1993-10-06
FIN A L
9:00 A.M.
October 6, 1993
Room 7, County Office Building
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
Approval of Minutes: May 13(A), 1992; June 16 and July 21, 1993.
Transportation Matters:
a) Status Report: Route 678/Route 250 West Intersection Improvements.
b) Alternative 10 - Western Alignment and Grade Separated Interchanges
- Jack Hodge.
c) Status Report: Route 708/Route 631 Intersection Improvements.
d) Other Transportation Matters.
Request to ban leaf burning in Hessian Hills, Sections 5, 6 and 7 (Old
Forge Road) .
11:00 a.m. - Annual Report on piedmont Virginia Community College,
Deborah DiCroce.
Discussion: 1781 Productions Special Use Permit (draft letter).
Adopt Resolution to allow an interim plan showing grading and plantings
with no actual "development" to be approved under Section 32.0 -
"Site Development Plan" under certain conditions.
Adopt Resolution Authorizing County Executive to sign VPSA Bond Sale
Agreement.
Appropriations:
a) General Fund FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures, $12,966 - (For.m #920082).
b) School Fund FY 1992/93 Transfer, $65,455 - (For.m #920083).
c) FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in School Division Self-Sustaining
Funds, $75,181.07 - (Form #920084).
d) FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures for Emergency Operations Center,
$6,271.55 - (Form #920085) .
e) FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in Capital Improvements Fund,
$3,819.34 - (Form #920086) .
f) Visitors Center, $67,734.48 - (For.m #920087).
g) FY 1992/93 Capital Improvements Projects, Reappropriate $5,346,585 -
(Form #930020) .
h) Reappropriation of FY 1992/93 General Fund Projects and Requests,
$575,070 - (Form #930021) .
i) Broadus Wood Elementary School Renovation Project, Adjustment
$42,466.18 - (Form #930022).
j) FY 1992/93 Stormwater Improvement Projects, Reappropriate
$1, 375, 357 . 55 - (Form # 9 3 0023) .
k) Criminal Justice Intake Processing Grant, $18,781 - (For.m #930025).
1) Criminal Justice Recidivism Reduction Grant, $31,640 -
(Form #930026) .
m) Federal DMV Grant, $1,925 - (Form #930027).
n) Housing Rehabilitation and Crozet Crossing Grants, Reappropriate
$175,486.70 - (Form #930028).
0) Demonstration Watershed Project Grant, $51,750 - (Form #930029).
Authorize Chairman to sign Memorandum of Agreement with the
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
p) Carl Perkins Grant, Reappropriate $36,653.33 - (Form #930030).
q) Regional Adult Education Specialist Grant, General Adult Education
Grant and Adult Basic Education Grant, $71,269 -
(Form #930032) .
r) Title II Grant, $10,382.32 - (Form #930033).
s) Drug Free Schools/Communities Grant and Communities Act Grant,
$7,598.29 - (Form #930034).
*Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
Work Sessions:
a) 1:30 P.M. - Accessory Apartments (Housing Committee Report) .
b) Neighborhood Three Study.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn to October 11, 1993, 5:30 P.M., for Joint Meeting with School
Board.
8
9
1P)
1~)
1~)
1~)
1~)
Ip)
Ip)
1~)
*It is expected that the Board will hold an Executive Session under
Virginia Code Sections 2.1-344.A.1 (personnel matters) and
2.1-344.A.7 (legal matters)
FOR APPRCVAL:
CON S E N T
AGENDA
5.1 Re~olution - Affordable Housing Awareness Month in Virginia.
5.2 Re~olution - National Deaf Awareness Week.
5.3 Re~olution to accept Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane in Langford Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
5.4 Re~olution to accept Springwood Drive in Springwood Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Hi~hways.
5.5 Re~olution to accept Mechums West Drive in Mechums West Subdivision into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
5.6 Re~olution to accept Southside Drive in South Fork Farms, Phase Two, into the State Secondary System
of Highway.
5.7 Leese Purchasing Equipment - Overview of Equipment Acquisition Options.
5.8 Aptointment of Hazardous Materials Coordinator.
5.9 Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department.
5.10 Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc.
5.11 Ea lysville Park Committee Report.
FOR INFO lMATION:
5.12 Le ter dated September 15, 1993, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation,
reo Addition of Meadowfield Lane and Meadowfield Way into the State Secondary System of Highways.
5.13 Plenning Commission Minutes for August 31, September 9 and September 14, 1993.
5.14 Mirutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for July 15, and August
19, 1993 (on file in Clerk's office).
5.15 Mirutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for August 3, 1993 (on file in
ClE rk' s office) .
5.16 Seni-annual summary of activities of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) Advisory Council,
da ed September 14, 1993.
5.17 Le ter dated September 10, 1993, from the Honorable Charles S. Robb, United States Senate, reo
Pa ~ent in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act.
5.18 Le ter dated September 13, 1993, from the Honorable John Warner, United States Senate, reo payment
in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act.
5.19 Bord Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) for
thE month of August, 1993.
5.20 Jure, 1993 Year-End Financial Report.
5.21 Alremarle County Service Authority 1993-1998 Capital Improvement Program (on file in the Clerk's
of ice).
5.22 Menorandum dated September 23, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, reo Virginia
purlic Schools Authority - 1993 Bond Refinancing.
5.23 Le ter dated September 23, 1993, from Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, reo monthly
upcate on highway improvement projects currently under construction and quarterly report of projects
uncer design.
5.24 Stetus Report: Noise Ordinance.
5.25 Menorandum dated September 28, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, reo Albemarle
Cm nty Library Trustee.
5.26 Menorandum dated September 28, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, reo Urban Raw
Wa er Management Study - Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
5.27 No ice dated September 17, 1993 from the State Corporation commission of an application filed by
vi ginia Electric and Power Company for approval of dispersed energy facility rate.
5.28 Le ter Dated October 1, 1993, from H. W. Mills, Maintenance Operator Manager, Department of Trans-
po tation, re: replacement of double line of pipe culverts on Route 664 between Routes 671 and
66
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
Edward H. Ba n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvill
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/Planning & Community
Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~G/
FROM:
DATE:
October 7, 1993
BJECT:
Board Actions of October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its
eting on. October 6, 1993 (day meeting) :
Agenda Item NO.1.
Called to Order at 9:01 P.M.
Agenda Item No.4.
om the PUBLIC.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
Mr. Martin Quarles stated the desires of the residents re-
rding Board review in executing the proposed improvements of
ute 688 and Route 791 in the six Year Plan.
Item 5.1.
Virginia.
Resolution - Affordable Housing Awareness Month
ADOPTED the attached Proclamation. Proclamation forwarded
Department of Housing and Community Development.
Item 5.2.
Resolution - National Deaf Awareness Week.
ADOPTED the attached Proclamation. proclamation forwarded
t Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
*
Printed on recycled paper
To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
te: October 7, 1993
ge: 2
Item 5.3. Resolution to accept Pippin Lane and Montgomery
L ne in Langford Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
H'ghways.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item 5.4. Resolution to accept Springwood Drive in Spring-
w od Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item 5.5. Resolution to accept Mechums West Drive in
M chums West Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
H'ghways.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item 5.6. Resolution to accept Souths ide Drive in South
F rk Farms, Phase Two, into the State Secondary System of High-
w y.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item 5.7. Lease Purchasing Equipment Overview of Equipment
quisition Options.
APPROVED staff's recommendation to consider lease purchase
tions on a case-by-case basis for major equipment purchases.
Item 5.8. Appointment of Hazardous Materials Coordinator.
APPOINTED Mr. Carl Pumphrey to replace Mr. Kaye Harden as
County's Hazardous Materials Coordinator.
Item 5.9. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with
ottsville Volunteer Fire Department.
AUTHORIZED Chairman to execute the service agreement.
Item 5.10. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement
w'th Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc.
AUTHORIZED Chairman to execute the service agreement.
I
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
3
D~te:
Pl3-ge:
Item 5.11. Earlysville Park Committee Report.
ACCEPTED the Committee's recommendation not to develop a
pl3-rk on County property adjacent to Earlysville Forest.
Agenda Item No.7. Transportation Matters:
a) Status Report: Route 678/Route 250 West Intersection
Improvements.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution recommending that VDoT
abandon the plan for major improvements and relocation of
Route 678 which went to public hearing in November of
1992.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution requesting that VDoT go
to public hearing on the proposed improvements to Route
250 and improvements at intersection of Route 678 as
shown on map dated February, 1993 submitted.
b) Alternative 10 - Western Alignment and Grade Separated
Interchanges - Jack Hodge.
Presentation Received. No action.
c) Status Report: Route 70S/Route 631 Intersection Improve-
ments.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution that proposed improve-
ments that went to public hearing for intersection of
Routes 708 and 631 be dropped and no further action be
taken.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution requesting VDoT to
include a section of Route 708 for guard rail spot im-
provements to be paid for out of the secondary improve-
ment allocation funds and should not exceed $15,000.
d) Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt introduced Mr. Donald R. Askew, the
new Culpeper District Administrator, replacing Mr. Tom
Farley. Mr. Askew addressed the Board and reviewed the
communication process. He invited the Board to attend
the ground breaking ceremony on October 14th for Rio and
Hydraulic Roads. He plans to have a round table session
for local and state elected officials in November or
December and invited the Board members to attend. He
distributed his business card and asked that the Board
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
4
D te:
P ge:
members call him with any transportation problems they
may have.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had gotten any
information regarding the installation of grooves on
Route 810 to forewarn people of the upcoming sharp curve.
Mr. Roosevelt is to talk to the traffic engineer and
report back.
Agenda Item No.8. Request to ban leaf burning in Hessian
H'lls, Sections 5, 6 and 7 (Old Forge Road).
SET public hearing for November 3, 1993 to amend Section 9-
of the County Code to prohibit leaf burning in Sections 5, 6
d 7 of Hessian Hills Subdivision at 10:00 a.m.
Agenda Item No.9. 11:00 a.m. - Annual Report on piedmont
V'rginia Community College, Deborah DiCroce.
Received; no action.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion:
Permit (draft letter) .
1781 productions Special
CONSENSUS of the Board that the Chairman sign the draft
tter and send it to 1781 Productions. Also, the Board request-
that in the future when something like this is done, people
o are directly involved be notified before information becomes
rt of the public record and before action is taken.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adopt Resolution to allow an interim
an showing grading and plantings with no actual "development"
be approved under Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance "Site
velopment Plan" under certain conditions.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution to allow an interim plan
owing grading and plantings with no actual "development" to be
proved under Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, "Site
velopment Plan" subject to the following conditions:
(A) Architectural Review for entrance corridor bufferingi
(B) Minimum buffers established adjacent to residential
zoning (in accordance with the site development plan
ordinance through existing or new plantings) i
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
5
Dl3.te:
Pl3.ge:
( C)
Completion of a tree survey on the property to identify
and evaluate significant existing stands for preserva-
tion and for compliance with the tree canopy ordinance;
(D)
(E)
Protection of areas as designed in the open space plan;
County Engineer review to be mindful of the provision
of future utilities, access and drainage structures;
( F)
Notification of plans being presented should be includ-
ed on the Board of Supervisors' consent agenda for its
approval.
The Board requested that an agreement be signed between the
H~ghway Department's contractor and the County to allow for the
bprrow necessary to complete the Route 29 North project.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution of Intent to amend the
o~dinances necessary to allow for an interim grading/site devel-
opment plan under certain conditions.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution Authorizing County
E~ecutive to sign the VPSA Bond Sale Agreement.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution authorizing the County
E~ecutive to sign the VPSA Bond Sale Agreement.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appropriations:
a) General Fund FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures, $12,966 - (Form
#920082) .
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
b) School Fund FY 1992/93 Transfer, $65,455 - (Form
#920083) .
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
c) FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in School Division Self-
Sustaining Funds, $75,181.07 - (Form #920084).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
6
D~te:
Pfige:
d)
FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures for Emergency Operations
Center, $6,271.55 - (Form #920085).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
e) FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in Capital Improvements Fund,
$3,819.34 - (Form #920086).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
f) Visitors Center, $67,734.48 - (Form #920087).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
g) FY 1992/93 Capital Improvements Projects, Reappropriate
$5,346,585 - (Form # 930020).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
h) Reappropriation of FY 1992-93 General Fund Projects and
Requests.
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
i) Broadus Wood Elementary School Renovation Project, Ad-
justment $42,446.18 - (Form #930022).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
j) FY 1992/93 Stormwater Improvement Projects, Reappropriate
$1,375,357.55 - (Form #930023).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
k) Criminal Justice Intake Processing Grant, $18,781 - (Form
#930025) .
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
7
D~te:
P~ge:
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
1) Criminal Justice Recidivism Reduction Grant, $31,640 -
(Form #930026) .
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
m) Federal DMV Grant, $1,925 - (Form #930027).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
n) Housing Rehabilitation and Crozet Crossing Grants, Reap-
propriate $175,486.70 - (Form #930028).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
0) Demonstration Watershed Project Grant, $51,750 - (Form
#930029). Authorize Chairman to sign Memorandum of
Agreement with the Virginia Division of Soil and Water
Conservation.
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
AUTHORIZED Chairman to execute Memorandum of Agreement.
p) Carl Perkins Grant, Reappropriate $36,653.33 - (Form
#930030) .
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
q) Regional Adult Education Specialist Grant, General Adult
Education Grant and Adult Basic Education Grant,
$71,269 - (Form #930032).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
r) Title II Grant, $10,382.32 - (Form #930033).
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
8
D~te:
P~ge:
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
s) Drug Free Schools/Communities Grant and Communities Act
Grant, $7,598.29 - (Form #930034).
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin
Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Sessions:
a) Accessory Apartments (Housing Committee Report) .
Staff is to draft a list of all issues involved with
this question and bring it back to the Board in December.
At that time the Board will decide whether or not to
adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordi-
nance.
b) Neighborhood Three Study.
Mrs. Humphris said when the Planning commission put in
caveats saying that nobody had any obligation to fund or
do any of the recommended things, that is not planning.
She thinks items which are clearly needed, should be
stated as being needs with a clear understanding that
these are recommendations and there is no funding avail-
able.
Mr. Cilimberg said on other studies, every word of that
study is not put into the plan, but it is adopted as a
guide, and referenced as such. He suggested this be done
in this case. There was general consensus that this
would be acceptable, and Mr. Cilimberg is to report this
comment to the Commission.
Agenda Item No.16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
f~om the Board.
Mr. Perkins handed to each Board member a booklet entitled
"rr'echnology Proposal for Virginia L. Murray Elementary School."
H~ said the Board member are invited to a meeting at the school
op October 7, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. He has researched the study and
finds that it contains some good ideas although it does require
spme funding. He thinks something could be accomplished working
with the University of Virginia. He noted that students at
I
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 7, 1993
9
D~te:
P~ge:
H~nley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School should be
involved so that as children progress it will continue on to the
o~her schools.
Mr. Bain asked when staff will have something definitive to
r~port about the Noise Ordinance.
In reference to visioning for the Comprehensive Plan, Mr.
Bain said he would like an answer next week as to when a contract
will be let.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a certificate of occupancy lS denied
at the staff level, if that decision can be appealed.
Mr. Marshall asked that he be appointed to the committee
which decides each year what the employee' health insurance will
be. He feels that he has first hand knowledge as to the way
these plans work which would be beneficial to the committee.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to October 11, 1993, 5:30 p.m.,
for Joint Meeting with School Board.
At 3:45 p.m. the Board adjourned until October 11 at 5:30
p.m. for a joint meeting with the School Board.
EWC:jng
Attachments (13)
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia G. McCulley
Jo Higgins
George R. St. John
File
-.
Edward H. Bai , Jr.
Samuel Mille
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bow man
Charlottesvill
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
F OM:
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk eJP~
T
D TE:
October 7, 1993
S JECT:
Board Actions of October 6, 1993
At its meeting on October 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors took the
f llowing actions:
Agenda Item No. 5.9. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with
S ottsville Volunteer Fire Department. APPROVED. Attached is the signed
o iginal agreement.
Agenda Item No. 5.10.- Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with
stern Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. APPROVED. Attached is the signed
iginal agreement.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution Authorizing County Executive to
gn the VPSA Bond Sale Agreement. ADOPTED the attached resolution authoriz-
g County Executive to sign the VPSA Bond Sale Agreement. (Note: Original
gned resolutions and agreements previously forwarded.)
Agenda Item No. 13a.
$ 2,966 - (Form #920082) .
General Fund FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures,
APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 13b.
# 20083). APPROVED.
School Fund FY 1992/93 Transfer, $65,455 - (Form
Agenda Item No. 13c; FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in School Division
S If-Sustaining Funds, $75,181.07 - (Form #920084). APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 13d. FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures for Emergency
erations Center, $6,271.55 - (Form #920085). APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 13e. FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in Capital
I provements Fund, $3,819.34 - (Form #920086). APPROVED.
*
Printed on recycled paper
M mo To: Melvin Breeden
October 7, 1993
Page 3
EtC:mms
A tachments (23)
cc: Robert w. Tucker, Jr.
Richard E. Huff, II
Robert B. Brandenburger
Roxanne White
Shelby Marshall
Carl Pumphrey
Gordon Yaeger
Robert W. paskel
Brian Reed
Wayne Campagna
Bobbi Cochran
F,red Kruger
John Miller
Ann Connor
Al Tumminia
Jo Higgins
Susan McLeod
Pat Mullaney
Donna Selle
Al Waugaman
Jim Heilman
James Camblos
Sterling Hudson
Terry Hawkins
Wayne Cilimberg
Amelia Patterson
Theresa Tapscott
David Hirschman
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
October 12, 1993
. Dan Roosevelt
sident Engineer
partment of Transportation
O. Box 2013
arlottesville, VA 22902-0013
ar Mr. Roosevelt:
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its meeting on
tober 6, 1993 (day meeting) :
Item 5.3. Resolution to accept Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane in
ngford Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the Resolution.
Item 5.4. Resolution to accept Springwood Drive in Springwood
S bdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the Resolution.
Item 5.5. Resolution to accept Mechums West Drive in
M chums West Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the Resolution.
Item 5.6. Resolution to accept Southside Drive in South Fork Farms,
P ase Two, into the State Secondary System of Highway.
ADOPTED the Resolution.
Agenda Item No.7.' Transportation Matters:
a) Status Report.: Route 678/Route 250 West Intersection Improve-
ments.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution recommending that VDoT
abandon the plan for major improvements and relocation of Route
678 which went to public hearing in November of 1992, and
requested that VDoT go to public hearing on the proposed
improvements to Route 250 and improvements at intersection of
Route 678 as shown on map dated February, 1993 submitted.
*
Printed on recycled paper
Mr. Dan Roosevelt
September 3, 1993
Page 2
b) Alternative 10 - Western Alignment and Grade Separated
Interchanges - Jack Hodge.
Presentation Received. No action.
c) Status Report: Route 708/Route 631 Intersection Improvements.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution that proposed improvements
that went to public hearing for intersection of Routes 708 and 631
be dropped and no further action be taken, and requested VDoT to
include a section of Route 708 for guard rail spot improvements to
be paid for out of the secondary improvement allocation funds and
should not exceed $15,000.
d) Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins asked about the installation of grooves on Route
810 to forewarn people of the upcoming sharp curve. Mr. Roosevelt
is to talk to the traffic engineer and report back.
EWC/jng
FORMS\VDOTACT.LTR
Sincerely,
~~~
Board of supervis~~~'e9MC
cc: Robert W. Tucker
Richard E. Huff, II
Robert B. Brandenburger
Jo Higgins
,.
Edward H. B n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bo rman
Charlottesvi Ie
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
October 6, 1993
s. Trudy Jenzer
epartment of Housing and Community Development
01 North Second Street
ichmond, VA 23219
Ms. Jenzer:
At its meeting
oard of Supervisors
roclaiming October,
on October 6, 1993, the Albemarle County
adopted the attached Proclamation
1993, as Affordable Housing Awareness Month.
C:mms
~&lL~y~~
tachment
*
Printed on recycled paper
,
PROCLAMATION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
I
$EREAS,
WfHEREAS,
I
decent, safe and affordable housing is the cornerstone upon which our
families and our communities are built; and
substandard or deteriorating housing, inadequate plumbing and over-
crowding threaten the health and safety of Virginia's households, and
diminish the economic vitality of Virginia's communities; and
those Virginians with special needs for accessibility or supportive
services have additional difficulty finding adequate affordable housing;
and
the dream of decent affordable housing will only become a reality
through the leadership a!ld partnership of state and local governments,
businesses qnd civic organizations;
NP~ THEREFORE,
I, David P. Bowerman, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby
recognize the month of
OCTOBER, 1993, as
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AWARENESS MONTH
.
(/~~/[~/~6~~~
,--- CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
EI(tL', f'-r f
(-Cln!~-,.. ......F.,.'t '" ,":Jvi' <3l!S:a
l5"v....., .;, I II f"" ,/~"_~~',,,'~~~,i,~'''.'i...1
,,"(.., /l
, "~
Cathleen A. Magenms
Secretary of C mmerce and Trade
1).).\{."?tL'f'~.""'" . /t.'(
"..'- r !
'l/~?f. .yl
/c'1/:d;l'C . ~ {, ---.
, lCOMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIAt:..,. ~.
c"r .:;{ ( j~m rr. fE ~ fE B tJ1 rs ~
I { Office of the Governor f I ~ r too 1f;! R
:,h I.;: Richmond 23219 J TD,~~04) 7 -If,'
!T~- \~ ,,;i_ .
<:;::
;" "D.
. p
1) ~
i.:)J
t" <t\~ t~, f/
. ",". \;".,.1
'.;. \::~\",~)
-j
f
, .,
r' "1
1 -} \.
t ,~ \"~
, I
"'
/.
September 17, 1993
BOAROOFSUP~SORS
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
The importance of safe, decent, affordable housing cannot be
erstated. Without the security of a home, men and women find it
ifficult to hold a jOb, children struggle in school, and families
re torn apart. When its citizens lack adequate housing, a
ommunity's work force is diminished and its service programs are
trained. Truly, when one person is unable to find affordable,
ecent housing, we all suffer.
This fall, Governor Wilder hopes to raise the pUblic's
areness of housing needs by proclaiming October to be Affordable
ousing Awareness Month in Virginia. The Virginia Department of
ousing and Community Development (DHCD) and the Virginia Housing
evelopment Authority (VHDA) will carry the Governor's message to
e citizens of the Commonwealth through publicity efforts and by
s onsoring a poster contest for children. A major event during
ffordable Housing Awareness Month will be the sixth annual
overnor's Conference on Housing, which will be held October 21-22,
1993, in Richmond. The conference attracts housing developers,
financers, nonprofit service providers, and advocates. It is
s onsored by DHCD, VHDA, and the Virginia Housing Study Commission.
I encourage you to join with us to promote awareness of
affordable housing issues. I am attaching suggested language for
a local resolution recognizing October as Affordable Housing
A areness Month in your community. I hope you will issue the
r solution and help draw attention to the importance of adequate
h using for our neighbors and our neighborhoods.
If you do join our efforts to promote awareness of housing
eds, please let us know. If you issue a resolution, conduct a
blic hearing, issue a press release, or sponsor your own poster
ntest for children, please tell us.
For questions about Affordable Housing Awareness Month, or to
t us know of your local activities in October, please contact
udy Jenzer, Department of Housing and Community Development, 501
rth Second Street, Richmond, VA 23219; (804) 371-7005.
Si~cerely,
i-
/
,
, , ,- 1
f , / / I. ., i] 't' /1-
l/c'- ( U( Ix + .' I_ - I Jt,l~.J.. ill?!)
'eathleen A.-"Magennis .!
\;
.
.
Edward H. B in. Jr.
Samuel Mil r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972.4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David P. BOfrman
Charlottesvi Ie
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
I
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
October 6, 1993
s. Patricia M. Butler
eaf Awareness Week Coordinator
epartment for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
ashington Building Capitol Square
100 Bank Street, 12th Floor
ichmond, VA 23219-3640
Ms. Butler:
At its meeting on October 6, 1993, the Albemarle County
oard of Supervisors adopted the attached 'proclamation
roclaiming September 19 - 25, 1993, as National Deaf Awareness
onth.
Sincerely,
? Ill" 1 /7 ~c;;y
~1Hf. catte~, Cc;
ttachment
*
Printed on recycled paper
PROCLAMATION
NATIONAL DEAF AWARENESS WEEK
WPEREAS,
the World Federation of the Deaf is an international organization composed of seventy
national associations of the deaf, which, in collaboration with the United Nations (UNESCO,
World Health Organization and International Labor Office), serves all countries in the
enhancement of the social, economic and cultural lives of deaf and hard-ofhearing people; and
WpEREAS,
I
the World Federation of the Deaf has in the past forty-two years provided leadership at the
international level in medicine and audiology, psychology of deafness, educational development
and innovation, vocational rehabilitation, communications methodology, personal and social
welfare, art and culture, parent education, and religious activities; and
wt(1EREAS, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) will participate as an integral part of the Deaf
! Work Week celebration of the World Federation of the Deaf; and
!
I
wt(1EREAS,
!
representatives from a wide area of leadership in the United States of America serving deaf
and hard-ofhearing populations throughout the world will be observing this significant event
in recognition of the contributions geared to the needs of deaf and hard-ofhearing people
throughout the country; and
wFEREAS,
the County of Albemarle offers its wholehearted welcome and best wishes to all participants
for a renewed spirit of togetherness tempered by intensified commitment to a quality life for
the entire deaf and hard-ofhearing population in the nation;
N?~ THEREFORE,
I, David P. Bowerman, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
SEPTEMBER 19 through 25, 1993, as
NATIONAL DEAF AWARENESS WEEK
in the County of Albemarle and invite all of our citizens to join in
the observance of this weeklong occasion.
Given under the hand and my seal of the County of Albemarle, this Sixth day of
October, in the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three.
0-z:~~ c:e:f:-<'-CJr'~~
CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUN7Y SUPERVISORS
r;gi"2N''''-Y n"-r. 1;:" ?")Wt\.f~8~.. .
~~ ~ 'T' I, , *"" J"""~~'''----~~]'~W,it'\......,
!l.~; i!~' '~'~;'f i ~~~'.~
~;, '~-" 1"'1.,' '~.~...l
t :'" D 1 CQ, .3 ,'" .,J
" , ;~ 'I:
V ',~.~:;?,;:<: ~:r4;(h J,lA
tJclCUTWl 0"1_,
Clayton E. Bowen
Acting Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
(804) 225.2570 VOICE/TT
TOLL FREE 1-800-552-7917
VOICE/TT
September 10, 1993
WASHINGTON BUILDING CAPITOL SQUARE
1100 BANK STREET, 12TH FLOOR
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219-3640
Dear County Board of Supervisors:
National Deaf Awareness Week will be celebrated throughout the
United States, September 19-25, 1993. The Virginia Department for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the Virginia Association of the
Deaf are co-sponsoring the publication of a calendar of over forty
events that will be held in Virginia during the month of September
which highlight the contributions of the Deaf Community.
In order for the citizens of your county to become more aware
of the Deaf Community, The Virginia Department for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing would like to ask the Board of Supervisors to make
a special proclamation for National Deaf Awareness Week. I have
enclosed a sample of a Board of Supervisor's Proclamation, which
you may change as needed.
If the Board of Supervisors makes this proclamation, I would
appreciate receiving a copy. If you have any questions or need
additional information on making the services in your county
accessible for deaf and hard of hearing citizens, a list of our
regional Outreach Staff is attached.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important
way of promoting Deaf Awareness.
Sincerely,
~A~
Patricia M. Butler
Deaf Awareness Week Coordinator
Enclosures
.
.
Clayton E. Bowen
Acting DireclOr
COMMONvVEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
(804) 225-2570 VOICE/IT
TOLL FREE 1-800-552-7917
VOICE/IT
WASHINGTON BUILDING CAPITOL SQUARE
1100 BANK STREET, 12TH FLOOR
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219-3640
OUTREACH PROGRAMS STAFF
out~each Programs Manager: Linda R. Thornton
I (804) 37~-7886 or 1-800-552-7917 V/TT
Reg~on 1 and 2:
Sou~hwest and Allegheny
cecil Prillaman, Outreach Specialist
7693 Bent Mountain Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
(703) 776-2777 or 1-800-552-7917 V/TT
Ivy Brothers, Outreach Assistant
Reg~on 3: south Central
I
Carl Amos, Outreach specialist
Hampton Roads Office
Michael VanOrman,
Outreach Consultant
Reg~on 4: Northwestern: Sue Browning, Outreach Specialist
P. o. Box 476
Fishersville, Virginia 22939
(703) 332-9993 or 1-800-552-7917 V/TT
Paula Johnson, Outreach Assistant
Reg~on 5 - Hampton Roads:
Carl Amos, Outreach Specialist
c/o VSDB-Hampton
700 Shell Road
Hampton, Virginia 23661
(804) 247-2018 or 1-800-552-7917 V/TT
Reg~on 6 - Northern
Karen Engelhardt, Outreach Specialist
13847 Coleman Court
Centreville, Virginia 22020
(703) 803-0044 or 1-800-552-7917 V/TT
Reg~on 7 - Central
I
Karen Sisco, Outreach Specialist
Central Office
(804) 37~-2958 or 1-800-552-7917 V/TT
Revised 8/93
t.:)
z
.....
~
t:3
::c
t&.
o
Q
~
~
-," ...
Q
Z
<
t&.
t:3
Q
taJ
::I:
E-1
i:t:
o
t&.
E-1
Z
taJ
:l:
E-1
~
<
~
taJ
Q
<
~
z
~
t.:)
~
~
>
en
f-o
U
Jool
a:
f-o
en
Jool
~
~
U
Jool
>
ell:
~
en
~
o
Jool
t:l
~
ell:
. ,
Edward H. Bin, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972.4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bo rman
Charlottesvi Ie
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II
Department of Engineering
Ella W. Carey, Clerk E1J~
October 6, 1993
Resolutions to accept roads into the State Secondary
System of Highways
At its meeting on October 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
dopted the following resolutions to accept roads into the State
econdary System of Highways:
Resolution to accept Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane ln
Langford Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
Resolution to accept Springwood Drive in Springwood
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
Resolution to accept Mechums West Drive in Mechums West
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
Resolution to accept Southside Drive in South Fork Farms,
Phase Two, into the State Secondary System of Highway.
Attached are the original and three copies of the
solutions.
C:mms
A tachments
*
Printed on recycled paper
~
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i~, in regular meeting on the 6th day of October, 1993, adopted
tpe following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
I WHEREAS, the streets in Langford Subdivision described on
tte attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, fully
i corp orated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
t e Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
v~rginia; and
!
! WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
o~ Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
r quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
o the Virginia Department of Transportation.
,
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
c!unty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
t tion to add the roads in Langford Subdivision as described on
t e attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the
s condary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code
o Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
mfnts; and
I
~! BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
a d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
e sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
r corded plats; and
I
! FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
fprwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris.
Seconded by: Mr. Perkins.
Yeas: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
I'
.j.J
s::
;:l
0
~ u
u.l
~ ~ ...
, 0
t!) ~
H "-
:x:
riI 'tl
E-< Q) Q)
< +.l +.l r-I
III
E-< Q I:l H
Q)
u.l .a III
a
rz. +.l l) Q)
0 I:l III ..Q
+.l
Q) +.l r-I
~ ~ .0: <
riI 1-0
E-< +.l
u.l III
~ I:l
u.l H
>>
~ +.l
p:: Q)
< 1-0
::1
~ lJ)
0 0
U
riI
u.l I:l
0
riI ....
+.l
:x: ::1
E-< ~
0
0 III
Q)
E-< l>:
u.l III
Z 1-0
0
0 III
H ....
E-< >
1-0
H Q)
Q P-
~ ::1
lJ) e
...
Q 0 III
riI 'tl rz.
u.l
0 1-0 '0
III
p" 0 H
0 ~ 0
p:: ~
p"
s::
>. III
~ ..:I
< I:l
0
LO Q) s::
I:l
I 0 0
p:: 'M
u.l ~ III
l) 'M
~ Q) >
.<1
l) 'M
0 '0
rz. 0 ..Q
+.l ;:l
u.l u.l
Z +.l
0 I:l ~
Q)
H .a 0
E-<
H l) Q)
Q III ~
~ +.l
+.l
.0: Z
III
.<1 Q)
+.l~ 0
01.... ~ .... r'l
1:l::E: <> ~
.
Q) <> <> 0
...:l Q)
I:l
I:l....
o~
.... 1-0
+.l Q)
.... +.l
'tl I:l
'tl Q)
.o:u
'"
..
..
'"
III !l Q)
Q) tn
+.l .. III
0 ~ Q)
:z; U.; r-I
III .r- .M
::1 "'" ~
0 ",:,
Q) "r-
I:l to'" r-I
"
III a. III
~ ..... .j.J
~ "to
Q) .:Jet 0
l) .... E-<
III "r-
.... a...
::E: 0...
.......
..
......
"'0
"'0
<.0
~
+.l <> <>
~... '" '"
I
0.<1
I +.l
l>:'tl
....
~
~ ~
... ...
... ...
~ ~
.... ....
... ...
.. ..
.... to to
" "
I:l .. .. .. ..
.... ..
to to to
a " " "
1-0 ., ., .. .. ..
Q) ;:; ...
11 ... ~
E-< a
I:l ~ ... .... ...
<> 0 ~ 0
0 0 0
.... <> .. <> .. ... ... ...
+.l '" 0 0 0
'" 0 0 0
.... <> .. <> .. .. .. ..
'tl '" " '" "
'tl ~ '" ~ '" '" '" '"
.... .... .. " ..
.0: .. .. "
.. ., .. ., '" '", '"
+.l vi r- vi r-
Q) ..... .....
Q) .. ... .. ...
1-0 .... ~
a u ..... a u
+.l " " ~ ; " ~
lJ) U . .
> .. " > .. .. .. .. "
" "? .. " "? .. .. .. ..
.. " .. " " " "
... .... '" .... '" '" '" '"
" ... "
0 u '" 0 u '" '" '" '"
.. .. " " ..
.. ... '" .. ... '" '" .., '"
to 0 .. .g> 0 .. .. .. ..
'" 0 0 0 0 0
'" .., u '" '" u u v u
a .. a .. .. " ..
.. '" .. .. .. ..
~ .. a .. a .. ~ " ~ ..
~ 0 .. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
.. 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
+.l
Q)
Q)
1-0
+.l ..
lJ) a
"
... .. ..,
0 a i:'
"
Q) .., ..
a a ~
... .3'
III ..
z .!l' a
0
.. :0:
... ....
IL:J I N I '" I ... I '^
Q)
01
III
I:l
....
III
1-0
'tl
'tl
I:l
III
III
~
~
....
...
III
+.l
::1
l)
1-0
0
...
III
+.l
I:l
Q)
a
Q)
III
III
Q)
~
III
III
III
Q)
l)
Q)
I:l
>>
I:l
III
...
0
Q)
>
....
III Q)
::1 >
~ 0
l) ..Q
>< III
Q)
>> 'tl
Q)
III +.l
:J III
I E-< l)
... Z ....
0 'tl
I riI I:l
+.l ~ ....
.<1
01 U +.l
.... < I:l
1-0 Q)
E-< ~
... E-<
0 < l)
0
.<1 'tl
+.l rz.
'tl 0 Q)
.... .<1
:J Z +.l
'tl 0 ...
Q) H 0 ~
Q) E-<
+.l +.l
I:l < 1-0 ~
III U III
1-0 H P-
III rz.
::1 III
t!l H
E-< III
p:: III
III riI 'tl
Q) U Q)
+.l ....
0 ...
:z; ....
+.l
1-0
Q)
l)
III
....
+.l
I:l
Q)
.a
u
III
+.l
+.l
III
III
IU ....
.<1
E-<
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Pippin Lane from the edge of pavement of state Route
1630 0.09 mi to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded 6/12/78 in
Deed Book 648, pages 419-429, with a right-of-way width of 50
feet - length 0.09 mile
2) Montgomery Lane from the edge of pavement of state Route
1630 0.21 mile to the end of cUl-de-sac, plat recorded 6/12/78 in
Deed Book 648, pages 419-429, with a right-of-way width of 50
feet - length 0.21 mile. Additional drainage easement in deed
book 1427, pages 577-579.
Total mileage 0.30 mile
Note: Guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
, a
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
~
I
ro:
IFROM:
I
IDATE:
IRE:
I
MEMORANDUM
Ella Carey, Board of Supervisors Clerk
Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II YJY
September 1, 1994
Langford Subdivision
A resolution was adopted by the Board on October 6, 1993 for the
a ove development. An additional drainage easement has since
been required so attached is an updated SR-5(A). Please take an
u dated resolution to the Board for adoption at your next
o portunity. Once the resolution has been adopted, date and sign
t e SR-5(A) and please provide me with the original and four
c pies.
