the rolling
terrain design. In addition, the Department notes that general
site grading should be reduced and access to the individual
lots should be facilitated by the mountainous terrain design.
Albemarle County Engineering recommends approval of this waiver
request subject to:
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of Final Private
Road Plans and computations.
2. Road "A" deslg:1ed to VDO':' Rolling Terrain standards.
3. Road "B" designed to VDOT Mounta:.nous Terrain standards.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have
questlons or requ:.re additlona: information.
DF/
I ATTACHMENT D I
C.,j i; '- -L~...:?
,.Z¿;¿?¿¿2d/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
December 29, 1994
Katurha S. Roell
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-94-16 Charles W. Hurt
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20, 1994,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following agreements:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwelling subject to conditions contained herein.
Locations and acreage of various land uses shall comply with the Approved Application
Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in
proportion to the number of lots approved;
2. No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur within any area until the final
Stormwater Detention and drainage plans for subject subdrainage basin have been
approved for concurrent construction;
3. No grading or construction on slopes of25% or greater except as necessary for road
construction as approved by the County Engineer;
4. All lots shall be served by public water;
Page 2
December 29, 1994
5. Virginia D~pttrtment of Transportatiôn appro'..al of TOfU! plttns. Including K-¡Ísed plans
for Baelu; Lane. Access may be provided through either the Franklin or Ashcroft
development subiect to approval of road design for roads in the affected development.
Access connecting Franklin to Ashcroft may occur subiect to approval of road design by
Virginia Department of Transportation:
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners Association agreements. All property owners
shall become members of the Ashcroft Homeowners Association and shall be subject to
all regulations governing said association:
7. Minimum yard regulations shall be as follows: front - 25 feet; side - 15 feet; rear - 20
feet. A separation of 100 feet or more between dwellings shall be maintained for fire
protection provided that such distance may be reduced by the Fire Official in accordance
with Section 4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Yard regulations shall not be reduced).
Fire Official approval of the fire prevention system. Such system shall be provided prior
to any Certificate of Occupancy;
8, Virginia Department of Health approval oftwo septic field locations on each lot. The
Health Department shall either supervise or test each lot utilizing soil tests by a qualified
soil scientist and undertake or supervise percolation tests as they may be required. Such
tests must demonstrate that two septic drainfields shall not be located on any slope of
25% or greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be combined with a
building lot and/or added to the common open space.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on January 11. 1995. 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,
~//ø
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
10 Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
DECEMBER 13, 1994
JANUARY 11, 1995
ZMA 94-16 CHARLES HURT
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend the existing agreements of
ZMA-88-04 to allow reconfiguration of access. This site was originally rezoned with
ZMA-79-27 which established access through Ashcroft. ZMA-88-04 relocated that access and
placed it through Franklin. This petition is to restore the access originally approved with
ZMA-79-27.
Petition: Charles Hurt petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend the agreements of
ZMA-88-04 to allow reconfiguration of access. Access is currently permitted through the
Franklin Development. The proposed access is through Ashcroft. Property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 57 (part), consists of approximately 89 acres and is located west of and adjacent
to the Ashcroft development in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This property is currently wooded and undeveloped. The property is
located on a ridge between Franklin and Ashcroft. Areas of critical slopes do exist on the
property.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan
and past actions on this property and recommends approval.
Plannin& and Zonin& History:
September 19, 1979 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-79-27 which rezoned the
site to RPN/ A I (latter to be recognized as PRD after adoption of the 1980 ordinance).
April 20, 1988 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-88-04 which amended the
access approved with ZMA-79-27.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Rural Areas ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The
area immediately to the south is recommended for low density residential but is inaccessible
from this site due to terrain. Both the Ashcroft and Franklin developments are located in the
rural areas. Therefore, access through a designated growth area is not possible.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has included a description and justification for this request (Attachment C). Staff
has included the staff report for ZMA-88-04 for background information.
This proposal allows establishment of access approved with the original rezoning for the
property. Changes approved in 1988 addressing the provision of water and setbacks are not
affected by this request. Staff recommends that this development become a part of the Ashcroft
Homeowners association as originally intended.
Staff opinion is that this development is by its location a logical extension of the Ashcroft
development due to the topography of the area. (This property is located on a ridge which is
shared by Ashcroft.) The Ashcroft development anticipated the development of this property
with access through Ashcroft. The Engineering Department has provided comments which
indicate that the existing roads in Ashcroft are adequate to accommodate the proposed lots from
this site. Future road plans in Ashcroft will anticipate the level of development from the
Upper Pantops PRO. At the time of subdivision staff will investigate the appropriateness of
providing emergency access.
Staff can identify no change in circumstance which would indicate that reestablishment of the
access approved in the original rezoning for this property is inappropriate. In fact, staff opinion
is that access through Ashcroft is the most logical location for access due to terrain. Based on
the previous rezoning actions and the observations of staff, staff recommends approval of this
request with the modifications of the previous agreements outlined below. These agreements are
identical to those for ZMA-88-04 except as noted.
Recommended Agreements:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwelling subject to conditions contained herein.
Locations and acreage of various land uses shall comply with the Approved Application
Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in
proportion to the number of lots approved;
2. No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur within any area until the final
Stormwater Detention and drainage plans for subject subdrainage basin have been
approved for concurrent construction;
3. No grading or construction on slopes of25% or greater except as necessary for road
construction as approved by the County Engineer;
4. All lots shall be served by public water;
5. Virgin.ia Depftf'tment of Transporttttion. appro'/al of r6ad plans. Indödin.-g revised plans
fur Baehe Lttne. Access may be provided throu~h either the Franklin or Ashcroft
development subject to approval of road desi~n for roads in the affected development.
.. .
Access connectin~ Franklin to Ashcroft may occur subiect to approval of road design by
Vir~inia Department of Transportation:
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners Association agreements. All property owners
shall become members of the Ashcroft Homeowners Association and shall be subiect to
all regulations governing said association:
7. Minimum yard regulations shall be as follows: front - 25 feet; side - 15 feet; rear - 20
feet. A separation of 100 feet or more between dwellings shall be maintained for fire
protection provided that such distance may be reduced by the Fire Official in accordance
with Section 4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Yard regulations shall not be reduced).
Fire Official approval of the fire prevention system. Such system shall be provided prior
to any Certificate of Occupancy;
8. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot. The
Health Department shall either supervise or test each lot utilizing soil tests by a qualified
soil scientist and undertake or supervise percolation tests as they may be required. Such
tests must demonstrate that two septic drainfields shall not be located on any slope of
25% or greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be combined with a
building lot and/or added to the common open space.
----------------
A TT ACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Information
D - Staff report for ZMA-88-04 Including Sketch
E - Engineering Department Comment
.,
'~ ~}
......... MIUlon
~'~~O:.~
~ 628 :;-....
EOD ~ .0.~
~.~~~~o~' - ,,",0 [R1U
IJ;Ü :.~ 800M;:~~:IN ~
UC;;<
~2.¡.~_ t).Q1'
MTN ,;. ...... """ _'"
r.Þ~} IMll .
GIBSON MOUNTAIN
v'
I ATTACHMENT A I
f¡
f
f
'"
lITTl[
HAT
c
~. '
............... ,
o
:,I~
ŒEL._ ,:
-," Q"""
Œill r~
~
u
,.
O"o~
~...~ 1810 FOX MOUNTAIN
~ .. .
,Iq
Ú¡¡¡í@ .
r!~ \~
...~ 1t;z3 .. _':¡>_
--oóf\ -;. ,,''1 { ~i21
} ~~..: - ~ A1G{"O
[¡¡il]>· <, 'I<?:
~- ~ , D.,I...,,,. 0.0
~J .. .
~~ \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
---- : fi
ZMA-94-16
Char les tv. Hurt
~"I-
~
\
7
'-
L
13
-
~
-'
-.~
/~
""" .
"--..
'..
.. .
I ATTACHMENT C I
e
JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR REVISION TO PRD
In 1979, the property which is the subject of this proposed zoning revision was included
as a portion of Ashcroft PRD (Formally Northridge, see ZMA 79-27). Because of the phasing of
Ashcroft, the property could not be immediately accessed. A few years later, Robert Houser of
Republic Homes optioned the property and made plans to develop this PRD and area of land
known as "Fontana". Access to all of this property was planned from the west, via Route 20
through Franklin subdivision.
The contract to purchase was subject to a contingency that the purchaser procure approval
form the County for the development of 200 residences. There was no expre~s authority in the
contract for the purchaser (Republic Homes) to apply for rezoning of the subject property in such
fashion as would leave it potentially landlocked, and the seller did not understand that this was a
possibility.
Nevertheless, Republic Homes applied for rezoning of the subject property, This
application (ZMA 88-4) had the effect of reorienting the development away from Ashcroft and
toward Franklin. Most specifically, access to the property from Ashcroft was eliminated in favor
of access via Franklin Drive and Bache Lane.
e
Subsequently, the a plan for development could not be approved for the development of
the Fontana tract which would have permitted the development of 200 residences. As a result,
the contingency in the contract failed; and the purchaser chose not to close. However, the failure
of the contract did not restore the status quo ante, as the amendment to the PRD remained in
effect, prohibiting access to subject property through Ashcroft. Because the owner of the subject
property does not control the land which would have provided access to Route 20 over Franklin
Drive and Bache Lane, the property is now effectively landlocked.
In addition, contrary to the representations of Republic Homes under ZMA 88-4, the
topography of the land to the West, over which access must run from Franklin Drive and Bache
Lane, is not acceptable for development and it is for this reason that the County could not
approve Republic Homes' larger plan of development. As is clear form the topographic
drawings included with ZMA 79-27, The subject property lies along a ridge which connects
naturally with Ashcroft at a basically constant elevation. Therefore, not only is access available
through Ashcroft, such access is both easier and more environmentally sensitive than is access
from the West as would theoretically be provided under ZMA 88-4.
e
In Summary, the subject property is effectively landlocked by the existing approved plan,
which was approved without the request of the landowner, and which depended for its success on
subdivision approval of the adjoining property which failed to occur. This request would merely
restore the previously approved plan, thereby permitting reasonable use of the subject property as
extension of the Ashcroft development with significant disruption of existing topography.
, .
¡ATTACHMENT C
STAFF PERSON:
RONALD S. KEELER
e
STAFF REPORT
HEARINGS:
APRIL 5, 1988, PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 1988, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZMA-88-04 REPUBLIC HOMES (NORTH PANTOPS PRD)
Petition: Republic Homes petitions the Board of Supervisors to
amend ZMA-79-27 to permit change in access. Property, described
as Tax map 78, Parcel 57 (part) is adjacent and northeast of
Ashcroft PRD in the Rivanna Magisterial Distri~t.
STAFF COMMENT
North Pantops PRD was originally approved for a maximum" of 28
lots with access through the Ashcroft road system. Currently,
Republic Homes proposes no access through Ashcroft, serving the
property instead through the Franklin subdivision roadways.
At time of adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, planned
developments were recognized, subject to original conditions of
approval. In the past, staff has supported amendments to such
developments which would result in a more conforming situation
relative to current regulations or otherwise serve the general
public interest:
e
l. Under prior approval North Pantops PRD would be served by a
combination of public and private roads. Under the proposed
amendment, North Pantops would be served by public roads,
consistent with current subdivision regulation;
2. Prior approval required North Pantops residents to become
members of the Ashcroft homeowner's association.
Development of North Pantops would have been dependent on
the development schedule for Ashcroft. While proposed
amendments would negate these requirements, emergency access
into Ashcroft is recommended;
3. Public water is available in the area now and should be
extended to the development to provide a more reliable
source and for fire protection purposes. This property is
within an Albemarle County Service Authority "water only"
service area.
Staff recommends the following amendments to conditions of
approval of ZMA-79-27:
1.
Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwellîngs sUbject to
conditions contained herein. Locati~n~ and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the A~preveà Application
Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open
space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots
approved;
e
1
ET1\CHMENT D II Page 2/
2 .
No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur
within any area until the final Stormwater Detention and
drainage plans for subject subdrainage basin have been
approved for concurrent construction;
e
3. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as necessary for road construction as approved by the
County Engineer;
4. All lots shall be served by eae e~ me~e een~~ai wa~e~
~y~~em~ aþþ~e~ed ~n aeee~daaee W~~ft ~fte ~e~~ia~~en~ e£ ~fte
V~~~~n~a Beþa~~men~ e£ Heai~ft, ~fte eede e£ Ai~ema~ie ee~n~y,
and aii e~fte~ aþþi~ea~ie iaw public water.
5. P~~~a~e ~ead ~ftaii eemþiy W~~ft ~fte þ~i~a~e ~eads þ~e~~~ien~
e£ ~fte S~~di~i~ien e~diaaaee Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of road plans including revised
plans for Bache Lane;
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association
agreements. Aii þ~eþe~~y ewne~s ~ftaii ~eeeme mem~er~ e£ ~fte
A~ftre£~ Hemeewne~s~ A~seeia~iea and ~ftaii ~e s~~jee~ ~e aii
re~~ia~ien~ ~e~e~ain~ said asseeia~ien;
7.
Minimum yard regulations shall be ~ follows: front - 25
feet; side - 15 feet; rear - 20 feet. A separation of 100
feet or more between dwellingS-shall be þre~ided maintained,
for fire protection, provided that such distance may be
reduced ~ the Fire Official in accordance with Section
4.ll.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (Yard regulations shall not
be reduced). Fire Official ~pproval of fire prevention
system. Such system shall be provided prior to any
certificate of occupancy;
e
8. Piannin~ eemmissien aþþ~e~ai e£ a~eas ~e ~e eiea~ed en
indi~id~ai ie~s; Piannin~ eemmissien aþþ~e~ai o£ ~ene~ai
dweiiin~ ioea~ien eneaeft ie~;
8. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field
locations on each lot. The Health Department shall either
supervise or test each lot utilizing soil tests by a
qualified soil scientist and undertake or supervise
percolation tests as they may be required. Such tests must
demonstrate that two septic drainfields can be located on
each lot without encroaching on any slope exceeding 25%.
Septic tanks and/or drainfields shall not be located on any
slope of 25% or greater. Any lot not having adequate septic
system site shall be combined with a building lot and/or
added to the common open space.
, "
e
2
l ATTACHMENT D II Page 31
,
'{
,- Cd ~
e
/
/
/
I /
'.
, , "\. --J:.
1-''' :
~
/
I
,
/
'.' ','" Ie "r
",( ,., "
. '-'-1
/
/
/
I
\
,
\
\
/""
/
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\ ,
\
, \
\ \ ,
\
I
'-.~. "
\,~...... '\
'!t~'~ i
, .
, \
,
,
,
\ -'1
e
"
,
I
I
,
I
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
- - - --~~-- - ~ ,
.---_.-_._~.... ....