T
q
your assistance. Please call me if you have any
Reading File
(
.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of October, 1993, adopted
the following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Langford Subdivision described on
~he attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, fully
ilncorporated herein by reference, are shown~'on plats recorded in
~he Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
vlirginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
oIf Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
riequirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
olf the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
cpunty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
t~tion to add the roads in Langford Subdivision as described on
t~e attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the
s~condary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code
o~ Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauire-
m~nts; and
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
a~d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
e~sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
r~corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
fprwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Perkins
Yeas: Messrs Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
~
, '
~
"
The roads described on Additions Form SR-S(A) are:
1) Pippin Lane from the edge of pavement of state Route
1630 0.09 mi to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded 6/12/78 in
Deed Book 648, pages 419-429 - length 0.09 mile
2) Montgomery Lane from the edge of pavement of state Route
1630 0.21 mile to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded 6/12/78 in
Deed Book 648, pages 419-429 - length 0.21 mile
Total mileage 0.30 mile
" I
~ c:
::J
~ 8
1
c
CD
E
.s::
0
III
:t::
>I(
:I:
G
-
as
-
en
ro
S
(])
..0
r-l
~
as
" i
c ~
0
0
GI
en i
G
.J: E
- ~
0 ..
- s
t
~
f/)
0
s
,.,
:>
1)
I
a::
S
..
.~
a. '0
::I
f/) H
'0 0
<( ! ~
It)
. s::
0:: fia ro
en H
:!: >:
0:: '6 c
0 ..
s 0
u.. c;;
~ ">
en .r: '6
Z 2.- .0
::J
0 .2 fJJ
l- i '0
C E CD
.r: E
C 0
:! l\l
<( < z
E. I
co :i
i
...J .. 0"\ .-l 0
S c 0 N M
p 'i . . .
'0 i 0 0 0
'0
< U
..
0>
2
:i
~
....
I .
l)
z
..
;
i
'i
0
..
:i
~ g
0 E.
ct 'tl 0 0
~ LI'\ LI'\
0; g:
N .
-.:;t '1
J :::
.-l
J -.:;t 'r ":'?
0; J .. 0; 0; 0; 0; 0;
0> 0> 0> 0> '" 0> 0>
C: II C" II II II II II II
Il. Il. Il. Il. Il. Il. Il.
C C
~ 00 ~ 00
-.:;t -.:;t
~ \0 \0
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c u: j Ul j j j j j j
l C) 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0
.... 1 ell ~ ell
S (/) 00 (/) 00
p ~ !::: ~ I r-.
'i5 Q) .......
'tl
< Q) "Cl N Qj "Cl N
1 ~ I .-l > I .-l
r-l ....... ~ r-l .......
b r: ::l \0 ::l \0
f/) C) C)
6 ;,; 4-1 ;,; 0; ;,; 0; ;,; ;,;
4-1 ii 04-1 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ "Cl 'i ~ "Cl 'i 'i '2 '2 '2 '2
'tl '0 '0 'tl 'tl 'tl 'tl
~ s:: h "Cl'J:: h h h h h h
J;>:l ~ J;>:lJ;>:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g a:: g a:: g a:: g a:: g a:: g a:: g a::
0 0; 0 0; 0 0; 0 0; 0 0; 0 0; 0 0;
It .... 0:: It .... 0:: It .... 0:: It .... 0:: It .... 0:: It .... 0:: It .... 0::
Qj
1 s:: :>..
ell l-l
b ~ Qj
f/)
'l5 s:: 13 ...
0
.. 'M bO
~ Po .j..I Qj
z Po s:: s::
'M 0 ell
lJ.< ~,...:l
~ 0 - '" M " III <D '"
a:: Z
.;
0>
II
C
il
-0
'tl
C
Cl
!!i
ii::
.,;
:;
o
II
..
~
i
il
~
:l
..
..
~
C
>-
C
Cl
'0
..
>
OJ
::I
"0
><
..
>-
.,
it
'0
10
0>
C
'0
f;
'tl
~
'2
..
c
.,
Il
a
..
..
o
z
::I
g
l~
..
Cl
'2
~
o
.!!
~
E
.r:
o
:J
.,
~
...J '!:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i , in regular meeting on the 6TH day of October, 1993, adopted
t e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Springwood Subdivision described on
t e attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated Oc~ober 6, 1993, fully
i corporated herein by reference, are shown 'on plats recorded in
t e Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
V'rginia; and .
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
unty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tion to add the roads in Springwood Subdivision as described on
e attached Additions FormSR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the
condary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauire-
nts; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy OT this resolution be
rwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
ansportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Perkins
Yeas: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris
Nays: None
A Copy Teste:
rk, CMC
. '
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Springwood Drive from the edge of pavement of state
Rcute 609 0.23 mile to the edge of pavement of Cascades Drive,
p at recorded 3/18/86 in Deed Book 871, pages 20-26, total
m'leage 0.23 mile.
..-' ..
H c
:J
0
~ u
1
,
Q)
rl-l
,.J.l
til
S
Q)
.0
.--i
II <
." i
c ~
0
0
ell
en i
0
.J:: ~
-
0 ..
- .s
t
!i
fI.l
0
6
...
~
II
I
a:
S
..
,
0. ""0
~ 0
fI.l
'5 0
c:( j ~
II) s::
. "rl
a: Q ~
en 00
:E s:
a: E c
0 .
6 0
u.. "jj;
~ :;:
en .r; 'C
Z .!!.. .0
:J
0 B (/)
~ i -
0
C E lD
.r; E
C <J
l! III
c:( -< z
~ I
co ~
i
..J .
6 c C"') C"')
... i N N
'6 i . .
't:J 0 0
-< 0
.
~ 0>
...... ~
N ~
...... ~
~......
0\
...... . I-
...... .0
......
""0
.
.0 ""0
I . s::
""0 til
lS .
z S::-.:t .
.. 'rl ...... C"')
~ \0 ......
i tIl ~
-I-l 0 C"",
OJ til -I-l .e
<J .--i 4-1
..
~ P.N I
...... 00
~\,() 0\
Q)
..J::: . .
-I-l p..p.
0 p.p.
~ g
0 ~ 0
rt 't:J l/')
~
\,()
N
I ..
0
. N
-a
S . . . . . ~ .
co 0> CD CD CD CD
C"') G G G G G G G
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
N Q) Ii
. > Cl
0 -ri G
C
~ ...... .~
0 r--. 't:J
0\ 00 't:J
0 tIl c
\0 Q) G
""0 I I I I I I I !i
. til iC
p:: 0 oj
c . tIl i i i i i i i :;
i 00 til <J
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
I-
6 -I-l -I-l ..
s:: s:: \,() i
... Q) Q) 00
'6 S S - l&
't:J
-< Q) Q) 00 ..
1 > > ...... II
~ til -
b P. C"') :l
fI.l
~ ~ . ii . . . . . I
0 0 c; ~ c; c; c; c; c; ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 c
~ Q) 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i i
bO 't:J 't:J 't:J 't:J 't:J 't:J 't:J
""0 ""0 tl tl tl tl tl tl tl '0
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: >
'0;
i:i c; {l c; i:i c; 0 c; 0 c; 0 c; 0 c; ~
It a:: It a:: a:: It a:: It a:: It a:: It a:: '0
l- lL l- I- l- I- I- )(
.
G
~
'0
.r;
1 ""0 -
0
b 0
fI.l
'5 ~
bO
. s:: Q) ,
~ 'rl >
Z ~-ri
p..~
000
~ - I N I .., I .. I III I fD I ....
a: Z
~
>-
>-
Cl
C
o
~
't:J
i
~
C
II
I;
:>
(9
~
15
z
'::',j ",i ;1: C".,., //,._/_c)8i
~~" 1,,'\.~a.~, /'-i,,,......L<_{~c~....
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 19~"1a .,"rz',l(:~'l.j!/))
1'1// (hi Y':6~ It" )
Irn~~ @ ~tU~~t0
IBOARDOFSUPERVIS~RS '
MEMORANDUM
Ella Carey, Board of supervisors Clerk
Peter Parsons, civil Engineer II ~~
September 23, 1993
Mechums West, Langford and Springwood Subdivisions
oads serving the above referenced subdivisions are
ubstantially complete and will be ready for VDOT acceptance
'nspections. Attached are the completed SR-5(A) forms for the
hree resolutions which I request be prepared and taken to the
oard for adoption at your next opportunity. Once the
esolutions have been adopted, please provide me with the
riginals and four copies of each.
your assistance. Please call me if you have any
Reading File
. I
The Board of county Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i , in regular meeting on the 6th day of October, 1993, adopted
t e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Mechums West Subdivision described
the attached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated October 6, 1993,
lly incorporated herein by reference, are~shown on plats
corded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
unty, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
unty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tion to add the roads in Mechums West Subdivision as described
the attached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated October 6, 1993, to
e secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229,
de of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
irements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; that the Board guarantees a clear
d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
rwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
ansportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Perkins
Yeas: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris
Nays: None
A Copy Teste:
CMC
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Mechums West Drive from the edge of pavement of state
Rpute 682 0.47 mile to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded
6 5/87 in Deed Book 942, pages 375-384, total mileage 0.47 mile.
CD
"C i
c ~
0
0
CII
en i
G
s: E
- i:
0 ..
- .!:
f
::I
(/)
0
Ii
""
::I
~
I
a:
b
.,
.~ .j.J
0. CIJ
::I OJ
(/)
l5 :3
< j CIJ
It) ~
.
a: EI ..c
en c.J
OJ
:E >: ::E:
a: "6 c
0 .
Ii 0
&L Iii
~ '>
en ~ :c
~
z .2- ..0
:J
0 ,g rn
i= i '0
C E III
~ E
C u
~ lG
< < Z
C
:J
o
U
t. .!
01
i ~
-oJ . r--. r--.
Ii C "" ""
"" 'i . .
:g'i 0 0
< 0
.,
0>
~
~
~
~
I
li
z .
..
~
i
OJ
u
..
~
:t g
0 fi 0
d: '0
~ l/')
~
.A ~
r--.
C"'1
] . . . . . ~ iIi
0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
a a a a a a a
a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
"" ai
0>
0 a
C
'il
C'o,j ~
C'o,j "" '0
~ 0"1 C
a
J J J J J J ~ ~
iC
~ oj
1: . j j j j i j i :;
i U) u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
~ ~
Ii .j.J .,
"" ~ ~ i
'6 OJ r--. i
'0 l3 ~ 00 ..
< OJ - II
1 ~ I l/')
~ '; -
.tJ \0 :l
(/) c:
..
4-l ii . iIi ii ii Ii Ii .,
0 ~ c c c c c c c III
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
~ & "i "i "i "i "i "i "i C
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 a
"0 b b b b b b b '0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III III III .,
~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ [( ~ [( g a: >
'OJ
0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 C ::I
at Ii: at Ii: Ii: at Ii: at Ii: at Ii: at Ii: "0
~ ~ u. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ><
.,
II
~
'0
.j.J 1:
CIJ 'C
1 OJ -
.tJ :3
fJ)
'15 CIJ
., ~ OJ "
5 ..c ~
z c.J'M
OJ I-l
::E:A
li 0 - N '"' .. II) <0 ....
a: z
~
>-
>-
0>
o
fi
'0
i
i
c
IS
I;
::l
<!l
~
"6
z
ii
>
o
~
"i
B
'6
.S
i
~ E
Z ::I
~ 8
H~
o a
Z ..
o II
~ ]
~ ~
;:: u
ffi .!!
o i
E
.c
u
;J
IS
..
~
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i in regular meeting on the 6TH day of October, 1993, adopted
t e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in South Fork Farms, Phase Two, de-
ribed on the attached Additions Form SR-SLA) dated October 6,
93, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
corded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
unty, Virginia; and .
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
unty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tion to add the roads in South Fork Farms, Phase Two, as
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated October 6,
93, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
633.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision
reet Re uirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
a d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
e sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
r corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
f rwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
T ansportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays: None
Mrs. Humphris
Mr. Perkins
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris
A Copy Teste:
erk, CMC
.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Southside Drive from the edge of pavement at the inter-
sEction with state Route 710 to the end of the cUl-de-sac, plat
rEcorded 4/14/93 in Deed Book 931, pages 573-577, with a 40 foot
r ght-of-way
Total mileage 0.10 mile
.
e
...-ll
c:
:J
11 8
J
r-"';
;..
c
..
E
.c
o
.. ;!
-c
.,
~
.s=
Q)
5: r-l
G I-<
_ C\l
III S
Ui Q)
.D
O~r-l
! : <
III
"U il
~ ~
u
CII
(/)
G
.s=
-
e
i
~ 0
2 ~ ~
r Q)
'" (/)
o C\l
Ii ..c:
~ P-t
l)
I (/)
n: e
G C\l
.~ ~
g- ~
'" I-<
11 0
: 1 :
ci: ~ ~
(/) ~ a
:i: "6
0: C
~ 6 .a
.>ell ">
(/) 'U
Z !i .D
o 9 ~
E , 0
o f
o ~
c{ 0(
e
,....
: ~ i
~ ~i
&P::
..
E
"'
z
{; I
tll j
~
-' .. 0 ~
6 c ...-l
... i
'0 , 0 ::;)
u
0( U
.
..
II
. ~
~
0-
I
tj
z
~
~
'i
u
..
:i
.
~ g
~ [, -
u 0
~ -.,r
~
0 J.
...-l
r-- ~
~ :,; .. :,; :,; ;,; ;;
no no :,> '" .. D '"
t1) " " " .. " ..
Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do.
-;-
. ~
+J
~ 0-
H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
+J
~ C\l 1 ~ ~ 1 Y t ~
tJ
~ +J C\l 0 0 0 0 u 0 0
0- ~r{/)
Ii Q)'; I ~
"., Sl ~
U QJC
u :>; ~ I
0( C\l ~
1 Pi ;:l 'I
.. tJ
1Il 4...1'. -&
OC ij .. .. . . ;,; ..
;; ;; .. " ;; ;; ;;
Q)( 0 0 0 " 0 0 0
eo "2 'l: 1/ 1/ i 1/ i 1:
'"d'" 11 11 11 n 11 u 11
~. Q) h h h h h h h
~ \: \: \: ~ \: ~
~ a: ~ l( ~ II ~ U ~ I[ ~ If ~ II
;; OJ ti .. ;; ;; " ''; ;; ;; ;; OJ ;; ;;
u: 0- 0: u: 0- Ii: u: ,- n. .t 0- n: u: 0- n: U: ,- n: u: t- o:
Q)
:>
'M
I-<
0
1 Q)
.. '"d
1Il 'M
11 Ul
.. ..c:
r: +J
iI
Z ;:l
0
t1)
1i 0 - N ... .. V1 ., ~
n: z
t
o
z
ti
00
"
c
iI
U
"
5
!i
;c
.;
11
.l1
!I
i
~
8
~
~
C
~
1;
"
>
.;;
OJ
To
"
"
,..
"
~
1;
l:
'"
"C
1;
[,
"
i
t
~
,
Cl
..
~
~
11
'3
'6
.\;
i
~ ~ ~
~~~
0( ~
lL a.
o "
5 :I
~ i
~ ~
;: u
II: ..
UJ
U ~
E
r.
to
:!
"
..
t:. ~
, . -..1 .~ ~ ." ... I
, - 7/)
- t' / {; l... ... . "."---"~' ---. .
r ' '-'~'"' '" ",,'.'
IroJ ~ rn U?l
,UQ '"~ ~
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA
Lease P
Equipment
AGENDA DATE.
October 6, 1993
1/9 I I () (; ~ ( 'J . ?)
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
Options
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: x
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF C
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Huff
BACK ROUND:
At a earlier meeting, the Board asked staff to review the concepts involved in lease
purc ase, lease, and outright purchase options as alternatives for major equipment
acqu'sitions. Attached is a summary of the issues involved in each alternative outlining
the ertinent points.
NDATION:
recommends that the Board continue to consider lease purchase options on a case by
case asis for major equipment purchases. This evaluation should be done at the budgeting
decision point and will be made clear by staff as to which equipment purchases are being
reco ended as lease purchase options. Once approval is given as a budget decision, staff
can hen plan accordingly. Equipment that is routinely replaced, i.e., school buses,
polic cars, etc. will not be considered as viable recommendations for lease purchase
optio s.
.'." 0' Al.~.-t;
.-? . ,. 1".,:>
~. '~'. ..',
v ""1" M
~ .., .il-'
",'. . i"
lj!/Gn-l\l'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Information Services
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Telephone (804) 296-5814
To
From:
Re
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Rick Huff, Deputy County Executive _Ij, n ~
Fred Kruger, Director of Information services~1Utdt
Purchase leases as an option for Information Services
06/11/93
Information Services has normally purchased hardware and software
technology outright without a heavy dependency upon purchase lease
agreements. One reason for taking this approach is due to the
rapid change in technology, and the desire not to be hindered with
paying for agreements beyond the life of those purchases. The
major reason why Information Services has been able to do this is
because most mainframe hardware purchases have been for used
hardware which is several years old and sells for a price much
less than new hardware.
The leases which begin in FY 92/93 and FY 93/94 will cover 3
fiscal years with the first payments during July 1993 and August
1993 and the final 2 annual payments during July 1994 and July
1995. The actual period covered between first and last payment
will be about 25 months. Therefore, technology changes should
have little impact.
A second reason why Information Services has used purchase leases
is to provide more consistent funding requirements so there are
few peaks and valleys from year to year in budget requests. Based
upon interest rates available to the County, the delta between
interest paid for leases and potential of interest earned has
normally not been great. By spreading selected purchases over 2
or more years, the County has better flexibility to pay for other
needs.
Attached is a chart representing a 3 year technology plan for
Information Services listing current and future purchase
decisions. If there is any more information that you need, please
do not hesitate to call or E-Mail me.
FAX 804-972-4062
~
~
o
.:l
~~
u~
~.....
E-4~
~ e
~~
~O\
r'J~
~.....
u~
~~
~-
r'J =
z~
o
~
~
l-4
;:;:;:::::;:;:;:;'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ':':'!'!;O:
, , , , , , , , , , , 1111."1
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,... CXl M 0 III CXl 10 10 <it 0\ III <it
III ,... ,... ,... ('. N
.jJ 1':1:1'1
0
f-l (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f>
..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 , , , , , , , ,
0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('. 0 0
10 N N N M III CXl CXl
>i N
~ (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f>
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....... CXl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CXl
III , , , , , , , , , , ,
0\ rl III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'. 0 10
<it r-i <it LIl 10 N N M III CXl 0
>i <it
~ (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f>
III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....... CXl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CXl
<it , , , , , , , , , , ,
0\ r-i LIl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
'<I' r-i 10 10 N N N M LIl CXl 0\
:.. M
~ (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f> (f>
,... , , , , , , , , , ,
III '<I'IIl\D '<I'LIl\D LIllO..... 1Il\D..... 1Il\D.....
U ~ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\
1Il III ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..... OJ M<itlll M'<I'1Il '<I'LIl\D <it III 10 '<I'IIl\D
~:.. 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\
OJ
1Il.......
III 1Il 1Il 1Il Ul 1Il 1Il
OJ OJ 0 OJ OJ 0 0 OJ 0 0 0 OJ OJ 0 0
..:I:" s:: :.. :.. z z :.. z z z :.. :.. z z
O'l O'l O'l O'l O'l O'l O'l g O'l O'l g
'tl s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s::
OJ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
.jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ
OJ III III III III III III III III III III III
O'l.......~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'tll1. OJ OJ l1. OJ OJ 0> 0> 0> ~ OJ 0> ~ l1.
::lH 0.. 0.. H 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. H
COUO 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U
e OJ
OJ .jJ
.jJ 0 0>
~ e ~
0> III s::
III ~ 1Il ~ 0
OJ .jJ .....
~ .jJ ..... "'" .jJ .jJ
0> U .jJ 0 0> s:: III
~ 0> ..... III ~ OJ e
0 s:: ,... ....... III a ~ "'"
0> Po. s:: '.... 0> ~ 0 "'"
'0 0 .jJ ~ .jJ 0 lI-l III
III 0> U ::> III "'" ,... s:: .jJ
~ ,... ....... ~ 0 0> H III
O'l .a 0 Ql '0 III >
0.. ..... .jJ Ql ~ ~ ....... OJ .... co
::> ~ CQ '0 III III OJ 0 III 0
1Il0 III ~ ::c 1Il ~ U U
OJ ::l ~U ~ .jJ ~ III ~ .....
~ ~ 0> 8: "'" ~ OJ :i ..c:: ~
~ .jJ 0 Ql 0 OJ > 'tl 0 0.. 0
~ 0> :;l.jJ '0 ::> III .jJ ~ ~ "'" III "'"
"'" .jJ 0 III ~ 0> III .jJ ~
s:: s:: p:: Ul ~ 0> ~ III ::c III O'l Ul
Z ..... ..... .......c: O'l e e .... OJ g- ~
0 III s:: 1Il 0 0.. III '0 ~ O'l l1. ~ 0>
H :I: ::> 0>..... ::> ~ ~ u s:: III Cl e .jJ
e.. ....... - 0'l.jJ "'" "'" 0 ..... ..... ~ -0> :;l ....
Po. ~ '0 III ~ s:: c: ~ O'l .jJ.jJ .jJ 0.. III
H Ul III ..... U Ul ..... ..... u co III ,..."'" ~ .~ e .jJ
p:: ..... Po. ~ 0 ..... III III ..... 0 e :;l 0 0 0
U 0 ::> co,... 0 :I: :I: :I: U H :l:lIl Cllll U e..
III
w . . . . . . . . . .
0 I'l: co U 0 w r.. Cl :x:: H I-) :.: ..:I
SUMMER 1993
I'll I: ~ I:\VSIITn:li oFIII(, II-Till I ASSIT :VI\" \( ,1\ 11:\:1 S<lI.lTIO\:S
ACQU SITION STRATEGIES:
A'kanc,'menb in techllo]O-
g" halT ,'hortened product
litcc\cles and e\p~ln,lcd
the dependenn' lln technologT, "I,)
reduc"C the l'OSts ~lnd risks im'olved
in ~lcqlllring ~\llllnun~\ging high-
tech ~Is'et" gm'ernment ~\genl'ies
~II'C turning to LTeatil'e <.,o]utions,
such ,IS k,lSing,
:\ ,:.!;r<lWI n,l:, IllI III her o( <.,Clte ~\ nd
1,),,~t1 gOl'ernments ~lre linding th~1t
leasing new and u<.,ed equipl1lem i,
~l I'i,lhle <.,o]ution I'lf meeting teeh-
no]ol:,i,'a] dem~llllL whik reducing
costs, But there ~lre numerou<., (Ic'-
tor, :lgencie, need to con,;ider he-
I;"l' ,ktermining ifle:lsin,l:, is the
,lj)I1]'<lprt:lte a(qu"Ition l1lethocl.
Lf::ASE VS. PUf1CHASE?
Olll' <If the tirst questions to
,11l,I\er is, hm\ critil'a] i<., the tech-
nl)I'1C2,': This defines the lel'el of
IlL'l'lJ [;'f the equipment and its
m'er~t11 iml'ort,lJ]l'C to the agenl"\',
,\ lost high-tech equipmellt users
!:Ill i1lto three categories: leading
edl:,l' (highlv dependent on int')r-
THE ADVANTAGES OF LEASING
mation techno]ogd, competitive
edge (emplov:l slip-stream ,tratl'-
gy, t,]llm\'ing l']oseh. hehind the
Ie:lding nige) and tr~\iling edl:,c
(tdlow ,]oseh hehind the l'oml'et
iti\'C edge),
Other important con<.,ider.ltion,
in determining whether or not to
1e~lSe:
. Your agency's potential for
change. Forecasting anticipated
d1angc, in technology require-
melH, will he]p in determining
the imporullce of tlC\ihilitl In
the ~\nluisition str.\tegy,
. The a,;set's useful life. Reg~\rd-
kss o( how long a gil'en 'ystem
can l,01ltinue to function, it m:ll'
he useful I')f onll' ~l short period
oj' time to one a,l!;enCI' due to
l'ILlIl,l!;ing needs, The shorter
the u,cfullik, the mOfe leasing
is ~\ppropriate.
. The equipment's residual valuc
at the end of its useful life. If
the equipment will lose I'irtu:t!h'
all of its \':1lue whik \'OU use it,
pllrch:lSlnl:, m:\\' he the hcst
an]uisitioll method But i( th,'
l'qlliplnl'llt is C\I'cc'ted to IlLIII'-
tall] 1',1111l' <lll the' '"l'lllllLirl 11,lr
ket, k~I"llg I, j'l<lh,lhll till' k"
l'\j'en'il'c llj'tllln Ihl' CqUijl
mem', re,idlLtI 1'~IItI"' i, f~lct<lr,.,j
into till' k~lSl' l'OSt. so thl h "I
thc cl]ilipllll'llt's rl'sak \'~I:lIC, till'
lower the n1<lmhlv j'~l\Illl'1HS,
Budgcr limitations. \Vhcll hll,l-
gets ~lJ'C tight, kasinC2, is ~I W~I\ (()
preserl'e c'~l,h I')r <lther lISCS,
CHOOSING THE APpnOPRIAT[
ACQUISITION METHOD
The trlle helldil of rcc'hlll.J.I'i.l:,\ t( l
an agell(\' lie' 1l0~ ill it; O\vlll'rshlj1.
but ill its lise, \Vhell d<.'terlllinill~
the ;[Pf'rol'fi~lte :\cqllisitioll ,tr,II,'
g\', C,\:\1ll1l1e ,llld haLullc ,tlllhe
v:\ri~lhks hd;)rc I'OU de:idL',
Ifthe ~I:;set\ u:;L'tltllifL' ~lt the
agcllel' is c<ll1lp~lr;[hlc t<l thL' ~1"l'I',
overall produl't life, thc hest opti"ll
is to purL'h;lse, TvpicaJiI, it is
~\(h'~\1H:I.C;L'<lUS to l'urch:se "Idn
(:"./1;/,'1.1//[',) /1".::,,_
~
CIl
Ii:
>
Cl
o
...J
o
Z
J:
(,)
W
~
equipment or assets that you will
keep for an unusually long time,
i.e., more than five years. But as a
rule, the more dependence there
is on technology, the less attractive
purchasing becomes.
TAX-ExEMPT VS. OPERATING
LEASES
The two most popular types of
leases are tax-exempt and operat-
ing leases. A tax-exempt lease is
really an installment sale; typically,
you own the equipment at the end
of the lease. Therefore, this strat-
egy makes sense for trailing- and
some competitive-edge users.
Because this is essentially an
installment sale, there is usually
little flexibility to reconfigure the
system during the lease term.
An operating lease is a true rental
agreement ~ you pay only to use
the asset, not own it. This is gen-
erally the least expensive and most
flexible option available because it
offers the best balance between
cost control and asset management
flexibility. It is recommended for
leading- and many competitive-
edge users, especially if frequent
system reconfigurations are antici-
pated. It's also helpful to agencies
that are short on capital or that
are near their debt limits.
To learn more about the benefits
of leasing and the advantages of
doing business with an indepen-
dent vendor, call Comdisco's
Government Marketing Division
at 1-800-227-0034.
CHOOSING THE RIGHT ACQUISITION STRATEGY
Short
INVESTMENT LIFE
Medium
Long
..c::
OJ
:r:
. Rental
. Operating Lease
. Operating Lease
. Operating Lease
E:
:J
is
~
:s:
o
-J
Tw 0 I
The right high"tech equip-
ment financing strategy for
your agency depends on
two factors: technology
risk (the proven nature of
the technology, its obsoles-
cence risk, and its cost) and
the equipment's useful life
(how long your agency can
meet its need with the
equipment).
DRAFT
Acquisition of Equipment
Lease Purchases vs Leasing vs outright Purchases
ounty has, from time to time, entered into lease-purchase contracts to purchase
ter equipment, cafeteria equipment and other capital equipment related items. The
ion of whether this practice is prudent from a financial standpoint is often
ioned and must be examined on a case by case basis.
to evaluate the reasoning behind lease-purchases, it is important to understand
work. A lease-purchase is basically an installment sale of goods with a fixed
est rate which for municipal entities becomes a tax exempt closed end lease with a
buyout at the end of the lease term. Such a lease is made subject to annual
priations from the Board of Supervisors. At the present time, we are paying
ximately a 4% spread between our invested funds and the interest cost of the lease-
ase contract.
iggest advantage to lease-purchases is that it provides a mechanism to acquire needed
equi ment to be paid for with level payments which prevents "spikes" in an operating
budg t. When operating budgets are limited to 2-3% increases, a need for a piece of
capi al equipment that costs $50-60,000 becomes difficult to fund.
example, Information Services is currently funded to replace various pieces of
equipment each year. The line item budgeted for this purpose has approximately
available. A plan has been developed as a target to represent the technology
the County and School environments. (See Attachment A) The ability to lease-
ase some of these products prevents large increases/decreases from year to year and
the County the ability to take advantage of newer technology to improve our
ation capabilities.
aight lease without the purchase option is another tool that is considered in order
et the needs for equipment as they arise. As you will note from the enclosed article
chment B), leasing may be a better advantage when leading edge technology is needed
r when there is a residual value left on the equipment at the end of the lease.
er is typically the case on our computer purchases and therefore straight leasing has
een frequently utilized other than for some software products that only offer a
d option.
Outr' ght purchase of equipment is financially a preferable alternative. If future
purc ases can be anticipated, funds can be set aside so that they are available when the
purc ase is approved. As indicated earlier, the difficulty often becomes the fact that
the eed for the equipment is clearly demonstrated to be more urgent than funding allows
for 'n a given budget cycle.
Mana ed prudently, lease-purchases can be a useful tool for the County. If provides the
abil'ty to plan ahead by keeping an expenditure line item fairly constant rather than
subj cting large increases for outright purchase to the budget deliberation phase. Lease-
purc ases should not be used for vehicles/equipment that have a regular-fixed replacement
cycl that is difficult to shift into future budget years when funding constraints do not
permi approval. Wherever possible, set-asides for large capital projects should be
consi ered if full funding in a given budget cycle is unattainable.
REH,II/bat
93-23
<<
...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
';' ,~-: ,:";CT~~~
/.'_10
ON.~L._..;J,.. ~..__.
of Hazardous Materials
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
"'/1 , ' .,... (j)
'1 ,'7 ,)()() i.c(:; 'v
,
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
Section of the Code of Virginia requires each political subdivision to appoint a
hazardo s materials coordinator to "coordinate the hazardous materials response program" for
the comm nity. Mr. Kaye Harden, the part-time Emergency Services Coordinator for the City,
County, and University has been serving in this function, largely in a planning capacity.
Mr. Har n is an employee of the 911 Center.
N:
Enviro ntal standards now classify calls such as minor fuel spills as hazardous materials
incidents requiring a more technical and difficult response from our volunteers to absorb the
spill an dispose of the contaminated absorbent. On-scene technical expertise is often being
requeste especially when a threat of groundwater contamination is present. Training the
voluntee s to handle these situations is an on-going function of the County's Fire-Rescue
Division where we have technical expertise in responding to such incidents. The 911
Manageme t Board has recommended that the City and County each designate a full time employee
to fill this function so that the response expertise can be coupled with the training
componen and positioned as an adjunct of the true "planning" function provided by Mr.
Harden. This response function is presently limited to identification of available
resource , technical advice, and follow through to make sure the appropriate agencies are
notified and the requisite paperwork is filed. The City is in the process of designating
paid fi e personnel as their "H.M.C." and Mr. Carl Pumphrey, County Fire-Rescue Division
Chief, i the County staff's recommendation to fulfill these responsibilities.
rey is a 20 year retired veteran of the Fairfax County Fire Department with between
ours of hazardous materials training. He meets or exceeds the requirements for
nt to this position with the exception of a one week update from the state which can
led as soon as available at the state level.
RECOMMEN ATION:
Staff r commends that Mr. Carl Pumphrey be appointed to replace Mr. Kaye Harden as the
County's Hazardous Materials Coordinator as required by Section 44-146.38 of the state code.
93.130
".,
- ~
U ~ ~_\",
.---- ;
, '
;'H..
a \~b
;',,,,...,.,;
BOARD(j:~~RS
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Carl Pumphrey
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~
ATE: October 8, 1993
E: Appointment as Hazardous Materials Coordinator
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on October 6, 1993,
u were appointed as Hazardous Materials Coordinator replacing
ye Harding.
E
c Jeanne Cox, ClerkK City Council
~- .
Edward H, ~ain. Jr,
Samuel MiPer
David p, Boljierman
Charlottes~iIIe
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Joue~
,
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972.4060
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles 5, Martin
Rivanna
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
'110:
Carl Pumphrey, Division Chief
Fire/Rescue Administration
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~
I
F1ROM:
I
I
~ATE:
I
I
~UBJECT:
October 7, 1993
Board Actions of October 6, 1993
, At its meeting on October 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
a~thorized the Chairman to sign a Service Agreement with the
Slcottsville Volunteer Fire Department advancing $37,500 to
p~rchase a new tanker truck, and authorized the Chairman to sign
ai Service Agreement with the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad,
I~c., advancing $85,000 to purchase a new crash truck. Attached
i~ a copy of each agreement. Original signed agreements have
b~en forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
,
I
E~C:mms
c~: Richard E. Huff, II
*
Printed on recycled paper
" ,- ~
AGENDA T
Service
Voluntee
SUBJECT
To autho
service
advancin
truck.
STAFF CO
Messrs.
BACKGRO
Several
volunte
million
equipme
County
by the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/'- '-&;>'
, "..L{;...i~,. / .,/",_..
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
t/~ ji, / /, (5 I;' )
1 ? t . v J tV \ ... ,~I
INFORMATION:
Inc.
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
Pumphrey
years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten
r fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two
ollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting
t and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual
ppropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved
efferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA).
DISCUSSI N:
The cur ent amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $388,940.63. Scottsville
Volunte r Fire Department has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $37,500 in addition to
$100,000 approved earlier by the Board to purchase a new tanker truck. The request for funds
from the Advance Allocation Fund was split at the request of SVFD in order to make progress
payments on the vehicle as it is being constructed. Repayment of the loan will be over an
eight year period beginning FY 94/95.
JCFRA has approved this request.
RECO ATION:
Staff re ommends authorizing the Chairman to execute the service agreement.
I~I m'~~m B Wi ~I('
! I,L q l(lcr,'!'
.4, f ' 1/,,' ~),.~,; ';
I _-I
,~RD OF SUPEflVIStlP
, ..............-..,1
~.-'-:--
. ."~ . 3r.A.
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identification
t is t'lll day of /)chh-vG , 1993, by and between the
UNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE
LUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Scottsville");
WIT N E SSE T H:
Background:
(A)
The County previously has entered into a
agreement with scottsville, dated July 21, 1993, providing
f
the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from
County's annual grant to scottsville, as set forth in said
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
(B) As a result of said agreement,
the outstanding
debtedness now totals Two Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand Five
ndred sixteen Dollars ($273,516.00); and
(C) scottsville now desires to receive from the County an
Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500.00)
be used for a tanker truck; and
(D) Scottsville also desires to enter into an agreement
c nsolidating its annual withholdings of payment by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
Scottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and
tect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
th term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Scottsville
Th'rty-Seven Thousan~ Five 'Hundred ~Q"~~~DOllars ($37,500.00),
wh'ch payment shall be made from the fire fund upon request.
The sum of Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Seven
lars ($38,877.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual
nt to Scottsville for a period of eight (8) years, beginning
with fiscal year 1994-95 and ending in fiscal year 2001-02.
Thus,
at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service
agreement, a total of Three Hundred Eleven Thousand and Sixteen
Dollars ($311,016.00) will have been withheld. This withholding
consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of
the prior service agreement with scottsville dated May 27, 1993 and
July 21, 1993.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, scottsville
is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or
the tanker is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes,
scottsville covenants that it will convey its interest in the
tanker to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County
or its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. All
covenants set forth in prior agreements remain in full force and
effect.
..
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
(Seal)
ld . Bowerman, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE
:;Cok 7)-~
presGAient
DEPARTMENT,
(Seal)
. ..... ~
~-- -
S ATE OF VIRGINIA
C UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The foregoing J-nstrument was acknowledged before me this
Vh day of IJC-hh-bL- ,1993 by DAVID P. BOWERMAN,
airman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
6/JLi Ic 2- ~-~
Notary -Public / _
commission expires: 5e;-kML ?O,If15J7
ATE OF VIRGINIA
UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The foregoing instrument was ack wledg~ b
3 day of ~<fwV , 1993 by 'Il,
esident of the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Depart
me this
Inc.
~et9~
Notary Public
M commission expires: ~ 1':31) jqq1
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~ ~'
/z'- /- Cj 7
Service Agreement with Western
Rescue Squad, Inc.
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
c;:; i /li 0;' (f, / ~)
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
SUBJECT P
Chairman
Western a
crash tru
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Pumphrey
BACKGRO
Several
voluntee
million
vehicles
County a
by the J
ears ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten
fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two
ollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed equipment,
and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual
propriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved
fferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA).
DISCUSSI N:
The curr nt amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $351,440.64. Western
Albemarl Rescue Squad has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $85,000 to purchase a new
crash tr ck. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight year period beginning FY 94/95.
JCFRA
approved this request.
authorizing the Chairman to execute the service agreement.
93.143
!fO))JUJWl (~1
, 1 ~
,l[ ,"
l~;;;:;..)
!,_.....J
,\RO Or;:: 5\!':'[[""
':; '':'/
"........:...
'f_,.. ~
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for purposes of identification,
t is jpYA
day of Je~bt-t-
, 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF
A BEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the WESTERN ALBEMARLE
R SCUE SQUAD ("Western");
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, the County had previously entered into a service
a reement with Western, dated January 28, 1985, providing for the
certain sums each year by the County from the
grant to Western, as set forth in said agreement,
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, as a result of said agreement, the outstanding
i debtedness now totals $13,000; and
WHEREAS, Western now desires to receive from the County
Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00) to be used for the
chase of a new cras~ truck; and
WHEREAS, Western now desires to enter into an agreement
solidating its annual withholding of payments by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
tern of a rescue squad which will protect human life and the
chase of ambulance vehicles during the term of this agreement,
County shall pay to Western Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars
5,000.00), which payment shall be made when needed from the
nty's fire fund. .~hereafter, the sum of Twelve Thousand Two
dred Fifty Dollars ($12,250.00) per year shall be withheld each
the County's annual grant to Western for a period of
(8) years beginning July 1994 and extending through July
1. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of
. ' ..
ATE OF VIRGINIA
UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
day of
Rescue
Commission Expires:
, 1993, by
{yophu~
Squad, Inc.
~( ?O ) /997
tUfA !;J C~
Not ry Publi
of the
..J.- ",
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
c\:~~ 'T~;~ JTi::Ci ~~.~_;
GN Il. / - 9)'
-"'-...~--,_.~_.;;...",~;' "----
....,,-''''--......~
AGENDA T TLE:
Earlysvi le Park Committee Report
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER: ')
n/J 'i'," /, - I /,
C-F" j"t,ft; .J I'
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
SUBJECT
Recommen
park on
ville Fo
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: 1-
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Mullaney
BACKGRO
In July the Board received a letter from Dr. Andrew MacFarlan requesting that the
County eve lop a community park on an 8.56 acre parcel of property located adj acent to
Earlysv'lle Forest at the intersection of Earlysville Forest Drive and stillwater Lane.
The subj ct parcel had become County property as a condition of the rezoning petition for the
Earlysv'lle Forest PUD. On September 2, 1992 the Board appointed the Earlysville Park
Committ The Committee charge was to develop a master plan for the property. The
Committ e members appointed by the Board were Walter Perkins, Tom Jenkins, Andy MacFarlan,
stan Ta urn, Marcia Joseph and Pat Mullaney.
DISCUSS ON:
At the f'rst meeting the Committee agreed that it needed better representation from the whole
Earlysv'lle community so additional members were selected from the major Earlysville
subdivi ions and the business community. The Committee felt that the property due to its
terrain, size and access problems was best suited for passive uses such as a
walking jogging/nature trails and picnic facilities. The Earlysville residents on the
Committ e felt those types of needs were already being met. The subject was discussed at the
Earlysv'lle Forest Homeowners Association's spring meeting. Of the 30 members present the
vast majority were strongly in favor of leaving the parcel in its present state. There was
very li tle interest in even a minimal development. It was the consensus of the Committee
that th recreational value of the parcel to the County, and apparently to the local
residen s, is not significant enough to try and force a plan through what is expected to be
strong eighborhood opposition.
ATION:
commends that the Board accept the Committee's recommendation not to develop a park
ubject parcel. Attached is the full report of the Earlysville Park Committee.
93.124
00
E,',~ ~ @
r
v
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
'l. ~~ ..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5844
MEMORANDUM
Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks & Recreation7~~!
September 17, 1993
Earlysville Park Committee Report
On September 2, 1992, the Board of Supervisors appointed the
arlysville Park Committee. The primary charge of the Committee
, as to develop a Master Plan for the 8.56 acre parcel of County
roperty located adjacent to Earlysville Forest at the
'ntersection of Earlysville Forest Drive and Stillwater Lane.
While the Committee started with the intention of developing
plan, the final recommendation is that this parcel should not
, e developed. This recommendation is based on the limited
evelopment potential of the property, the limited interest shown
'n development by the community representatives on the Committee,
nd finally on the strong opposition voiced by the residents of
arlysville Forest.
The enclosed report provides some history on the property
nd describes the process the Committee followed in reaching this
ecision. Also it should be noted that since this report has
een completed, the Earlysville Forest Homeowners Association has
xpressed an interest in investigating the possibility of
urchasing the property from the County.
On behalf of the Committee please forward this report to the
oard of Supervisors. Please call me if you have any questions
r need any additional information.
Isms
W\Jl~TT Of Al8iMAJ~
I;';,,', J"'; :.1''''1;. :r'i ~ 'f;" "
!f;, '~l'" .,~,-"",;~.;",.w.~'- I f,
~ ' ,;,' ',' . ,', '"
~ ~~ ,"
~'>-,"( c.:::::p 90 1993 ',I,!
~lt:fC, 'h .,g ,
'1""1", J'~ j
:" ~ ';' .
} }' j"'-~,,","":;,-, ~,
", ~ ::nJ ~~{~k." n1!",'f4J
~ICUTrVl O?f'ftls
.ok J"
Earlvsville Park Committee Report
The purpose of this report is to describe the work of the Earlysville Park
and to present the Committee's recommendation. The Park Committee members
appoint d by the Board of Supervisors were Walter Perkins, Tom Jenkins, Andy MacFarlan, Stan
Tatum, rcia Joseph and Pat Mullaney. In addition the Committee appointed Gary Edenfield,
Keith Jo nson, Fran Wilhemson, Will Joyce and Julie Joyce to better represent the residents
of the arlysville area on the Committee. The charge of the Committee was to develop a
master plan for an 8.56 acre parcel of County land located adjacent to Earlysville Forest at
the int rsection of Earlysville Forest Drive and Stillwater Lane.
The subject parcel of land was to become County property as a condition of the
petition for the Earlysville Forest PUD in 1981. In 1986 the Department of Planning
nity Development received a rezoning petition to amend the Earlysville Forest PUD.
It was oticed at that time that the property was still listed in the developer's name and
steps we e taken to transfer ownership of the property to the County. The Albemarle County
Communi Facilities Plan, which was completed in May of 1991, recommends that "an assessment
of the r creational needs at this location should be completed taking into consideration its
import a ce as open space".
The Cou y appropriated $5,000 in the 91-92 CIP for the purpose of developing a master plan
for this property.
In July of 1992, the Parks and Recreation Department received a letter from Dr. Andrew
MacFarl n requesting that the County consider developing the property into a community
gatheri g and recreation site. Dr. MacFarlan's letter was forwarded onto the Board of
Supervisors along with a staff recommendation to form a committee to receive public input and
develop a master plan for the site. At its meeting on September 2, 1992, the Board of
Supervis rs approved the formation of the Earlysville Park Committee.
Discussions and Public In utI The initial Committee meeting was held on
19, 1992, at the Earlysville Family Health Center. The purpose of the initial
as to discuss ways to receive public input and to walk the property. The first item
was whether or not to increase the size of the committee. It was agreed that the
additio al input from new committee members representing the Earlysville area as a whole
would be helpful. It was decided that Marcia Joseph would contact the Broadus Wood PTO and
Pat Mul aney would contact Earlysville area business leaders in an effort to find new
committe members. From these efforts the Earlysville Park Committee added new members
represe ing Earlysville Forest, Earlysville Heights, Loftlands and Mill Run. The Committee
also de ided that the best approach would be to use input from the Committee members to
develop a draft plan that would then be presented to various groups such as the homeowner
associations and the PTO in order to receive general public input. The plan would then be
modifie, if necessary, and then presented to the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervis rs for formal approval.
Also
made
his initial meeting the Board appointed Committee members walked the property and
following general observations:
1.
Nearly the entire parcel is wooded and the slopes of the property do not lend
themselves well for grading for athletic fields, but are gentle enough for good
walking and jogging trails.
2.
The corner of the property at the intersection of Earlysville Forest Drive and
Stillwater Lane appears to lend itself best for limited development. Suggestions
made were a small parking area, playground, picnic shelter, picnic tables and
starting point for walking/jogging trail. Any developed area will need to be
accessible for the disabled according to the Americans with Disabilities Act
( ADA) .
3.
Parking will be a problem. An access off of Earlysville Forest Drive may meet
with opposition from Earlysville Forest. Earlysville Forest Drive is a state
road and compliance with VDOT regulations may be difficult or costly. Stillwater
Lane is a private road, which may lessen restrictions and allow for simpler pull
off parking. However, since private citizens pay for road maintenance,
additional public traffic would not be desired unless perhaps the County would
agree to fund a percentage of the future road maintenance.
.. --.!'" ..
AGENDA ITLE: Earlysville Park Committee Report
October 6, 1993
Page 2
The seco d committee meeting was held on February 24, 1993, at the Broadus Wood Library. The
primary urpose of this meeting was to discuss the Earlysville recreation needs as perceived
by the E rlysville residents on the committee, and begin to discuss if any of those perceived
needs c uld be accommodated on the property. In general the residents felt that the
recreati n needs in Earlysville were for facilities like a community swimming pool, tennis
courts nd facilities for teenagers such as basketball courts. There was some concern
expresse that the facilities at the school don't serve the teenagers because they are
inaccessible except by automobile. It was the consensus that a passive development of the
property with nature trails is not needed because Earlysville is already a wooded community
and thos needs are being met. It was also felt that a jogging trail would serve a small
minority as most runners prefer using the roadways. Gary Edenfield, the president of the
Earlysville Park Forest Homeowners Association agreed with the assessment on the need for the
passive use of the property and felt that a more active development would be a source of
objectio s for the residents of Earlysville Forest. The Committee felt that since the
property due to its terrain, size and access problems is best suited for passive use and the
needs ap ar to be for more active recreation, that the County should perhaps concentrate its
efforts n investigating other Earlysville sites for their recreation potential.
There w s one suggested use of the property that appeared to be of some interest to the
Committe and that was to develop the property as a community gathering place with possibly
a picnic shelter, tables and grills. It was understood that such a development would require
rest roo facilities and on-site parking. It was also understood that any development of the
property needed to be acceptable to the residents of Earlysville Forest especially since
parking off of Stillwater Lane was desirable. It was agreed that there was no point in
meeting gain until either a new potential site was found for a more active development or
a meetin was held with the Earlysville Forest Homeowners Association to find out what type
of devel pment, if any, was acceptable on this parcel.
On Wedn sday, April 28, 1993, Pat Mullaney attended the Earlysville Forest Homeowners
Associat'on's spring meeting at the Broadus Wood gymnasium. Of the thirty members present,
the vast majority were strongly in favor of leaving the parcel in its current state. There
was very little interest shown in even a minimal development of the property.
ColDJllitte RecolDJllendation: Given the response from Earlysville Forest and the feedback
received from Committee members representing the other Earlysville subdivisions, it is the
Committe's recommendation that efforts to develop a plan for this property be abandoned at
this tim. It is the consensus of the Committee that the recreational value of the parcel
to the C unty, and apparently to the local residents, is not significant enough to try and
force a Ian through what is expected to be strong neighborhood opposition. Even if the
Committe was successful in getting a plan approved, it could not recommend a high priority
for fund'ng the development without better justification of the need.
D;str,JL!~,; to L:"ar,; ,;_L~~_-,L._~:',. ,
~cen'.j" '.Clrn ~iO a;;.,;/ ;':;h IS,;). )
r1t:, fJa It,,,,,!1 ,.... . _Lt:..f.L.Lu..'I4~-:__~._..'
RAY D. ETHTEL
COMMIS lONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA -
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r;~ Ii! (;l ~ n \11 ~ ~,
1401 EAST BROAD STREET 'n IS I.!!J -, II
RICHMOND,23219 . U II' i
\ Ill."
September 15, 1993 ,I', 'lntY.l ~J\
,IJ ' '$}V i
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
BOARD OF SU~V'SORS
ard of Supervisors
unty of Albemarle
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22901
As requested in your resolution dated August 4, 1993, the following
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
September 15, 1993.
DITIONS
LENGTH
M ADOWFIELD
R ute 1345 (Meadowfield Lane) - From Route 649 to 0.22 mile
S uthwest Route 649
0.22 Mi
ute 1346 (Meadowfield Way) - From 0.15 mile Southwest Route
45 to 0.05 mile Southeast Route 1345
0.20 Mi
Sincerely,
'Q~ lJ.lMl~
Ray D. Pethtel
Commissioner
~e I p~V-'
( kM'; "-)
/rl ~~'t, .r'j
t/
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
or
'\
. 'Dir:~d to Boara I(? / /?
. -~~"'-""....~.~.._--_......-, ......,.. D'_.....,,~...'_."""-'
'I,i,l"1"111" item No. t'2Jl...P.I;, 1/1 r".:\ R (~ ltflWl! FL, i
~J:.:.._ (lL..r1 DJ l!; \11] tf __L _ :" is ,!,
!Jul.' I~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
f
S ptember 14, 1993
vid P. Bowerman, Chair
bemarle County Board of Supervisors
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) Advisory Council
I was appointed to the Advisory Council in June 1990. Since that
t'me, I try to make brief semi-annual summaries of activities in
a effort to keep the Board of Supervisors informed of issues.
e Advisory Council is mandated by the Older Americans Act.
consists of individuals who are active as advocates for the
derly in various community organizations. The Council meets
e third Tuesday of each month, usually in the County Office
ilding. We try to conduct Public Forums at least once a year
a meal site located in each of the 6 localities which make up
BA. Additionally, most members act as individual advisors to
BA staff in various capacities.
jor issues in process since January 1993 include:
Joint JABA Board, Advisory Councils, Trustees, and staff
treat. A retreat was held January 25 from 1pm to 5pm at the
ppa Sigma Auditorium on 250 West. The Retreat Objectives were:
* To understand JABA's mission and services,
* To clarify why improved facilities are needed,
* To consider the feasibility of a Capital Campaign, and
* To discuss: "Where do we go from here - to make possible
JABA's most beneficial, future support to the elderly".
2 The 3 Year Plan has been adopted and circulated to all 6 local
j risdictions.
3 Transportation Committee. Access to suitable transportation
c ntinues to be a major problem for the elderly and persons with
a disability. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
i forming a consumer advisory committee to study transportation.
T is committee will work closely with JABA to maximize resources
a d reduce duplication.
4 Capital Funds Campaign. The JABA Board of Directors has
a proved the fund raising feasibility study. Both the Thomas
J fferson Adult Healthcare Center and JABA administrative offices
a e operating at capacity. Additional information will be
f rwarded upon completion of the feasibility study.
A ,-/ ,
J
P
Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Report
Public Hearings. Advisory Council hearings were conducted at
e Meadows in Albemarle, scottsville School Apartments in
bemarle and the Epworth Manor in Louisa. The hearings allow us
t personally visit with participants of JABA's services and
d'scuss issues. JABA is committed to these visits and senior
s aff members participate. We have all received a new awareness
o the problems the elderly and persons with a disability face
w'th poverty, health, accessibility, and lack of transportation.
T e Governor's Long-Term Care and Aging Task Force conducted a
h aring June 10. The Governor's Conference on Aging will be held
i Richmond during the first week in October. The theme will be
" lueprints for an Older Dominion: Reforming Long-Term Care".
ease contact me if you would like additional information about
e Goals and activities of JABA.
~vtq~( ~~ C}
r
bert J. Walters, Jr.
45 Ravens Place
arlottesville, VA 22901-7527
Gordon Walker, Executive Director
Leicester Handsfield, Chair Advisory Council
Melvin A. Breeden, Albemarle County Director of Finance
A
ROBB
VIRGINIA
ASHINGTON OFFICE:
Russ II Senate Office Building
First and Co tltution Avenue, N.E. Room 493
ashlngton, DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
~Cni{eb ..${a{e$ ..$e
WASHINGTON. D.C. 205tO
I
5'L/' ;.'C<:t (-;; /7 I
" - . C'bMMITTEEs(
September 10,
D OF SUPERV
. David P. Bowerman
unty of Albemarle
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, Virginia 22902
Thank you for your comments in support of S. 455,
gislation introduced by Senator Hatfield to phase in an
1 crease in the authorization of the Payments-In-Lieu-of-Taxes
( ILT) program over a five year period. As a long-time supporter
of efforts to increase these payments, I have become a cosponsor
of this important legislation and will work to ensure that it is
a proved by Congress and signed into law by the president.
State Off ice:
Old City Hall
100 1 East Broad Stree
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 771-2221
ar Mr. Bowerman:
Again, I appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
CLsL ~
Charles S. Robb
C R\rpb
Regional Offices:
Dominion Towers, Suite 107
999 Waterside Drive
Norfolk, VA 23510
(804) 441-3124
1 Court Square
Suite 340
Harrlsonburg, VA 22801
(703) 432-1551
8229 Boone Boulevard
Suite 888
Vienna, VA 22182
(703) 356-2006
Dominion Bank Building
Main Street
Cllntwood, VA 24288
(703) 926-4104
Signet Bank Building
530 Main Street
Danvllle, VA 24541
(804) 791-0330
Crestar Bank Building
310 First Street SW Suite 102
Roanoke. VA 24011
(703) 985-0103
JOH WARNER
VIRGINIA
, .. - '. ,,it
jL-j-';;
23"RUSSELL SENA]:,e OFFICEB~~LfING
9i~A'~NC4~~4'
OMMITTEE$:
CONSTITUENT SERVICE OFFICES,
ARMED SERVICES
SELECT COMM TTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
ENVIRONMEN AND PUBLIC WORKS
RULES AN ADMINISTRATION
tinittd ~tatts ~matt
490 WORLO TRAOE CENTER MAIN STREET CENTRE
NORFOLK. VA 23510-1624 600 EAST MAIN STREET
(8041441.3079 RICHMOND. VA 23219-3538
September 13, 1993
235 FEDERAL BUILDING
180 WEST MAIN STREET
ABINGDON. VA 24210-0887
(703) 82B-8158
DOMtNION BANK BUILDING
213 S, JEFFERSON ST. SUITE 1003
ROANOKE, VA 24011-1714
(7031 982-4678
he Honorable David P. Bowerman
hairman
ounty Board of Supervisors
Ibemarle County
401 McIntire Road
harlottesville, virginia 22902-4596
COUN-r'{ Or p,lHFf..
~.~ "':1, I'-C' r:"" ,-.: ;f'\ ;
f" I r-, ., ..., : --
\! ~lo--"' .--
,\ IV' dl \9Lq
\~;(\, :~U:) I " I.;
I' \ \
,\ \ '-- ' ",'
~ ! \ \ ~ ~_~t~;~' t"'
l,.; ..'~ l.~",....., ..._~
f~C) ;) (:F ":",i }~- ~
P,~RLt~
n\
\ \ ~
I ; ~
; ~~ ;,
1 t;
. ~"::_i
I'
:<\:
Chairman Bowerman:
Thank you for your letter regarding Albemarle County's
trong support for S.455, the Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
ct.
You will be pleased to know that March 23, 1993 I
osponsored S.455. Senator Hatfield, the original sponsor of
his legislation, and Senator Byrd, Chairman of the Senate
ppropriations Committee, have pledged to work together in the
03rd Congress to find a way to increase the PILT program in a
anner that is equitable both to the Nation's public lands
ounties receiving money under PILT, and the other programs
eceiving money through the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
I am very much aware of this measure's benefit to counties
hroughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, therefore I am hopeful
he Congress will pass this much needed legislation this year.
Again, I always appreciate having the benefit of your
oncerns and interests. I look forward to hearing from you in
he future on any issue before the U.S. Congress.
with kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
vJ~
John Warner
W:gfe
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
..
~
/1'_/ _ Gl 2-
. ,t- '; ..;", h~ .p.-/.' .', L.' _)
"I _Ii '", f'-'<~;(h,
P.O. Wdjf!'1:JJ)lfn, ,/7,./(0 (:f5; J1 )
Belcamp, Maryland 21017
410-575-7412
,
..
'\2C' Hi',j,\N:'l :\1, SERYK--:ES, Il'-JC
S ptember 16, 1993
. Bob Richardson
vran Bank, N.A.
st Office Box 26904
chmond, Virginia 23261
fD) ~ @ ~ n!(~J~ ~l
ln1 IJ,,~) ~ t
I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic ~oad Apts.)
Mr. Richardson:
please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
rsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
August 1993.
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
410-575-7412.
~~
eila H. Moynihan
Monitor
"'~"i.lf__~;~;..,:r;.".
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
If
SONe PROGRAM "~PORT
Monl"
August
VMt ~
Propet1y: I rbor Crest Apartments
l.ocation: (harlottesville, VA
Submllt.d ty: Loretta Wyatt
Mal\Ager
(Hydraul ic Road Apts.) PrOjec":
051-35371
I. LOW!" INCOME
Number of Unil.
September 7, 1993
O.T.
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
66
Effective 8/31/93
66
18
The 10110"1 ~g unlls r\awC ~n de$'gl\Al.d as "k)wer Incom." unlls
, 1 A bor Crest Dr 21 Eleanor Blair 41
81.
4 A bor Crest Dr 22 Beverly T. Lane
2 42 62.
3 5 A bor Crest Dr 23 Margaret L. Mawyer 43
13,
4 9 A bor Crest Dr 24 Virginia B';lrton 44
, "'.
S 12 A bor Crest Dr 2S G. Robert Stone 4S
as.
6 14 A bor Crest Dr 26 Evelyn Dover 46
ee.
7 . 15 A bor Crest Dr 21 Jane Wood 41
17.
a 20 Arbor Crest Dr 25 Evelyn M~nderville 48
U
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Gertrude Breen 49
H.
10 30 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Mary Cox Allen !>O
70.
\1 76 Arbor Crest ,Dr 31 Catherine S. Rahmin~,
71.
'2. 78 Alrbor Crest Dr 32 Ernest M. Nease $2
72
13 84 flrbor Crest Dr 33 Juanita' Boliek ~3
73
,.. 90 flrbor Crest Dr 34 Betty B. Elliott 54
74.
IS 92 rbor Crest Dr 3S Dorothy H. Reese ~S
7S.
16 94 J rbor Crest Dr 36 Sarah E. Fischer ~
78
11 10!l J rbor Crest Dr :11 Anne Lee Bullard ~1,
77.
lIS 106 lrbor Crest Dr 38 Katherine T. Nowlen
!>e. 78.
19 39 ~9 71.
~'O 40 60 10,
T ne c:n.nglrs ',om pI ev,OllS lep(\' I 'f'lIeCled in "'. .bOY. hsllng .t.
O.lellonl Ad4l11ona
t H 1 . 5 Arbor Crest Dr ". Margaret L. Mawyer
"2 12 2 12.
I
3 13 I
3 13.
.. 14 4. 14.
S IS S 1$.
6 16 6 16.
7 17 7 17.
I 1. a, "..
I 19 , ".
\0 20 10. 20.
,
~
Effective August 31, 1993
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apa.rtIrents
Charlottesville, Virginia
putsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Apt ill, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Altemarle County, Virginia. (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
tn stee, the under signed au thor i zed representati ve of
Rie hmond-Albemar le Limited Partner ship, a Virg inia Limi ted
Pal tnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
thE operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Cha r lot tesv i lIe, Virg inia, (the "proj ect"), that as of the date
shewn below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 18 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 48
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 27% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Ceed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
September 7, 1993
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: c>?~-z:.-- 71'-<::1p~-;G
Authorized Representative
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~J r~c',~, ~"_I 'V-':.\.-,
_.j () - / -'77
-~-_...<_.._--
AGENDA T TLB: June 1993 Year End Financial
Report
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION:
ITEM HUMBER:
97, jMb( S/.;\>d )
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Year En
FY 1992/93
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
STAFF CO
Messrs.
:
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGRO The attached reports detail the results of the County of Albemarle's financial
activit' es for fiscal year 1992/93. state guidelines require the accrual of certain revenues
for a 45 day period after June 30 resulting in these reports being prepared in september for
present tion to the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSS ON: As shown on the attached reports, the County experienced a very good financial
year an ,remains in a very sound financial position. General Fund and School Fund revenues,
inclusi e of amounts planned to be used from fund balances, exceeded expenditures by
$2,558, 08. (General Fund = $1,796,990; School Fund = $761,018) Self-Sustaining Funds
revenue exceeded expenditures by $219,774, the majority of which will need to be
reappro riated for ongoing projects or grants. General Fund revenues exceeded budget by
1.19% wile School Fund revenues were under budget by .59%. Expenditures in the General and
School unds were both approximately 98.4% of budgeted appropriations. The Fund Balance
report (page 4) shows the actual balance of the 3 major funds as of June 30, 1993.
Ex
in
thi
in
projections by $763,188. Significant items affecting this were:
.
al Estate Tax
blic Service Corporation
chinery & Tool Tax
les & Use Tax
ility Tax
siness Licenses
hicle Licenses
$ 326,726 +
56,867 +
77 ,033 -
296,118 +
166,539 +
235,223 +
150,483 -
Interest On Investments $
Penalty & Interest on Taxes
Recordation Tax
Fines
JAUNT Refund
ABC Profits
352,556 -
82,116 +
43,332 +
33,631 +
57,681 +
76,517 -
nditures were $1,065,302 less than appropriations with the
he Police Department, Social Services and Waste Disposal. A
amount ($575,070) is being requested for reappropriation
Y 93/94.
.
!
the School Fund were on target with no significan
savings were primarily in the Instruction and PUP'~OA~~~;Sf~ISi2~
Since a number of appropriations have been made since July 1, 1993 and you are being
presente with several requests for reappropriations a supplemental fund balance report is
also inc uded to provide updated fund balances reflecting actions already taken in FY 93/94
and ite s being requested. Requests for reappropriations and approval of any FY 1992/93
over-ex nditures are being presented to you as separate agenda items.
93.154
>-
0:
<
Z
:::e
:J
W
0:
ll.
en
z
o I-
i= 0:
< 0
0: ll.
W W
ll. 0:
o ...I
<
~ u (')
z z Ol
:;:) < ~
o z
(,) u: ~
~ ~ :;:)
0: :c ..,
< I-
:::e z
W 0
~ :::e
<
I-Q
z:;:)
wee
(,)~
0:(,)
~<
* * * * * ~ *1 ~
COC\/<O~l[)l[)VO
Oll[)Vl[)<Ol[)l[)l[)
oui""':oioocOo
~ ~ ,Ol Ol ~ 0 Ol 0
.... ....
rf. rf. rf.1 *1
<O~OlC'l
ll'!"-:~f'-:
l[)COOl<O
0l0l0l0l
* "*"1 "*"1
Ol....V
C'l'<t0l
cO"",....:
0l0l0l
~
C\/
~
~
Ol
W
(!:I
z
<
:c
(,)
~ <0 0 q:-~~ Ol~~
0C'l C'lCON N
"l O. ":. .... '<t '<t
co l[) l[) co Ol- Ol
~.... ~Ol~ ~
W
<<
Q
(')W
~I-
N(,)
OlW
itd
0:
ll.
~ ~ C\/ co ~~.... C\/! (')~
....<0 C\/C\/Ol (')C'l <0
Ol. l[). ~. ~ <0 co Ol ~
OCOOCOC'lNNIl)
....C'lC'lOl<O..,.<OO
O.V'<l:.C'l.<OOl........
~ l[) ~ o. C\/ (')
W Ol Ol
MOOI~
010 Ol
010 Ol
cici 0
~l[) C\/
~- N
Ol '<t l[)! CO~
o CO.... 0
<Ol[)<OCO
r-:oi'<t....
C'lCOOlN
C'l'<t'<tC'l
c-.ic?<OC\/
C\/ C'l
ceoll
l[) l[)
o 0
ci 0
v v
~ v
l[) C\/~ ~~
l[)N~
~. ~ '<t
C\/0C'l
....C'lV
<Ovo
Vl[)O
l[) <0
I
~j ;
en
W
:;:)
z
W
(jj
0:
en
0:
0) W
o u..
o z 0)
z::J en z
::J u.. W <
u.. ~ (!:I z:;:) 1-0:
-1O)Z
..:(...1- W
0:0~ >z~
wo< w--
z:ct.; o:~~
lli~::> -1...1w...I
~~O) <<u..<
-1-1 I wo:l-O) I-
O<<OLLI-WOZO
-1<01-<1-
OOWI-W 0:
-1-1O)O)LL I-
en
W
0)
z
W
a..
x
W
0)
Z I-
o z
i= W
< ~
0: Z
W 0:
c.. W
o >
I- 0
Z-1 (9
w<( -1
~I- <(
ZZ 0:
O:W W
w~ aJ
> I- '"
00: '-J
(!:I <0)-1
c..o:<
-1WWI-
<(OLLO
0:,0)1-
~zzm
WO<(::J
(9zg:O)
z
0) 0
ZO)W
00-
i=Z~
<(::JO
0:u..-1
W(!:IO
c..zo
O-I
o~o
Z<O)
::J1--1
u..0)<(
-1::J1-
00)0
011-
ILLm
ou:J::J
0)0)0)
en
W
en
z
W
ll.
X
W
...I
<
I-
o
I-
en
W
en
z
W
ll.
~
0:
W
>
o
en
W
:;:)
z
W
(jj
0:
u..
o
W
o
z
:5
<
m
III
'E
:J
o
o
o
lU
>-
:u .
ct:::
.Q 8-
W ~
t"
III ...
=0 ~
'Em
Q)-
E 8
C..c
... 0
~O)
0=
(!:ICi.
m<(
w~
c~
Q)-
(!:I 0
~ m
'0 ID
~2
~=o
32 ~
o c.
..c ~
*"
.... C
lU lU
"0 III
Q) ~
1D c:
- ~
~ ~
.~ ~
"'0:;::
c lU
Q) 0
c.:J
x"
Q)W
""
Q) Q)
0'0
Q) Q)
'0'0
lta:
.. ..
>-
a:
<
z
::E
:J
W
a:
0-
o
Z
::J
LL I-
-l a:
< 0
a: 0-
w W
Z a:
W -l
~ < '"
~ U 01
Z Z e
::J ~ W
8 u:: ~
W ~ ..,
if i!=
< Z
::E 0
W ::E
co
-l
<
1-0
Z::J
Wco
Uj:::'
a:u
~<
~ '#. <fl. t< '*1 t<
lD...... I/) 0l......C\/
011/) ""......C')......
ci N N . r--: .
00""......01......
,...,...,...0 0
...... ......
<fl. '* '#. '#. '* ~15 '#. '* <fl. '#.1 t<
(o(oC\JC')(O 010......01......
......0101C\J (00...(0... 01 '"
r--:cricci"";ccicir--:",crioicxj
O10101COO1~0101O101Ol
o
Ww
I-~
Uz
w<
"'J:
~U
0-
.
",0
OlW
-I-
C\/U
OlW
~~
0-
............ C')~""" Ol......~
o......coo 0
C')I/)(OI/) I/)
aioC\J"': ......
0""(0...... ......
~C\J I/) I/)
~ lB &3~ 01 ~~ C\J~
O1.":.C')~"""~
O......C\J.,.:COOl
......C\J C')...... 01(0
O. ~ C\J I/) ... ......
0"" .......
(0 ~ I/)
~ co co
8 snn~ ~:5 ~ ~ ~ ~~CO!
q":.":.~~I/)_C\!.~Ill(O g
C')COC\J01......I/)C')COO1""......
""01 I/)C\JO...... (0 ""CO 01....
qC\!.(o_01_~":.I/)_":.""_"" 0
""... (0... ""C\JC\J... C') (0
C') I/)
co
Cl;/
~b
~tii
!I
'(l.;:::<;:;'
<:;;;;;
rn
W
::J
Z
W
~
a:
rn
a:
W
LL
rn
rn Z
~z~
z-I-
WrnJ:
-l~ffi!::
<a:LL~
<i!~ffi-l~-l
g~fD~<~
-lrnLL~g:~
in
W
rn
z
W
0-
~
Z
o rn
1= W W
~ 0:1- rn
I-Z ~z z
Q20 -lW W
ZI= I-::J::E ~
5E< m Q~-l W
~~ ::E 5cH~ ~
t-~~(/)~ ~(ijm ~
e5::E[jJ~u:l WO::E ~
~~LL~(ijz5~~(/)w
-l-l~~oowz<ffiO-
~~ouz~~::Jfb~o
wO::J::J<u~::Eoz...J
Z is ID ID ::E ::J 0: ::E Z < 1-<
W:::l::J::J::Jo<OOo:
~"'O-a..rwa..ozl-~
;
VI
.....
C
:J
o
o
o
113
~
113
C
o
.~
Q)
<:3
.!ll
"0
C
Q)
E
E
Q)
>
o
~
(ij
"-
Q)
c
Q)
~
(ij
'0
~
o
113
.0
"0
o
.r:.
<fl.
113
~
~
VI
Q)
.~
"0
C
~
x
Q)
"0
Q)
U
.!l1..
e
a..
..
C\J
rn
W
rn
z
W
a.
~
a:
W
>
o
rn
W
::J
Z
W
~
a:
LL
o
W
U
z
:s
<
r:o
>-
a:
<(
Z
::::?!
:::J
W
a:
a..
1-0
Z::l
WCD
Ui=='
a:U
~<(
* * *1 ~ * ~
C\l1O~...0~
~0l~'ltC!~
101010 '0 .
C')01 10 01001
... 01..-01
<f. * * <f. * *1 ~
1O"-~IOOC\101
IOI0001C')~C')
a:icicioicioic:O
010010100101
..- ..-
0
Z ~ ~ ~ 011
::l I- ~C')01 It)
LL. a: 0 100C\l 0
..J 0 Ww N"":rxi 0
0 a.. t;~ '<I" ..- ~
..- 'It
0 W wZ 'It
J: a: ...,<(
U ..J OJ:
C/'J <( a:U
~ U a.. C')
Z W
Z <( Z
::l Z ::l ~rnr~n N U ~ 0 ~11 ~
0 u: ..., ... lDlO..-'lt01C') O"-"-lD 0 '<1"10
U 0 10_ "': C') 0 lD ~ '<t1001O'<t1O~
W ~ C')W tOT"-T""""':O>O u)rxi<DNN~N
~t; C')~C')'lt~N 01"-"-01001..-
..J J: '<t O. '<t 01 lD <0 ~ lD_ 0_ III lD <0
a: I- O1W *0 -C') ..........ll)ll)
<( Z C\I OC')'lt '<t 'It
::::?! 0 itd N 10 10
W ::::?! a:
CD
..J a.. t
<( 0
Cl.
~
"E
lU
0
CD
0
0
.c
0
en
0.
<(
en Ql
Z W -5
J: 0 en
~ W~ Z 15
W V!
<( Uu a.. lU
WenZ- tiS V!
J:W<(LL ~
WU~O w a: ::l
u>~O W .~
W "0
Zo:Z~ W > c
<(W-Z Z 0 Ql
OW<(O Cl.
W zz~- W W x
a: WOZI- a.. W Ql
W >< ::::> "0
LL t:FOg UJ Z c
w <(~i=0: <!:l W lU
en W Z - <(l- V!
..J W <( zO:o:en Z (jj ~
0 ::::>Za: OOWZ I- a: c
0 Z-I- zFa..Q..O <( Ql
J: WenJ: O<(~OUena: LL >
W U > a: I- W Fa:<(enena:UJ 0 ~
W en ..JWW- W Ub)a:!!!!!!W~ w "0
::l I <(a:LL3: W ::::>-I-I-I-LL U Ql
Z ;twa:..Jen..J Z O:~..J:J:J~..J Z U
W g~@~~~ UJ b)~n:UU<(~ <( Q)
(jj a.. ..J '0
..Jen LL 01-0 >< ZO::><(<(o:O <( cL
a: I- I- UJ -<(Q..LLLL1-1- CD ..
g>~
.~...~
>-
0:
<(
2
~
::::i
W
0:
a.
en
2
o
-I-
1-0:
~O
Wa.
a. W I
Oo:~
~~~
22wI
::J :S 21
o <( ::JI
(,) cx::l -':
W Cl I
~2
<(::J
~ll.
W
cx::l
-l
<(
-l
~Cl
-2
Cl..::J
<(ll.
(,)
-l
00
Oz
I::J
(,)ll.
en
-l
<(0
ffiz
Z::J
wll.
CJ
0)
'It
'It
C\I
o
(Y)
"'""
~
j
(Y)
C\I
C\I
(Y)
CO
C\I
o
"'""
~
C\I
0)
I
o
(Y)
I
<0
o
W
(,)
2
:S
<(
cx::l
Cl
2
::J
ll.
--
0Ll)
"'"""""
0"""
.....-00
Ll).....
coco
--
-
o
8
co
-
o
o
o
Ll)-
v
C\l
@"
v
.....
O'i
CO
.....
-
~
...............................................................
C\l0Ll).....00
N8c;;~88
V - 0- co- ...: .....- .....-
(Y) 0 CO ---
C\lLl)('I)
---
o
@
co
-
~
(/)
I-
Z
W
~
l-
(/)
::J
-,
o
<(
(/)
(/)
W
--..J
(/) ~
I-
wZ ffi
O~ (/) 0...