~-t\<7U-?Þ ì~. 'I~
, , '
~,.:;u~ ~~ "~"~I "~"~I
._._-----~ '.... ...,
, ' ,
~ .J'7N:J ?,do1P.:,) ') \
,..-' / \
- ,.,,1
'\"..I~W!}. "'1:,"-';
,
,
I
"
,
,
\
\
1
I
/
,
,\ .'
"~I I", ~~W~",?~?\"
" ... , \ I
',' ~: , .
,I I , ..
I ' \ ' I
I ~ \ ~ 1
{ \ \~~Ld ~
...) " \ \ '
,
......, .... '
- , \
?bR'J!,.\.l.;JO\'{ IIJJO)j.
" " c.-r:fð?? 'i
I I I
, : I
1 I \
1 I \
\ \ 1
I I I
I
q
(J~\
0)
)/
I I
I ~
\
I
\
\
\
,
,
'I,
N' 1:\ 'd
\ 1
\ ,
\ '
"...., \'\,
, ,
, ,
I ,
I ,
\ ,
" '
\ ¡'...-,/
"j '",,,,/
...... ----/
,--
\
,
,-
'-'
_/
e
~M)f7\¿7 \17.\.".1.
-+V-OYJ H ç, \f
-----910171) ~.\-jo t't-
'\
\ /
\ /
\" //
'_/
,/
/
<7-\- '
I-?<;.;
~d",,\.A~O
11,0"3 ~ t7?\?W?'2:I,
'c"tAol
-,,?bpl.-\l
<:':)7[1,1,1\0'\'0\
e
e
e
I ATTACHMENT E I
., .
CUUNTY OF ALBEMARL~
RECEIVED
t i
't 1994
MEMORANDUM
PI", . 0
.1;;...nn I ng ept.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz - Senior Planner
Jack M. Kelsey, PE - Chief of
30 November 1994
ZMA 94-16 Charles W. Hurt / Request to Amend Upper
Pantops PRD (Ashcroft SUB 12.208)
The above referenced request has been reviewed by the
Engineering Department. We have been requested to comment
specifically on 1) the ability of the existing road system to
accommodate the increased traffic, and 2) the appropriateness
of access through the development.
In regards to the first item, the zoning plan called for this
PRD to be served by a single collector road, from Frontage
Road, with several local roads branching off to serve the
various sections. This collector.road (Lego Drive) has been
constructed to serve the first five sections and has been
accepted into the state system. Lego Drive has been designed
and constructed as a Category IV road and is capable of
carrying a maximum of 3000 vehicle trips per day (vtd). To
date, 109 lots have been platted and according to the zoning
plan at least 121 more lots are proposed in future sections.
The addition of the 28 lots from North Pantops will bring the
total to 258 lots served by Lego Drive. At the time this PRD
was approved traffic generations were computed based on 7 vtd
per lot. The volume of traffic generated by this number of
lots is 1806 vehicle trips per day. This is less than the
maximum, therefore Lego Drive will accommodate the additional
traffic.
The road(s) connecting the 28 lots (North Pan tops) to the
existing cul-de-sac on Lego Drive have not yet been constructed
or designed. The Engineering Department will review these
plans when they are submitted to assure the design is adequate
for the traffic generated by lots served.
In response to item 2), the inclusion of these 28 lots was
considered in the plans for the original PRD and they lie along
the top of a ridge line that crosses into Ashcroft. Lego Drive
follows an ascending branch of this ridgeline. The inclusion
e
e
e
Memo.Re: ZMA 94-1L
30 November 1994
Page Two
~TTACHMENT E II Page 21
of these löts represents a logical extension of the proposed
road system along this shared ridgeline. Therefore, we feel
the access through Ashcroft is appropriate.
Please call me should you or the applicant have any questions
regarding this matter.
JMK\
Copy: File
·
.. .
~5þcroft .fleígþhorþoob ~550tíatíou, ]JUt.
1990 SASSAFRAS CIRCLE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
Albemarle County Planning Commission
County OŒce Building
Charlottesville, VA 2290 I
RE: ZMA-94-16
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Ashcroft Neighborhood will be aftected by this Petition. This expresses the views of the elected
Board of Directors of the Ashcroft Association. We recognize that this is related to ZMA-79-27 and
ZMA-88-04 treating access and other issues for the Upper Pantops PRO.
We have two concerns about ZMA-94-16 that we hope the Commission will consider.
1. Changes of the Ashcroft access road system in the last few years have caused confusion
and frustration for some of our residents. Approval of the current petition will aggravate the
situation further by adding to Lego Drive an unexpected source of additional traffic. Even without
this load, residents in that area of our Neighborhood have expressed concern about worsening safety,
noise and pollution. For example, even now, many cars travel at excessive speeds because ofthe
steep slope and curves. Though this proposal may bring only 15% more trips than Ashcroft will
have at fÜll development, they could still be of signiticant impact to many of our residents living near
Lego Drive and to users of our facilities under construction there. In addition, an extra load will
arise at the already risky intersection of Hansen's Mountain Road and Richmond Highway (US 250).
Thus, we hope that the outlet for UQn~LPantol2â_canremain different from Lego Drive.
2. If return of!ll212er PantQ12s access thro1.!!W Ashcroft is approved as recommended by
Planning StaffJþe original requirement should be retained for the residents of the 28 houses become
me!nbersofthe Ashcroft Neighborhood Association. We believe that this connection was a wise
decision before and benefits will accrue to homeowners in both Ashcroft and Upper Pantops.
a. The Upper Pantops residents will be able to utilize facilities, attend activities and
share the intluence of our Neighborhood that has much greater resources than they could have alone.
b. Ashcroft will gain additional resources and involve more people so that even better
opportunities can be made available to our residents.
c. Participation in the Ashcroft Association should provide appropriate resources tor
road maintenance as well as encourage Upper Pantops residents to minimize the impact of their
travel through the Neighborhood.
If the petition is approved, we urge the Planning Commission to insure retention of Ashcroft
Neighborhood Association membership if Upper Pantops regains its access via Lego Drive.
'Ü; 1 9 1994
Sincerely yours,
~/) .
, / I ,~ 1/
,.' ¡ 'l...~~ i ',./ .......-........--t~..L
,/
john P. O'Connell, Vice Chair
1940 Tremont Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
(804)977 -6050
RECEIVED
Planning ()ept.
'DEC.·-"15'9/j(THU) 09:07
VDOT
TEL:804 979 3759
P. 002
.. .
November 22, 1994
Rezonings
December 1994
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Dep~. of Planning &
Communi~y Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Dear Mr. Keeler;
I have reviewed ~he submi~~ed zoning issues and offer the following commen~s;
1) ZMA-94-16 Charles W. Hur~ Rt. 20/250
This area was addressed in comments by Jeff Echols of March 18. 1988 and the
impact it would have upon Franklin Drive and Bache Lane. It is fel~ ~hat it
will also have a tremendous impact upon Ashcroft, particularly the private
roads. The traffic will further impact the incersec~ion of Route 250 and the
frontage road near the Route 64 in~ersection. I~ would be desirable ~o
minimize traffic at this location.
2) ZMA-94-18 Donald Robertson
Rt. 250 W.
Although traffic generation may not warrant turn lanes. we recommend them due
to Route 250 being an arterial highway and its main purpose is ~o facilitate
~raffic flow.
3) ZMA-94-19 Virginia Land Trust Rt. 649
This development should not significantly impact the transportation
infrastructure. This appears to be site of Chesterfield Subdivision Site
Plan. The entrance met sight distance requirements.
4) ZMA-94-20 Jefferson National Bank Rt. 631
Does nc~ appea~ to meet comprehensive plan. Access to be at existing
crossovers.
· ·19"94 (MON') 13: 38 VDOT
TEL:804 979 3759
C)-../"
r; :4v
March 18. 1988
Special Use Permits and
Rezonings for April 1988
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Crlet of PLmniDg
Departænt of PlanniI1g &
ClYom.núty Devel.opænt
401 McInti~ Rœd
Charlottesville. VA 22~1
Dear Mr. Keeler:
~ foUOYing are our C:œlblBnta:
1. SP-88-17 Catlw SiDDos, Route 1462 - '1be ex:LsÚQg. entranœ to this property å
)0' vide and haS Šbrœta sjght dUteDœ. '1bere is no room CX1 Site for wbiclu
to tw:n &rani, ~j Bouts 1462 i.s a low vol1me dead ecd street.
2" Sf-8&.12 Clifford H. Fox, Ioute 614 - nus section of Route 614 is c:utt8Dtly
nca-tolerable. tbe u1stinl acc:eas to thia site 1& two gravel dri-.y.. 1here
is not &Ù!quata sight distaace for the existiag entrances without . sight ~~
on the property ac:rcss the road and the ~_lcg of &aDe vegøtat.1oa. along the
frontage of tl'WI site. Ibe Departmø:at r~..l3 that the -.cœss to t1ú.s .site be
upg:;::aded to one paved C'CICIDerc1al entrance With adequate si&ht diæanœ vhich would
include any necessary 8Í.8ht 4"-8J11Am ant:3.
J. SP-88-14 Central VU= Educational Television. Route 20 Sooth - A
caamerclal -æntranœ vit..'1 te sight diataDce 10 requ1rad to serve as the
access for t.h1s request.
4. n1A-B8-4 RePul¥ic Hoœs. Route 1493 - 1hi.9 request 13 to al.lov for 2B
additional lots to høVe access through Bache Ulna aa:i ioo.t.e 1493. Routs 1493
(.Frank1ii:1 Drive) vas not designed and CODSt..-ucted to accnlllDodate the 28 add1ticmal
loes being requested. The section of ~'ùìn Dri~e f.raa Boute 20 to B8c.be Lane
would ~ve to be upg¡:øded to the øtamards for a IDlljor 3ub:J.ivi.31on street s1rce
the voluœ of traffic with th..i.:J request would then be over 500 v¡:d. 1be cuaeot
al.i.ga:sent and gradÐ3 on thì.3 first 38Ct1.on of FrarlUin Drive do QQC meet the major
subdivigion ~treet 9tamards. Also, the pavement th1c:kneSÐ and '9hoI11~~r v:1dths
would have tQ be increased OQ. Frck1.in Drive due to the additional Iou. 'nJe
Deparbænt bas apprtnred plans for Bache LIme hIt it has nevt!X' been added to the
system. 1herefore. the Department rec-.....-.a:is den.1a..l of this request SiCCB it;
would necessitate upgrading a section of Franklin D.d.ve &td o.:L.ïee icaJte 1493 ~
al.œady in the State System. the Departœnt has ~ me.ans ~o require the upgradtng
of the road. When plans were approved foe Route 1493. they were based on the
ult1arsce "iIOlune of traffic to u:i8 the road.
-
P. 002
I
.1
,(~~¿:5
-~Z;!t~, ð,.J..J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
December 15, 1994
Donald R. Robertson
480 Four Seasons Drive
Charlottesville, V A 22902
RE: ZMA-94-18 Donald Robertson
Dear Mr. Robertson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 13, 1994, by a vote of
4-2, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is with the understanding than a written proffer as to Light Industrial uses
to be proffered out will be prepared before the Board meeting.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on January 11. 1995. 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,
:::~~~
Senior Planner
RAL/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
,
~,..~ ~
'f
IL 'II'
J Jt,N - ::i 1995 L
. I
''lARD OF SU~E;;' ,"....,-
rç n \VI 1'-
, , \II i ~
Date: 01/04/95
ZMA#: 94-18
Tax Map Parcel(s)#: 55-B-17
4.34 Acres to be rezoned from R-A to LI
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned.
These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it
is agreed that the limitations: (1) are required or arise because of the
nature of the property and the rezoning sought, and (2) have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning requested.
(1) The use of the property shall be limited to those uses allowed under
the Albemarle County Zoning Section 27.2.1, items 15 & 17. The other
uses by right under Section 27.2.1, items 1 through 14, and 16 will not be
placed on the property.
Øæl«[
Signatures of All Owners Donald R. Robertson
/11/71f1
báte '
..oil
~
e
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RON LILLEY
DECEMBER 13, 1994
JANUARY 11, 1994
ZMA 94-18 DONALD ROBERTSON
Petition: Donald Robertson petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 4.34 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to LI (Light Industry) for the purpose of establishing a mini-warehouse facility.
The property, described as Tax Map 55B, Parcell7, is located on the south side of Route 250,
about 2/3 mile east of the Yancey Mills interchange at Interstate 64, in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is within Rural Area 3.
Character of the Area: This site is partially cleared, with slightly rolling terrain and has a small
house on it. The surrounding area contains a variety land uses, with a market, heating & cooling
business, and residential uses in the immediate vicinity, and other commercial and agricultural
uses nearby.
e
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to develop a mini-warehouse facility (self-
storage units). The total number of units expected has not been finally determined, but the
applicant has noted general expectations of about 20,000 square feet of floor area per acre,
usually working out to about lOO units per acre. Based on these numbers, the site would contain
about 86,000 square feet, providing about 430 units. The applicant has indicated a willingness to
proffer that most of the uses allowed under Light Industrial zoning would not placed on this site
(proffers not received as of the date of this report).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends denial.
Plannin~ and Zonin~ History: There have been no rezoning or special use permit applications
for this property to date.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is outside of the Crozet Community Growth Area and is
designated Rural Areas. In general, the Comprehensive Plan calls for directing growth into
designated growth areas, with allowances for certain industrial uses appropriate only to rural
locations. This site is within 2/3 mile of the Yancey Mills/! -64 interchange, which is not one of
the interchanges recommended for more intensive development.
STAFF COMMENT:
The major issue for this rezoning is its confomlance with the Comprehensive Plan. Closely
related issues are the impacts of the proposed zoning and use on the area and the adequacy and
viability of the presentzoning.
e
1
J
e
e
e
As noted above, this site is outside of the designated growth area and is within the South Fork
Rivanna Water Supply Watershed. Although the Comprehensive Plan's Industrial land use
standards do not specify that such uses need only be located within growth areas, such uses are
directed to growth areas, with exceptions for certain industrial uses appropriate only to rural
locations where extensive buffers are necessary (for example, gravel and asphalt plants next to
quarries) (p. 158). While the immediate vicinity has similar commercial and industrial type uses
with commercial and industrial zoning designations, these existing commercial and industrial
designations were based on uses existing prior to the current growth management approaches.
Unless there isa compelling distinction between this property and other properties outside the
designated growth areas and within the water supply watershed, allowing this rezoning may set a
precedent that would make similar rezoning requests difficult to deny, compromising the
effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
have denied requests to establish commercial/industrial zoning on undeveloped property in the
Rural Areas in the past, only allowing commercial and industrial rezonings outside of growth
areas and within the water supply watershed where such uses already existed (see attached list of
rezonings considered - Attachment C).