Zw I- 0
~O>o: ~~ ~
~a:W wffi <(
00...1- I(/) 0 (/)
Z~~~I-W~ ~ 0
::)=:J~::)LLa:O >- <(
ll.<(OWO~::) ll. 0
(/) I- (/)--..J I- 0 a:
z@a.O::)ofB(/) w CJ
Ol-<(J~Z(/)~ (/) z
I-WO~>-::)::)--..J ~(/)a:
<(CJO<(a:OZI- 00<(
o:OI-a:W(,)O::) a:ZI
o...::)a:CJ>I-(]) ::>O(/)
O(])WOOZa:IWo...(])W
a:~ll.a:~OW~~<(<(::)
o..._(/)Cl..-~IOOO(/)Z
~o;~W~05:tZ>-og;~
W>-a:a:<(WWm<(<(C\lW
a:lLI-LL>o...l-C\lO~ma:
~ ;
~
~
(/)
I-
Z
W
~
l-
(/)
::)
-,
o
<(
--..J
<(
I-
o
I-
'It
<0
<0
~ ~Ol ;;m
t ~- \JI
0('1)
Ll)- v-
-
"'""
,.....
"'""
o
CO
.....
o
~
~
-
.....
co
"""
"'""
0)
0)
Ll)
"'""
"'""
o
(j)
m
~
"""
;
<0
(Y)
o
(Y)
CO
CO
o
"'""
I
v
I
0)
.....
W
(,)
2
:S
<(
cx::l
Cl
2
::J
ll.
Cl
W
I-
en
::)
-,
o
<(
(/)(/)
1-1-
(,)Z
WW
(/)-,~
ZOI-
Oa:(/)
_Cl..::)
1-<( 00 -, ,.,..
W ~...
ffi~<( ~
a._0 0
O~Z (Y)
a:~~ I
<(0<( <0
wOw 0
>-a:>- W
--..JO--..J (,)
<(ll.<( 2
OWO c:r:
(/)>(/) ...J
ll.a:LL <(
('I)W('I) cx::l
m(/)m _
-W- ~
~a:~ 2
::J
LL
- -- - -
I (Y) LOa <X> i <00 <0 i
LO C\JLO C\J <O(Y) (Y)
fi: C\J ..-,..... ..- v_ ,....._ ,.....
LO C\.i ..-- 0) C\J..- 0
<( -J <0 (Y) '-" 0> V..- (Y)
Z ~O ..- ..- C\J '-"
'-" '-" '-"
~ -Z
0..::>
:J <(ll.
W U
a:
a..
~ - 6' ~ i
0 0
0 0
0 0
-J cS cS
00 LO LO
..- ..-
Oz '-" '-"
I::>
Ull.
CJ)
-- - - - 6'
<.0 ,.....0 0 ,..... 0> 0 0>
(Y) VA 0 v <X> ,..... ,..... .....
0 0<0 LO ..... <X> 0 0 <X>
CJ)I -J ("t) ,....... 0>- ..- cx::f V LO- tri 0>
<(0 <0,..... '-" v ,..... ,.....
<X> ..- '-" ~ (Y) !:Q. LO LO
Z ffiz <X> '-" <.0 '-" 0
0 Z::> 0 0 0
~ wll. ..... ..... .....
< CJ ~
a: ("t)
w 0)
a.. 0)
0 .....
~ a:
w
z CO
::J ~
0 W
U I-
W a..
w
...J CJ) CJ)~
a: 0
< w 0..<(
~ I-- ~a:
w w <(CJ z CJ)
CO CJ a:0 CJ) 0 CJ)
...J 0 Oa: Z I-- W
< ::> >0.. 0 -Ie <( U
CO -Ja: I-- . . 0
.. I row <( CJ) a: a:
CJ)CJ)a: CJ)~ z a.. a..
a: 0
z Ow a.. 0 a: z (Y)
("t) OZ~CJZI 0 W
0) ~O<(Z:SCJ) I- a.. CJ) U 0>
I a: < a.. Z I
<~~~I~ a.. <( Z <0
0 a.. a: wI-- 0 ~ 0
("t) a:a:~~U~ <( a.. Oa: I-- I
I a..wa:wZw 0 OCJ)I::> <( < 0
<.0 0~2z~CJ w a:Z a: CO ..-
0 g:a:CJ)I~ffi > 0..000 a.. 0 c:
w 0 W a.. 1--0 U 0 Z 0
U a..<(Ol--rr~ rr U <<(00 rr ::> c:
Z <Wl--a..Ow a.. Z Orr~o a.. 0
~ Ww a.. a.. LL :;::::;
:5 Ol--ffio-J~ <( :5 wo...CJ)O <( 0 ()
I-O::>~ <(
< WZll.I<(~ -J <( -J W
CO >wCJ)I--O <( CO CJ)rroCJ <( I- 0)
orrZ-JCJ)<( I-- wo...<(z I-- CJ) c:
0 a:rr<(<(jZ 0 0 ::>~Oa: 0 ::> '6
c:
Z a..::>rrw-::> I-- Z Owrro... I-- ..., Q)
::> a..UI--IIa: ::> Wa:COCJ) 0 a..
LL < LL a: < -Ie
-
.
/1)'/-'13
~ .....c..~
4-:;: / /, /.. I - ')
;. ./+/ ..L~ill2_j,~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE' II
.i"i.".'/IDD']'-n IT;';- .
!~lC-----
I . ---'-...-.........."
,,80ARD or- SUPt,y
"'-. -""" -..-.......
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of supervisors ~~~
Robert W, Tucker, Jr" County Executive ~fV/
September 23, 1993
Virginia Public Schools Authority - 1993 Bond Refinancing
June, 1993 the virginia Public Schools Authority refinanced
cally issued school bonds because of low interest rates. The
financing, known as "1993 Refunding Series B," produced over $7
llion in savings to localities. In August, the Board of
mmissioners of the Virginia Public Schools Authority approved the
stribution of these savings to local governments.
e estimated savings to Albemarle County is approximately $379,000
d should be returned to us in late 1993. These savings will be
ry helpful in funding next year's debt service for public schools
iCh, as you know, amounts to approximately $1 million. The
partment of Treasury is currently working out the details for
stribution and finalizing the estimates for our County. Once
ose details are known, I will share those with you.
ould you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
T,Jr/dbm
.177
Robert W. Paske I
Pre ident
Harr.f G. anieJ
Chesterfield unty
Re ion 1
William E. elvin
Gloucester C unty
Re ion 2
Marion B. Wi Iiams
Prince George C unty
Re ion 3
James H. Bowes Sr.
Goochland C unty
John A. Wald op Jr,
Henrico C unty
Re 'on 7
Ferris M. Belm n Sr.
Stafford C unty
Hubert S. Gil V III
Rappahannock C ;;nty
Reg 'on 8
William J. B cker
Prince William C unty
Thomas M. Da is III
Fairfax C unty
Robert B. ix Jr.
Fairfax C unty
Katherine K. H nley
Fairfax C unty
Gerald W. H land
Fairfax C unty
John D, Je kins
Prince William C unty
William T. Nt-. man
Arlington C unty
Reg on 9
Wanda C. ingo
Botetourt C unty
Regi n 10
Girardus G. aITY
Franklin C unty
Mason A. Vaugh n Sr.
Pulaski C unty
Regi n 11
Marvin J, H bble
Smyth C unty
Regi n 12
Kenneth G. Ma ews
Washmgton C unty
Past Presi ents
W.o. ray
Richmond C ty
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 East Broad Street · Suite LL 20 · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1901 . (804) 788-6652 . fax (804) 788-0083
COUNTY OF ,I\LDEfV1;\F:Ll
rt'~..."
/ ,
To:
County Administrators using the Virginia Public School Authority ti~i,:(k~'""'~._"'''--''"....:o...~
LO A- ...I f'K; AUG 30 190::1
Ellen Davenport, Public Policy Coordinator t.J..^1LN- :i , \...,..,-""_:.,, '.,
August 25, 1993 I 1;..,''0,
EXCClJT~\/E (jfF1CE
From:
Date:
Subj:
VPSA 1993 Refinancing, Return of Savings to Localities
In June 1993, the Virginia Public Schools Authority refinanced prior series oflocally
issued school bonds because of low interest rates. This refinancing, known as "1993
Refunding Series B," produced $7.19 million in savings. On August 12. 1993. the
Board of Commissioners of the Vir~nia Public Schools Authority a,m>roved the
distribution of this $7.19 million of savin~s to local ~ovemments. This $7.19 million
amount represents $4.9 million saved in the 1993 issue and $2.29 million from savings
on a 1991 refunding. (The VPSA was not able to return the $2.29 million savings in
1991 because the General Assembly took action to transfer the money to the state
general fund).
The attached sheet shows the estimated savings which will be returned to you by check
from the VPSA sometime in late 1993. The estimated amount represents the net present
value of the 1991 savings with interest from 1991 plus the net present value of the June
1993 savings.
The VPSA Board at their August 12 meeting expressed a strong desire that the savings
be used for public education purposes. Therefore, we would strongly suggest that you
share this estimate with your school superintendent.
The Department of Treasury is currently working out the details for distribution and
finalizing estimates for the affected counties. One of the things being discussed, in
addition to the application of the savings for school purposes, is that localities may be
asked to give up call provisions on future VPSA bonds in exchange for accepting the
refund checks.
Should you have any questions or concerns about this issue, please do not hesitate to
give me a call. Specific questions can also be directed to Gary Ometer at the
Department of the Treasury at (804) 225-4928.
cc:
Gary Ometer
Virginia Public School Authority
School Financing Bonds (1987 Resolution)
1993 Refunding Series B
Total Return of Savings by Local Borrower
(Includes Savings from 1987 A, 1991 C Refundings)
~S-h'fY1~
Local School
Borrower
Total
Savings.
Accomack County
Albemarle County
Amherst County
Augusta County
Bath County
Bedford County
Bedford, City of
Botetourt County
Buchanan County
Caroline County
Charlotte County
Chesterfield County
Clarke County
Covington, City of
Culpeper County
Dinwiddie County
Essex County
Falls Church, City of
Fauquier County
Floyd County
Fluvanna County
Franklin County
Frederick County
Fredericksburg, City of
Giles County
Gloucester County
Goochland County
Greene County
Greensville County
Hanover County
Harrisonburg, City of
Henrico County
Henry County
Hopewell, City of
Isle of Wight County
James City County
King George County
King William County
Lancaster County
Lee County
Loudon County
Louisa County
Manassas Park, City 01
Manassas, City of
Mecklenburg County
31,491
379,165
18,257
53,204
38,283
169,810
6,925
7,767
167,520
29,860
12,232
290,810
20,456
22,924
271,374
636
20,619
25,921
293,082
606
28,979
2,740
225,185
53,820
15,269
115,152
74,627
3,156
10,023
694,887
78,612
94,347
362.353
13,504
16,735
399,342
46,471
33,382
33,547
99,420
183.870
77,049
1,517
112,050
196
Prepa ed by Public Financial Management, Inc.
930TPT34.XLS
8/16/93 4:16 PM.
,
. .
Virginia Public School Authority
School Financing Bonds (1987 Resolution)
1993 Refunding Series B
Total Return of Savings by Local Borrower
(Includes Savings from 1987 A, 1991 C Refundings)
t..s-h'nt~
Local School
Borrower
Total
Savings.
Middlesex County
Montgomery County
Nelson County
New Kent County
Northampton County
Northumberland County
Norton, City of
Orange County
Page County
Poquoson, City of
Powhatan County
Prince Edward County
Prince William County
Richmond County
Roanoke County
Rockingham County
Russell County
Shenandoah County
Southampton County
Spotsylvania County
Stafford County
Surry County
Tazewell County
Washington County
Westmoreland County
Wise County
Wythe County
York County
25,950
587
20,264
29,966
1,921
28,306
14,196
20,865
13,870
32,573
81 ,085
2,554
355,986
489
47,061
184,914
110,348
274,812
20,577
539,252
465,464
31,274
26,709
2,211
5,527
23,313
83,414
114,272
7,194,934
'Total Savings amounts are approximate and subject to minor
changes pending final costs of Bond Exchange Offer.
Prepare by Public Financial Management. Inc.
930TPT34.XLS
8/16/93 4:16 PM.
. ,
/tj'?_)
..
,
,'}, ,;;? I"~ n / (')- ;; /.
.~....,.~ t / /1.,. '-'vf-" ,o.J
:mLJ@
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P 0, BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
Sepernber 23, 1993
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Current Projects
Construction Schedule
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk
Boa d of Supervisors
Cou ty Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Cha lottesville, VA 22901
Dea Ms. Carey:
Attached find the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently
und r construction and the quarterly report of projects under design in Albemarle
Cou ty. Please see that this information is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
me ers. I will be prepared to discuss this matter with them at the next meeting
if hey so desire.
Yours truly,
-;;p , S ~ c"C:,~ 'i:Jr't. ( V
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR smk
att chment
cc: R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment
David Benish w/attachment
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
RTE
NO.
20
29
29
29
601
610
627
631
631
637
656
671
678
682
691
708
711
712
743
760
866
'"
PROJECT LISTING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
OCTOBER 1, 1993
LOCATION - DESCRIPTION
3.5 MI. SOUTH RTE. 53 - SAFETY PROJECT
H~DRAULIC ROAD TO RIO ROAD - WIDEN TO 8 LANES
R 0 ROAD TO S. FORK RIVANNA RIVER - WIDEN TO 8 LANES
S. FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO AIRPORT RD.-WIDEN TO 6 LANES
RCUTE 250-w TO RTE. 29 BYPASS - WIDEN TO 4-LANES
FIOM RTE. 20 TO 1.8 MI. E. RTE. 20 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD
R1ILROAD CROSSING SIGNALS AT WARREN
RCUTE 29 TO ROUTE 743 - RIO ROAD WEST
NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE TO RTE 631 - MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY
R~E. 635 TO 0.55 MI.W RTE. 682-WIDEN AND PAVE GRAVEL ROAD
GIORGETOWN ROAD FROM RTE. 654 TO RTE. 743 - SPOT IMPROV.
MCORMANS RIVER - BRIDGE AND APPROACHES
RCUTE 250 TO .2 MI N. RTE 250 - AT IVY
RCUTE 250 TO 1.7 MI. S. RTE 787 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD
.~ MI E. RTE 240 TO RTE. 240 - PARK ROAD
I~T. RTE 631 - NEAR SOUTHERN REGIONAL PARK
FIOM RTE. 29 TO ROUTE 712 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD
RCUTE 29 TO ROUTE 692 WIDEN AND PAVE GRAVEL ROAD
H'DRAULIC ROAD RTE.657 TO RTE.631 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
FIOM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 712 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD
R"E. 743 TO GREENBRIER DRIVE - NEW ALIGNMENT
* INDIC ATES NEW PROJECT
** IND CATES REVISED DATE
ADV. I~DICATES THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED
l
CURRENT
ADV.
DATE
ADV.
ADV.
07-94
06-97
07-99
07-96
10-93
07-96
01-97
07-99
10-97
?
10-94
08-95
02-94
11-94
07-97
07-96
01-95
07-97
07-97
PREVo
ADV.
DATE
EST.
CONST.
TIME
6 MO.
3 YRS.
2 YRS.
2 YRS.
18 MO.
9 MO.
3 MO.
12 MO.
2 YRS.
9 MO.
6 MO.
12 MO.
6 MO.
12 MO.
3 MO.
5 MO.
6 MO.
6 MO.
1 YR.
5 MO.
9 MO.
.' ,.
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
OCTOBER 1, 1993
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
IROUTE I LOCATION STATUS ESTIMATED
INO. I COMP.DATE
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I I
I 250 I ST. CLAIR AVE. TO RTE. 64 CONSTRUCTION 95% COMPLETE NOV 93
I I
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I I
I 20 I JT INT. ROUTE 742-AVON ST. EXT. CONSTRUCTION 49% COMPLETE OCT 93
I I
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I I I
'I 654 I E ARRACKS RD. - FR. RTE. 1406 I CONSTRUCTION 98% COMPLETE OCT 93 *
I I TO GEORGETOWN RD. I
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I I I I
I 631 I f TH STREET EXT. I CONSTRUCTION 54% COMPLETE I FEB 94
I I ~. ROUTE 1-64 I I
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I
I
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I
I
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
* REVISED DATE
** NEW PIiOJECT
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~fl '. Ct.,;TED':"O BOf..\.,:D l.\r::v6~~;'~
,~".llL~L:!L~~._...._~-
- Noise Ordinance
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
a::? 10 II ' (C - 'I)'
7 II II <-' C, J, Q(
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Update 0
Ordinance
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
McCulley
BACKGRO
At the for the site plan appeal for the Boar's Head tent, the Board directed staff
to revi w our noise ordinance. The nuisance impact of noise on neighbors was cited as one
of the r asons for appeal of the proposal. Noise concerns were also raised during the review
of the equest for the 1781 Productions outdoor drama.
that the issues relating to noise are as follows:
are reasonable maximum noise levels for different times of day?
is the mechanism for enforcing against excessive noise?
w can a proposed land use with potential noise conflicts be best reviewed for
mpliance, prior to final approval?
staff s met internally and has held some discussions with other zoning officials on this
topic. Because the issue is complex and there have been enough differences among other
localit'es as to how it should be regulated, we will contact experts in the field. We do not
have su ficient expertise in-house on noise. This expertise involves researching noise
regulat' on needs, drafting an ordinance, and training enforcement personnel. Many localities
have hi ed consultants to perform this work. This and the purchase of the proper sound
reading instruments would have budget impacts.
We will meet with University sources for technical information, and other code compliance
local 0 ficials for administrative and enforcement experience, before returning this to the
Board's agenda for action. Depending on the availability of these sources and staff's
schedul'ng, we would expect to present additional information to the Board in November.
00
u w rn,~~.i,
---'1/1 I
II "
B /Qq1 H L ,
",' '1..-1 i
93.132
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
","'1 )~I - ! - 'j_:;;
\!!''''i~ ee, Nc Yl/~ l.fJ ~qd>- fv)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
September 28, 1993
of Supervisors 4~
County Executive ~vvJ
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
RE: Urban Raw Water Management study - RWSA
F r your information, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has
r cently authorized negotiations for an urban raw water management
s udy. This study, as you recall, will have a scope of work which
w'll include a bathometric study of the South Fork Rivanna
R servoir. Another maj or component of the scope of work will be to
f lly analyze the impact of building flashboards at the South
R'vanna Reservoir Dam and how those flashboards will affect
a joining land to the reservoir. This will help us determine not
o ly the impact that these flashboards will have on flooding
a joining land around the reservoir but will also help us in any
f'nancial analysis related to this issue.
will keep you posted as to the status of this important study,
rticularly as it relates to the bathometric study and the
ashboard analysis.
ould you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
sitate to contact me.
T,Jr/dbm
.179
rn 0 \~ ~ W
C\f; U~gg
vL
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
/.(' / ,'}) .
72,leZ HJ. ~ 7 )
Post OJ/ice Box 26666
Richmo,1d, Virginia 23261
-..,..~:-~ .::~ ,
:, f'-:'\ ~ ~ ~ U '\i-l.i,\\ \',
\\U~ t\ ~ :\],\
\\~1 '- \
\ OF SUPE R~J
l~O~RO VIRGIN';;POWER
September 22, 1993
SERVICE - VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE930046
APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF DISPERSED ENERGY FACILITY RATE
0: Local Government Officials
Pursuant to Paragraph No. 16
ommission's Order of September 17,
roviding you a copy of that Order.
ontents.
of the State Corporation
1993, Virginia Power is
Please take notice of its
A complete copy of Virginia Power's Application in Case No.
UE930046 may be obtained from Virginia Power at no cost by written
equest to Mr. James S. Copenhaver, Virginia Power, P.O. Box
6666, Richmond, Virginia 23261.
"- ,~. i t-
~~s~s.~openh~ver
Senior Regulatory Counsel
E closure
COMMONWEALTHOFVlRGINIA 9 309202 48
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
'-"'rl
CDCUt>'1E~n Cmi I r,\.. L.
!~.~
.
1~':') srp 17 PH 3: 34
~"'u,) _ .
AT RICHMOND, SEPTEMBER 17, 1993
APPLICATION OF
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
CASE NO.
PUE93jft:IfVED BY
SEP 2 1 ]~~j
REGULATION SERVICES
For approval of dispersed energy
facility rate
ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING
On June 4, 1993, Virginia Electric and Power Company
("Virginia Power" or the "Company") filed an application for
approval of Schedule DEF, Dispersed Energy Facility Rate, on an
experimental basis pursuant to Va. Code S 56-234. The Company
asserts that such approval is necessary to allow the Company to
explore opportunities available to utilize an innovative
pproach to meeting the energy needs of its commercial and
'ndustrial customers in an efficient and cost effective manner.
irginia Power proposes Schedule DEF to respond to a need
'dentified by certain commercial and industrial customers for a
ew method by which to meet their energy requirements. It
sserts that it has been requested to offer proposals to build
nd operate generating facilities at the sites of commercial and
ndustrial customers and to sell those customers all of the
lectricity and the associated steam from the facilities under a
ong-term contract. Virginia Power further asserts that it could
ose a significant portion of its commercial and industrial load
a more flexible, efficient and cost effective process can
e developed and implemented to produce and deliver electricity
the associated steam to large manufacturing complexes within
Company's service territory.
NOW, UPON CONSIDERATION of Virginia Power's application and
the applicable statutes, the Commission is of the opinion that
this matter should be docketed; that a hearing examiner should be
appointed to conduct further proceedings in this matter; that the
Company should be required to give notice to the public of its
application; that members of the Commission's Staff should
conduct a full investigation into the reasonableness of the
Company's proposal and present their findings and testimony at
the public hearing scheduled herein; and that a public hearing
should be convened to receive evidence relevant to the Company's
application.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That this application is hereby docketed and assigned
Case No. PUE930046;
(2) That, pursuant to Rule 7:1 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure ("Rules"), a hearing examiner is appointed
o conduct all further proceedings in this matter;
(3) That a public hearing before the hearing examiner is
cheduled for January 31, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., in the
ommission's S~cond Floor Courtroom iocated in the Tyler
uilding, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia for the
urpose of receiving evidence relevant to Company's application;
(4) That, on or before October 1, 1993, Virginia Power
with the Clerk of the Commission an original and
if teen (15) copies of the testimony and exhibits that it intends
o offer in support of its application and shall serve a copy of
uch testimony on all parties of record;
2
(5) That, on or before October 1, 1993, Company shall
make copies of its application, supporting exhibits and prefiled
direct testimony available for public inspection during regular
business hours at all of its offices where customer bills may be
paid;
(6) That Company shall respond to written interrogatories
within 10 days after the receipt of the same. Protestants also
shall respond to written interrogatories within 10 days after
receipt of the same. Objections to interrogatories on any basis
must be filed within five days after receipt of the
interrogatories by the party to whom the interrogatories are
directed. Any objection to interrogatories not timely raised may
be subject to waiver;
(7) That, on or before October 22, 1993, any person
desiring to participate as a Protestant, as defined in Rule 4:6,
shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of a Notice of
Protest as described in Rule 5:16(a), with the Clerk of the state
orporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O.
2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216, referring to Case
PUE930046, and shall also simultaneously serve a copy on
ounsel to Virginia Power, James s. Copenhaver, Esquire, Virginia
lectric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia,
3219; and Richard D. Gary, Esquire, Hunton & Williams,
iverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 East Byrd street, Richmond,
irginia 23219. Any corporate entity that wishes to protest must
e represented by legal counsel as required by Rule 4:8;
3
(8) That, within five days of receipt of any Notice of
Protest, Virginia Power shall serve upon each person who files a
Notice of Protest a copy of the Commission's Order for Notice and
Hearing, as well as all material now or hereafter filed with the
commission;
(9) That, on or before November 15, 1993, any person who
expects to submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses or otherwise
participate in the proceeding as a Protestant, pursuant to
Rule 4:6, shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of a
Protest with the Clerk of the state Corporation Commission, c/o
Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216
and simultaneously serve a copy thereof upon Company and upon any
other Protestant. The Protest shall set forth (i) a precise
statement of the interest of the Protestant in the proceeding;
(ii) a full and clear statement of the facts which the Protestant
is prepared to prove by competent evidence; and (iii) a statement
of the specific relief sought and the legal basis therefor. In
accordance with Rule 4:8, no person not duly admitted to practice
law shall appear as counsel in any proceeding except in his own
behalf. Howev~r, no foreign attorney may appea~ unless in
association with a member of the Virginia state Bar.
(10) That, on or before November 15, 1993, each Protestant
shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of the prepared
testimony and exhibits Protestant intends to present at the
ublic hearing and serve a copy upon Company and each other
rotestant;
4
c
(11) That, on or before November 15, 1993, Virginia Power,
staff, and all interested parties shall file an original and
fifteen (15) copies of a pre-hearing brief, addressing the issues
set out .in Appendix A hereto, as well as other pertinent issues
related to Virginia Power's application;
(12) That, on or before December 15, 1993, the Commission's
staff shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of the
prepared testimony and exhibits staff intends to present at the
pUblic hearing and shall serve a copy upon Company and upon each
Protestant;
(13) That, on or before January 17, 1994, Virginia Power
~hall file with the Commission an original and fifteen (15)
copies of all testimo~y it expects to introduce in rebuttal to
all direct prefiled testimony and exhibits; additional rebuttal
evidence may be presented by Company without prefiling, provided
It is in response to evidence wbich was not prefiled but elicited
~t the time of the hearing and, provided further, the need for
additional rebuttal evidence is timely addressed by motion during
he hearing and leave to present said evidence is granted by the
kearing Examinp.r. Company shall serve a copy of its prefiled
ebuttal evidence upon all parties of record;
(14) That any person desiring to comment in writing on
(ompany's application may do so by directing such comments on or
lefore November 15, 1993, to the Clerk of the Commission, c/o
Iocument Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216.
~uch comments must refer to Case No. PUE930046. Any person
cesiring to make a statement at the public hearing concerning the
5
applica~ion need only appear in the Commission's Second Floor
Courtroom at 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing and identify
himself or herself to the Bailiff as a public witness;
(15) That, on or before October 8, 1993, Company shall
complete publication of the following notice to be published as
display advertising (not classified) once a week for two
consecutive weeks in newspapers of general circulation in
Company's service territory:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION
BY VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
TO INITIATE AN EXPERIMENTAL DISPERSED
ENERGY FACILITY RATE - CASE NO. PUE930046
On June 4, 1993, Virginia Electric and
Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "Company")
filed an application with the State
Corporation Commission ("Commission")
requesting authority to implement Schedule
DEF, Dispersed Energy Facility Rate, on an
experimental basis, pursuant to Va. Code
S 56-234. Proposed Schedule DEF would be
available on a voluntary basis to any large
commercial or industrial customer that
employs a process that requires electrical
energy and an incidental energy source that
can be produced in conjunction with the
generation of electricity, including but not
limited to stearn, has the need for the energy
to be located at or near its service
locations, and is willing to enter into an
energy supply agreement that will be reviewed
by the Commission's Staff, but which will
otherwise remain confidential. The details
of Virginia Power's proposal are set forth in
the Company's application. Interested
persons are encouraged to review that
application for these details.
A public hearing on the application is
scheduled before a hearing examiner for
January 31, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., in the
Commission's Second Floor Courtroom, located
in the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia to receive evidence
relevant to Virginia Power's application. A
copy of Company's application is available
6
for public inspection during regular business
hours at any company office where customer
bills may be paid and at the Commission's
Document Control Center, located on the First
Floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main
street, Richmond, Virginia, from 8:15 a.~. to
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Any person desiring to comment in
writing on the application may do so by
directing such comments on or before
November 15, 1993, to the Clerk of the
Commission as provided below. Any person
desiring to make a statement at the public
hearing concerning the application need only
appear in the Commission's Courtroom at
9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing and
identify himself or herself to the Bailiff as
a public witness.
On or before October 22, 1993, persons
desiring to participate as protestants, as
defined in Rule 4:6 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules"),
and to present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses shall file an original and
fifteen (15) copies of a Notice of Protest as
described in Rule 5:16(a) with the Clerk of
the Commission at the address set forth below
and serve a copy on Virginia Power. Service
upon Virginia Power shall be directed to
James s. Copenhaver, Esquire, Virginia
Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666,
Richmond, Virginia 23219 and to Richard D.
Gary, Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Riverfront
Plaza, East Tower, 951 East Byrd Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219. Any corporate
entity that wishes to protest must be
represented by legal counsel as required by
Rule 4:8.
The Commission's Order for Notice and
Hearing governs the procedure in this case.
The Commission has directed Virginia Power to
provide a copy of this order to any
interested person filing a Notice of Protest.
All written communications to the
Commission regarding this case should be
directed to William J. Bridge, Clerk,
Virginia state Corporation Commission,
,
:
7
Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118,
Richmond, Virginia 23216 and should refer to
Case No. PUE930046.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
(16) That, on or before October 8, 1993, Virginia Power
shall serve a copy of this order upon the chairman of the board
of supervisors of each county and upon the mayor or manager of
every city or town (or equivalent officials in counties, cities,
and towns having alternate forms of government) in which Company
offers service. Service shall be made by first class mail to the
customary place of business or~the residence of the person
served; and
(17) That, at the commencement of the hearing scheduled
~erein, Virginia Power provide the Commission proof of compliance
~ith the notice and service required by ordering paragraphs (15)
and (16) herein.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the
Commission to: James S. Copenhaver, Esquire, Virginia Electric
and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261;
~ichard D. Gary, Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Riverfront Plaza,
East Tower, 951 East Byrd street, Richmond, Virginia 23219;
R. Peter Lalor, President, Commonwealth Power Corporation, P.O.
Box 249, Wachapreague, Virginia 23480; Frederick H. Ritts,
~squire and Julie B. Greenisen, Esquire, Watergate 600 Building,
isuite 915, Washington, D.C. 20037-2474; August Wallmeyer,
~xecutive Director, Virginia Association of Non~utility Power
lroducers, Inc., 700 East Franklin street, Suite 701, Richmond,
'irginia 23219; s. Paul Hammons, Esquire, 210 West Park Avenue,
I
i
8
suite 810, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102; Edward L. Flippen,
Esquire and Charles H. Tenser, III, Esquire, Mays & Valentine,
P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23208-1122; stephen H.
Watts, II, Esquire and Mark J. La Fratta, Esquire, MCGuire,
Woods, Battle & Boothe, One James Center, 901 East Cary street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219; Timothy R. Dunne, Esquire, CRSS
Capital, Inc., P.O. Box 22477, Houston, Texas 77227-2427;
Louis R. Monacell, Esquire and James C. Dimitri, Esquire,
Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell, 1200 Mutual Building,
909 East Main street, Richmond~ Virginia 23219-3095; Edward L.
Petrini, Esquire, Office of the Attorney General, Division of
Consumer Counsel, 101 North 8th street, 6th Floor, Richmond,
Virginia 23219; and the Commission's Office of General Counsel
and Divisions of Energy Regulation, Public utility Accounting,
and Economics and Finance.
.- .
A1~.~3: /)':_
I ~t,.
, '~, Stat! COM-ttColerkn ComOf~ (J
, fJV' a mIssion" '
9
APPENDIX A
ISSUES FOR PRE-HEARING BRIEF
I.
PURPA AND ENERGY POLICY ACT ISSUES
1. Why would Schedule DEF not interfere with Virginia Power's
obligation imposed by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), 16 U.S.C. S 824a-3 and PURPA's
implementing regulations, codified at 18 C.F.R. S 292.101 et
sea., to purchase power from qualifying facilities?
2. Why would not Schedule DEF undermine Virginia Power's
competitive bidding program to solicit bids for power from
qualifying facilities?
3. How would Virginia Power's proposed monthly rate for
Schedule DEF impact Virginia Power's calculation of avoided
costs under Section 210(b) of PURPA?
4. Is Virginia Power's proposal to offer Schedule DEF
consistent with the integrated resource planning objectives,
particularly conservation and load management identified in
Sections 111 and 115 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992?
II.
RATEMAKING ISSUES
~. Are Virginia Power's proposed rate provisions under
Schedule DEF consistent with the requirement set out in
Virginia Code S 56-234 that public utilities charge
uniformly for service provided to all persons under like
conditions and that charges for experimental service
constitute the "lowest rate applicable for such service in
accordance with schedules filed with the Commission pursuant
to S 56-236"?
Does Virginia Code S 56-249.6 limit or otherwise affect
Virginia Power's ability to segregate and specifically
recover fuel costs from customers served under Schedule DEF?
(a) Why wouldn't the addition of generating facilities under
Schedule DEF increase Virginia Power's reserve margins and
increase the allocation of costs associated with the system
reserve margin to other system customers? (b) Why should
Virginia Power be allowed to build generating facilities
under Schedule DEF if system reserve margins are sufficient?
~
III.
ISSUES RELATED TO VIRGINIA POWER'S
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY AND OBLIGATION TO SERVE
1. Why shouldn't Virginia Power be required to apply for a
certificate of pUblic convenience under Virginia Code S 56-
265.2 for each facility built under Schedule DEF?
2. Once Virginia Power constructs a generating facility for a
customer under Schedule DEF, does Virginia Power have an
obligation under its certificate of public convenience and
necessity to provide standby service to the customer served
by the facility constructed under Schedule DEF?
3. (a) In light of the legal conclusions reached by the
Commission in its October 1, 1990 Interim Order and Opinion
entered in ~lication of Virqinia Electric and Power
Company. For approval of expenditures for new qeneration
facilities pursuant to Virqinia Code ~ 56-234.3 and for a
certificate of pUblic convenience and necessity pursuant to
Virqinia Code ~ 56-265.2,-Case No. PUE900006, why wouldn't
Virginia Power have to receive Commission approval under
Virginia Code SS 56-234.3 and 56-46.1, after public hearing,
for any generating facility constructed under Schedule DEF
capable of producing 100 megawatts of electric energy?
(b) If each facility constructed under Schedule DEF is
capable of producing 100 megawatts of electric energy is
subject to the requirements of Virginia Code S 56-234.3 and
its requirements for a public hearing and a determination of
need for the facility, how will Virginia Power be able to
offer to construct a facility under Schedule DEF under an
agreement which is subject to Staff's review, but which
would otherwise be confidential?
IV.
CORPORATE ISSUES
]. (a) Virginia Code S 13.1-620(D) provides in pertinent part
that a corporation organized under the Virginia Stock
Corporation Act, Chapter 9 of Title 13, may conduct other
public service business or nonpublic service businesses in
the Commonwealth so far as may be related to or incidental
to its stated business as a public service company. In view
of this Section's provisions, may Virginia Power build
generating facilities under Schedule DEF and sell energy
sources other than electricity, ~, steam, to-customers
served under Schedule DEF consistent with Virginia Power's
stated corporate purposes as a public service company?
2 If Virginia Power sells predominantly steam and only a small
amount of energy from facilities constructed under
Schedule DEF, does such a sale constitute business which is
not related to or incidental to its business as a public
service company?
· / cJ./ -~;J3
711 () 01::(5-, :ft)
If __~----..
--......_-----'-;-~~~~'
(,-~Ol p- 0 ~ n WI;~ ,
.. i~n """= I., '_..1
\ I ii ~~~, b,,",,_I,__,- ,.~~,..-,-,-
tV r--- . . ;
: l -( I ' ,
;, ~ \ \ , '
\Jll
1 1
BOARD Of SUPERVISORS
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PE HTEL
COM MISS I NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
POBOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
October 1, 1993
Route 664
Albemarle County
. Ellen W. Carey, CMC
bemarle County Board of Supervisors
unty Office Building
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA. 22902
ar Ms. Carey:
The Virginia Department of Transportation intends to replace a double line
pipe culverts on Route 664 between Route 671 and 663 on October 13, 1993.
Attached is a sketch indicating location of site. Signs will be up to
sist traffic while road is closed. Closure should be during daylight hours
ly.
Yours truly,
7,
i /1,1 A !gJJ(
f-ff!i~ Mills
Maint. Oper. Mgr.
H /ldw
A tachments
c Gale D. Lipscomb, F. L. Edens
Board of Supervisors
R. W. Tucker
Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad
Earlysville Fire Dept.
Charlottesville Post Office
Albemarle County Police
VA. State Police
Albemarle Co. Schools/School Transp. Officer
J. H. Shifflett, Jr., S. C. Dean
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
;--~
~~,~~
m~
October 1, 1993
Route 664
Albemarle County
MS. Ellen W. Carey, CMC
A bemarle County Board of Supervisors
Cpunty Office Building
4b1 McIntire Road
C~arlottesville, VA. 22902
Dpar Ms. Carey:
The Virginia Department of Transportation intends to replace a double line
o pipe culverts on Route 664 between Route 671 and 663 on October 13, 1993.
Attached is a sketch indicating location of site. Signs will be up to
assist traffic while road is closed. Closure should be during daylight hours
o j11y.
Yours truly,
H. W. Mills
Maint. Oper. Mgr.
H fJM/ldw
A tachments
c Gale D. Lipscomb, F. L. Edens
Board of Supervisors
R. W. Tucker
Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad
Earlysville Fire Dept.
Charlottesville Post Office
Albemarle County Police
VA. State Police
Albemarle Co. SChools/School Transp. Officer
J. H. Shifflett, Jr., S. C. Dean
I
. (~
...
CD 0
=< ~
(Il "
C :D
:D i!
." ~ ..
.. ." :D
< m <
m ill
0 ;=
m
..