Staff opinion is that there are some distinctions between this property and other properties
outside the growth areas and within the water supply watershed, but that those distinctions are
not compelling enough to support this rezoning. Unlìke most other Rural Areas sites, this site is
in the midst of other commercial and industrial uses and zoning designations. However, this
site's setting does not limit the use of the site to commercial and industrial uses. There are also
single family homes and agricultural uses in the immediate vicinity. While the Rural Areas
district is intended primarily for agricultural uses and this site does not appear to be suited to
such uses, reasonable uses of the property exist with the current zoning, especially with the uses
available by Special Use Permit. In fact, several of the commercial and industrial uses 'in the
immediate area would be allowed under the Rural Areas designation by special use permit
(including sawmills, country stores, and public garages). The parcel has a development right for
further division and establishment of a single family dwelling. The applicant notes that
residential use of this parcel is limited by the commercial uses of surrounding properties,
including a store which is typically open from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. However, there are
residential uses nearby as well, including a dwelling on this parcel, which the applicant has
indicated is envisioned JO be used as housing for an on-site manager, so residential use of this
parcel would appear to be as compatible with surrounding uses as the existing dwellings in the
area are.
As noted, the site is within 2/3 mile of the Yancey Mills/I -64 interchange, which is not one of the
interchanges recommended for intensive development. Unless the Comprehensive Plan is
changed to include this interchange as an area for more intensive development, some of which
already exists, this proposal is not supported by the interchange development policy. One factor
2
e
e
e
related to the interchange policy in this case is the status of Route 250 as an entrance corridor.
The Architectural Review Board has not commented on this proposal since plans for the physical
development of the site have not been submitted. The Comprehensive Plan does designate a very
substantial area within the Crozet Community for Industrial Service uses, much of which is
undeveloped.
The impacts of the proposed zoning and use on the area are difficult to determine. As noted, the
applicant has indicated a willingness to proffer that most of the uses allowed under Light
Industrial zoning would not placed on this site, and a general indication of the number of units
envisioned has been provided. However, as of the date of this report, proffers have not been
received, and the applicant has indicated a desire to be able to accommodate business
warehousing in addition to household storage, which could generate a different character of
activity than just household storage.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 172 trips per day
would typically be generated from a site of this size used for mini-warehousing. VDOT indicates
that Route 250 has sufficient capacity to handle this additional traffic. The site would not require
additional water or septic capability for this use, so there would be no impacts in terms of public
water and sewer supply. Public schools would not be impacted by the proposed use. The
applicant also notes that the proposed use would generate economic benefits including the
creation of at least two jobs and various other jobs resulting from storage availability as well as
increased tax collections based on enhanced use of the land.
A fiscal impact analysis has not been performed for this proposal since it does not involve
residential development.
SUMMARY:
The proposal has several positive factors and several negative factors, which can be summarized
as follows:
Positive factors
Existing commercial and industrial uses and zoning designations nearby make the
proposal generally compatible with the character of the area.
Due to surrounding uses. use of this property meeting the primary intent of the Rural
Areas district is limited.
There does not appear to be any significant impact on public facilities that would result
from this development.
3
e Ne~ative factors
The proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan (outside of Growth Area
and within the water supply watershed).
Approval of rezoning for this proposal would be. inconsistent with past actions on
rezoning requests of a similar nature (to commercial/industrial designation outside a
Growth Area and within the water supply watershed) and may set a precedent for
consideration of future requests as there is not a compelling distinction between this
property and other Rural Area properties.
Reasonable uses for this property are still available.
The Crozet Community has area available for Industrial Service uses.
The possible impacts to the character of the area, based on the character of development,
are not clear.
e
e
Staff opinion is that the negative factors, primarily the lack of conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the ramifications of the precedent that would be set by allowing this
rezoning, outweigh the positive factors, and staff therefore recommends denial of this rezoning
request.
A TT ACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - List of Rural Area/Watershed Rezonings Considered
.;
... '" '"
... 0 . m . ¿,
... m '" ..
¡: <> ... ::: .. ~
0 ..
M()UNI"IN
~,_\\o..¡.J
'"
e
fIll
.;:,
"
.;:,
~
I
I
I
I
I C horlollnvi
I Rtsef'o'Oir
I
I
I
,Œ@
Î
_ ~...c
'r.ÇQ' "1-
...r:.g....~~? 69\ '"
\ .. "",Ii '\ . .' lfJW11
\ ~C (' ~) ,.. p.ote<;"II~ \.
~6J6 Iniilt W.'h.i¡'. .-.'.:¡; [692ì\,+
, ,__,re _J ,.;~'. .~. I Cr -"'_";.10..'
.~\_- ~ I -- W~Jl '.f)"\ " r¡;A9]
\ samuel ~ [¡;jÐ
1-..'
"'
/f/.f".--'
. I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
((\
..
\
e
ZMA-94-l8
Donald Robertson
<f\
-,
'~'1~9' I
\ .
(691]
"1-
\
f6Ef, ~ ...
'" ,
'\\'~~);
\ ~ I
'\" I
'1I"a"t<.MI,,' T
Z H.."" t ..; ,
. '/..~.-. -
\.;;,/.~~
-~\~
\.
CA.S'i f
nUL"
o
~
¡¡;}RJ
("
BOAZ
MOUNTAtr..J
"t
\
\
)q~\
TOr \
",<1'¡"
o
c;.
""
e
.I-
: - - - , - - ,7 - - - - - - - - - - - - c 7, -'-T C.- -,
FREE TOWN
SECTION 55-8
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
¡ATTACHMENT BI
..
~
ZMA-94-18
Donald Robertson
II.
WHITE HALL DISTRICT
FREE TOWN a YANCEY MILLS INSERTS
SCALE 1111 fH~
IO ¡._O rœ eoo .~_~
SECTION 55-A 8 B
ATTACHMENT cl
. Rezoning Requests (from non-urban to urban designations)
for Properties Outside of Growth Areas
and Within the Water Supply Watershed
Application ~. ReQuest Action (þasis)
ZMA 81-07, Reid/Hop-In 1.3 RA to C 1 Approved (pre-existing)
ZMA 81';16, Brown 2.4 RA to CO Denied
'., ZMA 81-17/18, Spangler 3.6 VR to HC Approved (pre-existing)
ZMA 81-21, Chisolm 10 RA to LI Approved (pre-existing)
ZMA 81-25, Hochman 8.3 RA to LI Withdrawn
ZMA 82-10, Faulconer 28 RI to CO Withdrawn
ZMA 83-20, Murray Mfg 8.3 RA to LI Approved (pre-existing)
. 'ZMA 84-26, Elder 1.0 RA to C 1 Approved (pre-existing)
ZMA 85-12, Green Acres 2.4 RA to CO Denied
ZMA 86-08, Campbell 5.5 RA to CO Denied
ZMA 88-22, Grt. Eastern 1.8 RA to HC Denied
1.6 RA to PD-SC
ZMA 89-03, Stallings 2 RA to HC Approved (pre-existing)
ZMA 89-21, Mechum River. 56 RAtoPRD Denied
ø
.
"
D) ~ fíù ~ ~ W r.
~J6M - 51995
.
"':'-RD OF SU:",['"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
/ -6··..-/'.:?
2¡:;;;d'~~6
January 5, 1995
George B. Hall
907 St Charles Ave
Charlottesville, V A 22901
RE: SP-94-31 George B. Hall
Dear Mr. Hall:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 3, 1995, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of vehicles. No
bodywork or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No sale of gasoline or sale or
rental of vehicles shall be pennitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing building;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts or inoperable vehicles except those
awaiting repair. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. Fire and Building Official approval;
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance;
6. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday-through Friday
and 8:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. on Saturday and no operation of the garage on Sunday;
7. Engineering Department approval of waste collection and disposal methods;
Page 2
January 5, 1995
8. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors
at any time.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on January 11. 1995. 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,
"
/.'~ .-/
/' iIf-.r'" f;" 1--7
!/~¿t.-~:..-~. ~':-'
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
DECEMBER 13, 1994
JANUARY 11, 1995
SP 94-31 GEORGE HALL
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to operate a public garage for mechanical
repairs. No body work is proposed. The applicant has submitted a description and justification
for this request(Attachment C). Staff notes that the sales referenced in the applicant's
information are not covered by this' permit and are not permitted in the Rural Areas.
Petition: George Hall petitions the Board of Supervisors to establish a public garage on 0.676
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(37)]. Property, described as Tax Map 95, Parcel 12Bl, is
located on the north side of Route 250 approximately 150 feet west of the Albemarle/Fluvanna
County line. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is within the EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is not located within a designated growth area
(Rural Area 2).
Character of the Area: This site is developed with a building which was previously used for
White's Bakery and Store. Based on a visit to the site and looking at the building, it appears that
the site was a garage at one point and that gas pumps existed. Staff can find no records to
support this visual observation. A solid wood fence is located on the east side of the property on
or near the county line. One house is directly opposite this site on the south side of Route 250 is
visible.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Plannine and Zonine History: None available.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in a Rural Area. The Comprehensive plan
discourages uses not related to hona fide agriculture of forestry.
STAFF COMMENT:
In the past, staff has recommended that puhlic garage uses are generally more appropriate to
designated growth areas ofthc Comprchcnsi\c Plan than to random location in,the Rural Areas.
In past reports for public garages. staff has stated that commercial use of the property be
evaluated in terms of appropriateness to the Rural Areas. That is to say, a determination should
1
be made as'to whether or not this garage would provide service to the area otherwise not
conveniently available. This property is situated about six miles east of the Urban Area of the
Comprehensive Plan and 3.3 miles east ofthe Village of Rivanna. The nearest garage in
Albemarle County to this site is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west. A garage is
located 1.7 miles to the east in Fluvanna County. Other than this distance analysis, planning
staff has no method of determining if this area is adequately served. Staff offers the following
guidance to aid the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in determining if this area is
adequately served:
1. The closest garage in Albemarle County identified by staff is approximately 2.5 miles to
the west. (A garage is located 1.7 miles to the east in Fluvanna County).
2. Route 250 has 5,800 vehicle trips per day based on 1992 information. Some of this
traffic is generated by development in Fluvanna including Lake Monticello.
3. Tourist traffic is in the area since Route 250 is an Entrance Corridor.
Staff notes that this site is developed with an existing block building previously used as a store
and, based on the physical layout of the building, was apparently used as a garage with gas
pumps. Staff has viewed this as a significant factor in favor of this request.
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 property.
Staff notes that the proposed activity involves no major construction, only renovation to an
existing commercial building. This use is a change in use and does not represent the introduction
of a commercial use in an area where no commercial activity previously existed. The proposed
public garage should not result in traffic of greater volume than that generated by the previous
store. In an attempt to make such uses unobtrusive in rural locations, staff has in the past
recommended conditions that limit operations to mechanical repair and service. Spray-painting,
body work, gasoline sales and sale/rental of vehicles should be prohibited. Hours of operation
should be limited. The applicant does not propose any uses typically restricted. The hours of
operation are normal business hours during the work week an limited on Saturday. Any activity
on-site should have minimal effect on adjacent properties as they are vacant or sufficiently
setback from the garage. Noise is a potential nuisance factor. The recommended conditions .
limit repair work to the interior of the building. This use will have to comply with all ordinance
2
requirements. Staff opinion is that due to the location of the garage in relation to existing
structures and with conditions that noise should not be an impact. Staff opinion is that this use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property due to the character of the site and
conditions for approval of the use.
that the character of the district will not be change thereby.
This parcel is non-conforming due to the size, 0.676 acres. The nature of the building on site
does not allow for easy conversion to a dwelling unit. The existing building has limited potential
as an agricultural building due to the size of the parcel. Based on these factors the site has
limited potential for by-right uses. Staff has viewed this change in use as readaptive use of an
existing structure. No major new construction will be required to accommodate this use.
Existing parking is adequate, therefore no site plan is required. This site is located in the EC
district. The ARB has commented on this request authorizing the Design Planner to approve the
building permit application with landscaping· and a fence. Staff has not included landscaping or
fence as conditions as this change in use does not require a site plan and conditions limit the
activity visible from 250 to a level comparable with the previous store. Based on the limited
changes proposed (construction of garage doors) no impact on the character of the district is
anticipated.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance.
This site is located in the Rural Areas District. The intent of this district does not support this
type of use but is instead supportive of agricultural and forestal uses. A public garage is
permitted as a use by special use in recognition of the need to provide limited services. This is
reflective of the intent of the zoning ordinance as stated in Section l.~.3 "to facilitate the creation
of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community". This request would provide convenient
garage services to the eastern portion of the County. The Board should determine if this area is
adequately served by existing facilities or if this use provides for a convenient community. Staff
does note that this use will provide a convenient service on an Entrance Corridor.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
Approval of this request will not affect permitted uses on adjacent property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
No additional regulations are found in Section 5.0.
and with the public health. safety and general welfare.
3
The property is currently served by two entrances and a loop driveway. Minor work, extension
of the island, is needed to obtain a standard commercial entrance. The entrance design provides
for good on-site circulation. Conditions are included to insure adequate disposal of waste. Staff
opinion is that the public health, safety and welfare will not be negatively impacted by the
garage.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. No significant construction or alteration to the existing structure or site will occur.
(Minor work at the entrance and construction of bay doors will occur).
2. Use will provide service on an Entrance Corridor.
3. No development exists in the area that would be adversely affected by this use.
4. The site has limited potential for by-right uses in the Rural Areas district.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Due to the location of the existing building, activities associated with the use will be
visible from adjacent properties and the state road;
2. This type of use is not consistent with the agricultural/forestal intent of the Rural Area
District.
The applicant is aware of proper methods of disposal for waste material and has already
contacted individuals to arrange for disposal of these materials. Staff is unable to provide
comments to determine if the area is adequately served as no standards for such a determination
exist. Based on the limited on-site impact this use will have and the provisions for waste
disposal, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of vehicles. No
bodywork or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No gasoline or sale or rental
of vehicles shall be permitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing building;
4
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts or inoperable vehicles except those
awaiting repair. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. Fire and Building Official approval;
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance;
6. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday
and 8:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. on Saturday and no operation of the garage on Sunday;
7. Engineering Department approval of waste collection and disposal methods.
8. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors
at any time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Infonnation
5
ì
~
I ~ I
I I
--------______J
~ "'1" ......... " ~,'
ATTACHMENT AI
i'
~---¡
~ 8U'~.~
0ly
-< t\t
GC
,
\
".
\!I'~I¡ ,
I
"
I s~\\,\..\,
,,'f
,?-'ò0 C' °
'Ò~ Ú
,0 t\t
1'y
I ,,,¡her!
if..,)
.)
"
~r'
.,~
'n' - ~_ ._____
" ....,
'.. ':"' """- ,0
...... r646l~ ............".