"
m
Z
...
Z
m
n
~ 0
'" c:
" - z
-3 ... ...
~ <
..
en
0
~ ..
~ 0
~ ~ m
~ !"'
'"
..
...
~ '"
. '"
~ -
f ~
.
..
..
J: ...
l> ;:
::D ;=
0 m
(Il en
C ~
::D
~ ."
n m
m
-I..
-<"
~
,,)
o
v
G
~
~
~
?-
~
~~
,
~
c..
o
~
~
I\t
~
~ ...
o _
; ~
t,oI ;:.;
o '"
.... -
~d
... ;:;
.. ~
..
.. "
0
5 ~
~
g; ..
0
~
~
...
- ..
- ..
;;;
. ~
..
..
~
~
~.
o
;;;
w
v
..
"
"
.::>
o
~
'<
'", '
//1/-9->
/V. .?
{."
'1'll/t/6.Sl/ /
, "'':11
Edward H. Ba n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvil e
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Board of Supervisors
Ella W . Carey, Clerk, CMcE;V~\ (.---
October I, 1993
Reading List for October 6, 1993
13(A), 1992 - Mr. Bain
0aJi
1 - 29 (Item 10)
Mr.
21, 1993 - Mr. Perkins
*
Printed on recycled paper
, /0-/-<'3
t~' I\l{lf~l "_~"";'._..r..~",,"__~:)~'~~
'.;.>e'"!7' 1tem No Jl t1tJ.). i.L2-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219
JACK HODGE
CHIEF ENGINEER
August 12, 1993
Alternative 10 - Western
Alignment and Grade
Separated Interchanges
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, virginia 22901-4596
Dear Bob:
As discussed with you, staff and I will not be available
due to an out of town meeting on September 1, but did agree we
would be available October 6 at 9:30 a.m. Our proposal is to
reduce the ultimate cost and damages to adjacent property on
both the north and south end of Proposed Line 10.
At the same time, I am asking the Assistant Commissioner
for Planning and Programming, Claude Garver, to attend our
meeting to discuss the funding situation you requested on the
interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road.
Sincerely,
Hodge
Engineer
JSH;pS
cc: Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Mr. C. D. Garver, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Askew
Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.
""r\~ ''''-'''1' Qt:: r, ~ "'r"l"" '" .
,,,,,Iloj\~ l.i j A Jr f't~:oJ{;.jtv''',;-d.,h.
(
I
6.,' !(:; '8
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
t ':1i.. i,k f';flm
..,
EVALUATION OF REVISION TO THE ALTERNATIVE 10
ALIGNMENT AT ITS NORTHERN TERMINI
AL ATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT AS APPROVED BY THE COMMONWEALTH
SPORTATION BOARD:
THIS WCATION WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONSULTANTS WHEN THE ROUTE 29
DOR STUDY WAS DEVEWPED. A FUU INTERCHANGE WAS PROPOSED AT THIS WCATlON
A TRIPLE LEVEL STRUCTURE REQUIRED TO MEET THE TURNING MOVEMENTS AND LANE
UIREMENTS.
RESULTS - AN INTERCHANGE OF THIS MAGNITUDE AT THIS WCATION HAS SEVERE
CTS TO THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. 10 BUSINESSES WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS
RCHANGE. IT IS ALSO WCATED VERY NEAR THE EXISTING RIO ROAD INTERSECTION. THE
RNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT ALSO CROSSES THE ATHLETIC FIELD OF THE NEW AGNER-HURT
ENTARY SCHOOL, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT WAS
RMINED.
OF THE ALTERNATIVE 10 NORTHERN TERMINI NORTH ACROSS THE
FORK OF THE RIV ANNA RIVER:
IN MARC,H, '1993 A REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE NORTH CHARW1TESVIUE BUSINESS
CO NCIL TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD TO EVALUATE THE POSSIBILITY
OF XTENDING THE ALTERNATIVE 10 CORRIDOR TO THE NORTH CROSSING THE SOUTH FORK OF
TH RIVIANNA RIVER TO TIE INTO EXISTING ROUTE 29 NORTH OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
10 RMINI.
THE DEPARTMENT DEVEWPED AN ALIGNMENT THAT WOULD PASS BEHIND THE SAMS
CL B, WAL MART, AND THE SHERATON HOTEL AND IN FRONT OF THE FILTRATION PLANT. THE
PR POSED ALIGNMENT WOUW CROSS THE RIVER AND TIE INTO EXISTING ROUTE 29 AT THE
W TION PROPOSED FOR THE TERMINI OF THE MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY. A
P IMINARY EVALUATION OF THIS ALIGNMENT WAS PERFORMED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
D SION.
..
SULTS - ELIMINATES IMPACTS TO TEN (10) EXISTING BUSINESSES ON ROUTE 29
PROVIDES GREATER DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RIO ROAD INTERSECTION AND THE
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 10 TERMINI.
ELIMINATES IMPACT TO THE AGNER-HURT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ELIMINATES IMPACT TO THE WOODFOLK FAMILY CEMETERY
REQUIRES STRUCTURE CROSSING OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE RIVIANNA RIVER
AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND AREAS
POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ALONG RIVER BANK
-- -:~-,
-- :o:~\ ~ 4- ~
it. '~ 4-
-4 -~"\It ~? 'U
.y ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~'O
'"1) '0
Q
0
0
~
..o~ z
<
?or ~
~ +
"" I
... ~
~I
~~
:>.
- I
r
--t-
Z
llI:<
U'""
<Z
J:;:l ;;
III 0 ..
:E c3
,..
T\ "'en
~.....-...
.?
w
?J '""
/ <
se
-;;
'~'(j
'~+
/'
,/
<.
DISTRIBUTION
EVALUATION OF REVISIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE 10
ALIGNMENT TO A VOID/MINIMIZE IMPACTS
TO ST. ANNE'S BELFIEW SCHOOL
AL ATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT AS APPROVED BY THE COMMONWEALTH
SPORTATION BOARD (BLUE LINE):
A REVIEW OF THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF THE APPROVED CORRIDOR DETERMINED
1'. T A SHIFI' IN THE ALIGNMENT TO THE WEST TO A VOID ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD WAS NOT
PO SIBLE WITHOUT ENCROACHMENT ONTO THE WESTOVER PROPERTY.
MINIMIZING THE DESIGN TO SAVE THE SOCCER FIELD NOT POSSIBLE. THE COMPRESSED
DIS 'ANCE BETWEEN PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT ROUTE 250 AND ALTERNATIVE 10 DOES NOT
PR VIDE ADEQUATE SPACING FOR GRADE SEPARATIONS AT ST. ANNE'S ENTRANCE ROAD AND
RE UIRED MOVEMENTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 10 TO ROUTE 250.
RE ULTS - A COMPROMISE IN THE DESIGN AT THIS WCATION WOUW NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
RE UCE THE IMPACTS TO ST. ANNE'S-BELFIELD SOCCER FIELD, AND WOULD HA VE ADVERSE
1M CTS TO THE ENTIRE DESIGN OF THE INTERCHANGE.
OF ALTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT TO THE WEST TO COMPLETELY
ID SOCCER FIELD - WESTOVER PROPERTY IMPACTS (YELLOW LINE):
A HIFI' OF TflE APPROVEI;J CORRIDOR COMPLETELY OFF OF THE SOCCER FIELD WAS
, .'
DE 'BWPED. THIS A VOIDANCE ALIGNMENT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BUT REQUIRES
EN ROACHMENT ON THE WESTOVER PROPERTY.
A 'BETING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO DETERMINE IF THIS
EN ROACHMENT WAS POSSIBLE IDENTIFIED THAT NO ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE ALWWED.
IN LEITER DATED JULY 21, 1-993 THE DHR VERIFIED THAT NO ENCROACHMENT WOUW BE
WED ON THE WESTOVER PROPERTY.
RE ULTS - SA VES ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD SOCCER FIELD
IMPACTS WESTOVER PROPERTY
C(~NNECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 10 TO EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS AT THE
PI OPOSED NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR ROAD (PINK LINE)
A.J. EVIEW OF AN ALIGNMENT TO RECONFIGURE ALTERNATIVE 10 WITH ITS TERMINI AT ROUTE
29/~50 BYPASS AT THE PROPOSED WCATION OF THE NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR ROAD
D1 TERMINED THIS TO BE A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE,
Rit'SULTS -- ELIMINATES ANY IMPACTS TO ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD SCHOOL
SHORTENS PROJECT LENGTH
REDUCES IMPACTS TO UNIVERSITY VlUAGE
REDUCES RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS
EliMINATES THE NEED TO REBUILD THE EXISTING ROUTE 250 INTERCHANGE
ALLOWS CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE FROM ALTERNATIVE 10 TO NORTH
GROUNDS ACCESS FACILITY. INTERCHANGE ON ALTERNATIVE 10 FOR A
NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR AS PROPOSED MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE ON
THE APPROVED ALIGNMENT DUE TO IMPACTS TO THE HISTORIC
WESTOVER PROPERTY.
IMPACTS THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA AT NORTH GROUNDS
URBAN INTERCHANGE REQUIRED AT THE NEW WCATION DUE TO TERRAIN.
ROUTE 29/250 WOULD BE THE FREE FWW MOVEMENT. THE CONNECTION
WITH ALTERNATIVE 10AND THE NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR WOULD BE
CONTROUED BY SIGNALIZATION ON THE STRUCTURE, AND REQUIRE STOP
CONDITIONS.
THE CONNECTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 10 SOUTHBOUND TO ROUTE 29/250
WESTBOUND WOULD BE A FREE FWW MOVE.
THE EASTBOUND ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS MOVEMENT TO ALTERNATIVE 10
NORTHBOUND IS NOT A FREE FWW MOVE.
~
TERRAIN RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE RAMP LENGTH, RESULTING IN LESS THAN
DESIRABLE WEA VE LENGTHS TO EXISTING BARRACKS ROAD RAMPS.
!>
CTION OF ALTERNATIVE 10 TO EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS
GE LINE)
VIEW WAS ALSO MADE TO EVALUATE SHIFI'lNG THE ALTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT WITH
TH INTENT OF SA VING AS MUCH OF THE EXISTING INTERCHANGE AT ROUTE 29/250 AS
POS IBLE. THIS REVIEW IDENTIFIED THAT THIS SHIFI' WOULD IMPACT THE WESTOVER
PRO BRTY, AND TIE INTO THE EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 INTERCHANGE. THE ALTERNATIVE 10
ALl NMENT IN THE VICINITY WAS DEPRESSED IN THE GROUND IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE NOISE
AN VISUAL IMPACTS, AND ALLOW THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT TO GO UNDER THE EXISTING
STR CTURES AT OLD IVY ROAD, THE CSXT RAIL CROSSING AND AT ROUTE 250.
ULTS - SAVES ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD SOCCER FIELD.
ELIMINATES IMPACTS TO UNIVERSITY VlUAGE
IMPACTS HISTORIC WESTOVER PROPERTY
RETAINING WAUS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE VICINITY OF WESTOVER IN
ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS TO THE WESTOVER PROPERTY AND THE
SOCCER FIELDS DUE TO THE WIDE SLOPES CREATED BY THE DEEP CUT
IN THIS AREA.
ACCESS TO WESTOVER FROM FAULCONER ROAD AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION
WOULD BE EUMINATED.
EXISTING STRUCTURES AT OLD IVY ROAD, CSXT RAIL AND ROUTE 250 WOULD
HA VE TO BE WIDENED.
THE RAMPS AT THE EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 INTERCHANGE WOULD NEED TO BE
RECONSTRUCTED DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL LANES REQUIRED FOR THE
MOVEMENTS FROM AND TO ALTERNATIVE 10.
SOUTHBOUND ALTERNATIVE 10 TRAFFIC TO EASTBOUND 29/250 BYPASS WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO USE THE ROUTE 250 INTERCHANGE.
WESTBOUND ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS TRAFFIC TO IVY ROAD WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO USE THE ROUTE 250 INTERCHANGE.
DU TO THE MANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THIS DESIGN AND ITS IMPACTS TO THE WESTOVER
PR BRTY_THIS REVISION CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED.
w
0 -'
- ~ C)
~ w (/') (j)
~ ILl
~ C ~
...J ~
Z CL. 9
II: ~ b
w 0 0
!J u
() ~ z
< ~
a: ~
0 ~
(:) z
c: w
a: ~
0 z
() C!J
(:) ::;
W <C
~ (:)
w
a: (/)
CL. :>
a.
<C w
a: c:
ILl
~
(/') 0
~
NORTH GROur
RECREATION
Co
/ (
CHILDREN'S
REHABILITATION
CENTER
Q2S\J
~
LQj
ITV
APTS
~r
~
~I
:A~
, .
r-ot
~
D~..
ti3J.N30
NOIJ. V J.1118VH3ti
S.N3ti01IHO
l/
I
1:
f~
f
Il.,.
If <::o-
f .
\ ,
\JI
tJ
z
~
a
(J)
(')
)>
I
m
c
~
8
5
~
c
m
Cf)
~6c .
..... ~.
:::j -
"0>
:oq
Om
"JJ
Oz
~~
0<
zm
0....
:00
:to
Ci)m
:Ox
0-
c~
z-
oZ
(J)Ci)
('):0
00
ZC
ziT1
m
ON
O~
:o~
:00
~
o
I.U
0 W ...J
- C) <3
w z
> <( CI) (/)
~ J: w
() Q ~
Z 0: ~
0: ~ 9
w S
!:i z 8
<( 0 ~ z
c l(.)
w C\J :j
~ ......
0) C
0: C\J -'
ll. W W
ll. .... Li:
<( ::> 0:
u. ~ w
0 ()
z C) ()
0 z 0
;::: ;::: (/)
(/)
() x
w
zw
~~
()
0
NORTH GI
RECREA TI
'2:
~
,
I
/
<'f'u
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,
, 'C' ~
// ..1 . 7./.... "-'"
, ....j.J;;:---'- -- - .'"
AGENDA ITLE:
Route 6 8/Route 250 West Intersection
Improve ents
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION: ~ 1
ITEM NUMBER:
7 ( a) '7:2 /;2 eli. s.?, I
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Further
incorpo
Route 6
PROPOSAL RE UEST:
consideration of improvements
ating realignment of Route 738 with
8 to remove offset intersection.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF C
Messrs.
ATTACHMENTS:
y21es ---
.---
t#J!
REVIEWED BY:
Cilimberg
BACKGR
Review of this improvement was initially discussed by the Board of Supervisors at its June
3, 1993 meeting. Two (2) basic options were presented, one relocating the intersection of
Route 678 with Route 250 (as established in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan and taken to public
hearin by VDOT) and the second improving the existing intersection including improvements
to Rou e 250 (as recommended at the public hearing - see Appendix I). Staff has advised
taking oth alternatives to a location and design public hearing. The Board requested Mr.
Roosevelt to provide a cost estimate and what is entailed in shifting Route 738 to align
with Ro te 678.
ON:
evelt's office has provided an estimated cost for the realignment of Route 738 with
8 of $505,332, (see Appendix II). The total estimated cost of improvements to Route
realignment of the 738/678 intersection is $950,580.
It shou d be noted that the realignment of Route 738/678 adds to the cost of this project.
Funding this project at a higher dollar amount will require an adjustment in funding from the
Six Yea Secondary Plan which now has this project estimated for $650,000, and/or the Revenue
Sharing funds. This, in turn, reduces dollars available within the six year planning period
for oth r projects.
ATION:
he Board decide to further consider the new alternatives, staff recommends those
ives along with the original proposal be taken to a location and design public
93.138
Irn [s --l~-f:--'"
t li' o.ui ! i.. [, ._2....J.~:__..
t I,
; t I
BOABD OF SUFERV:SORS I
..
\ -(
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DoT) held a Location and
lDesign Public Hearing, in 1992, to consider the proposed location and design improvement
( f Route 678 from the intersection with Route 250 to 0.263 miles north of Intersection with
I oute 250 in Albemarle County (Project #0678-002-223, C501); and
WHEREAS, approximately 75 people were in attendance at the public hearing and
s~venteen people spoke concerning the proposed project. Fifteen speakers were opposed
tp the improvement as presented. There were suggestions to improve Route 678 at its
~ resent location. The majority of written comments received were also in opposition to the
~ roposed improvement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
rt>commends that VDoT abandon the plan for major improvements and relocation of Route
678 which went to public hearing in November of 1992;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
\ irginia, does hereby request that VDoT hold a public hearing on the proposed
i 1Ilprovements to Route 250 and improvements at intersection of Route 678 as shown on
a map dated February, 1993, Scheme #2, submitted.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
o a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
rE gular meeting held on October 6, 1993.
C;! # fi ~ l () ;1
UJ.iA-. ~ VtLUL~Y
Clerk, Board of County Sur{e'rvisors
. '
~
y
.,
_::';:- af ./:/-3
.;?'? /~p9 .</. J
, -:;:7~,' ,~~~ /
/"- ,/
4;Pj/v.~yI
---.--
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
~~rnnw~
'C"'i
I c', I
\\ UUI
\...\.1."
, ' , ~
; L.\i
MAY Z Ism
M MORAN DUM
\ BO~RD OF SUPERVIS~RS I
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community /t'l~
Development U(jJ
May 27, 1993
:
Route 678/Route 250 West Intersection Improvements
'V
tached is information regarding improvements to the Route
8/Route 250 West intersection (Attachment A). A location and
sign public hearing was held on November 17, 1991 to receive
blic comment for the relocation of this intersection
proximately 700 feet west of the existing intersection (just to
e west of Ivy Commons and the Jefferson National Bank). This
s the approximate location established for this relocated
tersection in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan. Since that time,
w development considerations (i.e. the Ivy Commons rezoning and
e Jefferson National Bank site plan) have allowed for this
surned relocation. The approximate cost of this project would
$610,000.
e majority of the public comments received at the public
aring and in writing oppose the relocation and some suggested
proving the Route 678/Route 250 intersection at its present
cation. An alternative has since been investigated which would
prove Route 678 at its current intersection with Route 250,
eluding additional turn lanes on Routes 678 and 250 to serve
e multiple turning movements in that area associated with these
ads as well as existing businesses (Duner's Restau~ant, Ivy
mmons, Jefferson National Bank) and Route 738. The approximate
st of this alternative would be $256,000.
,
, y
Jlbemarle County Board of Supervisors
~ ay 27, 1993
~age 2
r~he original intent of this project was to remove the offset
ntersection at Route 250 of Route 678 and 738, improve access to
r~eriwether Lewis School, improve the grade of Route 678 as it
cpproaches Route 250 and improve sight distance at the Route
l78/Route 250 intersection. Staff can provide the following
comments regarding the existing traffic situation in the area and
he affect of either improvement:
Accident data from 8/1/86 through 7/31/91 indicates four
documented accidents on Route 678, three of which occurred
in wet conditions, two of those involving rear end
collisions on the steep grade curve of Route 678 and the
third involving a sideswipe on the steep grade curve of
Route 678 (see Attachment B).
Accident data for the same period indicates 16 documented
accidents on Route 250 in this area, four of which were rear
end collisions involving stopped or turning vehicles on
Route 250 at the Route 678 intersection and one of which was
a failure to yield the right-of-way by a vehicle turning
left onto Route 678 from Route 250 (see Attachment B).
About 4% (78 out of 1949 vehicles in the 12 hour daytime
study) of the Route 678 and Route 738 traffic at the offset
intersection at Route 250 is making a through movement
across Route 250. The most significant potential conflicts
at this offset intersection seem to be left turns from
either Route 678 or Route 738 dealing with right turns from
the opposing direction, not left turns dealing with through
movements (see Attachment C).
With the reopening of Murray Elementary School, through
school bus movement between Routes 678 and 738 at Route 250
has been greatly reduced.
A significant number of left turns occur from Route 250 onto
Routes 678 and 738 according to the 12 hour daytime study
(408 onto Route 678 and 425 onto Route 738), which must
yield to over 3,500 through trips on Route 250 in each
direction.
}lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
r. ay 27, 1993
I age 3
E . The relocated intersection of Route 678 at Route 250 would:
a. Provide additional (and intended) access to the
Jefferson National Bank, an improvement over existing
access only through Ivy Commons.
b. Severely impact or involve a taking of one residence
along the new Route 678 alignment north of the
intersection with Route 250.
c. Provide the minimum acceptable sight distance to the
west at Route 250 based on typical operating speeds of
Route 250 traffic coming from the west.
d. Result in a grade of the relocated Route 678 that is
virtually the same as for the existing Route 678.
Improvement of the existing intersection at Route 250 would:
a. Not provide additional (and intended) access to the
Jefferson National Bank.
b. Not severely impact or involve the taking of adjacent
property.
c. Reconfigure the existing intersection to more clearly
delineate turning lanes.
d. Provide improvements to Route 250 for turning movements
into Duner's and Ivy Commons (i.e. a continuous left
turn lane from Ivy Commons to the Route 678
intersection for eastbound Route 250 traffic and a
continuous right turn lane across the frontage from the
Route 678 intersection to just past the Ivy Commons
entrance) .
~ . The offset Route 678/Route 738/Route 250 intersection could
not be realigned to remove the offset. There is not enough
distance for necessary turn lane transition on Route 250
east to the railroad bridge. Sight distance to the east
also may not be realized under this option.
C Traffic signals have not been considered as part of this
project, but traffic would have to meet warrants for them to
be allowed according to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT).
J
'.
.. '
,
I ATTACHMENTA I
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. P THTEL
COMMISS NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
March 2, 1993
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Route 678
Project: 0678-002-223, C501
Albemarle County
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Di~ector
Pla ning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Cha lottesville, VA 22901
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 1993
P!anning Dept.
As a result of the comments received at the public hearing and the County's
uest, we have a preliminary design which improves the intersection of Route
at its present location. This plan provides a right turn lane and left turn
e on Route 250 onto Route 678. Also, a right turn lane and left turn lane is
vided for access to Ivy Commons. A third lane has been included on Route 678
roaching Route 250 to serve as a right turn lane. A right turn lane is also
vided for Route 738.
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
We are also investigating the possibility of flattening the slope on the
t side of Route 678 to improve sight distance in advance of the stop
dition.
The estimated cost of these outlined improvements is $256,000, including
ht of way and utility relocations. The cost required for flattening the
pe is not included in this cost estimate.
Attached please find a sketch of the preliminary plans showing the above
tioned improvements.
t
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
office.
Yours truly,
~
Asst. Resident Engineer
G U/yrm
a tachment
c G. D. Lipscomb
J. A. DePasquale
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
.~.- wl,
Prcject: 0678-002-223, C501
Re~ort to the Board of Supervisors on the Location & Design Public Hearing
This project was initiated in 1986 by request of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to improve access to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. The
prcject was initially to be designed by Albemarle County, but due to
difficulties, The Virginia Department of Transportation was asked to develop
plans for construction.
On November 17, 1992 a location and design public hearing was held to
receive public comment on this proposed project. The purpose of this report is
to provide a summary of that hearing.
At the hearing, the Department presented a single alternative to realign
Route 678 so that it intersects with Route 250 approximately 700 feet west of the
existing location. The new alignment then runs north and intersects with the
existing road approximately 400 feet south of Meadow Vista Drive. A handout
which discussed the project location and design was made available to the public
at the hearing and during the two week period prior to the hearing.
The hearing was attended by approximately 75 people. Seventeen people spoke
corcerning the proposed project. Fifteen speakers were opposed to the
imrrovement as presented. There were suggestions to improve Route 678 at its
prEsent location. The majority of the written comments that were received were
al~o in opposition to the proposed improvement.
Based on comments submitted at the public hearing and a December 8, 1992
meEting with County officials and VDOT personnel, it was suggested that we
in,estigate improvements at the existing intersection of Route 678 and 250.
Ye have a preliminary design which improves Route 678 at its present
lo<ation. This plan provides a right turn lane and left turn lane on Route 250
on 0 Route 678. Also, a right turn lane and left turn lane has been provided for
ac<ess to Ivy Commons. A third lane has been included on Route 678 approaching
Ro\te 250 to serve as a right turn lane. A right turn lane has also been
previded for Route 738. Ye are also investigating the possibility of flattening
thE slope on the west side of Route 678 to improve sight distance in advance of
thE stop condition at Route 250.
The estimated cost of the outlined improvements is $256,000, including right
of way and utility relocations. The cost required to flatten the slope is not
in<luded in this cost estimate.
A copy of the alternate plan has been submitted to Mr. Vayne Cilimberg. I
am requesting that the Board review the proposed improvement of Route 678 at its
prl sent location and advise me of their decision on how to proceed with the
de elopment of this project.
OS] /yrm
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
.
TO .-
CHAR LOTTESVI LLE
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ROUTE 678
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PROJECT: 0678 - 002 - 223, C-501
. FROM: I NT RTE. 250
TO: 0.263 MI. N. INT RTE. 250
LENGTH: 0.26 MILES
'fiiiIit
I
Q.
2 Mile.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LOCATION AND DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
TIME: 7:30 P.M. (PLAN REVIEW 5:00 - 7:00 P.M.)
PLACE: MERIWETHER LEWIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LOCATED ON ROUTE 676, TWO MILES NORTH OF ROUTE 250
PROJECT: 0678-002-223, C501
FROM: INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 250
TO: 0.263 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 250
LENGTH: 0.263 MILES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide a formal
public opportunity for any person acting on his behalf or
representing a group or governing body to offer comments or submit
I1ritten material for the record on the proposed project. The
E~ntire proceeding is recorded and a full transcript is prepared.
l elf-addressed envelopes for written comments will be available at
i he meeting.
-.
.
PROJECT HISTORY
This project was initiated in 1986 by request of the Albemarle
ounty Board of Supervisors and was prompted by an approved
xpansion of Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. Initially the
roject was to be designed by Albemarle County but difficulties
rose, and in 1991 the Virginia Department of Transportation was
asked with preparing plans for construction.
PROJECT LOCATION AND PURPOSE
This project begins on Route 250, west of the existing'
'ntersection with Route 678 near Ivy, and ends one quarter of a
ile to the north, on present Route 678 in Albemarle County. This
roject is designed to improve safety and ease of access to the
esidences north of Route 250 and to Meriwether Lewis Elementary
chool.
LOCATION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Existing Route 678 has very poor horizontal and vertical
lignment. Pavement width is approximately 18 feet with little or
o usable shoulders. The roadway widens as it approaches Route 250
o form a non-standard modified "T" intersection. Traffic on Route
678 is controlled by a stop sign.
The proposed improvement consists of realigning Route 678 so
it intersects Route 250 approximately 700 feet west of the
xisting intersection. New Route 678 will then run to the north
nd curve eastward to intersect existing Route 678 approximately
400 feet south of Meadow Vista Drive. The new and rebuilt sections
of Route 678 will consist of 22 feet of paved width, four-foot
shoulders (seven-foot where guardrail is required) in cut and fill
sections and 4 foot wide ditches in cut sections. Improvement of
the existing roadway will terminate 250 feet south of Meadow Vista
Drive. Route 250 at the new intersection will be widened to 33
feet of pavement to provide for two eleven-foot through lanes and
~n eleven-foot left.turn lane eastbound. A right turn lane will be
[nstalled for westbound traffic turning north at the new
~ntersection. Shoulder width on Route 250 will be 8 feet (11 feet
where guardrail is required) with four-foot ditches in cut
sections. Fifty feet and variable right of way widths will be
~tilized on Route 678 relocated while the widening of Route 250 at
the new intersection will require variable right of way. Drainage
and temporary construction easements will be acquired to
accommodate ditches and cut and fill slopes where they exceed the
~ight of way. The cut and fill slopes will be at a 2-to-1 ratio.
The contractor who is awarded the contract will be required to
cake preventive measures to control siltation in accordance with
the Department's contract special provisions, which have been
approved by the State Water Control Board. All disturbed areas
~ill be seeded to minimize erosion.
TRAFFIC
In 1990, Route 678 carried 2500 vehicles per day.
003, it is projected to carry 4750 vehicles
By the year
per day.
~pproximately 4% of the traffic on this roadway consists of heavy
~ehicles.
ESTIMATED COST
This enhancement of Route 678 and the ancillary improvement to
~oute 250 is estimated to cost approximately $610,000 including
right of way and construction. This project will be financed with
state Secondary Road Funds allocated to Albemarle County. Pending
resolution of this public hearing, this project is currently
scheduled for advertisement in December of 1993.
RIGHT OF WAY OR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
Any questions concerning right of way or relocation assistance
should be directed to:
Mr. J. W. Jenkins
Culpeper District Right of Way Manager
Virginia Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 671
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Maps, drawings, and other information are available for public
review in the Department of Transportation's District Office
located on Route 15 (Business) south of Route 3 in Culpeper and in
its Residency Office located on Route 250, approximately three
miles east of Charlottesville.
.......
c:
....... ([)
c: E
([) ~
E
([) CJ
> Q
CJ C))
J Q .c:
$ -i:::;
"\t- .(/)
([) 8
i <:
I-
I ~ ~
Q) -I
CXJ
c: I
a l t
--
I
I
c: l
-
~< "'-
-2a "'-
i=:: a::
~(j
~
--lu ~
:Elf) "'-
"'- -I-I
-
- ~
s-J
aU 1-
If)-- i a:: i
~~ ~~ :
kJf-.- "'- !
,~
h: i -1-1
~ I --L
I
-,
C) ,.....,
"'-
Q:
, .
c-.:.
\l'\~
<6
\J>
'6
T
-
't
+
- .
't
+
i
I <:
I
Q
~
~G
\.OLu r=
kJln
I K-J
I :2)0 \
G__
ct~
h
-
'"-
'"-
---
(1)"0
-G -es
() ~
-I-..J CJ
~ :::::i
Q) O'l
22 (I)
:::::i ~
() (I)
...c:: -t:
lr) ~
*
:...
-
'"-
'"-
fVJ
~
-Go
(])
o "
(I)':s
Cf) '0-
CJ ';:0
(I) 'I.-
~
\..) Cf)
C:::,__
. --
+
- .
~
*;
l
I
I
!
I
/I1EADow
V/SrA lJR.
. f; T/ It ': ;"'/ 1-: '& "'II' i (/10 10 .
fll
,t;UG"'AlAA't.1: Cd.
~U TG" ~ 7 8
Iv 'I
r{\
".
\ Ji\.9' AI I A 3~
_ \' /_z~,91'J lYIA n OR. Y
~ C. f.-e>>,...
O€,Gt
P12
j.~~
,;S
ppLJ
!>1.
~
~ rt.~ro
,_ ~ _') (fJ
6-6'-(19 TVE. /8 '/5" P/J. t0L '3-22-9/ F~/. 08~o
If'/.f/A/ WG'r ~ \\ p.o. R~/JJ WET
5-9-9/ r/lv, 01"1'5' P.o.
HAJJ.! WGT
I
.
h - trI.P. '7.9,
f\ rt I\- C/+ /0 rr-. (L-
I ....-C... W f',. (Xl ~
. ....JU) -
. ~~ q) " ~
. ;c
. r' K K
K ;
I
.. ..... ;
I
'.!J l!J \u~ ~~ ,
~ I
Q ~ ..J " Q"'::::.. ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ;
~ j;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
lei \9\} ~~ ~~ :
..
~ I
~ ~ ~ I
~ \l ~ '" i
~ ~ I
~ \J Q i i
-
0 ~ ~ " :J lu ~
l-l ~ lI1~v I
.. ~ \..:
be ~ ~ o ~ l ~
~ VI 0 ~ I
;~'" () I i;
~N
~' ~
~ I
~ ~ \!J )...'u I
~\s ~\.u I
~ t:: ... " ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ m << ~~ I
~ i. I
~ ~ \\.. ~ <\.. ~ ~ ~ ;
rn ~ ~ ~~ ~~ "'~ ,
~~ ~
~
::s:
0 1
a: ~ I
U1 r..~ ~ ~ ~
.... 0;: ~
~ -... -- "
, ct ~ ~ 1
..J '" Q:: I
< Iv)
z ....
< .....
"'" ~ '" ~ < It\ V) \1\
z ~ ~
~ ;
Q ~ ~ I
~ ~ .... \... ~ ~ ~
(,J '" " I
0 ~ I
'< ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I
~ ti ! a l I
, I
I i ,
, ~~
~ N '" "'-1 N IV' i
~ "\ N 1
~
~ '" > ~ "-
...z,w . JlI: ~ 'u ~ ~
l-l ~6 ~ \u
':;)
0 Q ~ ~ I
-~
- '" I
Q. Qt Q ~
~ - ~
:3 \U \q
~" ~ ~ W !O'
<u Q! ~
~ .~ Q a ~ ~
-
~ \/} ~ ~
i
~ ~ ~ - .......
~ .~ .~ ~
, . ~
~ . (\I N \
'0 N '" 0"-
.
t- ::: '-Q . ~ ~
........
:z
:;) I
0 ~ ~ .<({) ~
I .C,J '\)
~l ~ l'\.. \"- "-
I ~ ~ ~ 'Q
. ' .'. :J~ \)' I..}... ,'-l A. F1r~~/~ 1-1 i~'IL..
. :~ -- ....... IV) 1) -
. . . :c ~ "- to..: I
to.::
........ ......... '- - I
"- \..... ~
::t
\9 ..J \u ::t ~~ \.l)\.u
....... ~ Ci ~ ~ ~ ~ >
'-': ~ ~ Q: ~~ <;t<;!
... ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
'r. ~ ",\,j \J~
-~ . '" \9~
w
" ~ -oJ
!::!
~ 0 ~
~ UJ
~ ">-
~~ \.9 )j
0 ~t ~ ~ ~
E-4 U
"" C ~ ~
Q<! -
~ 0 Q
-=< ':> ~
~ - a: J
N . N
:E .... ~
~ :xi
;;.- >"\tJ -'')0..
" ~ l-'v ~~
~" I- " Q:~
........ ~<! ~ f l~ ~~
~ '-:I ~ f
> ~ ~ ~ t.
'-:I ~ <r Q Q:
Cf.l g:C4 ~~
x~ Q...Q u.:,,\.\
~~ >-. ~
Jao, cr:: ~
en '-:I 1 ~
~ ~ i; ct
~ - tu '.u
~ ~ <t C) '-.l
..1 ~ 'l .....J
< ~ ~ \:.)
z ~
< ~
'3 '3 ~ ~ '3 lb !
~ Us
Z
'-:I
Q ~ to- ~ \- k
~ ~
(.) cr:: ~ ~ ::t::
u '-:I { ~
-.c: -t E; q I ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .~ ~l ~ ~ <i ~
, ~~.
.~ '\J
:E '" ~~
I I
i I
,() ~ .~ N ~ N "'4 N "\
/) I
N
Q "- '>- >- '>-
.~ .0:2: \.u
E-4 ~o ~ ~ ~ ~
~ l1JU a
0
..0:
- \u
a ~ Q.
\.u ~ ~ - ~
~
~ '-:I \ti
~ g" ~ ~ ~ ~
~ -t: ffi ~ ~
~ ~ \J)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'J - '-:I .
~ E-4 ..... I . ~
< N l'Q -Q ~
.Q . .....
>- ~ I , ,
,..(-4 0\) ~ ~
'. :z::
::J ,
0 ~ I
t.J ..(oJ ~ ~ \:), :
f-<
::J '~
0 I1
.cr:: ~ N ~ ~
ti rttJ c~ ,~/ (rl rJ /
I '. Z r---
I1MBJln.RLh Ca.
ffl!jlf7~ ZSo
..IV y
CL)LLI.sJ~N
DJ,Qt;.RRm
/999
;;:VY c.oty1mON~
Rcu;-c-. 7JB
/lEI/I? €IVJJ - I
F/o - z.
mise. - /
7b ~c I-j
LVY
~Tofl G
.f'~NA l. .vYJt)~f' - 3
~A'aPE~r L)Rm~E - J
7Or~L i-f
LJ
,.four€: 786
r j
-
. : i. g~ I , . ' n, ....
l'1 l'v) M ro . I
~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
........ "- ......... "-
"- \... t-.. ~
~ ~ ~ :::t ~ ~:J
'" .J
\9 U ~
~ " - \~ ~~
Z Q: " <I ~ ~
1.0 ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ \U
.... ):.0) '"
..J \9 \.l
\.() < \r\ "'~
~ ~
" ~ ~
R ~
CI: ~ ~ ~ -
0
E-4 ~ ~ ~
0 t,) .... . J '"
E-4 < "- \.l "- Ql
1&0 '" -
CI: I;t ....... 't ~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~
..., "" ,
~ ~
'll.
~ -.J -J )0.. l!J
~ '" ~ l >- ...
~ .... q~ ~ ~ ~ '"
CI: a~ \) ~ l.U c;t
~ ~ ~ ~ Q.
~ > VI ~ ~ 0 E
~ ~~ ~~ ~ Q:~
CD 0:.
t:(,"1
:c
:8: CI: ~ "- '>- Q:'
~ ~ ~ \u Cl ~
.-4 . ::: :)
~ t;:; E-4 \~ ~
~ ~
.oJ I ~ ~ "-l
< ~ ::w: '^' ~ "
z
< ~ ~ :
~ 3 ~ \u \u l&J
z ~
l&I ~ "
Q
.-4 0:: ~ ~
t,) CI: \\. ~
to) 0... ~ I \4
'< ~ Ei "" ~ ~ ~ Q
~ R ~ ~
, ~ ~I ~
'" z ~ 01 0 ~
I~ ~ ~ '1 '" I
~I ~ I
i ! ,
~
::: ,
~ ~ '" ~ "\ N tc) "\ i .
>
f\\ i
Q ~ ~ '>- >-
. ..w a:z ~ Q!
E-4 ~o " ~
~ CDt,) - C) ~
0
...0:
~ tt.},-;,~,,,
<:) Q ~;.
~ ~l
~ <l' ~; ~
~ ~ ~
W ~i I
c.. ~~ ~ ....
~ ,1: ~\) ~~ ~. ~
~ ~ ~
" ~ \"'- 0.. . \)..; 0...
.W ~ ~ 1~ \P
~ "- . \ \~
E-4 I <.');.:
< ~ ....... .~ f\1
Q ~ \ ,
>< \.. ~
..... ........ ~
;:z: ......
::;) ..
0 < ,'.', <' ;
t,) .~ ~ \) ~; ~
E-4 ~.o
:::l '-1
0 ~ iN
~ CI: N ~
L
-
. ~
~
Ro()/e: 738
z----
I1L.8E/J1I1,RU; C CJ.
Kt1cJ7~ ZS"o
.IVY
LL) L.LIS )~.N
D)II~RAn1
/990
;t::VY c.otY1mCJN~
~
<7v;.>-
<f:"'"
. 6'.?cf1
IVY
570ft G
LJ
"four€: 786
r I
,Rell?. E.ND - z.
F/O - I
/1115e ~
TOmL S
p~o P€,e-rr f)Rm'A~. _ z.
PGI<5t)1V~1. J,ValJR'(' - 3
H~ S-
.' · I ;:J~' vv V . -~ 0-- v A~1r r L-1i/ )).- fic...-
.. N ~ .
,. ;:~ l'O II-) M
.. . . c-: ~ c-= f' c--:
......... ........ - -- ..........
l.... h.
\u :t :t '" \u
<l~ ~ ~ tu ::.t It.'tJ
~. ":)
<t Q <t I,ij 0. _ Q.~ Q ';::.
~<:t
~ Q!~ ~ ~ ~~ ..... J G:Q,!
:; \9 "- Cl~ ~ :)
\9") "l'-.l '" ~'->
~ ~
~ lu
~ ~ ~
~ I~ \J U
-
~ " . ~
\l '-J \J
0 I "- "1 \ij
i-c ~ "l ":::..
"- ~
~ Q "-
~ ~ !-(
" cr. ~
:: ~
~ >-w ~ ~\u .J
~ -..J
~ ... " 't ~~ ,,~
"- a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ E ~ ~ \) ~ ~ ~
~~ Q,,€
o (! ~~ <l Q:. ~~
[~ ~ ~~ ~~
:s:
0
c= ~ ">- ~
en ra.~ ~ ~ ~ Q.
.... ~
~ I -- - \ti
..... & <!:
hi ~ ~ '-J
~ " Q:: " ~
< ,
z "-
< " ~ !
t-< $ \u '-u ~ ~ lu ~
z ~
w "- ~
Q t-.. ~ ~ l.... \....
.... ~ ~ ~
(.) ~ ~ ~
tJ ~ ~ ~
'< - $~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Cl..: Q...: ~ \:
, t-.. ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
....... ~ Vi! \r '" r
I
\ i
" ~
.-~ "\ "4 N l"": ~ "1 ~ ~ I
t\\ I
~~ ">- "- \- "- >-
; ..fa1 ~ ~ \u \u .-//' .-
-1-0 Cl:
:::l 3 ~ ~ Q -
0
-~
. C
,~ Q
\) ~ ~ c;r ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
A. \tJ. Q: ....
~ ~ ffi ~1.1. Q. ({
~ l(~
~ ~ ~ ~ \) ~
~
~ -r-J , ,
f-o , ~ , () I
< ...... ~ ~ ~.
..Q \ M
>- ~ ~ . ,
..f04 ~ M (\'l
~:z:
:::l I
0 I
.to) .c.:l \Q ~ ~ ~ \) I
'f-o \)
";)
.;' .I)
\'\.\ .N "-\ N N
. I . .
.. .'
^- r1f\ c. 1-1 17 ~ /
ZJ----
I4L8BHIlRLh" Co.
J<t:Jt..I71:: Z.So
.IVY
CL) LLIS )LJ.N
D)J)t;.R~YYI
1-1-9/ 7/1RrJ 7-3/-9J
;t:VY c.orY1 moN ~
~
"'>-c::--
.~?c9
~u7e. 73'8
IVY
5Taf? G
LJ
ROd?'"€: 786
r I
REAR EN/) z.
FJAl6l.G" I
/J?/.s c.. I
7oT,qt.. - '1
P~.saNIH. fll.w,e'l - /
PiJ(JPIiRIY f)~ - J
-
'i
..
~~
~
~
'"
~
o
foe
V)
~
~
..J
<
z:
<
too
z:
1&1
Q
~
U
to)
'oC
~
~
~
~
:c
o
a:
~~
..t.
~
,
~
. ...w
. foe
'::1
o
-Q:
~
Cl
1
~
~
>c
,.foe
: :z:
::I
o
.t.)
.1~'Cn
......0
. .:c~
~
~
K
....
a: I~
~ I~
:0 ~ I~
,,",, . ~ I~
1'-. I"]
~ ~
~~
>
~
~~~
~~~
a:
o
foe
t.)
<
"'"
a:
o
...,
~
~
~
l"-\u
~ ,r, \:>
~ ~ <!
~ ~~ ~
(&:I~ (!
rn Ifl. ~
a:
(&:I
::r::
foe
~
~
~
~
"
\p
Q
.a:::z:
::10
Int.)
(&:I
~
-l:
.(&:1
foe
<
-~
~I&I
.f-"
::J
o
.a:
v
M
"
"-
\...
~ .J
~ IU
~ ~
~ 14.1
~ -..J
V)
~
N)
~
.........
v
n
~
.......
. "
h . f-l (, (. (t ( to:) P "l~.'
\..
~ .J
--.. 1.\J
~~
~~
41
~ ~'>
o ~~
~ -1
....
~ ~ \L
4l ~~
K
~ Qt...
~ Q.~
-=< ~
- "l~
=lil
M
"
"'
"
'-11 ~
~ ~
<;t ~
~~
\9'"
~
~
'-.s
~ ~
V")~
~~
~
~ J ~
l- ~ <<',>- ~ ~
~~ ~~~~
~~~~~<,t
~ ~ t1i ~ (\~ ~
&:~c..~~C:\
~ ~ Q/.
~ ~ ~
-....} ~ ~
~ ~ '->
4J ~'1 ~l~\o
" u." ~.~
~~\ ~~.~
~ K ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~t~
~C\\~~,,-\\\\
I
I
">-
~
~
~
~.
cs
"'-
~
~
r-..
,
.......
<;)
'"
N
>-
~
D
Q
~
~
lli
~
0::
,
N
~
;""i.l
~\J,
t..:.."
,~
:;~
~~-
"
\1)
N
">-
~
a.
>-..
~
Q
,
~:t.
\~
~
10'
'~;"- '. ,> .',
~:,
~
.' .,-
Q:)
,
"
l~:
~,
.-.tJ
~'
~.
dl
~.
t\'\i<"
iW:~
i~i
.~. ,I
: 'j
~HJJi{ ,~
t~
,(j!
.)1):.
N
-1 "'I. ..
.
..
RAY D. PET TEL
COMMISSION R
RECEIVED
MAY 6 19~j
Planning Dept.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA I I
ATTACHMENT C
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
May 5, 1993
Mr. V Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Plann ng & Community Development
401 M Intire Road
CharI ttesville, VA 22901
Dear r. Cilimberg:
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Route 678
Project: 0678-002-223, C50l
Albemarle County
ttached is the turning movement diagram for the intersection of Route 678 and
738 w th Route 250 at Ivy. Even though Route 678 and Route 738 are slightly offset,
this intersection was counted as if it were a cross-road. If you have any
quest ons, please advise.
GGU/y m
attac ent
Yours truly,
~!~
Contract Administrator
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
. 'C~~lM~::g",IrH __ DEP .l\.ETMENT OF J
.. OF VI.RGINI!A HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATIO
CULPEPER DISTRICT
TURN I NG MOVEMENT 0 I AG RAM
LOCA T I 0 rl1 ROOrE 250/738/678
DATE / -20-93
DAY T(VE;SDAY
WEATHEF CLEAR
ROPTE 250
-IT]
~ -I ~ I
-~
ROUTE 678
B
I I I
BGB
:J t \
~
>-
ALBEMARlE
COUNTY
HOURS 7:00N1-7:00PM
OBSERVER T,^J. R. SMITH
G. EI:NlARDS
~ \ t ~
EJGB
I I I
EJ
~w-
· IT]-[jJ
y- 0-
ROUTE 738
l
f~
ROUTE 250
, I
JI
APPENDIX II
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PET TEL
COMMISSIO ER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
September 2, 1993
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Route 678
Project: 0678-002-223, C501
Albemarle County
M . v. Wayne Cilimberg
C nty Office Building
401 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Cilimberg: .So? ~'JZ
As requested by your office, w~ave a~ estimated cost for the realignment of
te 738 with Route 678 at Ivy Ofn.~, I. This includes right of way and
struction costs. This amount also includes $20,000 for grading the slope to
i rove sight distance on Route 678 near the intersection of Route 250.
The high cost of the Route 738 realignment is due to the extensive
avation, retaining wall and right of way cost due to the impact on a house
ng this alignment.
The total estimated cost of this project, including the turn lanes on Route
250 and the improvements to Route 738 is $950,5~.
Please provide the Board of Supervisors with this information so we can
di cuss this project at the Board's next meeting.
Yours truly,
Gerald G. Utz
Contract Administrator
GG /yrm
REOEIVED
~tl) .) W93
P\anning Dept.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
-. - "9 3 T U Ell : 3 7 C" ",,' ILL l=- f-,: l=-:;:; ~ l.J 1::: to~ C 'o(
F'.01
irginia Department of Transportation
. '-fiiiiii
HA.R.L..OTTESVILLE: RESIDENCY
TELEPHONE. (804) 293-0011
9-t!t!- ,.5
T : ZklV'/d Be:n /J'h
from; ~e'J/t:I' tilL
Phone :._~t~...~ZS
FAX No : (804) 979..3759
9?e..tI"ttJ
.
7Ae CC':/1$..L ~~.;1f.e 7~e /m~~vt'n1'n./;s S~D~//.
LJi!!! ~()5; .1'?Z, ~D./ /;(~ ~~..1; e?t' t::?~ 5.,(~wn /n
/J)t k/kr- ~/ '-Z-93. T"f~ 4/4e~~r:/ $A'~e,L
$~~al5 #.e L5/-eq~~~/l ~./ ~ C~.s~ ~;,;1(
A'J?d ,H//rAlP?J,I #~ Rdv~fi!. ?.J'C3 /~/'t:lyt?".,en-B:
. rA~ ~Z S~ tYOt:; .,htl~,...e ~,. #..e h'cvU e5'C> Q.nr/
J./ ""(t:!
R./e. ~78 'm/,'CV(?h?tI!n-/ ~revlcv.//r 4r/J.-J e
~(/ dl'd/""t1-'c I~c/(.o#d'e ,.t:)rehm. ~n1i/)e~r/o/
.
cPr ae>n.k;';1 en CI4J ·
tZ (Including Transmltt31 Sh~t )
I there are any problems receivtng thls information, please!: call VDOT
r. (S04) 293-0011
....' L:- r "
_" ., I I_I L- ...l......l... _ ...:.' I 1_
",' ..i.... L- L.. L- I" L-.. "_' ...l... ..,LI L I .. 1_" I
1'-" _ ~..:...\..:.:.:.
.
'os 7' 8re't3 kd~w'" h'k ~78
p,.ec;J. (')fP'7S- &J()e- 2Z ~ CG'ol
H A'k1 7ft! .,
A'/~, ~78 r" ?"R'
".oh ~t/';" ~.7r. ~~ /~ OtPO /84tt:70
,If",. ~/ tJ/' a/tly /.J'~ ~o 44 OCJO / ~J:"oo
C <:In ~,t,.uc#O/l Z~ ~ f1)()O c/~O~o 48.J; "(PO
C~n, ~;, j'e" c./ t!.s ~~ i'Jc 4?Z'tf.8 //~ 5~CJ
~
- -...... - -
$ fi7~ JJ Z P 44~ Ztl8 ~ 9?~ ft!"
II f/lc/",des g,k. e$"O ;~r~t/em~" Fs c7l,/r/l Lq"es)
~
~---;
/' .
,V'i~e / /t'/
,
~
IVY COMMONS
~
May 28, 1993
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Cilimberg,
If the present and future traffic problems at the inter-
section of 250 West and Route 678 can be solved by upgrading that
stretch rather than by relocating Route 678 to the west, Albemarle
County and VDOT should certainly pursue that solution. It is my
elief that the new Route 678/Route 250 West Intersection
Improvements as shown in the May 27th memorandum does not go far
nough in its intended improvements. Ideally, any serious long-
erm project should be expanded to include:
1) Lessening the grade on Route 678 as it approaches 250 and
providing at least 2 or 3 car lengths of level stacking
at the intersection itself.
2) Widening of the roadbed and curve correction on Route 678
as it begins to descend from above st. Paul's entrance.
3) Consideration of realigning Route 738 with the improved
678/250 intersection. This last is certainly possible
although expensive.
The above noted expansions of the project could result in a
eal improvement of traffic movement and safety concerns that would
ccommodate the inevitable future increases in traffic in this
rea.
Lastly, as the representation of Ivy Commons, I wish to note
hat we willingly donated half an acre to the County of Albemarle
or the County initiated relocation project for Route 678. This
and was to serve as right-of-way for a project that will never be
uilt. The full right-of-way for its entire length was never
ompletely obtained and there should be no reason for the County to
ontinue to hold this land (shown as Parcel C and the adjacent 50'
trip). Therefore, I want to make it clear that we will want, in
11 fairness, to have the land in question revert to our ownership
nd the tax rolls. Please advise me how to proceed to have this
eversion take place.
sincerely,
Timothy M. Michel
MM:acs
nclosure
503 Faulconer Drive · Suite 7-B · Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 · (804) 295-1131
/ . S fHflN 'HOrO.. OIL[HUOIO NOoltfO
-/
"\,,,-
'\ 1.5. "It
. MON. .' SL>
. <: , 'ra
"~/.1.1 '-1-'.1
......:./~, 'S1o
. ... <?,p'
V \. ~"
'.5' '~-9 If..
. ~<?
-5' J-~. .P", /.1.1
'"" '. qo '1.0'
....,. . 0'.
o ~.
'. MON.
~
C'''/,.
.~~
/ LOT 10.
. / . LOCUST HILL SUBDIVISION
,t1.69'
,.
. .~".
o~
c,"
",'
9'
v,'O
"
'"
00<.. ," ,.
~ ,'v
" ':l
,,,0<.. . 0.
vv, ,'0
o .
'" 0.'"
~
:-
....~
(TI
:-
'IJ'
'-.,
or>
/
/
/
(
(.-.50'_
I
PARCEL "B"
RESIDUE 1:806 ACRES
Noll tn_ ~~
T. M. 58A(2)
PARCEL 2
,:; ,
T. M. 58 A(2)
PARCEL 20.
. '.
./-"
-J
ltJ
'll::. .
I'~. .'
l<.. ..
fj
J...
'f
( ~
I N
\.
\
PARCEL' "A"
60,000 S. F. .
1.377 ACRES
\
T. M,58A(2)
PARCEL 28
~ : SUBDIVISION PLAT.
PARCEL AIlB, A DIVISION PF PARCEL 84A",
T.M.58
PARCEL 8StlSD/VISION PLAT
P.ARCELS AlB ,.A DIVISION OF PARCEL 84A T:M: 58
AND PARCEL C TO BE DEDICATED
FOR RELOCATION OF STATE ROUTE678
LOCATION AT VILLAGE OF IVY
Pip. Sot SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
4' 11: ",,- ALBRMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
6'. "
<?<? .1"" "-
'-9'11' /0', "-
It-
[..
ROUDABUSH. GALE & ASSOC" INC.
A Profession a' Corporation
CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR - ENGINEER
Charlottesville, Virginia
SC LE: 1"= 50'
DATE:
~<
/ .~e'_S
,. .._~
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 578
w
~ ~ '
~ \.'..11.
ft .'
U ,}
II :
, '~\3
\ I \
.J~~~D OF SUPERVlSORS\
0:
The Albemarle Board of Supervisors,
Virginia Department of Transportation - Daniel Roosevelt
UBJECT:
Proposed Reallgnment of Route 578 in the vicinity of
Route 250 West in the Village of Ivy
UMMARY:
A Publ ic Hear ing was hel d on November 17, 1992 by VDOT
to receive comments on the subject realignment. 1
The majority of the attendees, residents living on or ln
the vicinity of Route 578, were opposed to the
realignment for the following reasons:
1.
Safety
will
be
degraded
by
moving
the
intersection 700 feet to the West.
2. Neither ease of access to the residences North
of Route 250 nor access to the Meriwether Lewis
Elementary
Sc hool
wi 11
be
improved
by
the
realignment.
1 'v' I RG IN I A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT I ON; 1 OCAT I ON & DES I GN
P BLIC HEARING; ALBEMARLE COUNTY ROUTE 579; TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17,
1 92. Att..~chment 1.
1
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 678
vis a vis Route 738 presumably).2:
"The purpose of the relocat ion
,ould be to lmprove the sight distance and el iminate an awkward
I ffset at this intersection. ,,::3;
"2. Route 678 Relocation: Improve
he intersection of route 678 with Route 250 to provide a safer
-ntersection with adequate sight distance.
Th is in t er sec t ion 1 s
( urrent I y unsa fe for sc hool busses t hat use it. Sc hool and bus
traffic will increase when the new Ivy School is built.,,4; "I
Lnderstand that the available sight distance to the west was
11 inimal".~;
[Photographs of line of sight looking West on Route
:50 from both Route 678 and Route 738, Attachments 2 & 3]
"The
[epartment will requlre a right turn lane from Route onto Route
E 78.
Sight distance to the West from this intersection will meet
rrinimum design criteria but will be very limited.
This combined
~ith the relatively steep grades on Route 250 from that direction,
leads me to recommend very strongly
that a left turn lane be
constructed at this location."St;
"1. It first appeared ln its
2Minutes November 7, 1979; Page 7.
4Minutes May 21, 1986; Page 2. T. P. Horne letter to Board of
S~pervisors, dated May 15, 1986.
~inutes June 11, 1986; Page 9.
~Letter dated August 18, 1986, from Michael F. Arm,Director
of Engineering to D. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,DOT. (Attachment
2) .
StLetter dated August 29,
A m, engineering. (Attachment
a ea. ( Attachment 5>.
1986 from Mr. Roosevelt, DOT, to Mr.
4). Also see topographical map of
3
l
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 578
~t the lntersection.
A review of the Albemarle County Police Department report of
'Accidents At Specific Lc,cations For The Period: 01/01/85 to
(4/30/93" reveals that there were only two (2) accidents reported
t the intersection of Routes 578 and 250 West during the entire
~eriod; and one (1) at the intersection of Routes 738 and 250 West
curing the same seven (7)
Engineering studied and
year per i od.
Albemarle Department
of
diagramed accidents occurring ln
the
'illage of Ivy, along Route 250 West, for the period from 8/1/88
t07/31/91. That report shows a total of twenty one(21) accidents;
'= ix (5) deer, nine (9) rear end, three (3) off road (single
,ehicle), two (2) sideswipe and one (1) angle. Only one, the angle
collision occurred directly at the intersection of Routes 578 and
~50 and was due the failure of the driver to yield the right of way
~hile turning left from Route 250 into Route 678.
There were no
accidents reported at the intersection of Routes 738 and 250 West.
A majority of the other reported incidents happened in the vicinity
of Ivy Commons or Route 786, on the East side of the rai I road
overpass. (Attachment 4).
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS - Line of Sight
According to the VDOT Brochure (Attachment 1) "The propose
inprovement consists of realigning Route 678 so that it intersects
5
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 578
(river approachlng from the West.
While VDOT agrees that the line
(pf sight meets the arbitrary minimums set by the State lt would
cppear that the relocation would substitute a very safe line of
eight for a minimum, and inherently more dangerous, line of sight.
here aooears to be no overridino advantaae to just i fv the
lelocation to imorove the line of sioht.
EASE OF ACCESS
The VDOT broc hure st at es t hat one 0 f t he purposes 0 f the
y eal i gnment
is to improve, "---ease of access to the residences
rorth of Route 250 and to the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School."
o
It is obvious that moving Route 578 some 700 feet to the west
~ ill necessitate residents who commute to Charlottesville to drive
come 1400 feet more eac h day;
will this ease access to the
yesidences or the school?
Will the proposed road have a lesser
crade? The County Director of Engineering said in his letter to
Caniel Roosevelt, dated August 18, 1985, "It is my understanding
that ----- the maximum road grade shall be 10 pel'"cent.,,11 A field
inspection of the Rouite 578 project was conducted by J. E. Sours,
1raffic Technician Janual'"Y 24, 1992; he repol'"ted the following to
I"r. D. S. Roosevelt:
lOSee footnote No.
2
llSee footnote No.
c:-
..J
7
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 578
he only improvement and at a cost of $550,000 wlth the potential
roblems the steep grades may cause.
Dan's solution is to lower
o new road to an 8% grade. This requires additional earthwork and
he purchase of on house.
The estimated cost is $1,000,000.
"---For either option the entrance can be connected, however the
% grade would be in the bank's [JNBJ favor. ,,13
With the relocation of Route 578 it 1S planned to create a
ul-de-sac below t he po i nt where t he ex i st i ng road meet s the
elocated segment.
This will require all of the members driving
outh on Route 578 to the church, located near the lower end of
oute 578,
to make a left turn into Route 250 at the new
ntersection and another left turn into old Route 578 in order to
et to church. The reverse will be true when leaving the churdh to
o north on Route 578.
This can hardly be classified as a
onvenience to those members whose residences are located north of
oute 250.
The overwhelming majority of those who attended the
OT hearing did not see any benefit accruing to the residents, from
he proposed realignment of Route 578.
There is nothing in the Board Minutes or 1n Department files
hat indicates that either school favored realignment of Route 578
13See Memorandum Footnote No. 8
'3
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 678
ystem. Why is this project being pursued to the exclusion of more
ressing needs?
RURAL ASPECT OF THE COMMUNITY
The Mast er PI an des i gnat es I vy ViII age as a rural (bedroom)
ommunity with a minimum of commercial development.
Most of the
esidents of this quaint village prize the beauty of its winding
oads, the beauty of its scenery, and the leisurely pace of life.
f t he present Rout e 678 present s a hardsh i p for t he res i dent s
oing to and from Route 250, which arguably it does not, then that
mall inconvenience IS preferable to having a new road slashed
hrough a pristine area in the heart of the village. Deep cuts and
.ills will ravage the natural contours of the landscape, to what
urpose?
To create a new road segment In a area well served by
n ex i st i ng road?
If need be the existing road can be improved
ith minimum impact on the rural aspect of the community. Our
ountry spaces are worth preserving from the encroachments of
"progress" .
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In keeping with the effort to preserve the rural nature of the
community future commercial development must be prohibited or
strictly limited to activities that the residents demand and are
11
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 678
Y"uY"al natuY"e of the Ivy community'?
Does this statement Y"eflect
pY"essuY"es from ceY"tain segments of the commeY"cial community, ar
is it a remaY"k not suppoY"ted by the recoY"d'/ The potential to make
the realignment the opportunity for further commercial development
makes this pY"oJect doubly undesirable.
SCENIC HIGHWAY
The rape of this pristine aY"ea to locate a section of highway
of doubtful value will also degrade the scenic highway with which
it intersects.
A scenic highway encompasses not only the right of
y but also its environs, the land on both sides with varying
c ntours, trees and meadowland that can be seen and admired by
ose who travel along that road. The proposed Y"ealignment will
Y" quiY"e large cuts and fills, recontoured slopes and the removal
native vegetation.
These changes will be veY"y appaY"ent to
avelers on both routes and can only be viewed as a hiatus in the
c ntinuing beauty of the scenic highway.
A highway that we are
oud to have, delighted to enjoy and fight hard to preserve. Is
eY"e a compelling reason to put a scar upon it'?
ALTERNATE ROUTE
TheY"e
1S little evidence
1n
the
files of
the County
o partments or in the minutes of the Board of SupeY"visoY"s that a
13
REALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 578
'ustify one over the other.
It appears that the preamble to the
.esolution had very little basis in fact.
Despite the problems
aised by the County Engineer's Office and VDOT V1S a vis the line
f sight and the grade of the proposed road, discussed above, the
roject was pushed ahead without consideration of an alternate
1 an.
It was not until the many objections to the safety, cost
nd esthetics of the proposed road were heard at the Public Hearing
hat an alternate started be seriously considered. (Attachment g)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above it 1S deemed to be 1n the best
interest of the County and the residents of the Village of Ivy,
specially those living North of Route 578, to recommend the
iscont inuance of ef fort to relocate or real ign Route 578 and
roceed with the consideration of
lternative.
appears
to be a viable
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
J'
.~
15
A-T1AC t.,M€N, t
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LOCATION & DESIGN
PUBLIC HEARING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ROUTE 678
FROM: INTERSECllON WITH ROUTE 250
TO: 0.263 MilES NORTH OF INT. WITH RTE 250
DATE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17,1992
TIME: PLAN REVIEW 5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM
HEARING 7:30 PM
PLACE: MERIWETHER LEWIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LOCATED ON ROUTE 678,
APPROXIMATELYlWO MILES NORTI-I OF ROUTE 250
TRANSPORTATION FOR "THE 215f CENTURY c:
-
-
A iT Ire tl fUN, Z.
A1TfretlI'tLW1'- 3 )
\
/.
...;.
A rr A-~ ~ M fE- N~ 'f
~-~
~ -1 - ~sJ--. / r.;.
_ .'~_: -'L/~.l1'I.'-""~~<'e..,..~ Ij~? r~j~~J...Q.~
-::r~'~ f
_:~'7)~..~~~Q ~
~.~
,.... -- I ~
L ': :::::> '".l..f '.) ~ .;:, ~ 1'.11 Y
~13' .,
. . . . . , , ' .
. - . . . . . . .
........ .'.
i-c~'1 %'
.,
R. T "'2,,!:{'O vi
~ I ~ l:J .--,.-'.~ .. )
__._ a- - 0 0 ,{ (1/~'
7. -7/- <:;/
;J .-1
.
,
i.
/l1E/U)t)w
VISTA lJR.
If '1fi f.r.,Jd.. H 'Z ,-1~
f1!!
"
~L6'€"A1./iA>Ll: Cd.
RaoTG" t, 78
Ivy
PI2.&
.,. -l ~
,;S
pflV
~1.
b-C-B9 Tv/;". /8 'IS- /?/J, ~ 3-22-9/ FRI. 08"30
jf/-}/A/ WeT ~ \\ p.o. RAIJJ WeT
5-9-91 TlltJ, a/v.;' P.o,
/?.4IJ./ WGT
/; -m.p. 7.%
I
..,
'-I a~ w "- (X) ~ t+ T1l(rAdJ1. 1.4) 4'1. ~
.1 _ :i:1l-< '0 " ~ ~
. ~ K
, K. K
;
l.!J l.!J "- lu\y
~ ~!u
Q '"> ,J "
<t~ ~ ~ ~"::::.. ~~
<t.~ ~~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~
. \9\} ~~ \9~ ~~ I
~ I
~ I
~ ""- I
l~ u \l \f.\I\ i
~ ~ !
- \J Q i
0 !~ ~ ~ :J lu ~
f-l ~ \n q, '01 j
I", ~ ~ \..: I
l ~ o ~ l ~
i ~ '" ~\Il~ ~ I
Q I
: Ill, ~'"
~ ~ =-.
I
~ ~\!J :::lo.... ~~ ~'" I
~ ~ ... " ~ \'J ~~ I
m Q: \ii \!I ~~ !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !
() "it ~~ ;
p ~~ ~~ ~~ ,
~ ~
:t:
0
~ ~ i
1&0" ~ I
~ ~ ~
.-4 ~ -.. ~
~ -{ I C( .... .........
..:I ! ~ ~ !
< ~ Q:;: G i
:z: I
<
t-t ~ VI ~ ~ ~ "" V) "" I
:z: ~
I&l
Q ~ I
pol ~ ~ ~ I
t) ~ ~ \.(.
u " ~ 3 \... ~ I
'< ~ I
I~ -~ ..;;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ...- I
~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
"'i ~ ! ~ ~ i
1"-' I
I I
~ i
~ ~ ~ N '" '"
""\ 1'1 N (V' i
I
"()
.~~ h.. > h \--...
. ..r.1 '0
... "3 ~ \u \u
.~
0 Q ~ ~
,.~ I
,. lu I
\!, Q. Q ~
- ~
3 ~
~ - i \t) \u \Q
~ W ~ ~
~ Q. a ~ ~
......
\/} ~ Q(,
< 0"- ~ -
, .~ .~ 0"- "'-
~ I ~
. '" ,
~ ~ N N \
~ ~
,.~ "'" . ~ ~
~z ...........
::l
0 .~ ~
.U ,~ ~ I
~ " ~ '\)
~ ~
ii ~ ~
~
, .
. ". .
,feu/e. 73e
IVY
.$7aR G
"four€: 786
".1 Tf~ 'II- tf fl'.~
~.r---
I ~
I4L.gBJIIlRL6 C Q.
!<L:JU7/E" Z.SO
IVY
LLJLL/S)~N
D) IJ~Rt:Jm
8/-&8 7#~/J /Z-:U-B8
;J:VV c.ommCJN..:5
~
\\
...-B
cv;>-
<$""
is /6'
LJ
f
R6"ft~ BVO - 'Z.
'sIDfrSw({)/F - I
/1'1/5 Co I
'-I
~mL
PR.o/J(E/(r't' Ofl,.,,~Gi.fC - ~
PER.5ctvf+L J.A);jt)R'f - I
7i}Tt4 L
'-t
I .--. ~ 0-- \..}- '.J " cf7("*, !{}o{1c.rJ 1:1
. ....JCJ:l \1)
HO -- ....... M
. (. ;:c,p.. "'" ~ t--:
. r.;:
........... "'- '- - I
"- ~ }""
E-< ~ 4J ~ ~~
:z: \C) ~ \U\.!)
~ " \ ~ ~ \:) U
;:c ~ ~ ~~ ~ '>
~ :z: ~ <!<t..
t.:l ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~
\f) ....J \1j'-J \1~
~ < "" \9~
I.u
"- ...J
~ ~
~ 0 ~
~ !.!J
c: ~ ~ '>
0 \9 ':l
E-<
0 t.:) ~t ~ ~ .
E-< < U
l&.I Q ~ ~
Qct
c: ~ 0 Q ~
0 :>
.., - IX I
~ N . I'\J
~ -:t. ~ 1)
>- >..'-tJ
~ >- l-'v ..J,:>- ~lt,
........ E-< ~" ~ " Q:~
~ l!J~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
c:
~ ~ ~ f.
> ~ ~ ~ ~
~ () <:t
Cf.l sx. <r ~C4 ~~
;:c~ QQ u.:.\-..\
~;:;; -::>- ~
l&.I, c: ~
en ~ ~ ~ ~
~ == <!
Cf.l E-< - \1J '.u
)of ~ :i Q: Q ~
~ ~ '1 "
< :x ~ ~
z "
< ~
.... ".3 3 ~ ~ Us "3 4. :
Z
1&1
Q ~ ~ \-.. \- ~
P'4
(,) c: ~ ....J ~
u ~ ~ "{ ~
"< {, g; I ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ::-....
~. ~ ~~ ~ <l ~
:z: , ~~
~ "\J ~ \ I ~
'1 ~ I
, I
i I
Ill::
::: 1"4 t\') ~ N "\
1~ ~ N "\
>
" I
N
" >-
Q ':>- '>-
-~ t2:Z \u
E-< :;:10 1 ~ tt: ~
:;:I 0'Jt.:) Q
0
-oQ::
- \u
Q ~ Q..
\!J ~ ~ - ~
..., ~
~. ~
~ ~ ~ \U ~ ;..
~ -~ ~ ~ ~
~ Clc:.. V)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'J .~ I
't E-< - eQ . ~
< N ~ ~
.Q . ......
>- ~ I , \
,..E-< c;x) ~ ~
:z:
::l
0
U -.(oJ \~ ~ t\ ~. : I
f-<
0 oS) '\t)
0 ~ l)
c: N ~ ~
I'
RtJul'e: 73'8
lVY
5. TtJl?G
LJ
!?ourE; 786
I ,
A "~.H1 d{l~.s
ZJ---
11 U1E/J1IlRLG'" C CJ .
RCJUT~ ZSa
..IV y
CL) L L /.s ) /;/'1
D);l)t;.Rf:Jm
/9&9
;J:VY c."m moN ~
~
C7 '" >-
~ 6"?c:9
/JEll/? €NJJ - /
;:'/ " - 2-
/J71.5C. - I
7b h?'~ ~
.P~NAl. .IA'JP~Y' - 3
~A'at'Enr LJIIA1~E _ I
7OT~L l-f
I ::.JCr.i
.1.>-10
. ',_ .;:c.o..
~
,./)
~
"
~
o
E-4
en
0-4
~
~
<
Z
<
to4
Z
101
Q
P4
tJ
to)
"<
~
~
~
%
~o.. ~
'~ f&J
=
~ E-4
I ~
~ :E
~
~
~
f\\
....ta:I
E-4
::>
o
'~I
~
~
~
41
~
~
><
,.f-l
:2:
:::l
o
U
~~
0-. ~ I
~ ~ IQ{
" :z; ~
I~ ~ '\S:
'"
5 ~ ~
~ 0: ~
~ ~ ~
"<
~
R
~
'"
"-
(t
~
......
~
o
E-4
U
<
ra..
~
o
...,
~
>< ~
5 ~~
~ Vl ~
~ ~ ~
~"'1
s
"==
~~
l>
Q
~:z;
::>0
UJU
<:)
~
f&J ~
-~ ~~
~\)
~
~
'-
~
~
-f&J
f-l
<
Q
.~
f-l
::l
o
ex:
-
IV)
~
.........
'-
~
U
.J -
.J <I
- ~
=tv)
'"~
~
~
'-
M
~
..........
"-
G
....... .J
~ ~
t\ ~
"\\.\
.
\l
'"
"-
~
~
~
~
~
"-
<.t
~
f'rI
'll
-.J ....J
~ '>-- ~ >-
\l ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~
Q::
ti
~
~
~
'-l
~
\u
~
~
"-
~
~I
'1
~
~
~
~
(l'
~
~~
Q \)
0..
. \'Xl
.
"-
,
..........
~
t'\\
'>-
Q.
:)
~
~
lu \u tu
\\. q,.
~ ~
~~,
~! ~ <I
"'\Ntc)
\u
"
..........
'>-
Q!
~
~
~
~
~
\)
'"
N
\)-..
~
~
~
,
%
\()
.0
N
...
IV\
~
.........
A 7TAC.H t.t f./ ,
~
~~
Q:~
~\Jj
V)~
y.
:(
J
Ql
~
~
~
-
~
tl!J
q '-'
I.U ~
~ E
~~
~
~
"-J
'->
au
....
~
~
"
'"
""\
I
'>
~
~
~
~
~
I
....
~
tp
\1)
l\1
,
~
'"
~
~
, ~
. ~.. .
. ~
~
Rc()7~ 73B
* rrpeH ~ ~ 7
I
z-'"-
.4L.8E/J1IlRL6 C Q.
I<LJU'71!: ZS"O
IVY
CL)LLIS)~)1/
D)I)~R~m
/990
;J:V y C. ortl fYI 0 tV .;S
~
C7v>-
t$"- &?~
~~I/a. E.ND - z.
F/O - /
/11/5G - ;a
77:JmL S
IVY
57{Jft G
LJ
,l(ourl:. 786
r ,
P~fI PlE1<7r DRl1'rAC. _ Z.
P4",.e5()1lI~1.. '[AJUT.JR'(' - 3
n?<< S-
1-" vv IJ .'" 0-- ...., f+~~~~. 4f~ ~(w
...Hn N 1'0 tv) J..
. HO M
, ',; . ~Q.. c' ~ ~ f' ~
........... ........ ........ ---- ...........
'- h.
f-I \u :t ~ " lu
z <l ~ ~ ~ au :t ~ \1J
w <tlU Q. ~ ~
:c uU Q..~ Q '>
z ~~ ~ <t
~ " Q(~ ~~ ....... J G:~
t-l Ql :)
...:l \9") ",,'\.1 \9 ~ C)~ ~'-l
< \J)
~ ~
"'- 4J
~ ~ ~ '"
12: ,~ \J U
~ --
0 ~ .... . ~
f-I \l -..J \J
0 tJ "- \I) ~
f-I < '"' '" ~
"" ...... ~
~ Q "-
12: ~ ~
0 <t
.., " ~
~ ~
~ >-\u ...J ~\u ....l
~ ....