=....~.;¡ .Þ
~ """....'10. /.'
....""', /1'
~]\~
ß' ('___,
þ
'-(/
"
, IH4
I
\.
, ,.
, """ ,1,·111
,'- '
" ,
" I
...
,
I
,
'.
~fi4ì]
\
~ ".
..
\",,\\'
,.
,
"
",""
","
0°
.}
~~îl
/~/
, .;
615~
~'
. /1'~IJiliJ
c¡ 1- ~I '.,~-:::>
(oOhem _ I l.:l·J~
, ) ..'~ / ,0,,0 V
1,:12! è
.'j
~
Iydraul><:
A...
<-
"
'"
",
/
~~I
/," -' ~""~]
'''''..1 : "
.. _~?~L_=
be:" ¡ ...¡y"
,...".11,.,,'1/... ¡,J' -
~ .\' J.- ,. . ¡UN CR()SS~'JA{)~
. ['I/.j
I ~.'
". ~ I
, I
,,/-
....
-:::>
o
.'
.'
'1M:.
1
, ,
)
\
..
,
I
1)"0'.
'V/'
SP-94-31
George Hall
I ~ ~
"
',H ,I ..
\
"~'./
\,."
,
"
"
I
,
v
"
,
I
-1..
/
'.
-'T "TAT[ ~T[ I.
...
---
SCALf; IN '([T
- ,...
ALBEMARLE COUNT'.
~
SP-94-3l
George Hall
OM'
,
RIVANNA DISTRICT
~
¡ATTACHMENT 81
SECTION 95
(ATTACHMENT C J
e
E P I
EQR WHITE'S BAKERY AND CONVENIENCE
STORE
. EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE
The property know as "White's Bakery and Convenience Store" is located
on 250 east of Charlottesville, just before the Fluvanna County line.
Currently the property is closed, but recently was used as a country store
and bakery. The property consists of a 3000 square foot building, paved
front area and privacy fence on the right side, the lot is .676 of an acre.
F or traffic, there is good site distance both directions, and plenty of room
to enter and exit the property for customers.
e
PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE
My intended use of the property, if approved for this special use permit is to
operate a "Public Garage:" currently the property has an area within the
current structure to house a 2 bay garage, there is even 1 0' high openings
for doors, which could be opened up For use. With the "Garage" operating,
There is room to the sides and rear to store vehicles while being repaired.
I would install a fence to make sure they were out of site of neighbors and
250 East traffic.
Within the building, I would have a 2 bay garage area, a waiting room,
small office, storage area, and a public rest room. The balance of the interior
Might in the future be used, if allowed, for the sale of automobile and
motorcycle parts and accessories.
e
For storage and removal of waste products, such as oil and anti-freeze, I
would use 2 tanks in the rear, with a recycling company, removing the
products on a regular basis .Concerning possible spills during repair work, I
would handle this by using a drainage system in the floor to drain any
¡ATTACHMENT Cllpage 21
e products to a solid concrete storage basin, where they would be collected
and placed within the storage tanks for removal.
My intended use will not disturb surrounding properties, since all of our
work will be inside the building, and will operate from 8 AM to 5:30 PM,
Monday through Friday and half a day on most Saturdays.
I believe this will be a valuable business for the rural community east of
Charlottesville. I have been involved in Automobile maintenance and
repairs for over 26 years and was the head mechanic at Allied Concrete for
\
18 years.
If there are any questions, concerns, or other items, which you would like
me to address, please don't hesitate to contact me.
I look forward to your review, approval and the opening of my new
business in Albemarle County.
e
Sincerely,
George (Buddy) B. Hall
Buddy's Mobile Automotive Repair
October 27, 1994
/ka-r /J / ~Jzff
e
'I L..
. 1
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, in a regular
meeting on the 3rd day of August, 1994, directed staff to procure financing for the purchase
of electronic voting machines;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, in a regular
meeting on the 11th day of January, 1995, adopted the following:
BE IT RESOLVED, that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive or Melvin
A. Breeden, Director of Finance is authorized on behalf and in the name of the County of
Albemarle (the "County") (1) to release financial information regarding the County; (2) to
make application and borrow from Crestar Bank (the "Bank") such sums of money and on
such terms as may be agreed upon between the Bank and such authorized person or persons
in connection with the purchase of electronic voting machines; (3) to assign or otherwise
transfer and deliver to the Bank title to and possession of the voting machines belonging to
the County, and to endorse or guarantee the same in the name of the County all on such
terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by any such authorized persons and the Bank in
connection with this transaction; (4) to make, execute and deliver promissory notes or other
obligations of the County, including, but not limited to, obligations under letters of credit in
form satisfactory to the Bank for any sums so obtained in connection with this transaction;
and (5) to transact any other business with the Bank incidental to the powers hereinabove
granted in connection with this transaction.
FURTHER, that this Resolution is in conformity with the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and that all previous acts on behalf of the County as provided
here above are hereby approved and ratified.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, on
motion by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, at a regularly scheduled meeting on
January 11, 1995, by a vote of six to zero.
tJ
)
.
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL~ U W c
( .-6_
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY í
J
Rtt I'V! ðt t~ðV'''''' - .., '".
.. ~,~.r,~ç::.... '" <".::.\r.D U\·::·¡ ~v_¡,j
'~"'¡.i.~.;~-'
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE: 1/11/95
._0_____...
Borrowing Resolution Regarding
Purchase of Electronic Voting
Machines
ITEM NUMBER:
?f¿J///'.ij
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
CONSENT AGENDA: X
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
Authorization of County Executive and
Director of Finance to Execute
Closing Documents in Connection with ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
the Lease/Purchase of Electronic
Voting Machines
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACT(S) :
Messrs. Tucker and Trank
BACKGROUND:
On August 3, 1994, the Board directed staff to procure financing for the
purchase of electronic voting machines. The machines were acquired from
Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment, Inc. and were installed and used in the
November, 1994 election. The County was recently notified by Crestar Bank,
the lending institution, that a Borrowing Resolution was needed as part of
the closing documents for this transaction.
DISCUSSION:
The Resolution authorizes the County Executive or Director of Finance to
execute all necessary documents in connection with the lease-purchase of
the electronic voting machines. No further action is required by the Board
of Supervisors to finalize this transaction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing County Executive or Director of
Finance to execute the necessary closing documents on behalf of the County
of Albemarle.
94-282.005
1'1i."o,:!
C" ;L .
Oi, L-//-ps
-~. ,... '_.~". ..L _.,_, '_. ,_, ._~ .......m.. _,"_",'.__.
To: State Compensation Board
For: Month of þeJ!~ t-ý J79~
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES
~
·····fJEI'.A.R.'".rMENT County State '".rotal
Share Share
Department of
Finance ¿) - () - C1 -
- - -
Sheriff - 0 - 1/.sCJ ~ 9~ ~ 5-0},l3
Commonwealth's
Attorney - 0 - f5tJ.91 'ÝSê,j/
RegìonalJaìl - 0 - 6 0
- - - -
Clerk, Circuit Court - 0 - ~/;¿/9. ~í øZ./ e:¿¡ ? . 6/
Note: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
which the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
are not the total office expenses of these departments.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
H. Alexander Wise, Jr., Director
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
/::~ :!'f
f'5}'/I/--~ 2-
l"'!"
~j
December 28, 1994
The Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Longhouse, Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Perkins:
Recently the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Commonwealth's agency responsible for administering
historic preservation programs, received information regarding the history and significance of Longhouse in
Albemarle County. This information was submitted by the owner, Robert W. Krogstad, along with a request that
the Department consider whether it is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia
Landmarks Register. This informal evaluation is intended to assist property owners and other interested parties in
deciding whether to go forward with the formal nomination process. This informal evaluation also allows us to
provide you with some substantive information that we hope will be helpful to you in your local planning efforts,
regardless of whether a formal nomination is ever prepared.
Enclosed is a map showing the location of the property. The Department welcomes any information you may have,
particularly if you are aware of any reasons why the property may not meet the criteria for registration. Information
regarding the physical setting and extent of modifications to the properties are especially helpful.
The National Register and Virginia Register are lists of individual properties, sites and districts, important for their
prehistoric and/or historic associations. Only those properties found to be significant for their associations with
events or persons or determined to be good examples of an architectural style or method of construction are eligible
for inclusion on the registers. Additionally, properties must meet age and integrity standards.
In the event that the property is ultimately added to the registers, that registration applies no restrictions regarding
what the owner may do with his property. Registration makes a property eligible for protection and financial
incentives such as easement donations, tax credits for rehabilitation and grant funds, not available to unregistered
properties. More importantly, registration is a way of honoring the significance of a historic property and recording
its history and appearance by collecting information that becomes a permanent record in the Department's archives.
TELEPHONE: (804) 786-3143
TDD: (804) 786-1934
FAX- (804) 225-4261
An Equal Opportunity Agency
December 28, 1994
Re: Longhouse, Albemarle County
Page 2
Should you have any questions or requests for information describing the effects, benefits and process of
registration, please contact me or James Hill, the Department's National Register Coordinator.
Sincerely,
(AÚ¿~Æ;:f ~é
. Julie L. Vosmik, Director
\ . Division of Survey and Register
JLV/sdm
Enclosure (map)
··'~'C"i.,.,.~..;~~~'!'4\\'tiil0~:":k.,· .,_..;',;r..·'..,... ·"';~:7';~~~~.~~!f!f4~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~"'~~~~
....~~,-~.,.;.~) ......~ . . . . , , ., '.. .... "," .,~ '-". + -.
t , . rN'Ás' -~ ~nJ c.rm~ ;,.,y",r d..v "tfS~r " "f?d, r U'~ " . . "'I"
" ; ;fNO rw",r ny¿r nræ- ~"N4".s .-.v", IIV""a.s a.- ~ 8v,,¿oMlt;.S "'A:i!" U'~..v #£<4ZlM<f" ..¡ . ,.~,
. ....~.;.~ ....A:"vaTY".,. Ndr".v .ny.!"',.,.:u.o. .o...,..-"..v£o .J~~ t'~.. .,~ . ~..
,,-:;+~\:. "O,l'~... "00 yé/l,e .......~cvo Z'dMe:" A.cnvV..e I'r ç~~ ':"'~~ .....~\.
Iff' ~. ~ .rE'~tIt'Cé vnUI7/!".s /f..eë PN~~.o j.J «. '.
:.~', ~ 1. ~.Kc~pr A8 ~Nð VN ;~ --~~..."
....J ' . , ,~ ...._.
~ 4RTHIIR F EoWARDS : "
:.. 14208 ¡ 4'1.L ;;.
. q,~
.... I '\j'V:- ..-
"~ \'0 SUlt';'c,"'y
............
':\#"0tY
\
-\
\
.\
"
>\ .~ ~ ------
\--~~-_. .'
----- , ~ "
-,--- . , ~
--~ ./ \... ~
\
\
\,~
W·
\
¡} J$' fl' :Uð;~~~\\~~~¡:~~..~ ,r~
\S ,r~' \J ....¡-~, '" &.of
,PHY\S/CA¿ \5V~Ve-Y \SHOW'/N6 F. ,iP" 0/
PAÆ!.Cét.,S ð / C, V'HqNN 1"90.5 P"'~CêÂS..3A ¡t 38 t7N
. \fNêt!i"T 7/. COVA/TY TAX H/I¡ø-S
/}'.
~
J
'\
/ \\
\ \\
~
, IQ
, "
, .\J
~t.. ~ ~.
, q) "
,~~ ~ ~
I')~
, ~ ~
,~ .~
,. ~ '-
\
~,
, "
~,
"'"
~~
~
,!,
,-
---
---"
\
\
---
tJCA¿é,¡': &'0'
-\
:'!'
(¡
i"
r-"J--~f
""¿ 8éH/I&ê COUNTY, V/~G/N/,.,·
,4ç,+ . ?, /,vø
éJ. /9UßREY h'UFF/\-?/9NIAôôOCIAT€ô,¿TD.
c ,,~~~ ëNG"...v~-c~"...vG -¿A;VO c.1'V~Ve-Y/NG - ¿"'ND ;OC::~NI'V/~
CHA¡r¿~ðl'rt!i"\S V/¿ ¿ê, Y/Æ!G/A//1"9
~ð7· /~,
D,t.lt' 4.~· ~
N / c:.c:..
. ,
\1.:
\;
?-'
.--./
''',
'~
t..)
" ~
i· ,
-,;;,
. .
,
,
~,¡~~.
:~>
.~., J.'\
~~;~~
L,
,"'t
:-
00
'''4
(¡
!'"
:~.
,
~
-',""\.:ì
\.1 -.....,
.,
.
';1
..,~
.~
'>~'-~
.
".
~>'¡
,
...
, ,
~. > ,~::.-
.. ',- ~'f'¡
,
,
NATIONAL REG~I:uc. CRDERIA FOR EVAWA110N
CÚteim k PlUJoGœ that are :¡~.oè:IlRj with evems that have made a signiíicant <XIJttibutim
to the brœi paøans of our hisIay.
Criœ:rD1 B: Pl~ that are ~~~IR'I with the lives of pelD~ ~gJ1ÍMmr in our ¡mt.
Criœ:rD1 c: Pk~ that embody the m~ dmdJb~ of a type, period. <r rœdDi
of amtt1I:Um or that 1~......4 a ~gJriMmr and distinguishabJe enrity whale
\,Uj~IIõIJb may lack individual di~
a~iœ D: Pt~ that have YieJded. <r may be lilœ1y to yidd. inbaaim ÏullUtd in
¡xàrisIay or hisIŒy.
~c ·rR· (E1' ..