~ l- " ~ ~ ~~ ~~
" t-l a <;!: ~~ =:( ~
12: ~ E ~~ ~ ~
~ w ~ ~
> ~~ Q..f
w o 0: ~~ () Q:. ~~
tf.I ~D ~ ~~
~~
:c
0
= >-
""~ = ~ ~
~ l&l ~ ~ ~ q,
... I = ...... ~ '-tJ
~ E-4 ~ ....
..J ~ i:3 ~ <!: '-.l '-J
< I ~ " Q:: ~ 'tJ
z "',
< ""
~ ~ \tJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Iu ~
z ~
1&1 ~
Q " ~ ~ ~ ~
... ~ ~ i
tJ 12: ~ ~
u w ~ ~
-c f; ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
-
~ ~~ ~ "
~ w ~ ~
z ~ ~I ~ ~ ~
, ~ t-.. ~ ~ ~
........ '" Vi! \r ~ ~ I
I I
\ I I
i
, ~
~ = "\ N M
l&l N l'\ "1 "" ~
> I
~
Q '>- ~ ""'- "- >-
. ..ul a:z ~ \!) \u
.E-4 ~o \u Q(
= tf.ItJ ~ ~ 1
0 ()
..0::
..
~ Q 0
~ ~ ~ c:t ~ ~
~ l&l ~ ~ ~ ~ t
j:l., 'ii.
~ ffi ~ ''W
~ ~~ Q.
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ .J? ~ ~
~ .W , ~
" ,
E-< ~ \ (.) I
I < ~ ~ Co'
.Q \ M
>- ........ I ~ \
~ .
,..E-< ........ M l'tl
~z
~
0 I
t.> .W ~ ~ ~ ~ I
E-< \(;) I
"0 \.(\ I
0 .t)
!:l:: ~ N N N N
l .-
.'
. ~
J
A 11f~, a. I<fJ l1f7 ~ f1
zr----
/1L.8E/J1IlRLC Ca.
!<l!:)UTl;" ZSa
IVY
CL> LLIS Jt:J/V
D)J)~R~m
/-/-9; 711R{) 7-3/-9/
;J:VY commo/V.5J
~
u>-~
'&?e
~u/c-. 7JB
lVY
.5 Tal( t:
LJ
l?otJrE. '186
1 ,
REI/If ENf}
J9N6.t..!:
If) is <:..
70 T,q,
- z..
- I
- I
- ---q-
P~S()NRI.. fll.J7JR'I - I
PfJdP~1Y p~ - J
-
'i
." .~. ~ I ~~
\
~
~
"
~
o
E-4
Cf.l
0-1
~
-1
<
Z
<
~
Z
1&3
Q
0-1
C,,)
U
'<
~
~
~
~
2:
o
0::
~~
:.t
N1
,
~
~
\
"-
~
N
. ..Ja1
.E-4
':;::)
o
-..c:
~
'.l
~
1
1
~
~
>c
,..f-<
:2;
:;::)
o
u
~
~
K
\...
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~"'~
0::
o
E-4
U
<
ra..
0::
o
..,
~
:>...\u
~ t- "
~ ~ <!
~ Q.. ~
(&:l <"\~ (!
tn~~
0::
~
:::
E-I
~
:E
~
.....
fZ ~
~ ~
Z ~
. ~ "
"1
~
ffi~
:>
Q
J:l:Z
:;::)0
cnu
~
c-
-t:
-~
f-<
<
.Q
"-
~
~
'"
,
--
~c.J
f-<
::>
o
.0::
<;)
'-l)
N
v
M
c'
......
\-..
\ ~
~ IU
~ ~
~ '.0
~ -.J
V)
~
~
~
N)
~
.......
\...
~ ~
..... ,~
~~
~~
~
~ It>-
o =t~
~ -1
...
~ ~\J.
~ ~~
:::: ~~
~ Ci~
~ ~
....... "'~
~
'V
n
~
-....
......
"" ~rrra ~ fti+ t ': jt; ItJ
M
c'
.......
h
UJ ::t
Cl~
<;t'(
~~
\9~
~
S
:--.:
'""'.~
~ ~
~~
~
~~ ~">-~~
~"~c;t ~"
~\t~~~<;t
(\~Q!.~~~~
~~~~~C\
~ ~ ~
"-..1 ....J -J
" U ~
\4J ~ 1 'U '-u \u
\.. lJ." t... "-
~:t.$, ~~~
R ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 'I; ~ q,.~
~ ~ "I ' ~ ~
~ \, ~, '-I \J \r
~~~f\~N
~
~
u
>-
Q!
~
>-
~
~
!-\l
ill.
CS
Q
~
~
lli
~
~
,
N
~
\)
\J)
N
>-
~
a.
\b
-'
~
~
<l-
-
0"-
1
();)
,
('...
\~
1)
\'\\
~
~
Q
o
~
~
~
~
~
.
~
.........
\
..........
~
N
J
I
I
-
'-
I
C.
,:
r.
'I'
I ..
I I' 1/
I I
chi ';
B "
~.u__
o
o
.
A- rr A-CH ~ IV"'r ~
...I
~'-'.ii!':.f'
~H~
Jefferson National Bank
P.O. BOX 711. CHARLOTIESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902 . (804) 972.1100
February 20, 1992
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Bob:
In a telephone conversation T had yesterday with V DOT , Mr. Echols informed
me that the planned highway relocation of Route 678 in Ivy is being
reconsidered. Mr. Echols stated that because of the expansion of Murray School,
the proposed route of Route 678 may be moved, or if it remains where it is,
the elevation may be altered.
As I am sure you are aware, Jefferson National Bank is completing the
f-onstruction of its office in Ivy which is to be located on the corner of Route
~50 and the relocated Route 678. This building's site location and elevation
~ere determined based upon the plans for the roads relocation. To find out
hat a change is being considered in those plans is distressing.
Any alteration to the roads plan would have an immediate impact on this
pffice. Unfortunately, most of the impact is negative. Consequences range
rom erroneous land dedication to traffic flow problems. To comply with the
~ounty's requirements regarding this site only to find out another County action
nay render what we had to do unnecessary and a possible hindrance to our
ocation is objectionable. Please reconsider any plans the County may have
hat would cause a change in the relocation of Route 678 so that Jefferson
rational Bank is not injured by those plans.
Cordially,
,_ /J ~
y~: LC_'
Walter A. Pace, Jr.
President
W~PJr:abf
COUNTY OF ALBEMf:..HlE
r'!}-:';'>~~ ;~~ ,i,\ t"i
~;" I FE8 2 I J.CI. (;. ~~
I; " \ :~: I~
,;" .. I:~ ~
"'. ',f ..
- .
~.
"
I
fA)
13
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mcintire Road
C har\oltesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296.5841
FAX (804) 972-4060
February 24, 1992
A. Pace, Jr., President
ferson National Bank
O. Box 711
rlottesville, Virginia 22902
r Mr. Pace:
nk you for your letter of February 20 concerning the realignment
Route 678. I have asked the County's Director of Engineering to
iew any changes proposed to this alignment and determine the
nitude of impact to the Ivy Branch Bank, if any.
will keep you informed of any negative effect to the bank's
rent design and I am hopeful that any substantive impact can be
ided.
Sincerely,
tf~~. ~.
unty Executive r!
,Jr/dbm
055
Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt w/enclosure
Ms. Jo Higgins w/enclosure
LctU
(( elf~. ,?u-<'-c '--'/12. -/ J 00
<,' f0 H;"{'>.",
..( . .'. '.', /,., '-,
. 'J!- ..'. I
-=: ',;,,.' I Of)
~ {//,<".. v~2
~:'; \ < U /i~~::. ?!/;()
~_I'
,
!
-":'--'..j/. .\\':,//
'"J ',,~/-
.A'
~
. . \,\
,y~
A.1J AGI-I MeN I 7
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO John DePasquale
Charlottesville, VA
FROM D. S. Roosevelt
December 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Review of Location & Design
0678-002-223, C501
December 8, 1992, a meeting was held with members of the Albemarle County
ning, engineering and executive staff as well as Ed Bain, Board of
Sup rvisors member, to discuss the location and design of the above captioned
pro'ect. You and Gale Lipscomb as well as Angela Tucker and I attended
rep esenting the Department. This memo confirms the discussion at that meeting,
mak s a request for a review of other options for the location and design and
for ards information needed for that review.
the meeting we discussed the current location and design presented at the
ic hearing in November and the citizen input received as a result of that
ing. Mr. Bain and the county staff indicated that their desire for this
pro'ect had always been to improve the intersection of Routes 678 and 250 and
traffic flow on Route 250 through the Ivy area. Based upon comments
itted at the public hearing it was suggested that we investigate the
ovements in the vicinity of the existing intersection of Routes 678 and 250
an alternative to the new location presented at the public hearing. The
ty requested we undertake this investigation prior to requesting a position
fro the Board of Supervisors concerning the location and design for this
pro'ect.
As a result of the County's request it was agreed we would look at the
fe sibility of widening 250 to create a left turn lane at 678 and widen 678 for
a distance north from 250 to create two lanes approaching the intersection. It
was also agreed that we would look at a second option to widen 250 westward from
67 to create left turn lanes and right turn lanes for the commercial entrances
se ving The Ivy Commons commercial area. I request that we develop a schematic
pl n and cost estimate for these two options.
I believe detailed survey information exists along Route 250 from the Route 678
in ersection westward to the point where either option listed above would end.
To assist with th~ development of a schematic plan f0r the area east of 678 I
ha e enclosed a sketch indicating the location of the railroad underpass just
ea t of 678. With only 280' of distance between the intersection and the
ab tment for the underpass I believe widening of 250 to the three lane cross
se tion must be accomplished by widening equally on both sides of the road to
al ow sufficient distance to taper back into the underpass. I recommend we
de elop our schematic plan on this premise. We have field measured the distance
fr m the intersection to the underpass and from the intersection to the existing
pi e since our meeting on the 8th. We have also checked sight distance
me suring it from a point 10' back from the proposed widened pavement. You will
no e this sight distance of 635' exceeds that required in a 45 mph zone.
Co cerning 678 I believe widening should be restricted to the tangent section of
67 to keep from having to improve the substandard horizontal curve located from
25 ' to 300' north of the intersection.
./
..~ .
John DePasquale
0678-002-223, CS01
Page 2
December 11, 1992
I elieve that existing survey information and that submitted with this memo are
su ficient to develop a schematic plan and cost estimate without additional
su vey information. Once this information has been developed, we agreed we
wo Id again meet with the County to discuss the plan and cost estimates. If
YOlr understanding of our meeting on December 8 differs from that outlined in
th's memo, please get in touch with me.
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSRVsmk
a tt ~chmen ts
cc: G. D. Lipscomb
')Y'
.--:
I
:'\\
"
\)
Y'l
'\J
'4!
~
~
\~
'i
~
~
~
\~
~{
~
~.8
II
I
r I
~ i I, T
~ I '
~.i II 1\
~I ~; I:
... . !
\J! !
~i i ---:6-
~i'--I A
\j (' I
~ i~ I ·
{~~ I
~i ~~ ~ I b
{! ;~~ ~
~ I\,;
\~! i;j. ~ I · ~
'-, :~\~ . ~ I!' t\j
1,~1'~
I~ ~ I! i
',~~. ' I!
,~ ,
. ~ ~ I;
7~ - -",- I~::f I: I .-
-~-",---..J~ 11[,/
" ""-~-~-~';
~ -', //
" I;;
I U
I (;~
, i \J
I ~:~
I
I '
.~
'\t
~
~
~
~
~
'i\
~ : I
i I
~~ I
~SJ.
.~~ : I
'J ~ I
:3 q'l c/p O~
.
,.
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/'1'':?
. ,
AGENDA TI ru::
Route 708 Route 631 Intersection Improvements
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
SUBJECT/P~OPOSAL/REOUEST:
Further cpnsideration of improvements based
on update~ traffic count and turning movement
data and he function of the intersection
with the ~a1nut Creek Park's operation.
ACTION: ~
ITEM NUMBER:
7(b) 7~2.N,(;?,17
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF COHrACT {S \ :
Messrs. T~cker, Ci1imberg
REVIEWED BY:
Yes /1
kJAlI
/
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUlm:
This pro ect was initiated as a spot improvement in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan about
five yea s ago in anticipation of increasing traffic volumes at the intersection due to the
opening pf Walnut Creek Park. Relocation of Route 708 and 631 as well as more immediate
improvemlmt to the existing intersection were explored by VDOT. Relocation alternatives were
not purs~ed because they would not provide for the ultimate vertical curvature improvement
and were beyond the scope originally intended for the project (see Attachment A). Further
decision regarding the spot improvement of the existing intersection was deferred to allow
VDOT to provide additional traffic data comparable to the park's operating times (see
Attachme I1t B).
DISCUSSIDN:
VDOT has provided turning movement data for Saturday, June 26, 1993, a clear and hot day,
(see Att~chment C). Data provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation indicate that
was a fa rly typical attendance day for a weekend. Although VDOT has not provided analysis
as to th~ turning movement's affect on the intersection, the predominate movement at this
intersec ion appears to be through movement eastbound and westbound on Route 708, through
movement southbound on Route 631 (going toward the park) and left turn northbound on Route
631 (com ng from the park). Right turns east bound on Route 708 and left turns westbound on
Route 70~ (both going towards the park) are the next most frequent movement on Route 708.
The opel ating hours of the park do not seem to dramatically affect turning movements,
although northbound traffic on Route 631 (coming from the park) increases fairly
signific~ntly in the early evening (5:00 to 7:00 p.m.). Accidents at the immediate
intersec ion have not been reported, although there have been accidents in the approaching
curves 0 Route 708 to the east and west. The Department of Parks & Recreation indicates the
primary ~roblem with the intersection is sight distance both east and west on Route 708 from
Route 63. They note no other particular problems or complaints about the intersection.
RECO ATION:
This rem~ins a substandard intersection. There is certainly the potential that increased
traffic ~t this intersection will create problems in the future. However, experience with
the oper tion of the park to this point brings question to the need for the spot improvement
to the i~tersection at this time. Some problems based on experience and accident data is
evident n the Route 708 curves approaching the intersection, but improvements to address
these prpblems are beyond the scope of this project as originally intended. Improvements to
the imme< iate intersection do not seem warranted at this time, particularly if the Board were
to decidE to pursue the larger relocation alternatives to Route 708. It should be noted that
funding pf this larger project would require an adjustment in funding from the Six Year
Secondar It Plan (which now has the intersection spot improvement estimated for $393,000)
and/or t~e Revenue Sharing funds. This, in turn, reduces dollars available within the six
year pla~ning period for other projects.
93.139
fD) m m m ." WI ~ In1I
unl 01993 J~I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
,
p
,
RESOLUTION
,
I
! WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DoT) held a Location and
~Sign Public Hearing, in 1992, to consider the proposed location and design improvement
o Route 708 and 631 to better accomodate the anticipated traffic increase due to the
c nstruction of Walnut Creek Park south of this intersection in Albemarle County (Project
# 708-002-241, C501); and
I
I
WHEREAS, approximately 50 people were in attendance at the public hearing and
s ven people spoke concerning the proposed project. Seven speakers were opposed to the
p oposal to widen Route 708 in its existing location. Eleven letters were received during
a d after the public hearing, including six from those who spoke and seven were against
t e proposal. Those who favored the proposal were members of the Mt. Olivet Church
I
ihich is located on this project and did not own property which is directly impacted by this
prOPosed project.;
t NOW, TH EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests
t at VDoT drop the proposed improvement that went to public hearing for the intersection
o Routes 708 and 631 and no further action be taken;
I AN D FU RTH ER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
~irginia, does hereby request that VDoT include a section of Route 708 for guard rail spot
itProvements to be paid out of the secondary improvement allocation funds, an amount
n t to exceed $15,000.
* * * * *
~ I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
o a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
r gular meeting held on October 6, 1993.
: ~
I n
: ;- I 1 /t
: //W~ L. j V{V{i{/
lerk, Board ~ounty sUP~fsors
L..'
ATI'ACHMENT A
MEMtRANDUM
I
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
TO: Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg,Director of Planning and /~
Community Development UC
May 27, 1992
Rt. 708/631 Intersection Improvements
County initiated this project through the six Year Secondary
Plan (1988/89 to 1993/94 Plan) in anticipation of increasing
tra fic volumes at the intersection due to the new Walnut Creek
Reg'onal Park. As Mr. Roosevelt's letter (attached) points out,
the intersection currently has limited horizontal and vertical
sig t distance. This project is ranked fourth (out of a total 62
pro'ects) in the County's current priority list of improvements
(19 2).
The proposed spot improvement includes regrading the intersection
at its existing location to improve sight distance, removing the
sup r elevation along Route 708 and constructing a left turn lane
wes bound on Route 708. The proposed improvement does not meet
VDO ultimate design standards. A waiver of the speed limit has
bee granted for the improvements to be constructed as proposed.
inia Department of Transportation representatives and County
ning staff evaluated alternative re-alignments of the
rsection during the VDOT preliminary field review process.
rnatives A and B (in the attached) were considered
sig ificantly more expensive than had been anticipated in the six
Year Plan (estimate of $800,000 plus right-of-way and design
cos ). The project as prioritized in the County's Priority List
of oad Improvements was for a spot improvement with the cost
estimated at $100,000 (1988) to $150,000 (1990). The current
cost estimate for this spot improvement is $320,000 including
~.
Bob Brandenburger
Page 2
May 27, 1992
rig t-of-way and design. The primary advantage of the higher
cost Alternatives A & B is the improvement of the horizontal
ali nment of Route 708. Both A and B would eliminate the sharp
cu e west of the intersection and establish a crossing
intersection with all approaches at a right angles. Alignments
A nd B would not meet VDOT ultimate design standards for
ve tical design.
I
I. "
Cu~rent trafflc counts (1990) at the lntersectlon are:
I -708 west of intersection 822 ADT
i -708 east of intersection 637 ADT
I -631 north of intersection 838 ADT
-631 south of intersection 391 ADT
I ,
Th~1 park is anticipated to generate 800 vehicle trips during peak
pe iods. This estimate is based on traffic observed at Mint
Sp ings and Chris Green Parks by the County Department of Parks
an Recreation. The park can be accessed from Rt. 631 either
fr m Rt. 712 to the south of the park or Rt. 708 or Rt. 631 to
th~ north. Walton Middle School and Red Hill Quarry are located
on ~t. 708.
I
I
su
RY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Th original intent of this project was to provide improvements
to the intersection to better accommodate the additional traffic
ge erated from Walnut Creek Park. The project is intended to be
an interim improvement to accommodate this additional demand and
no an ultimate improvement to the alignment of Route 708 and
Ro~te 631. Although Alternatives A and B provide additional
ho izontal improvements to the alignment of part of Route 708,
bo h are much more costly and would not provide for the ultimate
ve tical curvature improvement. Both alternatives are beyond the
sc pe originally intended for the project.
Du to the existing intersection conditions and the anticipated
in reased traffic at this intersection, staff believes an
im rovement will be necessary. However, due to the significantly
2
~
Bob Brandenburger
Page 3
May: 27, 1992
higher cost of Alternatives A and B and the marginal advantage of
th se alternatives over the lesser spot improvement project,
staff concurs with Mr. Roosevelt that this project should proceed
as presented at the VDOT public hearing.
VW1/D~B/j cw
I
cc:1 Dan Roosevelt
1 Gerry P. Wilkes
1 Douglas Arrington
I
I
I
I
I
1
3
. .
""~
~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETH EL
COMMISSION R
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
April 28, 1992
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Route 708
Project: 0708-002-241, C501
Albemarle County
ayne Cilimberg
tment of Planning
401 clntire Road
Charlott~sville, VA 22901
r. Cilimberg:
ttached is a report on the results of the public hearing on the above
ned project. I request that this report be forwarded to the Board of
isors and this issue be included in their agenda for the May 6, 1992
Yours truly,
)'/ / f?e~veq
N. ~) ,IN
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/y m
attac ment
.: .>i,..
:..(
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
... l ~ ..t..
0708-002-241, C501
Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Location & Design Public Hearing
This project was initiated to improve the intersection of Route 708 and 631
to b tter accommodate the anticipated traffic increase due to the construction of
Yaln t Creek Park south of this intersection. This intersection currently has
limited horizontal and vertical sight distance. At a public hearing held on
Marc 12, 1992, a single alternative to widen along the existing roadway was
presented by the Department. A handout which discussed the project location and
desi n was made available at the hearing and during the two week period prior to
the hearing.
he hearing was attended by approximately SO people. Seven people spoke
concerning the proposed improvement. The seven people were opposed to the
propo al to widen Route 708 at its existing location. Ye have also received
eleve l~tters during and after the hearing, including six from those who spoke
at th hearing. Of the eleven letters, four spoke in favor of the improvement
and s ven were against the proposal. Those who favored the proposal were members
of th Mt. Olivet Church which is located on this project and did not own
prope ty which is directly impacted by this proposed project.
rior to the selection of the improvement along the alignment of the
exist'ng roadway, the Department and County Staff reviewed three alternate
ents (see attached sketch). A survey was completed along line "A" as shown
attached sketch. A cost estimate for construction on line "A" was in
exces of $800,000. This cost does not include right of way and design costs.
Line 'B" is in the same general location as line "A", but requires considerably
more ill material which will make this line more costly than line "A".
Align ents "A" and "B" do not meet design standards for an ultimate improvement.
In or er to meet requirements for vertical design, the grade at the new
inter ection of Routes 708 and 631 would have to be lowered. This grade change
would require additional grading along Route 631 which would affect the cemetery
and c urch. Alignment "C" was not chosen because the offset intersection would
not m et our design requirements. The improvement along the existing roadway,
which was presented at the public hearing is estimated to cost $320,000,
inclu ing right of way and design costs.
I
~ review of the comments received as a result of the public hearing indicate
that Fhe majority of the people were not in favor of any improvement at this
inter ection. However, since this is a spot improvement to address the increased
traff c as a result of the park construction, it is the Department's
endation that the project proceed as presented at the hearing. I request a
tion from the Board of Supervisors supporting the location and design as
.
ted at the public hearing.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DSR/ytm
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
~
t
~
~
~~
t'\: \l
\)~
'U ~
~ \j
~~
;fg~~
.JJ fA
}I'Jvrr'tI
)"
,J?'
~.
.v,V .
,;J)
//
~
"
\\
\
/
/'
/
/'
.../~
/
\
\
1_
:0'
w
'z,
-'-
'..J
o
,
, ~
.
,.,
ATI'ACHMENT B
~.
. .-;'"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
M MORANDUM
Robert Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community
Development
December 29, 1992
Route 708/631 Intersection Improvements
e attached is information from Dan Roosevelt regarding traffic
nts at the 708/631 intersection. As you will see, it is not
ry.revealing as to potential increased need to improve this
i tersection because the data is not comparable. Also attached
is accident data which does not indicate accidents at this
i ersection. In discussions with Pat Mullaney, he indicates no
m jor problems or concerns with the intersection based on their
t ips back and forth to the park, other than limited sight
distance. Considering the incomplete traffic information and the
ap arent lack of other problems, I would recommend delaying any
decision on this improvement project in order to allow VDOT to
collect comprehensive and comparable traffic count and turning
mo ement data during the next year (including both operating
ti es for the park and non-operating times).
.'
RAY D. PETH EL
COMMISSIONE
RECEIVED
U(G ., 6 1992
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Planning Dept
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
December 14, 1992
0708-002-241, CS01
Mr. V. Way e Cilimberg
County Off ce Building
401 Mclnti e Road
Charlottes il+e, VA 22902
Dear Mr. C limberg:
At t eir June 1992 meeting the Board of Supervisors were requested to give a
recommenda ion concerning the location and design of the intersection improvement at Routes
708 and 6 1 under the above captioned project. The Board expressed concern with the cost of
the proje t in both dollars and impact on adjacent property and deferred action on the
request t a later meeting. They also requested additional information concerning traffic
flow and a cidents which may have resulted due to the park's operation.
Attac
accidents
intersecti
traffic 0
7 which wa
other fac
believe,
traffic a
for compa
closed.
intersecti
the park.
is made av
I
reports
attached
occurred
the inter
are beyond
any influe
ed you will find the information I have collected concerning traffic flow and
at this intersection. I was unable to obtain turning movement counts at the
n at a time when the park was open. I did, however, obtain counts of approaching
each leg of the intersection for a twenty-four hour period on September 5, 6, and
Labor Day weekend. From my discussion with you it appears weather conditions and
ors combined to limit visitors to the park during those three days. I do not
herefore, that the data enclosed fairly represents the impact of the park on
this intersection. Prior to our discussion I had collected similar information
ison purposes for two days in October and November when the park facilities were
hile I believe this data accurately reflects the traffic approaching this
n on all four legs, I am not certain it is valuable in determining the impact of
I have included the information, however, to assure that all information collected
ilable to the Board of Supervisors.
al 0 contacted the Albemarle County Police Department and had them review accident
i their records for the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day of 1992. I have
copy of Chief John Miller's response. You will note that no reported accidents
t the intersection, however, three accidents were reported at locations close to
ection. I have included these reports for your information. All three, however,
the limits of our proposed project and I do not believe the project would have had
ce on the accidents had this work been completed prior to the accidents.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
, t
Mr. V. Yayne Cilimberg
0708-002-241, CS01
Page 2
December 14, 1992
Yhile the information I have obtained is not as complete as I believe the Board desired,
I see no way to obtain additional information in the near future. I request that this
informatior be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and that the Board again consider the
location ard design of this project and give the Department its recommendation.
DSR/smk
at tachmen t~
Yours truly,
t/~ Rc~~~"c.\ V
D. S. )oosevelt
Resident Engineer
cc: J. De asquale
G. D. Lipscomb
, .
24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - INTERSECTION 708 AND 631
RC UTE APPROACH 9/5 9/6 9/7 10/26 11/18
7C8 EAST 465 407 338 296 392
7e8 WEST 654 546 498 675 661
TC TAL 1119 953 836 971 1053
6 1 NORTH 326 262 302 275 338
6'1 SOUTH 320 347 348 327 300
T( TAL 646 609 650 602 638
GE (ANQ TOTAL 1765 1562 1486 1573 1691
. .j
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Police Department
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virgmia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5807
October 30, 1992
. Roosevelt
ident Engineer
onwealth of Virginia
artment of Transportation
t Office Box 2013
rlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: Accident Data - Rt. 708 and Rt. 631
Mr. Roosevelt:
I have reviewed our accident data from May 23, 1992 to
t emb e r 8, 1 9 9 2 for the i n t e r s e c t ion for R t. 7 0 8 and R t. 6 3 1 a s
uested. There were no reportable accidents at that intersec-
n during this time. We did investigate three reportable
idents in the general area. I am enclosing copies of these
ident reports for your review.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional
ln ormation.
Sincerely,
~.~~. "'^~
hn F. Miller
C ief of Police
JF /smh
En losures (3)
,:-."../,
~ECEIV:ED
NOV 5 1992
CHA ClOTT-
j',,- U:SVIL/ ,-
RES/DcoNe _ ...:;, VA
&;:;. E OF!=iCE
..
,Jl/..~~/r . el' ~ r GES
ACCID~IH UATE ,I P^ <!F ..'TlME · AM PU I
''t1 ~a{ I;~t I IV ~.i' l;?C() 9 rn7J'
,....1 hCITY OR~WN
J I 10F X
ROUTE NO. OR STREET ~E AT SCENE
"'Re C..:JI
_ ADDRESS (STREET (, NO,)
5
I (
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA - DePARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT DMV COpy FR 300P fREV. 7/86)
COUNTY OF ACCIOENT MILE POST NUM[)ERI~AILROAO CROSSING 10. NO. ~.
IJ/6emA,'CJG I I . I IIFTHlI15~FErT I I v:.~
ILANDMAAKS AT SCENE r~MlJER Of OFFICIAL USE ONLY ~ 1 r&J7
-- I/EliICUS I
NO y..) t;. a- ] 1\...0' :'
2/tO rvr~L" n Fm ~ n f n OFRO~f~:~~E~~q[3. ~..... ,;C. :t1'fz!
VEHICLE NO. 1 ;; 95 . SS:2 'f ;;) 7't:; ~ '( Q 88 VEHICLE No.zlOR PEDESTRIAN) ;<..86 -'1'170
OCCUPATION DnlVER'S NAME (UIST. FIRST, MIDDlE) ~~Pfm~+
AeA-h~6 /J!Zo/Z,</'5 J;;E7:J.]) t1i.A/CP.€.
YEARS OF DRIVING ADDRESS (STREET (, NO'0 YEARS OF DRIVING 19
EXPERIENCE <J t<. t: / 1(') 0)( I ~ ~ 8(PERIEN~ 01. I
ISTA~ ZIP CODE CITY STATE ZIP CODE 20,
VI1 Z'2'io( ES/VIonrl v~ ::;;;937 I i
TST~T~ DATE OF BIRTH SEX I ORNER'S UCENSE NUMBER STATE' " (
I ~ M~lhl~ ~~ IY1 ;;;2d)~- 76 - fa t.jg U4 21 ' f.
VEHICLE OWNER'S NAME (lAST, FIRST. MIDDLE) ;L :
ADDRESS (STREET (, NO.) SAM e .. " , ~\,'.~', .! ~
, ( . ~
i
r:
f
[
..
i.
~
8
hAT ImERSECTION WITH OR
J 2!:T?'f :J 3'15
ORNER'S NAME (LAST, IRST, MIDDLE)
- ~&Lf frJiclflJe/
."J ADDRESS (STREET (, N
5 (tIt 0 vON Sf. ExfD.
ClTYe II
AA ~ of/ps viii G
4 DATE OF BIRTH .1 SE DRIVER'S UCENSE NUMBER
M2Jlh,l1 ~~ 1J1.1 ~~6 -- ~~. 5 350
VEHICLE OWNER'S WJ. (LAST. FIRST, MIDDLE)
:)'-4 no. e
_ CITY
I STATE ZIP CODE CITY T STArTE ZIP CODE.
1\ I L II II I ," " ,,"
MAKE (, TYPE Of VEHICLE SHOW MOPED. MOTORCYCLE, AMDUl.AIlCE, ElC-.) \YEAR 1 REPAIR COST MAKE & TYPE Of VEHICLE (SHOW MOPED, IhJTORCYCLE, AMDUlANCE, ETC-.) I YEAR I REPAIR COST. I ~
/V-:SSAN p. U. 88 5'oc). ~~ E.Xp!.,llEJ<.. '11 Vooo V\
:?6 ~:NSE PLATE NUMBE .ST~TE NAME OF INSURANCE CO. (NOT AGENT) UCENSE PLATE NUMOER IST~TE I NAME OF INSURANCE CO. (NOT AGENT) V
) 1/ YC 7/ / v~ /uONe Lax 7/S VA I Ert../€ ^
1 OWN Ell'S NAME (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE) X' ADDRESS
ACCIDENT DIAGRAM
DAMAGE TO fC>OP-ECT STRUCK [TREEK.' FENCE. ETC.)
PROPERTY
ornER THAN
VEHiClES
VEHICLE NO. 1 DAMA E
CHECK POINTS OF 1M ACT
I
x
25/, '
l.
rEHIClE NO. Z DAMAliE 'll .. ,
CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT'j ~
FRONT .....01... I FRONT ..~.,o.~... :"> 2BJ' . .If
i~:~;:k~r: · 00 . /~:~~I^.:::~~'i~;~r~;~r
~r:~::~\ ~., / /":::N/~i3\I'til
~; ~~" ['-- ; .'~ fT". I/'> ~:.. ['" ;...9 ~ :~
'S~ I . -.- ~ ~ rT'"\--- L.:--/ . -.- I 1
'1 '. :;~:. ~ @.: ....:;::... ;, ~ ,:1
., ;, UM" lM~PM. .. NlK:ATE.,IllH. mcUMl1 I"'III~ ';.~..'~fi:;}~~~.'
'.,:; 'et5- 5.51 I9S '. B~ ARROW' , 35 Is..$" ., ':2$ ~:~:'-':'~. "'::: r
VEHICl~ NO. IlIAhIAliES: HOYERTURNEO J HUNOERCARRIAliE 5 L. I BY fiRE 7 I VE/IIC~E NO. 2 OAMAliES: 2 HOVERTURNED 3 HUHOERCAllRIAliE 5 L /SY FIRE 7 34 ;.
I UNKNOWN n ~ DAMAGE MOTOR 4 TOmEO 6 IYl OTIIER 8 n UNKNOWN n NO DAMAGE MOTOR 4 TamED 6 ~ OTHER 8 I
~ 8Wr%~1IoN 7Jn;v~ VI w.as ,va.n..ftl7'l "^' /?C6.?/ (.vA,.,., J.R L../AS c"loc..vol..../ ,.,,,;: 7'-I.Q 35,
, t1.0,A7)W".Al/ 4.J~-"J,.f- ,.,rl' """'~I" /)oAD ,f, -rf,,. -;cl.f- A^JJ> LA ,/-:: -"C/J" rs ..,.-J,. /lo""^,- A n, J
f'J I1..fl. 7~;{P 1~~;k.lNC J'Q .so,,-r.l...t~v,..,D u"J"c..f{.. I'
v
S7
Rf: b:3 (
12
36
-., . r
. oJ- . ,.
1}aiv/vr. t-v/v X"N ("'/Ul" rc= F/11' JUI'!t:" ~. d,e,'ve 'n :r.M <'I;~P "/q~~:~ X )=1
15 15 NAMES OF IN.JUn(D . IF DECEASED. INCLUDE DATE DF DEAfH OJ T
----
-c-
OFFENSES CIIARGEO:\ ,,' -r." .+/
DlWHl: -II,.: ( '<'/' IT'
9 10
A~f..-..
B
C
o
E
11
D(liv/~t". 5't.JSIll',vDl>j).
7
13
I I
1 1
-~ I
I I--~
1 I
14
- ~t---.
----
-----
Trr:~FICb'., NA 17
.Il
--I--.. _______
I!lADGE~OdUMO(R I ~P~R)MENr NAME ~~ C~UMBER. 7C;.01?~ I R~~~ ~ I D~TE ~POR1}lLED
.----==
. / I,
. C1';GE..-t...OF _I- mGES
~ ACCIDENT D_M~E itAY OF jTIME _ ~
. M~nlh Day S r WEEK _ AM PM
" ' ) l'~ r;e ;- ~ .OS- )(
I / I CITY DR TOWN
~h nOF X
ROUTE NO. OR ST EET NAME AT SCENE
057 /2., )0&
I AT INTERSE TION WITH OR "".;( I)<tMllES n FEET n n ~ ~
I ,2 A q')') ) S"I a.. VEHICLE HO. 1@'7 ') ~ - ~-G,I 0
~ DffivER'S NAME ( AST. FIRST, MIDDLE) OC9:!!'ATlON _
G.~..<::i ,~ ~'J-6" iJ.. ") . :::"/,~\
I 3 ADORESS (STREE & NO.) , YEARS OF DRIVING
I c./ ,..J') ~ I >=~ /\ c I ~ F EXPER~;..es
CITY I STATE ZIP CODE
r \.-: ( - ( ( F II }4. r)d-.') 0 I
I 4 DATE OF BIRTH ISEX DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER )3JDl Dcol STATE DME OF BIRTH SEX.I DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMOER
75" ~lhtJ; lY)a 1M .-< I / ~ ")<!- - CfCJ/~ <f' I) fA 71h1D~ I~ /CI
VEHICLE OWNER' NAME (lAST, FIRST. MIDDLE) VEHICLE OWNER'S NAME (lAST. FIRST. MIODlE)
GP~<'k~ C~A~GcS X
~ ADDRESS (STREE & NO.) ADDRESS (STREET & NO.)
5 ~ ')d~. ? ~.ci\ <:: /AA)t=, (<-
CITY . I STATE ZIP CODE ClTY \( I ST\;E ZIP CO~
rLr( 'r( (~ I(~ d qr)( I' (~ r......
MAKE& TYPE Of VlHlClE (SHOW MOPEO. MOTORCYCLE. AMDULANCE. E1C._.) YEAR ~ COST MAKE & TYPE Of V~ ISHOW MOPED. ~Kl1ORCYClE, AMDUlANCE. ETC...) I YEAR I REPAIR COST 24
m.4?M ~ ~~~~MATI~~ _~S. (< ~~~~Mnl X )<: /
I. 6 LICENSE PLATE N MBER STATE IlM~E Of ~1::;URr\NCE CO, (IIOT AGWI) LICENSE PLATE NUMElER IST~E' NAME Of INSURANCE CO. (NOT AGUlT) X 12;'
1'1 7ili=.- 9'05 UYf. A-[L<;;;,'t-/6. ?<- ('-I I'
~~~)~O "" OBJECT STRUCK (TREE. FENCE. ETC.) I OWNER'S N~)(lAST. FIRST. MIDDlE) AODRESS I ~E:AI~ ~T
e~~~l~AN V ~K h/..E'?ht.-.J4-v ~r:;o7 ~~
<./ ACCIDENt DIAGRAM ".