"-UU2"J1& .(JI'lIIi:IIo ~ ~~IIIII~
Ordinarily œrn J ies. buli~ or gmes of þ;~1 figun:s. tJlUJoG'Des owned by ~
il1-9intrit-nl or used for fl"i1gjnJs purJXB:S. stt1dJR:S that have bc:m rmved from their crigiœ1
locabaJs. n:aJJSInI:Ifd. hiSIŒic rnriJdi~ ¡.a~~ ¡ximarily OOIIIIIrn'al(æi~ in naauœ. am
¡.a~ that have ad1ieYed significaœe within· the JlISt 50 yean shall nŒ be C'ITI~ PM"ñJe
ftr the Natiœal RegisIa'. However, SŒb lJI~ties will <l'1A~ if they are integral JBr1S of
distrids thai: do DJeI:t the a1œria <r if they mn widJin the fâIowing ...~. ~
A. a)'PligjnJs jJl~ deriving ~y ~g11jfil:~uœ from èUd,;~JIëIl <r
artisbc distinaia1 <r hisrDrical iUqAA~ cr
B. a buiJding or stttx:mre remM:d Û'OD1 its crigiœ1 ~ but which is
å!þh~..t primarily for cucl.;ae.4.1tal value, <r which is the surviving
SII1EIIJre mœt iJ1~1add:y ~~.~~ with a bisraic perD1 <r event; <r
C.· a binhpJæe or grave of a hisIa'ical. figure of Qld*lIdillg ilÌ~ if
tœrc is no 00Je:r dI¥"¥1* site or buüding dim:åy ~~.~rM with his
cr her praiuaive life; or
D. a \.OlJdbj which derives its pt~JiI&j ~I;~ fran graves of }-Qò7oA~
of b:a&ø.J:¡œtt ÙlqAA~ fran m\1Ïnr!iye design feamres, or fran
~~ with hisrŒic ew:ms; cr
E. a reamtnx:œd. buüding when aa:urardy . ~tIR'I in a sudabJe
em-Ïinll:llbJt and fÂ~ in a rligrriñM lßíJaIb as put of a n::::I1¡;)s:aåœ
masœr pjan, and when no. cm:r bu:ikfing or stnx:mre with the same
~" · ~1'Ííw1 has SUIVived.; or
F. a jJlUJoG'ty primarily 00IIJD'Ieß'a&i:di~ in inœnt if ~ age, tr.Idirirn, or
symboJic value has invesrai it with its own hisImal ~~ or
G. a jJlUJoGty adricving significanœ within the ¡ESt 50 years if it is of
~ iUJµ)1tauœ.
COMMONWE.4.LTH of VIRGINIA
-'co:n C '.1 1 lIer. OireclDr
DepønmÐll of Historic Resolll'CØ
:::1 Governor Street
Richmoac1. Virg¡ma 23219
TDD: (ICM) 711-1~
TwIeCIhGI_ fIlM) 788-31.
FAX: (801) 225-Ge1
RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGIS'u!x OF HlS'I"oR!C PlÄCIS
Elllibility for FedenJ tax prorisioM: If a Plupeßy is lisaai in the N2~i
Regisœr, ~ federal tax provisioas may apply. 1714 Tar RIform Act of
1986 revises tM historic pres~rvt1IÎOn tar Ìl'ICÐItiVØ tllIIhorized by Congrasin
tM Tar Refonn Act of 1976. 1M ~ Act of 1978, 1714 Tar TrttlII1IÐIl
Extension Act of 1980. the Economic Jœcovt!ry Tar Act of 1981. and 1M Taz
Reform Act of 1984 and. as of J01IlIIJI'y 1. 1987, provilJl!s for a 20 p~rœru
imat1llÐlt ta% cretiit with a fulll1lijustmÐrt to /JQsis for rduzbiliItzting historic.
conrnœrcitzl. i1llÚlSl1'ilZi. and residÐJtiai renllli buildings. '!'he fomœr 15 p~TCI!IIt
and 20 p~rcÐU invt!Sl1Mnt taz credils for rduzbüÏlIltion of oldu COIIIIMrcitzi .
buildings are combiru!d into a single 1 0 p~rcÐU invt!SrmetIl tar credit for
cOIIIIIIØCÌlli or indllsuiaJ buildings buill befo~ 1936. The Tax T~rmL'!!'lt
Extemion Act of 1980 provides federal tax deductions for charitable
contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically
hdponaDt land areas or SU'UCt1JœS. Whetber these pmvisioas are advanmpous
to a PIOpeny owner is dependent upon the particu1ar cirenmcr.m~ of the
VI~ty and the owner. eecause tax 3SJX'C" outlined above are complex,
individuals should consult legal COUDSd or the a{)910påate local Internal
Revenue Service office fOf ::ICc1$tUœ in determining the tax consequences of
. the above provisions. For further informaåon on œrtiñcarion requirementS.
please refer to 36 CFR 67.
CODSidentioD in plAnning for FedenU. Federally Ii~~ and Federally
!JI_iØerj projects: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 requires that. Federal agencies allow for the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation to have an oppommity to coJDJDeDt on aU projects affecting
historic: PlopettÏeS 1isied. ÍIt the Natioual Register. For further information,
please refer to 36 CFR 8ob~ .__
Coœideratioa in ianing a surface coal m~ I~UU.a: In aa:ordanœ with
the Surface Mining and Conttol Act of 1m, there must be consideration of.
historic values in the decision to issue a surfaœ coal mining permit where coal
is loca,M. For further information, please refer to 30 CPR 700 et seq.
Qi..lin..riOD for Federal grams for bSoric prUC&~ádoD when funds are
aftiJabJe: Funding is unavaüable at present.
"~"""""'·.1·
~
tit' .,.. -~
f. "'-,- ;:.
~ .. ,\,Þ.'!
'~
COMMONWE.A.LTH of VIRGINIA
""ugn C MIller. Olrector
D~1Iœ1ft of Historic Røoun:a
221 GO\'cmor Street
RicJImond. VirJilU 23219
TOO: leo.) ¡M-1t:U
TeIeDfICIN ,eo.) 71&-3143
FAX: leo.) ~1
nc=s JœUJU)Da DftODL "DBa usmuc DISDIC: ÐDI~OII
1. N.t1onal Req1.ter d..ignat1on officially recogn1z.. the cultur.l,
arch1t.ctur.l, aDd laDdecape f..t~ of an hi.toricùly .ignificant uea,
br111q111q th_ to the .ttention of the c ...ity, .tat., and nation. Id.ùly, the
incr...ed puDlic awarene...t ""q f:cD reqistr.tion ..ct. .. a cataJ.yat 111
furth.riDq co"'-'''ity effort. to pr.aerve the ar..·. historic and n.tur.l
f..tur...
2. N.t1on.l Reqister h1.tor1c dia'tr1ct d..iqnat1on doe. net r.str1ct an
owner's u.. of hi. ~r h.r property 'in any w.y a. lonq a. priv.t.. non-feder.l
funds are u.ed. !t do.. not. for exampl., prohibit any own.r fram alt.rinq or
demclish111q any buildinq., nor do.. it r..trict .ubdivi.ion or s.le.
3. N.t1onal Reqi.t.r d..ignation coan h.lp l....n the neq.tiv. impact on an
historic ar.a fram c¡overmaent funded project.. By law, an .nvironment.l J.mpact
study is requireå for any feder.lly-fUDded project. - such a. ro.d bui1.c1iDr;,
utility in.tùlat1on, and puDlic hou.i.nq. Al.o, co.rtaJ.n .t.t. project. are
reviewed for th.ir impact on hi.toric reeourc... It any project is d.-ci to
h..,. an adver.. .ffect on hi.tor1c bui1.ctinq., arcb&eoloq1cal. sit.., or la.ndacap8
taature. within a hi.tor1c d1.tr1ct, the project may b. red..iqned tc) 1e._ that
effect.
4. N.tJ.onal R.eqister cie.iqDatJ.on coøf~. two typee of f1naDc1&l benef1t. on
hi.tor1c district property owners. Fir.t, it allowa the own.r of a contri!nl1::inr;
buildinq with111 the reqi.tered dJ.atr1ct to cl.im inve.tment tax cred1u tor
c.rt1fied r.h&Þilitat1ona if the bui1.ctinq 1. u.ed for inc:ome-produciDq pw:po-..
A "contribut111q" bu1ldinq COD1:ribute. to t:be hi.tor1c char.cter of the d1.tr1ct.
It mu.t b. .t l...t SO year. old and retaiA .uffici.nt archit.ctural inteqrity.
For additional information on the inve.tment tax coredit proqram. cant.ct
the Department of Hi.tor1c R.eource., 221 Governor Street. Richmond. VA 23219
(804) 186-3143.
National Reqi.ter d..1qnation al.o maJce. properties .11qible for matchinq
fed.ral grant. for historic pr..ervation. curr.ntly, fed.ral tund. are not
available tor pre..rvation project..
-."
National Reqi.t.r d..iqnatioñ~,
1. Incre.... pui)l1c awaren.... Qf a coODllllUftity' s historic resource. and
encour.q.. pre.ervation I . .
2. mitig.t.. the neq.tiv. impact of'governmeat-funded proj.cts;
3. Do.. not r..trict the private property own.r u.ing private fund. i. any
way;
4. provid.. financial ben.fit.. ma111ly in the form of tax incentive. tor
rehabilitation of income-produc111g buildinq..
Rev. 3/90
UGJœS or o.1I&K8 '1'0 CQY_......-t AJm/OK o&n:= '1'0 LI.A..ulW
Dr 'I'D DnODL UGXS'n3
Owners of priva~a prop~ies nominated to the Naticna¡
Reqis'CC' have an oppertUni tv to concur with or 0.0; eC1: to listinq
in acccrci with the NatioD&.l Hist:cric Prurvatica Act ami J 6 en
60. Any owner or partia.l owner of privata property whe ==_..
to oD;ec: to listinq may subllit, to the state Historic
Preservation Officer, a n~"pi~.d. st:at.1Ieftt c8rtUyine; that tha
pa~y is the sole or partial owner of the privata prcpeny anå .
oD;ec:s to listinq.
Each owner or partial owner has one vote reqardlu5 ot the
po~:.on ot t.~. prop~ t:hat ~e P~I owns. It a major~~ ot
priva~e property owners OD;~~, a propercy W'i~l not .be listed.
However, the Stata Historic Preservation Officer shall sWmit the
ncminatic:m to the K..per of the Natienal Reqistar fer a
äet:erminatien of eliqibility of the prcparty for li.stine; on tha
Naticna.l Raqistar. I~ the prcpatty is than datarmined eliqibla
fer li.stinq, a11:houqi1 net f~y li.staci, Federal aqanci.. wiJ.l.
D. required to aUow tor the Advisory council on Hist=ric
preservation to have an opportmúty to. ca--"t bafere the aqency
may fund, license, or assist a prcjeC1: ·,.¡hich will affeC1: the
proper:y.
r~ YOU choose to oc;ect to the listinq of your prop&rCY, the
netari:8å oD;ection mwrt ba sW:mlitteci to Hw;i1 c. Miller, Z2~
Governor Streat, lticbmami, Virqinia,· 2J21.9 bafere the sc:hlKiulaci
meatine; ot the StaUa Raview Searct neted in your lettar.
I~ vou wish to c'dì!rment. on the nomination of the property te
the ~aticnal Reqister, pi.... senå your cœrments to the State
. .
Historic Preservation Otficar.at 221. Governor Str.e~, Ric~d,
vire;inia 2321.9 .before the State. Review Seard considers this
nominatic:m. A copy of the nt'J!ll; '1"tien and ~ormation on the
National Reqistar anå the Federal Tax provisions are available
trom tlla a..bcve adc:lress upen reqa_t.
REV 1990
.'
The Four Landmark Designations
The Virginia .Landmarks Register
Placing propenies on the Virginia Landmarks Register is the official means by which the Board
of Historic Resources carries out it legal mandate to "Designate historic landmarks...· (Sec.
10.1-2204. Code of VimnÌa). &gjnni'1g in 1966, the General Assembly acknowledged the
public benefit of identifying historic resources, and it created the landmarks designaåon program
as the non-regulatory vehicle for pursuing that public benefit. Under 1992 legislaåon, historic
property can no longer be formally desig11ated a landmark if the property owner objectS or, in
the case of a historic district, a majority of the owners object.
The Virginia Landmarks Register is intended to encoura2e. but not to require. the ¡)1eservaå.on
of a historic property by calling that historic significance to the attennon of the owner and all
others responsible for land-use decisions that will determine the property's future. These
decisions may range from preserving the propeny through compromises that save part of the
property to total destruction of the historic' resource. Placement of a property on the Virginia
Landmarks Register imposes absolutely no restrictions on the private owner of that Pl0peity.
Similarly, local governments are not required to take the state's designation into consideration
in their plans and actions.
Benefits for owners of Virginia landmarks include eligibility for financial assistance and technical
assistance from the professional staff of the Depanment. Owners of registered landmarks may
also elect to protect their properties with a preservation easement. Each owner of a new
landmark receives an official state plaque with the name of the property.
The NatioaaJ RegÏ$ter of Historic Places
The National Register. established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is the list
of the buildings, siteS and districtS that define the nation's history. These properties may be of
local, state or national significance. Like the Virginia Landmarks Register, the National
Register is a fonnal planning tool to encourage the preservation of important resources by calling
attention to their significance., The owner of a National Register propeny is not restricted in
what he can do with that propet.!)t. When Federal funds, licenses or permits are used, the
project review process will consider the impact of the project on the property.
An owner may prevent the formal listing of his property. In these cases. the Keer-~r of the
Register will not add the property to the Register: but will make a formal fInding ('~ 'eligible
for the Register. " The properties are still considered significant. and federal agencies :nust still
rake these "eligible" properties into account in detennining the impact of their undertakings.
Owners of properties on the National Register are eligible for preservation grants: owners of
may also be eligible for tax credits when they rehabilitate their income-producing plopelåes.
~ationaJ Historic LandmarKs
The National Historic Landmarks (NHL) program provides official federal recognition of
nanonally significant properåes. Only 101 Virgini3. landmarks have been designated as NHLs
by the Secretary of the Interior.
National Historic Landmarks designation has essentially the same effect as National Register
listing. There is no regulation of private or nonfederal ·actions affecting National Landmarks.
The Federal agency, must make every effort to minimize harm to NHLs when contemplating
a project. But even with this additional encouragement toward preservation. the federal project
sponsor retains all final decision making about the landmark's preservation.
Beneñts [0 owners of National Historic Landmarks are similar to those for National Register
property owners. The Department of the Interior also provides technical assistance and makes
Jl1 annual report to the U. S. Congress listing ail threatened National Historic Landmarks.
Locally Designated Landmarks
Local governments in Virginia can designate historic landmarks. Generally, this local action is
rùen through the zoning ordinance; unlike the state and federal desig1'l:uions. it is intended to
regulate the property owner in a way that proteCtS the d~gnated landmark from unn~~ry
desn-uction or insensitive alteration to the exterior.
The Code of Vimnia lists protection against desn-uction of, or encroachment upon. historic areas
as a proper function of local zoning ordinances. As a rule, historic district zones are considered
"overlay" zones that regulate design but do not change the underlying zoning category. Historic
district zoning at the locallevel is carried out in a manner consistent with other zoning actions.
The decisions about these ordinances rest entirely with the locality. It isn' t necessary for the
state to recognize a historic landmark before the application of a historic zone. Recognition of
a resource by the state does not obligate a 10\:3.1 government to proteCt that resource.
Localities may provide tax abatements or other preservation incentives to owners of properties
that have been designated "historic" or that are included in local historic districtS.
"
. ,
..
CHECKLIST FOR STATE AND NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS IN VIRGINIA
(I!!I denotes completed step in the process)
Evaluation of Elillibilitv
II!! Preliminary Information Form received and
reviewed, additional information requested if
necessary
o Preliminary Information Form reviewed and
rated by RegIster Evaluation Team at semi-monthly
meeting
o Information on properties potentially affected by
federal undertakings reviewed and rated by Register
Evaluation Team at semi-monthly meeting
o Preliminary Information Form mailed to
members of State Review Board for review two
weeks prior to meeting. Board makes
recommendation of ehgibility at bi-monthly
meeting. Section 106 evaluations are not taken
before the board.
Listirm on the Ræisters
If applicant elects to pursue registration, applicant
consults with Department staff regarding cnteria,
areas of significance, period of significance and
boundaries.
o Department staff reviews nomination drafts upon
request and provides technical assistance
o Department staff reviews completed nomination
o Copies of nomination sent to members of both
Boards two weeks prior to meeting
o Owner(s}, officials, and consultant notified of
Boards' decisions
o Property is logged in at National Register office
o Owner, consultant and local officials notified of
Keeper's decision
II!! Owner(s} and officials notified of receipt of
Preliminary Information Form. Department of
Historic Resources archives checked for property
file and any additional information
o Owner(s} and officials informed of team
recommendation, notified of pending consideration
by State Review Board. Additional information
requested if necessary. In the case of historic
districts, public informational meetings may be held
at the request of the applicant or the locality
o Officials notified of review team
recommendations regarding Section 106 projects
o Owner(s} and officials notified of Board's
decision
o COMPLETE nomination due to Department of
Historic Resources by first day of the month prior
to the month of the State Review Board and
Virginia Board of Historic Resources meetings at
which the nomination is to be considered
o Owner(s), adjacent property owners, consultant
and local officials notified by letter no less than 30
days prior to State Review Board m~ting to initiate
30-day comment period
o In the case of a historic district, Department of
Historic Resources holds a public heanng within
the locality not less than thirty days prior to the
Board meetings and publishes legal notice in the
local paper to initiate 30-day comment period
o Nomination presented at State Review Board
meeting. If approved, State Review Board
recommends that nomination be forwarded to
Keeper of the National Register; nominations
presented to Virginia Board of Historic Resources
If approved without owner objection will be listed
on the Virginia Landmarks Register on day of
presentation
o Nomination is forwarded to the Keeper of the
National Register in Washington, D.C.
o Following 45 day review period, Department is
notified of decision. If approved without owner
objection, property is listed on National Register. If
owners object, Keeper declares property eligible.
Subsequest owners may rescind objection.
/-6 -?'r
j?5 ð//~ §::3
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
FIFTY~SEVENTH DISTRICT
December 29, 1994
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS,
AGRICUL TURE (CHAIRMAN)
EDUCA TIQN
FINANCE
HEAL TH, WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
MITCHELL VAN YAHRES
408 AL TAMONT CIRCLE
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902
The Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Walter:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Governor's proposal to eliminate the
BPOL tax.
As a member of a joint subcommittee studying the structure of the tax, I have
voted to retain the tax as a means for localities to help fund their services. We have
worked with local governments and small businesses to develop a draft model
ordinance and although there are areas of disagreement, the model ordinance
includes compromises worked out by the subcommittee. We will be discussing the
model ordinance and elimination of the BPOL tax on Monday, January 9th, 1995.
I agree with you that if this tax is phased out, some other source of revenue,
besides increasing the real estate tax, should be provided to localities to make up for
the lost revenue.
Thanks again for letting me know the views of the Board on this important issue.
I will try to keep you informed as to the progress of the model ordinance legislation.
Sincerely yours,
~
Mitchell Van Yahres
MVY / jb
'L# ~,
ORDINANCE NO. 95-6(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAlN CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS, 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 6,
Elections, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 6.1, Establishment of boundaries of
magisterial and election districts, and section 6.2, Voting precincts -- Charlottesville Magisterial District, as
follows:
Sec. 6-1. Establishment and boundaries of magisterial and election districts.
The county shall be divided into six (6) magisterial districts which shall be named and bounded as
described below, and which shall be the election districts for the county within the meaning of § 15.1-571.1 of
the Code of Virginia:
(a) Rio Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows:
Beginning at the northern city limits of Charlottesville and its intersection with State
Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then meandering west with the city limits to
its intersection with State Route 743; then north on State Route 743 to its intersection with the
South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir; then meandering north with the South Fork Rivanna
River to its intersection with State Route 660; then northeast on State Route 660 to its
intersection with State Route 743; then southeast on State Route 743 to its intersection with
State Route 643; then south on State Route 643 to its intersection with Schroeder Branch; then
south with Schroeder Branch to its confluence with the South Fork Rivanna River; then
meandering southeast with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the Southern
Railroad right-of-way; then southwest with the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its
intersection with the northern city limits of Charlottesville and State Route 631, the point of
beginning.
Sec. 6-2. Voting precincts--Rio Magisterial District.
The Rio Magisterial District shall include four (4) voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out and
named as follows:
(a) Commonwealth Precinct:
Beginning at the intersection of State Route 743 and U.S. Route 29; then northwest on
State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 631; then northeast on State Route 631 to
its intersection with Four Seasons Drive; then southeast on Four Seasons Drive to its
intersection with Commonwealth Drive; then north on Commonwealth Drive to its intersection
with Dominion Drive; then southeast on Dominion Drive to its intersection with U.S. Route
29; then south on U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with State Route 743, the point of
beginning,
(b) Woodbrook Precinct:
Beginning at the northern city limits of Charlottesville and its intersection with State
Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the Southern Railroad
right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest
-<..-- ' ,. ,
with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with u.s. Route 29; then south on u.s.
Route 29 to its intersection with State Route 631; then southeast on State Route 631 to its
intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way and the northern city limits of
Charlottesville, the point of beginning.
(c) Branchlands Precinct:
Beginning at the northern city limits of Charlottesville and its intersection with State
Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on State Route 631 to its
intersection with U. S. Route 29; then south on U. S. Route 29 to the northern city limits of
Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Southern Railroad
right-of-way and State Route 631, the point of beginning.
(d) Agnor-Hurt Precinct:
Beginning at the intersection of Dominion Drive and U.S. Route 29; then north on
u.S. Route 29 to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then northwest with the
South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with Schroeder Branch; then north with Schroeder
Branch to its intersection with State Route 643; then north on State Route 643 to its
intersection with State Route 743; then northwest on State Route 743 to its intersection with
State Route 660; then southwest on State Route 660 to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering south with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection
with State Route 743; then south on State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 631;
then northeast on State Route 631 to its intersection with Four Seasons Drive; then southeast
on Four Seasons Drive to its intersection with Commonwealth Drive; then north on
Commonwealth Drive to its intersection with Dominion Drive; then southeast on Dominion
Drive to its intersection with u.S. Route 29, the point of beginning.
.....
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance
unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting
held on January 11, 1995.
é
~ . (í
/ ~. ¿Vi é,.fV.ß
C erk, Board of County superv~
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Ui, 'J'2¡.(/i.:ª~,_~~_~:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Name Change for Charlottesville Magisterial District
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
Q4·/ [D2 .(ð1@:J
ACTION:
x
INFORMATION:
SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREOUEST:
Process identified for changing the name of the Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Heilman
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
In July, 1993, the Board of Supervisors tabled action to rename the Charlottesville Magisterial District until after the November 1994 elections.
Staffhas provided the infonnation that the Board had at that time and has confinned with Mr. Heilman that the infonnation that he provided
in his June IS, 1993 memo is still valid.
DISCUSSION:
Basically, the steps to change the name of a magisterial district are as follows:
e Notice of a proposed ordinance amendment would have to be advertised as is nonnally done to amend county ordinances.
e A public hearing would be held and if the Board voted to change the name, the change would be submitted to the Justice Department
for pre-clearance. This process is anticipated to take approximately 60 days.
e The State Board of Elections will probably require that all affected voters be notified prior to the next election of the name change,
if approved by the Justice Department. This would require approximately 5800 voter cards at a cost of $1,440.
RECOMMENDATION
This infonnation is provided at the Board's request for action to consider changing the name of the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
94.147
COUNTY OF AL2EJ,1t\f~t.
'~~-'~,: ~y~~' .~;l_ : :,."y. _~; 'A~" .' ~,
r. ;' ~ __.,_6...~,.>. .{
'~3<"-,¡, 1
£~~:' JUN 16 1993 . { ,~
t,.,v\ ,,'oJ
f. ~ .. ¡. _~.
,'It Ì;t. :f.' :
¡'Ii ;r., _..-.-.,.._.~,..........,¡ " .
i' tI i:n~~~ -~,,:;.:~t: ~"'-:"'~ ;1 M~;.:.¡j¡ 1:'
UiCU t ¡\It. Urt-It;~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of General Registrar
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) .296·5863
MEMORANDUM
To: Rick Huff
Deputy County Executive
From: Jim Heilman
General Registrar
Date: June 15, 1993
Subject: Renaming of Charlottesville Magisterial District and Precincts
I have checked with Jim Bowling, the U.S. Department of Justice, and partially
with the State Board of Elections to find out what is required to merely change
names of a district or precinct. Essentially, everything that is required to
change boundaries or make a new precinct would be required:
- Notice of a proposed ordinance amendment would have to be
advertised as is normally done; i.e. two notices at least one
week apart before a public hearing.
- Section 6-2 of the County Code would have to be amended, changing
the word "Charlottesville" to whatever is chosen and changing
whatever precinct names the Board wishes to change.
- The changes would have to be-submitted to Justice for
pre-clearance. Justice would probably take the full 60 days
alotted to them to rule on it.
- While there is a slim chance that the State Board of Elections
would waive the requirement, we would most likely have to notify
all affected voters. I believe it would be wise to send all
affected voters new voter cards, since cards with obsolete
precinct/district names could cause considerable voter confusion.
This would require approx. 5,800 voter cards to be sent at a cost
of $1,440.
I am still unsure how close to an election this could be done. Normal changes
cannot be made within 60 days of an election, and we are required to notify
affected voters at least 15 days before the election. However, my reading of
the code is that a name change probably would not fall under these rules.
Still, I would prefer notification to be done by early August, so that we can
process the undeliverable mail that will come back from such a mailing and
remove from the rolls those individuals no longer living in Albemarle County.
Such removal must be done at least 60 days before the next election, i.e. the
first week in September. Under this scenario, the Board would need to make such
a change by the first week in June.
-
. " '"
t~, ~",
i.-
(~.:Þ:f
/j/.//c:7-?; 76'/
r·
~. .. .,) \
DRAFT: December 12.1994
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS, 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 6, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained by amending sections
6.1 ,Establishment of boundaries of magisterial and election districts, and 6.2, Voting
precincts -- Charlottesville Magisterial District, as follows:
Sec. 6-1. Establishment and boundaries of magisterial and election districts.
The county shall be divided into six (6) magisterial districts which shall be
named and bounded as described below, and which shall be the election districts for
the county within the meaning of section 15.1-571.1 of the Code of Virginia:
(a) Charlottesville Rio Hill Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows:
Beginning at the northern city limits of Charlottesville and its
intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-of-way;
then meandering west with the city limits to its intersection with State
Route 743; then north on State Route 743 to its intersection with the
South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir; then meandering north with the
South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660; then
·
- . "
northeast on State Route 660 to its intersection with State Route 743'
,
then southeast on State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route
643; then south on State Route 643 to its intersection with Schroeder
Branch; then south with Schroeder Branch to its confluence with the
South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering southeast with the South
Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-
way; then southwest with the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its
intersection with the northern city limits of Charlottesville and State Route
631, the point of beginning.
Sec. 6-2. Voting precincts- Char!ott<Js·¡Y.iQ Rio Hill Magisterial District.
The Charlottesville Rio Hill Magisterial District shall include four (4) voting
precincts, bounded as hereafter set out and named as follows:
(a) Berkeley Commonwealth Precinct:
Beginning at the intersection of State Route 743 and U.S. Route
29; then northwest on State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route
631; then northeast on State Route 631 to its intersection with Four
Seasons Drive; then southeast on Four Seasons Drive to its intersection
with Commonwealth Drive; then north on Commonwealth Drive to its
intersection with Dominion Drive; then southeast on Dominion Drive to its
2
'. ~ .. .
~
intersection with U.S. Route 29; then south on U.S. Route 29 to its
intersection with State Route 743, the point ot beginning.
(b) Woodbrook Precinct:
Beginning at the northern city limits ot Charlottesville and its inter-
section with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-ot-way; then
northeast with the Southern Railroad right-ot-way to its intersection with
the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with the South
Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with U.S. Route 29; then south on
U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with State Route 631; then southeast on
State Route 631 to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-ot-way
and the northern city limits ot Charlottesville, the point ot beginning.
(c) Branchlands Precinct:
Beginning at the northern city limits ot Charlottesville and its inter-
section with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-ot-way; then
northwest on State Route 631 to its intersection with U. S. Route 29; then
south on U. S. Route 29 to the northern city limits ot Charlottesville; then
east with the city limits to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-
ot-way and State Route 631, the point ot beginning.
3
.. ~ ... ....
..
(d) Rio Hit! Aanor-Hurt Precinct:
Beginning at the intersection of Dominion Drive and U.S. Route 29;
then north on U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then northwest with the South Fork Rivanna River to its
confluence with Schroeder Branch; then north with Schroeder Branch to
its intersection with State Route 643; then north on State Route 643 to its
intersection with State Route 743; then northwest on State Route 743 to
its intersection with State Route 660; then southwest on State Route 660
to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering
south with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State
Route 743; then south on State Route 743 to its intersection with State
Route 631; then northeast on State Route 631 to its intersection with Four
Seasons Drive; then southeast on Four Seasons Drive to its intersection
with Commonwealth Drive; then north on Commonwealth Drive to its
intersection with Dominion Drive; then southeast on Dominion Drive to its
intersection with U.S. Route 29, the point of beginning.
4
·
There is a historic marker on a street marked "Rio Street
Center" in the Rio Hill Shopping Center. This street, runs
parallel to and a block west of SR 29, and west of
Shoney's. The marker is on the west side of the street
about a block north of Shoney's.
SKIRMISH AT RIO HILL
On February 29, 1864, General George A. Custer and
1 ,500 cavalrymen made a diversionary raid into Albemarle
County. Here, north of Charlottesville, he attacked the
Confederate Winter Camp of four batteries of the Stuart
Horse Artillery commanded by Captain Marcellus N.
Moorman. Despite the destruction to the camp, 200
confederates rallied in a counter attack which forced
Custer's withdrawal. Few casualties were reported.
Department of Historic Resources, 1989.
Clif Anderson, Secretary, Albemarle County Electoral Board 'II I I'! {"
·
r
David P. Bo........nnan
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Charles S. Martin
Rlvðnnd
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hdl1
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsvil1e
Sally H. Thomas
Sðmue! Mi!lpr
FROM:
Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
Ella W. Carey, CMC, clerk12JDll
MEMO TO:
DATE:
January 13, 1995
Attached is the original copy of the following documents, all of
which are approved by the Board on January 11, 1995:
Resolution to approve tax-exempt financing by East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
certificate as to Qualified Tax-Exempt obligations signed by the
Chairman.
Resolution re: financing of voting machines.
EWC:len
Attachments (3)
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
CERTIFICATE AS TO OUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS
The undersigned Chairman of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), certifies as follows:
1. I understand that bonds, bond anticipation notes, installments or lease purchase
contracts and any other obligation to pay money (excluding only current accounts payable,
contractual obligations which have been budgeted and funded, and contractual obligations to
be paid from the proceeds of prior note and bond issues, and Federal or state grants) are
treated as "obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, including applicable regulations (the "Code. It)
2. The County, any of its "subordinate entities," within the meaning of Code
Section 265(b)(3), and any entities that issue tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the County
and its subordinate entities have together not issued in 1995 more than $10,000,000 of tax-
exempt obligations, not including "private activity bonds," within the meaning of Code
Section 141, other than "qualified 501(c)(3) bonds" within the meaning of Code Section 145.
3. I have no reason to believe that, barring circumstances unforeseen as of the
date hereof, the County will issue tax-exempt obligations itself or approve the issuance of
tax-exempt obligations of any of such other entities if the issuance of such tax-exempt
obligations would, when aggregated with all other tax-exempt obligations theretofore issued
in 1995 by the County and such other entities, result in the County and such other entities
having issued in 1995, a total of more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in 1995,
not including private activity bonds other than qualified 501(c)(3) bonds.
Dated: January 11, 1995.
(j)aJk +-~
Chairman, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
.to
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
BY EAST RIV ANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.
WHEREAS, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (hereafter ERVFC) desires to
secure $120,000 of tax-exempt financing in order to acquire a new fire truck; and
WHEREAS, ERVFC has obtained a loan commitment from Jefferson National Bank
subject to ERVFC meeting all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code; and
WHEREAS, under the Internal Revenue Code if ERVFC is a qualified volunteer fire
department and the financing is approved by Albemarle County after a public hearing, it may
qualify for federal tax exemption provided that the County does not issue more than $10
million of tax -exempt bonds in 1995; and
WHEREAS, The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors did properly advertise and
conduct a public hearing on this proposed financing on January 11, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County incurs no liability for and no obligation to repay the
above described financing;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors for the
County of Albemarle, Virginia hereby approves the borrowing of $120,000 by the East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. from the Jefferson National Bank under Internal
Revenue Code provisions for tax-exempt financing for the purpose of acquiring a fire truck;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman is authorized to execute the
Certificate as to Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations certifying that the County will not issue
more than $10.0 million of tax-exempt bonds in 1995.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on January 11, 1995.
117 '/_
/ / t - /. / ( ,
~/ /Á.--{ K ú (/ _ tD (.,£.t;(
Clerk, Board of County Su~isors
· -..
ACTION: X
;¡~µrn 0 w
¡~ JAN - 6 I9Sl)
I -.J
~RD C!F 8UPf:RVr~'"'-
[; .'" n:EMNV~~E~:é2(~
A2·;¡~::.. . .2"¿:l?¿¿¿_~t!).-
INFORMATION:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing to Approve Tax Exempt Financing for East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.
AGENDA DATE:
January 11, 1995
SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREOUEST:
(1) Approval of Tax-Exempt Financing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
(2) Authorization for Chairman to execute Certificate as to Qualified
Tax-Exempt Obligations
ATTACHMENTS:
(1) Resolution to Approve Tax-Exempt Financing;
(2) Certificate as to Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker/Huff/Davis
REVIEWED BY:
(
-
BACKGROUND:
The East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. is in the process of purchasing a new fire engine at a cost of$186,126.00. It
wishes to take advantage of tax exempt fmancing provisions provided for volunteer fire companies in the IRS regulations. Under
these regulations it can secure a loan at an interest rate below the prime rate. Jefferson National Bank has committed to a 5.7625
percent rate for a $120,000.00 seven year loan ifERVFC can qualify under the applicable regulations.
DISCUSSION:
The IRS regulations provide that the tax exempt financing is only available to "qualified fire departments". To be a qualified fire
department ERVFC must: 1) provide fire fighting services in an area which is not provided with any other fire fighting services,
and 2) be required to provide the fire fighting services in such area by written agreement with the County. The County approved
this necessary Agreement at its December 21, 1994 meeting.
Although the County incurs no liability for and has no obligation to repay the loan, for IRS purposes it is considered an obligation
of the County. The I.R.S. regulations require the Board to hold a public hearing prior to approving the borrowing by ERVFC.
In addition, the County will have to certify that it will not borrow more than $10 million of tax exempt bonds in 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board wishes to assist ERVFC in securing a $120,000.00 tax exempt loan from Jefferson National Bank, approval of the
attached Resolution authorizing the tax-exempt financing and authorizing the Chairman to execute the attached Certificate as to
Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations would be appropriate.
94-304.006
95.001
~::"i¡;lj' ~.~:n ('.:~ª;' .':~'~:::
" .'. ,...-.~,.~,~,t.:'- ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 1994
qifM NUMBERj \
. l 't.O'1l '1 0(0 )
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMA TlON:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
T: Tucker, White
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
To supplement the Capital Improvement Program budget received by the Board at the November 22 public hearing,
the attached Capital Improvements Program for the School Division provides more detailed information on specific
school projects. This plan was approved by the School Board in June 1994.
DISCUSSION:
There are several issues that the Board may wish to consider at the worksession:
· The Library's FY1995-96 recarpeting request was counted twice, once as an individual project request and once as a
line item expense in their maintenance budget. Therefore, $20,000 has been freed up and could be available for an
alternative project in FY 1995-96.
· In November, the Board approved an allocation of $250,000 from FY1995-96 operating revenues to be placed in a
capital project/debt service reserve. Although staffs intention was to reserve these funds for capital projects and/or
debt service in future years, particularly for the new high school, a portion of these funds could be used by the
Board to move projects into the FY 95/96 or FY 96/97 funding years. However, as you will see on the attached
sheets referred to in the next paragraph, using the reserve dollars in the next fiscal year will obviously lower the
projected reserve balance and require a greater increase in the general fund transfer in future years.
· The proposed jail expansion is noticeably missing in the CIP budget, due to the uncertainty of the funding options
for the project at this point. Making the assumption that the expansion project will require either debt service on
$4 million dollars or an increased per diem cost in the same amount to cover the debt service of an authority, the
attached sheet shows the impact of the jail expansion on the proposed capital/debt service reserve fund. The chart
at the top of the page shows all school division projects funded at an average annual increase in debt service of
$225,000 per year. The chart at the bottom of the attached sheet shows that the average annual cost of increased
debt service (or per diem costs) will be $300,000 per year with the jail expansion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Any recommendations or revisions from the Planning Commission's final review of the CIP on Tuesday, December 6
will be brought to Wednesday's meeting for your review.
CIPSUM.SAM
94.182
íJ'.)
~
íJ'.)
ê5
o
~
Z
o
~
íJ'.)
~
=:
Q
~
o
o
=
u
íJ'.)
~
~
-<
íJ'.)
Q
~
I
~
~
íJ'.)
~
~
u
~
~
~
íJ'.)
~
=
~
Q
--
íJ'.)
~
u
ã
~
~
~
-<
~
~
~
-<
u
~~~
=;;>u
~~z
Q~<
--íJ'.)~
~~=
~
~
-<
U
2SQ~
~~~
íJ'.)SíJ'.)
-<~~
ë~~
2S~
tS
~~~
-<ZíJ'.)
~~-<
~~
-<u
~2S
~~~
-<=u
~~~
oQ~
~ ~
íJ'.)
~~
~=
;:;;~
Q
~~~
~=u
~~
Q~
~
íJ'.)
-<~~
~o~
;;>=0
~
~~~
~Z~~
Q~
~
íJ'.)
u
~~
-<-<
U~
~~
~
01r)1r)'<:t-'<:t
~~oo'<:tt'--
N~ t'--~ -~ '<:t~ '<:t~
'<:t 0'1 00 00 0'1
N Ir) 0'1 \0
0'1 Ir) N
§~§~§~§~~
°881r)0
Ir) N Ir)
NNNNN
íJ'.)
~
íJ'.)
ê5
o
~
z
o
~
íJ'.)
~
~
~
~
~
-<
"""
Q
~
Z
o
~
íJ'.)
~
;;>
~
Q
~
8
=
u
íJ'.)
íJ'.)
Q
~
I
~
~
~
íJ'.)
~
~
u
~
~
~
íJ'.)
E-t
=
~
Q
--
íJ'.)
~
u
ã
~
~
~
~
$
u
t'--1r)8-~t'--
'<:t~ 1r)'<:t\O
~ N~ "1 "1 t'--~ 0;.
~'<:t'<:t-'<:too
-t'--\O\OIr)O
\o1r)'<:t'<:t~
'-'
0'I'<:t'<:t1r)001r)
-0000~t'--'<:t
0;. \O~ -~ t'--~ '<:t~ '<:t~
Noo~'<:tO'loo
'<:t\O~O'I'<:t1r)
oo~ -~ t'--~ -~ ~ O'I~
\O\O\Ot'--t'--t'--
000000
0'I'<:t'<:t1r)001r)
-0000~t'--'<:t
O'I~ \O~ -~ t'--~ '<:t~ '<:t~
Noo~'<:tO'lOO
'<:t\O~O'I'<:t1r)
oo~ -~ t'--~ -~ \O~ O'I~
\0 \0\0 t'--t'--t'--
~~~~§~~~
~~~~~~
t'--\Ooo'<:t'<:t
Nt'--\O-\O~
t'--OO-O'I\O_
"1 ~ -~ ........ t'--~ -~
0'I1r)~'<:t-0'I
Nt'--oo'<:tO'l\O
oo~ oo~ "1 N~ O'I~ O'I~
\01r)1r)1r)'<:t'<:t
Ir) \0 t'--oo 0'18
0'10'10'10'10'1
I I I I I I
'<:tIr)\ot'--ooO'l
0'10'10'10'10'10'1
~~~
=;;>u
~~z
Q~<
--íJ'.)~
~~-<
~~=
~
~
-<
u
2Se~
~;S~
~~~
~~"'
~
c.Þ
~~u
-<z~
~~e
~u
-<2S
~
~~~
-<=u
~~~
OQ~
E-t ~
íJ'.)
~~
~=
-<~
"""Q
~~~
~=u
Z~~
Q~
~
íJ'.)
-<Q~
íJ'.)Z~
~oo
=~
~~~
~Z~~
Q~
~
íJ'.)
u
0000'l'<:t0'l
--1r)00'<:t
N~ t'--~ -~ "1 '<:t~
- \0 Ir) 0'1 -
\O'<:too-N
Ir) N '-'
~
~
C"/.)
~
E-<
¡:Q
~
Q
0§§08°
~ ~8~0~~
00800
Ir) Ir) Ir) Ir)
NN~~~
t'--°8-~t'--
'<:t- 1r)'<:t\O
~NIr)Ir)t'--O'I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~-'<:t-'<:too
--\O\OIr)O
~Ir)'<:t'<:t~
'-'
O'IO'IO'IO~O
-oO\OOt'--
O'I~ t'--~ N~ t'--~ "1 '<:t~
N-\Ot'--N-
'<:t~O'IIr)-N
001r)01r)0~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\O\Ot'--t'--oooo
-
01r)1r)1r)1r)1r)
NNNNN
qo~o~o~q
~~~~~
\0\0\0\0\0
~~~~~
0'I'<:t'<:t1r)001r)
-0000~t'--'<:t
O'I~ \O~ -~ t'--~ '<:t~ '<:t~
Noo~'<:tO'lOO
'<:t\O~O'I'<:t1r)
OO-t'---\OO'I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\O\O\Ot'--t'--t'--
olr)lr)ggo
O~'<:t 0
o~~~-~qqo~
1r)~1r)000
'<:to'<:t0go
'<:t "1 oo~ o~ ~ o~
t'--\Ooo'<:t'<:t
Nt'--\O-\O~
t'-- 00 - 0'1 \0 _
"1 ~ -~ -~ t'--~ ...-;.
0'I1r)~'<:t-0'I
Nt'--oo'<:tO'l\O
oo~ oo~ "1 ~ 0;. O'I~
\01r)1r)1r)'<:t'<:t
~
-<
~
1r)\ot'--ooO'lO
0'10'10'10'10'10
I I I I I I
'<:tIr)\ot'--ooO'l
0'10'10'10'10'10'1
'<:t
0'1
--
N
o
--
N
-
. ,
· 'þ( -/1, /'115
(j
1JÆ<-~~kr~
~4~xitµ~
~j«~ jh-.~ ~ µ-oJ
-¡¡it<- fry fia-{a ß~ i6 ~ ~~~(
. ckLti .~~1 !¿~
() 171-';;Y73 Ú M-Fh~J~fé>Y
,) f/¡ '& nrc(~(/'
.
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
We understand that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
Organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including Stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decision to furthe~ delay making improvements.
- ----"¡
~_ /_ / --'>;': ,1? ...' ,-
~-c;//(/¡ /,Y \-,--,l/~-:~ ~/
.,.-- (-(' ç' \
/ (r '\',
~..._ _ . {. L {C ( "V'
( . ~'- ,
I wfI Gt l~~1
J \
~ ~^'-
Hoe P ß..d..t¿.!L.,
i§l~ P~Ch-
J I\fiÌ r ~jLttlfe (
/).-/1 j
~(/ I~ Ir"-
Q~~tO
kon~~~ºº
À~0-t:')~
Q){lik~) /Þhm;4-
~~~
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE,COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
.
We understand that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
Organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decisio to further delay making improvements.
C~ll-Á' Do.~,^/
1(': r
'\ 'l~/'ì i L\ ~~l)?~ Cü r¿ /
_: î t,) t~,¡, \0- L ~'v'-.-~-----
-, . (\
.''y{(¿t (J,,¿~-q
//;,
,/'.. r'
I _Î' . >"'jI
'&- /'--.-\/Í { Ý. f j ¡:. ~.e/l/( ...J
~v~
-1/
'- Cß/-'~' dh {{..j '-./ )) ¿' , L lei.
'--- ,
?ij/l /? C C::0 éá
/
~ i'
\ \ r, ,~
, l(lll;7\ .'/ l[-JA0
ÇlLÚþzJ -ð~
~ 3:f£
/ .
fr¡~ N~;. /
~//
r::~.
(:/1.1 (~i~ 0./1 ,
Q~~ ~)·~ruç~",
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
We understand that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
Organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including Stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decision to further delay making improvements.
,ðc~
/' /¿é'/
( /~~
*~~~
~ %. ~-tffiv
~--e,1- ß- ill ((-LAY'/
~ 2f
o avciJ!ß([·
~
~~~.-A
~~~
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
We understand that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including Stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decision to further delay making improvements.
J3~ttAt ~e...-t.7-
fr(~ß'~
JLrUVlO 1. ~
~ 7t~/~
L;/tlL~ (l¿ltJ
~.~~ R1Í{)Jµu~
~. ßc I
¿-. lCM J.J"l).SLÚ- ~l\ÂI\O ~
/'t , íJ ILl .' ß i " ¡
~LJ)~f.trrlt/s-)
....-
~
J~
x.t.--~.]>. ~~.
~---o.-~ I( f-.. ~~ ~~\ \
I '.
¿w,1Á/W"/ V g D ~
j
--D-b~ (~
~C,~r
~
~ ('I.< d(( ~. ~ r~{[( Q ""
Y<ó/ /k~JL
I
l
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
We understand that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
Organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decision to further delay making improvements.
~~ ..~~
<.~/v
~ ...
~--
~q~ \3\(J~,ucl
..~~~~
~'~
( .
-'
" S . (~"~
~Lr'(),_ D .lD~~
Jil jjâ c
- ~
-~~~
~ l
i1ð It/) þ--<---
kl ~ c;ad<~
-;Ç~: [</j~
~ßO--~~
~ 73¡;de~
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
,
, .
We understand that the Board of supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including Stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decision to further delay making improvements.
~~~
@nr
~F\\.
C--,YJ1,QÐ
~:~7i~>~
(\ ~ I ;
'!J~'VV~º-tL- _ ,Y'vLk~
~J~(Jd'~
'/~¿/~ ~ ~
!5IlJ))/\¡ L~~!iL.
ß
'tú~ tÚ7i~o {Y).ìJ
Ü /
/
. .',. ..
PETITION
TO THE ALBEMARLE, COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
.
We understand that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to
defer making planned capital improvements to the playground at Mary
C. Greer Elementary School from Fiscal Year 1995 until Fiscal Year
1997. As parents, teachers and others affiliated with Greer
School, we have waited patiently for a number of years, attempting
to fund playground improvements through our Parent-Teacher
organization, while the County has managed to locate funds to
improve or create such facilities at virtually every other
elementary school, including Stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Cale,
Sutherland and Agnor-Hurt. The playground equipment which the
County has provided at Greer is a disgrace. We vehemently oppose
any decision to further delay making improvements.
+UL~ ¡J Æ"~~
/71 (lhu, ;7 -) J1/ ¡ ~ é-¿
J .. '
-Ç),,6ILC.'J l71Jtt;:V
C0LLrt:=tù n ~~
~
ÛA~~
DC"'-/~A_í·Å.- l¿LLV-cS'
U'
9MnJ!L ~
~/~~L¡Y·'¡(_ ~-~--
4L~
í¡ ({ ,
C
I
I / ¡'
~jþc/{.. ~
¿/
Albemarle County, Virginia
Albemarle County, Virginia
Celebrates its 250th Birthday
1744 - 1994
Capital Improvement Program
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
Albemarle County
Capital Improvement Program
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
Project Summary
General Government Projects
$13,546,933
School Division Projects
$ 47,898,480
Total CIP $ 61.445.41J
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
9
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
Capital Improvement Program
General Govt. & School Division Projects
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 CIP Project Summary
2% 2%
3%
78%
I 0 Schools
I . Public Safety
I_ Transportation
I II Ubraries
I_ Parks
o Education
. Utilities
o Capital! Debt Reserve
. Administration
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
11
Albemarle County Financial Policies (Excerpts)
Capital Budget Policies:
· The County will coordinate the development of the capital budget with the development of the
operating budget so that future operating costs, including annual debt service, associated with
the new capital projects will be projected and included in operf),ting budget forecasts.
· Emphasis will continue to be placed upon a viable level of "pay-as-you-go" capital
construction to fulfill needs in a Board approved Capital Improvement Program.
· The County believes in funding a significant portion of capital improvements on a cash basis
and will, therefore, increase incrementally the percentage òf its capital improvements financed
by current revenues. The County's goal will be to dedicate a minimum of3% of the annual
General Fund revenues allocated to the County's operating budget to the Capital
Improvements Program.
Asset Maintenance. Replacement and Enhancement Policies:
· Within the Capital Improvement Program, the County will maintain a Capital Plant and
Equipment Maintenance/ Replacement Schedule, which will provide a five-year estimate of
the funds necessary to provide for the structural, site, major mechanical/ electrical
rehabilitation or replacement of the County and School physical plant requiring a total
expenditure of $1 0,000 or more with useful life of ten years or more.
· To provide for the adequate maintenance of the County's capital plant and equipment, the
County intends to increase the percentage of maintenance/ repair and replacement capital
improvements financed with current revenues.
Debt Policies:
· Recognizing the importance of underlying debt to its overall financial condition, the County
will set target debt ratios, which will be calculated annually and included in the annual review
of fiscal trends:
· Net debt per capita should remain under $1,000.
· Net debt as a percentage of the estimated market value of taxable property should not
exceed 2%.
. The ratio of debt service expenditures as a percent of general fund revenues should not
exceed 10%.
General Government Revenues
FY 95196 - 9912000 Proposed CIP Revenues for General Government Projects
5% 3% 2% 8%
· State (Rivanna)
· CIP Fund Balance
· Developer Contribution
o General Fund Transfer
· E-911
· Jail Funds
· Miscellaneous
78%
FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2000 Total
CIP Fund Balance $269,299 $299.174 $251,847 $246,850 $238,230 $1,305,400
General Fund Transfer $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $12,600,000
State (Rivanna) $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000
Developer Contribution $315,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $315,000
E - 911 Revenue $340,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $340,800
Jail Funds $196,900 $567,032 $0 $0 $0 $763,932
Miscellaneous $121.800 $100.000 $100.000 $1 00.000 $100000 $521.800
Total $3,543,799 $3,266,206 $2,851,847 $2,846,850 $3,588,230 $16,096,932
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
14
Changes to Project Requests:
Project Request Recommend Change
Not funded
Police Satelite Facility 947,573 0 947,573
Rte. 29 Underground Utilities 9,051,449 0 9,051,449
Crozet Library 3,390,000 0 3,390,000
New Library (Plans, site) 162,500 0 162,500
0
Reduced Funding 0
Fire Pumper Replacement 325,000 250,000 75,000
Library - Circulation Desk 10,000 1 ,000 9,000
Gordon A venue Parking Lot 85,000 42,500 42,500
0
Increased Funding 0
Crozet Park 72.000 100.000 -28.000
Total 14,043,522 393,500 13,650,022
PrQjects Moved to Another Year
Avon StlRt 20 Interchange Study
Greer Elementary Recreation Improvements
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
FY94-95 Recreation Improvements
Red Hill Outdoor Recreation Improvements
Towe Park
Rio Road Bicycle Path
Meadow Creek Bicycle PathlPedestrian Path
Carrsbrook Road Extension
Northern Area Park Improvements
Greenbrier DrivefHydraulic Rd. Streetlights
Zan Road
Route 250-Route 616 Turn Lane
FY97
FY96
FY96-99
FY96
FY96
FY96
FY97
FY96
FY96-97
FY96
FY97 -98
FY96
FY96-97
FY99
FY97
FY97 -00
FY97
FY97
FY97
FY98
FY97
FY99
FYOO
FY98-99
FY99
FY97-98
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
6
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 General Government CIP
Mandated
13%
Expanded! New
49%
ADA Compliance -Parks and Rec. Facilities
ADA Compliance - Parks/Rec.- School
Grounds
ADA Compliance - County Office Building
ADA Compliance - Joint Security Complex
Voting Machines
PVCC Social Sciences Building
Health Department Clinic Wing
Keene Landfill Closure
County Master Drainage Plan
Comprehensive Assessment System - Admin.
Total
Public Safety
16%
Cil£1
$160,566
$178,750
$103,320
$54,139
$221,000
$62,335
$80,000
$750,000
$300,000
$75.000
$1,958,100
Maintenance
22%
Year
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY96,97
FY96
FY 96,97
FY96
FY96
FY 96-2000
FY96-2000
FY96
Page
68
69
30
36
33
88
32
93
92
31
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
15
> , .
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 General Government CIP
Mandated
13%
Expanded! New
49%
Public Safety
16%
County Office Building Maint.! Repairs
Library Maintenance/ Replacement
Parks/Recreation Maint.! Replacement
Transfer to School Maintenance Projects
Storm water Projects
CJ1s1
$164,771
$163,500
$172,730
$2,550,000
$250.000
$3,301,001
Total
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
Maintenance
22%
Year
FY 96,97
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
Page
35
65
84
103
94
16
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 General Government CIP
Expanded! New
49%
Police - Radio Receiver System
Police Computer System
NCIC 2000 Upgrade
Fire/Rescue Building Equipment Fund
Fire Pumper Replacement
E - 911 Building
Total
Mandated
13%
Public Safety
16%
CJl£1
$363,851
$126,242
$15,000
$1,250,000
$250,000
$340.800
$2,018,553
Maintenance
22%
Year
FY98
FY 96,97
FY98
FY96-2000
FY96
FY96
Page
40
41
42
43
44
45
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
39
.), ~ I
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Administration (15%)
Public Safety (17%)
Capitall Debt Reserve
(10%)
Parks (17%)
Ubraries (4%)
ADA Compliance - County Office Building
Computerized Assessment System
Health Department Clinic Wing
Replace Voting Machines
General Government Computer Upgrade
Maintenance/ Repairs - County Office Bldg.
ADA Compliance - Joint Security Complex
JSC Renovations - Kitchen/Laundry/Canteen
JSC Renov. - HVAC/ Electrical Upgrade
JSC Renovations - Intake Center
CD£1
$103,320
$75,000
$80,000
$221,000
$535,000
$164,771
$54,139
$52,892
$165,399
$567.032
$2,018,553
Total
Transportation (26%)
Year
FY 96,97
FY96
FY96
FY 96,97
FY 96-2000
FY 96,97
FY96
FY96
FY97
FY97
Page
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
36
36
36
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
29
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Public Safety (17%)
CapitaV Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
Parks (17%)
Libraries (4%)
Forest Lakes/ Hollymead Dam Road
Zan Road Extension
Carrsbrook Road Extension
Revenue Sharing Road Projects
Meadowcreek Pkwy./Rio Road Bicycle Path
Route 250 - Route 616 Turn Lane
Hydraulic/ Rio Bicycle Path and Sidewalk
Avon! Route 20 Interchange Study
Greenbrier/ Hydraulic Streetlights
Greenbrier Drive Extended Sidewalks
Ivy Road Street Lights
Old Ivy Bicycle Path and Sidewalk
Route 29 Landscaping
C1l£1
$315,000
$27,850
$359,500
$2,500,000
$20,000
$100,000
$53,500
$50,000
$19,250
$27,500
$31,900
$53,500
$18.500
$3,576,500
Total
.
r
Transportation (26%)
Year
FY 96,97
FY99
FY99
FY 96-2000
FY97
FY 97,98
FY98
FY99
FY98,99
FY98
FY 98, 99
FY99
FY96
Page
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
47
~ ~ ,
Suml1UlIJUlf Library Project£
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Administration (15%)
CapitaV Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
Main Frame Computer Upgrade
Reconstruct Gordon Ave. Parking Lot
Maintenance/ Replacement Projects
Total
Public Safety (17%)
Transportation (26%)
Libraries (4%)
CiJs1
$293,447
$42,500
$163.500
$499,447
Year
FY98
FY98
FY 96-2000
Page
63
64
65
PVCC Social Sciences Building
Total
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
CiJs1
$62.335
$62,335
Year
FY96
Page
88
61
Sllmmtl.l:J!-fJfParks & Recreation Projects' .
FY 1995-96 to 1"~ General Go.......menI ClP Expendlturu
ADA Compliance - Parks Facilities
ADA Compliance - School Grounds
Red Hill Elementary Rec. Improvements
Greer Outdoor Rec. Improvements
Outdoor Rec. Project Completion
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
Towe Park Rec. Improvements
Rivanna Greenway Access and Path
Swimming Beach Playground Structures
Northern Area Elementary School Rec.
Scottsville Community Ctr. Outdoor Improv.
Milton/Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security
Northern Park Improvements
Crozet Park Improvements
Warren Ferry
Forloines Study
Maintenance & Replacement Repairs
Total
C1l£1.
$160,556
$178,750
$67,000
$ 77,000
$49,600
$131,000
$143,144
$350,000
$30,000
$71,500
$118,925
$30,000
$635,000
$100,000
$20,000
$25,000
$172.730
$2,360,205
Year
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY97
FY97
FY97
FY 98-2000
FY97
FY 96-98,00
FY97
FY 2000
FY 97,98
FY96-97
FY 2000
FY 96-00
FY96
FY96
FY96-2000
Page
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
67
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
.ic 4- r .
.
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Public Safety (17%)
Capitall Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
Parks (17%)
Libraries (4%)
County Master Drainage
Keene Landfill Closure
Stormwater Projects
CJlS1
$300,000
$750,000
$250.000
Total $1,300,000
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
Transportation (26%)
Year
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
.
Page
92
93
94
91
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
Capital Improvement Program
School Division Projects
FY 95/96 - 99/00 CIP School Division Projects
Maintenancel Repair
(14%)
Miscellaneous (2%)
School Technology
(8%)
New School Buildings
(49%)
ADA Improvements
(2%)
Renovations! Additions
(25%)
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
97
f .. { .'
.. .
ADA Structural Changes/ Misc. Schools
New High School
W AHS Building Renovations
AHS Phase IL III Restoration
W oodbrook Renovation! Addition
Cale Addition
Stony Point Renovations/ Addition
Brownsville Renovation! Addition
Crozet Addition
Murray High Renovation
Northern Area Elementary School
Red Hill Expansion
VHF Underground Storage Tank Replacement
CATEC ADA Compliance
Burley Roof Replacement
Instructional Tech. for School Division
Administrative Tech for School Division
Security Systems - All Schools
Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfig.
Maintenance & Replacement Projects
Total
C1ls1
$797,970
$23,020,350
$2,897,500
$1,815,000
$1,950,550
$758,000
$1, 118, 000
$1,229,470
$794,890
$920,000
$325,000
$300,000
$360,000
$14,000
$140,000
$3,658,250
$350,000
$44,900
$454,500
$6.880.100
$47,898,480
Year
FY 96-98
FY 96-98
FY 96-99
FY 96-99
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY96,97
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY 96,98,99
FY99,2000
FY 2000
FY 98,2000
FY97
FY96
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY96
FY 97-99
FY 96-2000
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
98
j