26
(
VEHICLE HO. 2 DAMAGE 27)<
CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT
{Y~ROHT .....O.~... ~ 28 ~
I . --,' _
O"'\:rr"V T ='1 0 I 1:;1" 0' I I I 0 29
:' L:;s, ., -,y.J p,," .~/ :'1 ').\=4 <: ~
7 ". 09 e /? - I (' I 7 '. 9 I ..'3 _
~ - ./, / · . ~. 31
~.~~} ~/~l' _ _' ~ y[.~~)<~
W ~~ ~ ~X
~~I~ ~~ ~~~I~I~
-~ I BY MROW ">c::"""l><'JI~
~5S'".:> I S- l~
VEHICl~ NO. I DAM GES: 2 HOVERTURNEO 3 HUHOERCARRIACE 5 LJ BT fiRE 7 ~C\E NO. Z DAMAGES: 2 HOVERTURNEO 3 HUNOERCARRIAGE 5 H8TF'RE 7 34 I
Ii UHKHOWH n HO DAMAGE MOTOR 4 TOTALED 6 J?<:l OntER a n UHKHOWH n HO DAMAGE MOTOR 4 TOTALED 6 OTHER 8
i:f~g,~;IONO<,,'k-r1..E 10:?:!,/ r' ..4-< r".u.=-:-7r<;"v..).^, I"\.n \ ,/p, ')09 ....d /'r"1! I .s:.~' ,-'J.r
;5')1.>-;- "'~/ (,\h~'A\ ~ ~(-~-i\~.~\J L-.4~--""."-. /.-1,.:: P/"'oL'/A 6.A-<::' {Jy:::TA:::2:>~
~ L'lAl..^"""'/',G /L>. -~ 7T/K-'" 'r.r.c- ~,c I ~L--,,".c(,.,c: ...-'?..r")?4-n I ~ .<;;"<>-.Jv::
'/;?C= (/p::.-j;';r-. tF ~ J --.) .8:.M) ,-),cp . A.c;- .4.,,-! "---;- 5" /~/JF: ~'je: <);?::...c-~" 1..-
''Y'}...,~- 7~ v _ -....
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. OE.P^RTMCNT Of'" MOTOR VEHICLE:S
POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT OMV COpy F f~ 300P IREV 1/901
/7 COUNTY OF ACCIDENT MilE POST NUMBER I FAil ROAD Cf10SSING ID,t&5 N. I .
rJl.!5'1:/~.~ I I . I tilTH,! 15f FT I I Y
IL~:",~::E 1~~;"~~Ej:21Iq'G \C01
ROUTE NUMOER OR STREET NAME
OF 6;-e'/ (p,5 I
VEHICLE HO, 210R PEOESTRIAHI
DRIVEfl'S NAME (lAST. FIRST. MIDDLE)
'f
ADDRESS (STREET 1\ NO,)
(<.
)<:
OCCUPATION
)(
CITY
YEARS OF DRIVING
EXPERIENCE X
ZIP CODE
X
IS:XE
STATE
1'-
DOL DCDl
'f-.
IJ7
VEHICLE NO. DAMAGE
CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT
cJ~ I
f wI 6.o,\)~
~ .;l. n-.l...S
FRONT
Q
~
~11
"'
~
VI
"2
..J:
)~
~
()
C'
~
]
[\()
1<
~
8hrSEN<<ES CHAIlGEII(~L -/1).9 I
9 10 11 12
---
;0 0 ~\'i
,~.e (~",,"r /_'r....~ \"
13
I I
I I
~I
I I
I I
14
15 16
--
NAMES OF INJURED. IF DECEASED. INCLUDE DATE OF DEATH
-----
A
\ A
l
o
I
~ C
~ 0
~ E
----
---
~
----==
---
------
---I-"
---
~
I---
.---
TROOPER/OFFiCE rS NAME
_7 ~I,c: ) /\ <:
----. --
IO<\OGE/COOE Nlf"g~J DEPARTMENT NAME AND CDDE NUMOER (0 0# Ill.EV~EWI,N1 ~ER
I 2'.-J..? ~I ..4-) Pc: ~ A r-.. ) c r'_ b'~ ~.,\)J-,0
~
! DATE~J~-T~
ru:l
~
~
19
9
20,>(
-
2~
-
29
-
2)(
-
x
36 (
37'f
. . ',' P>t;I;LpF /' PAGES
ACCIDENr ~,..t"J~r~J~ I lIM:..../~ 'AM PM I
I ~i~p. t%t1/ffm V5 %~
j fl-...t'f1<J'TY OR T WN X
n IOF
ROUTEJiO, ~TREET NAME AT SCiN
ff, 63
COMMONWE.,\LTH OF VmGINIA . OCP^nTMCNT OF MOTon veHICLES
POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT DMV COpy
A / L CUUNIY UF I\C;fUENI MilE PO~T NUMUEI\ jnAllnOAO CIIOS~ING 10. NU
/1 / (y-?1}C:/r / e I I . I (jlHtrrT I I
[lANDMARKS AT SCErJE rNUMIlEn Of OFFICIAL USE ONLY
X VEjS
lP21!Q65 <{lj
N S f W flOU~MJER OR STREET NAME
I AT IN ERSECTlON WITH 011;] fX1 MILES n FEET n rX1 r- n OF /It: 7 G g
I V VEHICLE NO. I '" VEHICLE NO, ZIOR PEOESTRIANI /
lL OR~~ N~MJ (LAST, FIRST. MIOOL~ . / --:::?. . ~~l)'1I0N ORI~ NAME (LAST, FIRST. MIDDLE) OCCUPAlI'!!V
l7e/V/17o-n'#, /(L2/0/t#/ L.>>/?/J/C kJ 0~ '" /
I J ADD~ (~TREET & Nu.:-:::, /" /, - .LL YEAI\S OF DRIVING ADDRESS (STI1~:\' NU I I ~I\S OF DRIVING 19
.5 ./J/.'r- / DoX 7(YS l7 EXPERlENCh2 '" /~XPEBlENCE !v
c~vJ) ~a,rck~ twl,W5-i OTY ~ ~ATE I ZIP CODE 2~
I r ~hIO~I~TI>>t~ID;;~C~;~~/9dOCDL I~ ~~~~h~FD~~RT:~car SEX IDRlVER'~NUr'\/ODL OCDL STATE 21
VEHICLE OrmER'S ~AM~(LAS~ST. MIDDLE) VEHICLE OWNER'S NAME (LAST. FIRST. MIDDLEJ>( .J....
~~/~~. /, nX
~ ADDRESS ~TREET & NO.) ADDRESS (STREET (. NO.) /' '-
/5 - I I , 2~/
CITY STATE ZIP CODE CITY / ~TE ZIP CODE ^
(I II \1 I"" -
MAKE & TY rOF VEHIClE (SHOW MOl'ED.I.(lTORCYCLE. Mll1UlANCE. ETC_.) I~YEAR ~R COST MAKE & TY/OF vc CLE (SHOW MOPEO, MOTORCYCLE. MlllUlAlICE. ETC...) IY~EPAIR COST 24
,-,...., OCMV 6D :r-/~O OCMV'
rdl( r::L Dr. OHAZMAT 0 I ~ OHAZMAT /
N~~~3R I~ NAM"-l1~AAIAGEilTI 7PLATENUMBER ISTATE I NAME OF INSUIlANCE CO. (NOT PGENT) ~12X
OAMAGE TO II)tOBJECT STRUXCK (TREE, FENCE. ETC.) OWNER'S NAME (LAST. FIRXST. MIDDLE) ADDRESS I REPAIR COST 2b;
~~r~R{;AI
VEHICLES
YEHIC E NO. I DAMAGE ACCIDENT DIAGRAM VEHICLE NO. Z DAMAGE 2?
CHECK DINTS OF IMPACT CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT ;X
F n 3001' (R E V 1/~IO I
I
~1j).
'-
17
"3/
'-
-
')<
-
I
I J7
FRONT jl(J FRONT ..0.1. 28
1!21 J:t: '~~.r "R+. (,4 I /' . 'CLJ ~( ~~ 9 t
tl ?. ~J.8 ~ <-)0fVI~~7~ ' ?/~.:H ~
~\~ ~:. - - J9 V " V v:"5 tei,r.,," Xrn pO<:. i- ~:.l... - /i'i' 1
~, "~: '0'5 .p,;/Yv,kmeJ1't b's 33
't.. -' SPEED ~ SPEEO X
, A~~g~~T LIMIT IM~~~~M INDICATE NORTH A~~8r~r LIMIT IM~~WM
~ ~~oo
~ t/ I. ),"~-I.<;r I
~ 1 VEHICLE NO I DAMAGES: HOVERTURHED J I . I UNDERCARRIAGE 5 HBY fiRE 7 ~C;E NO. Z OAMAGES: l HDVERTURNEO J l I UNDERCARRIAGE 5 HBY fiRE 7 34.
~ I ~NK OWN n ~O OAMAGE MOTOR , rxl TOTAUO 6 OlllER 8 n UNXNOWH n NO DAMAGE MOTOR' n TOTALED 6 OTIIER B J
~ t,f~:~~,~lll) b/,;/J:P/ r <-F/I'IC / u-r 0( 7)/;/)('/ #//, Ci.lfC/ L{./tl,'" ~#c-r /3v t:::1/'kf}JJ-er 35
~ /J~h //C/I,Ir-///7(' //7 I/c'/I :.d/) ;L.C~/lc""., (/c;' ft/ /,(/cd' I'ff..JiL1cJr:r! C.-Ft /-/JId-' ;\
rt'Ja,,'dc(/o..v /?fl -;-Ile:.... /'1"~h j-, dflcr I' u;/c:c-k:-c,\, Sr"/'//<. //7~; +-Ir,- Emh.II1((j'?Vnr
r--... t1Y1r- 1t,4 / ~ +-~ ')"i d 1"" i/c-f1.- .!--)t.P "j) -- _-I (..p.V dU~ r-- --H_"J,6{ ~Vl tIP h. j:::t I 3Q._
~ I U 0(
I
i
,
,
. A
L
L
[l
I
. C
J
U 0
I R
( E
0
I . I _
g~fJENRSES HAnGEO /1 L/IY 1:-
9 10 11 12
/ ; ~ /
37
/..
13 14
(!, I/:-. 17C/ r
I I
I I
I I
I I
15
7'
Hi
r<
NAMES OF INJURED. IF DECEASED, INCLUDE DATE OF DEATH
lIc::-r//J'7C(/J/J, /(urdt/n r-)CfJ1rJ; c::::..
./ "
TR~ OFFICEfrS v^ME
/ H/)r/Jp./
IU^U~l/CWl rlUMULlI IOEI:7IV~IENI NAME ANY CODE l~yr,\lJr.u..., " ,r .II:) I' ~ING ~UIC[n
I 7/) AI!.,AA /'1".:; /~-, ~I J. /';,>:.. I. \ ).h ~\
IOME REPOflJ.!'l(D
<:''7- J-~7
& .
A'ITACHMENT C
. ....."".... . --
~JUl ~ 1 2 1993
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Planning Dept.
RAY D. PETH EL
COMMISSIONE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0, BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
July 9, 1993
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Route 708
Project:0708-002-241,C501
Albemarle County
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Co ty 0 f fice Building
401 McIntire Road
Cha lottesville, Va. 22901
Dea Mr. Cilimberg:
Attached are the turning movement diagrams for the intersection of Routes 708
ans 631 near Walnut Creek Park as requested. If possible, we would like to have
the Route 708 project placed on the agenda for the August meeting of the Board of
Su rvisors.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Yours Truly,
1,~ 1: LIf
Contract Administrator
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
-- - ---~-- .. -, - '- " -- ij
,
COMMONl~ALTH DEPARTMENT OF
OF VI,RGINH:' · . HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
TURN I NG MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
CULPEPER DIS IrRICT "AT,RF,Hi\.Rf,F, COUNTY
I-OCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS 7.'C30{\~ - 7~(JC1p"'1 .
\
6/93 <~}- \ .
DATE 6/: OBSERVER JEB & JhlJ
/
DAY
WEATHER rTP~RMfYT' /c? - hoc/r 70 4/J-
._.._------_._-~.-.._---
SOU'IHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
\2851
, I
I I
[g]~[;]
~ ~ \ ~ [EJ-
-@] ~ 111I( IT] ~I ~I
~~ ~I
I ~ 1-
~~ [[] ~ ~
~~ ~ 0
CD
~ - >
-[!J ~ \ t ~
~[;J~ .
,
I I. I
144/1
t-PRTHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
.. -..- _.~ -.. ;
C6MM~,NI'liAL T-f DEP A R'I'ME NT OF
OF'VIRGINIA . . HIGHWAYS'AND TRANSPORTATION
TURN I NG MOVEMENT 01 AG RAM
CULPEPER DI' TRICT :n.T ,RF1-1i\.RT oF. COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS 7:00- B ',ct) ~M
DATE 6/ 26/93 OBSERVER JEB & J\~J.
DAY
WEATHER ",~~
SOU'IHBOUND
ROUl'E 63l
[J
, I
I I
Q~~
~ ~ \ ~ [J-
-~ ~ Ill( 0 ~EJ
~~ eg
[;]~ ~
~~ EJ ~ -..J
0 ~
G' co
- >-
-EJ ~ \ t ~
B[!]0 .
I I I
~
~RlliBOUND
ROurE 63l
CUI'U-1UN\~Li,.w.l.l 0.......... .... ,.~.. ~J~;.... U1'
O~ V~RG~NIA. HIGrn~AYS AND TRANSPOR'rATION
. .
TURN I NG MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
CULPEPER DI~ TRICT AT ;P;P}1ART ,F. COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS ?r ~DD - ~', 00 fJ(Yl
6/ ~6/93 OBSERViER.k1EB & Jl'lJ .
DATE
DAY
WEATHER f,' n 1-l1r-frYf'
SOU'IHBOUND
ROUTE 631
[;] .
I I I
,
~~[;]
~ ~ \ ~ Q-
~~ ~ llI( ~ ~G
~~ ~~
G-
gi -J ,!::
- EJ ~ g ;
"-N - >--
~EJ ~ \ t ~
GJGJGJ .
I I I
[;]
mR'lliBOUND
ROurE 63l
CqMMqN1~ALT,~
OF ViRGINIA .
CULPEPER DIS~RICT
.1
DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATIO~
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
ROUTE 631 @ 708
AT ,RFl-t'\RT.F.
COUNTY
LOCATION
DATE 6/26/93
DAY
WEATHER ,. l<'l\oMrYT'
~~
~~
~~
~
-.J
-8
-[I]
-0
HOURS q: 00 -10',00 AM
OBSERVER JEB & J\-lJ
SOUTHBOUND
ROUTE 63l
EJ
I I I
0GJGJ
~ t \
~G-
~ ~"-~
y- G-
......
o
OJ
J
~
>-
~ \ t ~
0GJGJ .
I I I
~
NJRl'HBOUND
ROUI'E 631
.--. --- ....--. -0 --,- ,
COMMQNHEALT,li DEPARTMENT OF
OF V!RGINIA . . HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
TURN I NG MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
CULPEPER DIS rrRICT AT ,RF',HARf ,F, COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 63l @ 708 HOURS I C', OQ - I \ ~ ClO A II-) ,
,
DATE 6/ ~6/93 OBSERVER JEB & J\vJ.
DAY
WEATHER rT .....~rYT'
SOUTHBOUND
ROUTE 63l
EJ
, I
I I
[Z]~0
~ t \ ~ [3-
-~ ~ . ~ ~~
~~ ~ -t
~-
g; ~ ,-- ---J
0
lA\ CD
- - >-
~@J ~ '\ t ~
~GJ~ .
I I I
~
mRI'HBOUND
ROUl'E 631
- _.. --- ..-- .-...--- . :!
CQMMQm~ALT,} DEPARTMENT OF I
OF, VI RGIN 1'(\ . . HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
TURN I NG MOVEMENT 01 AG RAM
CULPEPER DIe TRICT AT ,RF.H'\RT.F. COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS , I ~ DO - , Z ',OOA;)') .
6/ ~6/93 OBSERViER JEB & J\-lJ. 1
DATE I
DAY
WEATHER ffl(Yp
SOU'IHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
I~H I
, I
I I
~5JGJ
~ ~ \ ~ [;]-
-~ ~ . ~ ~[ill
eg~ ~
~~ Q-
m ,-- -..J
~~ 0
Ul 0)
\D - >-
-~ ~ \ t ~
~~Q .
I I I
~
OORTHBOUND I
ROum 63l
- . - .. . ~ 1
COMMQNlVlALT.f DEPARTMENT OF :
OF IV~RGINrA . . HIGm~AYS'AND TRANSPORTATIO~
TURN I NG MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
CULPEPER DH TRICT l\T,RF.Hl'I.'RT,F, COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS Il~CO- J:ooplYl .
t
DATE 6/ D6/93 OBSERV;ER ~EB & JI'1J. i
DAY
WEATHER /l'frYl'
SOUTHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
~
, I
I I
[2]B~
~ ~ \ ~ GJ-
~~ ~ < ~ -[ill
(3~ ~
~8 [!]-
~ ~ -.I
g~ ~ 0 ~
CD
~ - >-
~0 ~ \ t ~
GJ[;JGJ .
I I I
GJ
OORTHBOUND
ROUI'E 631
I
~ .. - . .
.. - . .. -------.-----...------ .. .. ' j
COMMQNl~ALr:r:H DEPARTMENT OF i
OF.V:;I:RGINIA . . HIGHWAYS AND 'rRANsPoRTATION
TURN I NG MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
CULPEPER DIS ~RICT AT .HFW\RLF. COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS I~DO -Z'.OOpM ,
6/ ,
DATE D6/93 OBSERVER JE8 & JI'lJ !
DAY
WEATHER "ffrYT'
SOU'IHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
~
, I
I I
[J[;]~
~ ~ \ ~ G-
-EJ ~ ~ ~ ~rn
~~ ~ r
~-
g~ ~l ~ ~
t >- ~ ~
-
-~ ~ \ t ~
[;][;]0 .
I I I
~
N:>Rl'HBOUND
ROtJI'E 63l
_____u___ _.._ - ". ',I
COMl-lQNlvEALTfI DEPARTMENT OF
OF ,VJ:RGINI'A . . HIGHWAYS AND 'rRANSPORTATION
.
TURN I NG MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
CULPEPER DIS IrRICT :z\T ,RFr-1Ji.'RT ,F COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS 2~(;)(r 3: CO pM .
.
DATE 6/' b6/93 OBSERVER JEB & J\-lJ !
j
DAY
WEATHER "'in/IWYI'
SOUTHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
G!J
- I
I I
[i]~~
:.J ~ \ ~ G-
-EJ ~ .c IT] ~@J
~~ ~
~-
~~ EJ ~ ~
g~ 0
G-\ 00
- >-
\.\)
-[] ~ \ t ~
[;]GJ~ .
I I I
~
NJRTHBOUND
ROUI'E 631
H'.' . P.._____._.... _____..___~.._.__ i~
COMM(!J~AL~I- ..
DEPARTMENT OF I
OF VIRGINIA . . HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
TURN I NG MOVEMENT 01 AG RAM
CULPEPER Dn TRICT 'AT ,8PJ'.1'I\RT ,F, COUNTY
LOCATION ROUTE 631 @ 708 HOURS 3' cw - 4: 00 jM .
DATE 6/ t26/93 OBSERV€R JEB & JI'lJ 1
DAY
WEATHER ./Ffm
SOU'lliBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
EJ
, I
I I
~B~
~ ~ \ ~ G-
-EJ ~ .c. G -[2]
~~ ~
[;]-
g~ ~ y- -..J
~ 0
CD
- >-
-
~I~ I ~ \ t ~
. [!J [;J EJ .
I I I
~
NJRI'lffiOUND
ROlJI'E 631
COMMONl'l!:ALTfI
OF VIRGINIfi .
LOCATION
DATE 6
DAY
WEATHER
~~
gi
\N
DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS' AND TRANSPORTATIO
:~
.
~
TURN ING MOVEMENT 0 I AG RAM
ROurE 631 @ 708
SOU'IHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
[;]
I I I
GJGJGJ
~ t \
~~
o
@]~
>-
~G
G
~GJ
<II(
\ t ~
[;]00
I I I
[~J
NORIHBOUND
ROUI'E 63l
AT.RF.Wl,"RT.F.
COUNTY
HOURS 4'.'00- 5:00 Frl
OBSERVER JEB & J\'lJ.
[]]
~
-....J
o
CD
. ~ '::i
',-,
County of Albemarle
SUBJECT
Status
action
design
Route 7
Intersection
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE: . ;. ~+Eftt,~j!:~:
January 6, 1993" ~" ~.>-:.
AGENDA
Route 7
Improve
ACTION: -L-
INFORMATION:
and
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF C
Messrs.
A1'TACIIMEIlTS, Yil.~
REVIEWED BY:~I
BACK ROUND:
At y ur June 3, 1992 meeting you deferred any action on VDoT's request to make a
reco endation on the location and design for improvements to the Route 708/631
inte section. Concerns were expressed regarding costs, impacts on adjacent property
owne s and a need for additional traffic flow information and accident data in conjunction
with anticipated higher traffic when the Walnut Creek Park opened.
SSION:
ttached report from Mr. Roosevelt, and staff's review of this information, indicate
incomplete. Although the opening of Walnut Creek Park appears to have caused no
problems at the intersection, staff recommends deferring any action in order to
VDoT to collect comprehensive traffic data to include both operating and non-
ting times for the park.
NDATION:
, pending additional traffic analysis by VDoT.
,
I
/bt
93.001
RECErVED
ucG "I 6 1992
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Planning Dept
RAY D. PE HTEL
COM MISS I NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0, BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
December 14, 1992
0708-002-241, C501
Mr. V. W yne Cilimberg
County 0 fice Building
401 McIn ire Road
Charlott sville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
At their June 1992 meeting the Board of Supervisors were requested to give a
Lecommen ation concerning the location and design of the intersection improvement at Routes
708 and 631 under the above captioned project, The Board expressed concern with the cost of
the project in both dollars and impact on adjacent property and deferred action on the
request to a later meeting. They also requested additional information concerning traffic
flow and accidents which may have resulted due to the park's operation.
Att ched you will find the information I have collected concerning traffic flow and
accidents at this intersection. I was unable to obtain turning movement counts at the
intersection at a time when the park was open. I did, however, obtain counts of approaching
traffic on each leg of the intersection for a twenty-four hour period on September 5, 6, and
7 which as Labor Day weekend. From my discussion with you it appears weather conditions and
other f ctors combined to limit visitors to the park during those three days. I do not
believe, therefore, that the data enclosed fairly represents the impact of the park on
traffic at this intersection. Prior to our discussion I had collected similar information
for comparison purposes for two days in October and November when the park facilities were
closed. While I believe this data accurately reflects the traffic approaching this
intersection on all four legs, I am not certain it is valuable in determining the impact of
the park. I have included the information, however, to assure that all information collected
is made a ailable to the Board of Supervisors.
I
reports
attached
occurred
the inte
are beyon
any influ
so contacted the Albemarle County Police Department and had them review accident
in their records for the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day of 1992. I have
a copy of Chief John Miller's response. You will note that no reported accidents
at the intersection, however, three accidents were reported at locations close to
section. I have included these reports for your information. All three, however,
the limits of our proposed project and I do not believe the project would have had
nce on the accidents had this work been completed prior to the accidents.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
"
Mr. V. Wa~ne Cilimberg
0708-002-~41, CS01
Page 2
December 14, 1992
Whil~ the information I have obtained is not as complete as I believe the Board desired,
I see no way to obtain additional information in the near future. I request that this
informatipn be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and that the Board again consider the
location ~nd design of this project and give the Department its recommendation.
DSR/smk
attachments
Yours truly,
/j j K c;~--5 ,~~;'c \ },/
D. S. ~oosevelt
Resident Engineer
ec: J. D~Pasquale
G. D. Lipscomb
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
EMORANDUM
Robert Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community
Development
December 29, 1992
Route 708/631 Intersection Improvements
he attached is information from Dan Roosevelt regarding traffic
ounts at the 708/631 intersection. As you will see, it is not
ery revealing as to potential increased need to improve this
'ntersection because the data is not comparable. Also attached
's accident data which does not indicate accidents at this
'ntersection. In discussions with Pat Mullaney, he indicates no
ajor problems or concerns with the intersection based on their
rips back and forth to the park, other than limited sight
istance. Considering the incomplete traffic information and the
pparent lack of other problems, I would recommend delaying any
ecision on this improvement project in order to allow VDOT to
ollect comprehensive and comparable traffic count and turning
ovement data during the next year (including both operating
imes for the park and non-operating times).
C/jcw
'-
,DEG ?o JCiCl?
.'
24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - INTERSECTION 708 AND 631
~OUTE APPROACH 9/5 9/6 9/7 10/26 11/18
~08 EAST 465 407 338 296 392
~08 WEST 654 546 498 675 661
~OTAL 1119 953 836 971 1053
~31 NORTH 326 262 302 275 338
~31 SOUTH 320 347 348 327 300
~OTAL 646 609 650 602 638
~RAND TOTAL 1765 1562 1486 1573 1691
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Police Department
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5807
October 30, 1992
.S. Roosevelt
esident Engineer
ommonwealth of Virginia
epartment of Transportation
ost Office Box 2013
harlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: Accident Data - Rt. 708 and Rt. 631
ear Mr. Roosevelt:
I have reviewed our accident data from May 23, 1992 to
September 8, 1992 for the intersection for Rt. 708 and Rt. 631 as
requested. There were no reportable accidents at that intersec-
tion during this time. We did investigate three reportable
accidents in the general area. I am enclosing copies of these
accident reports for your review,
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional
i formation.
Sincerely,
~'~~' "'^~
hn F. Miller
C ief of Police
M/ smh
closures (3)
':'-"':J.
~ECEIV:ED
NOV S 1992
CRHARLOTTESVILi ,': V"
ES/D~"'C ......., I'i
l;:;'t E OF!=!CE
26{ ,
1
rEHIClE NO. Z DAMAliE 27 I ,.'
CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT [,
C I 2B~'
FRONT '. '",c.: ~
~ ' ,..:,1,,1
B I i I" 0 '\. :;.. , , .... r~' ,i 'I"'~o ~ _ L
'/;~ i( ~, , 2 ,', '" "/, ~ '2' 7>"'1
iL/ ~~i 0 · 00 '~'. )l?' ,~ql ,0.:[:;; i~'i{~~~';'t
~~ ~7"', ~ B /3"7 '. "9 ".3.._ ~ "'.!
~,:_. ~... ',,,,..,,, :,.",31,[..
.'-i~ i "./ r;-, :'" ....~ ::;}i ' :. "
.~,~ ': 0 - '" . 0 [I)' I ~ cD ./ 0 - 0 I-- ~
~., l . / lI:'.l'" ;,,'4 3Z :~
@~:;, 6"" ,_.__1.,' 4 ~/' ___ . _. I:
.~' ~, ."" 1 I ) '", ..' r
~ '0" ',' 'i:I; "~ ,;,:1,
g5', SPEED , :.,:@...." '., _ SPEED' . ":~. ~ :,;:.J
~,~t"".";',,.':.,' ~ UMlT 11Mi};~~~M .' , '. INDICATE NORTIi. _, UMlT ~ ,,;;....;;:t,.::'+
:till ~.5"5 CYS '! "'.., :J5 I ss ~ o/"""""r
VEHICl~ NO. I DAMAliE . Z H OVERTURNED 3 H UNDERCARRIAGE 5 L I BY fiRE 7 I VEiUC;E NO. Z OAMAGES: 2 HOYERTURNED 3 U UNOERCARRIAliE 5 I. I BY FIRE 7 34 ;
I UNKNOWN in NO DAMAGE MOTOR 4 TomEO 6 IYl OTllER B n UNKNOWN n NO O,IMAGE MOTOR 4 n TomEO 6 IX! OTHER 8 I
f~ Gf~iiJWi,mj Dr:. ,'v~ a"/ W,QS Noa..fI.'oUAlD IfN /?t 6:1/ wj~" J.R '-AS crzCJc..../e/_"/ or/' -r-t.P 35,
· !<O,.47)I.N.AY 0~~f- "rF --r~~ ./toAD 1f, I-t.~ A';c/'r A~D ie-Ie /JC.d"r-S -r.J... /20 ^, ~ J
~r.J IJ..f.. /~;I/f"./n.ik;/v(J /Q .sovf,{,bm.-IVt) tJ"/',C.1{- I
. V
, \. COMMONWE:ALTH OF VIRGINIA. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
"P''.~It:'--L-GF -1+-Pf,GES POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT DMV COpy m 300P (REV, 7/86)
ACCIDENT IJATE IDAY OF lTlME~. COUNTY OF ACCIDENT MilE POST NUMBER liRAllRGAO CROSSING 10. NO.
M,'/OI~ DJY I, YeJr IVEj:K AM PM. A/6 / __ I If WlnllNlSO FEET :- ~
r.J I n !'(,j.. 5t1i';{{)() 9 1!.1'YlrJ,'( ~ I . I 'j T -, -I I I 1/ c<7'7 '-.
51 CITY OR TOWrl lANDMAAKS AT SCENE I~~~SOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY U ~ L ~
ihoF X NO,^, iC: I B-, \ ~
ROUTE NO. OR STR ET NAME AT SCENE ( () 'I j ('J ' I () ~~ ' ; , ',', " '. . .
' Rt 631 \OL I '''''\'D5 .'-:1 '&J ~ ~<;i
z I ~ SEW ROUTE NUMBER OR STREET NAME I-LJ ~:.
IATINTERSECTIoNWrTH OR Ire rvr MilES n FEET IYl n r n OF IN. 70 g
}2 ::J1S..J '15 VEHIClEHO,1 ~95-SS:l'f ~7l)~ l{o88 YEHIClENO.ZIORPEOESTRIANI :i86-'1'17o
DRIVER'S NAME (U ST, FIRST, MIDDLE) e OCCUPATION DRIVER'S NAME (lA~T, FIRST, MIDDlE) 91~Pf/~~+
- ~c;l{. /l1iclfAEI AE"AIi~6 /11,D/2,.(../5 ,:;(9;). 7:J. ~.A/cP.e.
~ ADDRESS (STREET ~ NOJ YEARS OF DRIVING ADDRESS (STREET & NO'0 YEARS OF DRIVING 19
..J (CfbO /JVON S-f. Ex-fD. EXPERIENCE g t<.i / l()oX /;). &' E1(PERIEN~Ol I
CITYe / STAJE ZIP COOE CITY STATE ZIP CODE 20
/.Af lof/ps(/i/I~ \/~ 22'?o( ES/VlOJ1J/ v~ ;);)937"7
4 DATE OF EJlRTH SEX I DRIVER'S UCENSE NUMBER ISTAT~ DATE OF EJlRTH SEX I DRIVER'S UCENSE NUMBER STATE
I ~lhl/~~ 19: 1M ~;26- ~~~ 6350 l/.. M~'hl~!Sf IY1 ;;2d)~- 76' - yo '18 U4 '21 ' ,
VEHICLE OWNER'S AME (LAST. FIRST, MIDDLE) VEHICLE OWNER'S NAME (LAST. FIRST. MIDOlE) ;l.
S"A no. 6'" SA J11 f3 .\.~~, ! ~
- ADORESS (STREET III NO.) ADDRESS (STREET & NO.) L
5 I ( , ( . ~,
.L QTV " IS:':"' '" c~ QTV " ',' Sf';: "''':',', I
MAKE & TYPE OF VEHI LE (SHOW MOPED, MOTORCYCLE, MlOUlANCE, ETLl IYEAR I REPAIR COST MAKE & TYPE OF VEHICLE (SHOW MOPED, MOTORCYClE, MlOUlANCC. ETL) I YEAR I REPAIR COST I V
N;S5AN p. LI. 88 5"00. ~ZJ EXp/"/lEJ<.. c:rl VOOO V'\
36 UCENSE PLATE NUM~ER I,ST1TE NAME OF INSURANCE CO. (NOT AGENT) UCENSE PLATE NUMBER I ST6TE' NAME OF INSURANCE CO. (NOT AGENT) IV
IT"yC 7/ / ,V,A NONE Lax 71..5" IVA I ErZ./€ V\.
P;~b~'R\~O I"[>OBJECT STRUCK (TREE, FENCE, ETC.) luwllms NAME (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE)
e~~rc~Jgi\~ ~ x.
37 YEHIClE NO.1 0 MACE ACCIDENT DIAGRAM
CHECK POINTS 0 IMPliCT f( f:: b 3 (
..' (
X'
I
X'
fROHT
..0)
9 10 11
A ---=
tJ t---
C
0
E
I Trr~~FICZ'J ~11 L1
g~JJlrcSCHAAGEDi) ;lJNi#/ i)aiv,r,Jr, 5(.)St7~"'Dej) lJai\;/v(, Lv/v IN SV/UlN c:~ F/lI'fc.,t7.E -In dte.ive nicW<'/de A/qkW/I
12 13 1,\ 15 16 NAMES OF IN.JUR{D . IF OECEASED, INCLUDE DATE OF DEMH v
I I ---===
I I
-~I
1 ;-~
I I
.~
,," x:. ,';;.1
. .('~,
!
-----
-----
--r-. ______
1000Gl:;OdUMO(R I ~P~RY.1ENT NAME A~~ CO~UMBER. 7:>GI'R~ I R~~~.J~ I DATEjlEPOll~lED
.-----
/"f,G~~OFr-1-P'iGES
/
,/ I,WOENI or'l~t'I~Or,Y OF " IfII.'IE ~
M,g,nlh I ,l!;lY qlfs~r WEEK _ AM PM
I ') ') ~.) I r=t2 - ~ .05- )(
; I &hOn'~ X
ROUTE NO, OR SIREET NAME fIT SCENE
'<;f,.e., )0&
h AT INTER~ECTION WITH OR ",,;( [)<t MILES n FEET n n ~ 00
,
I I 21~ g')' D- ) ~-') a, YEIUCLE NO. I(~ C] ') ~ - ~-G,J 0
~ OllrVERS NAM (Lr,ST, FIRST, MIDDLE) OCCUPATION
I IG~u ~~ 1~,),6, i,~ ') . ::.,/:-:~.
I , r 3 ADDRESS (ST EET & NO,) I YEARS OF DRIVING
1<+ Ir-J-)d,<t- I ;;:,c/\.s. ! '%1"= EXPER~Eye.s
CITY STATE ZIP CODE '
(' L \;- ( (c= II }4 _ ~;2~')O(
Is-' ~~~1r:rJ: I O""~~ ~~U~ <,t _ ~9/~C~' I;~~' ~~ ~~!TI~ Sf;::!'"""S U"NS' "MOEO
VEHICLE OWN R'S NAME (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE) VEHICLE OWNER'S NAME (LAST. FIRST, MIDDLE)
CP--J: ~ ~~ C' ~4~6=. s X
~ ADDRESS (STR~ET & NO,) ADDRESS (STREET & NO.)
. 5 ~ ') ~S- ? F,CJ\ <; IIJ A \e;. (<
CITY . STATE ZIP CODE CITY
(' L r 1', (' (~ I (Y:; ~ <J() ( f<-.
MAKE I. TYPE OF VEH1Cl.E (SHOW MOPED, MOTORCYCLE, AMIlULANCE, ETC"".) YEAR ~R~ C~OST MAKE 1\ TYPE OF VEHiCLE (SHOW MOPED, I.I"TCRCYCLE, AMIlULANCE, ETC.) I YEAR I REPAIR COST 24
./J~ ,." /1 ,AD DCMV c-1_ 75' 'X DCMV V \/ /
/ /,/,4'>> L V':;' ~ DHAZMAT ?).) ( , nHAZMAT I' t--
I. 6 LICENSE PLATE NUMBER ISTATE IIM~E OF nl~URI,NCE CO. (lIOT AGEIH) J LICENSE PLATE NUMBER IST~ I NAME OF INSURANCE CO. (NOT AGENT) X 12V
I') 17I-k - <g 0) U)}, /}-(.,..Ls)/<}-/ E. .;<-. ('I f\
~~~~%~O ll> ODJECT STRUCK (TREE, FENCE, ETC.) OWNER'S"M NAME (LAShT, FIRST, MIDDLE)~ ADDRESS I Rt,.(ER,A 'lYC.1R COST
OTHER THAN .::::J",." J_--. ,.1/\../ I..-.r"\~
VEHICLES ~^ iL.- "~V . n--/~"
'-" ACCIDENt DIAGRAM '
COMMONWEALTH OF 'JIHGINIA. DEPARTMeNT OF MOTOR VEHICLes
POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT OMV COpy FR 300P IREV
/7 COUNTY OF IIC. CIOENT MILE POST NUMllER I~AILROAO mOSSING 10, NO. I _
/'-JUs1:/h'9-C~ I I . I ,IF ilTHr5i FT I I ,r
LANDMARKS AT SCENE l~lIMIlEn Of OFFICIAL USE ONLY i'f\ <"1.
I VEHICLES \ Iv V I
CL<CVFf I QC5 km !CJG
ROUTE NUMBER OR STREET NAME
OF r5'/..e-r Cv.5 I
1,'901
rD
~
~
VEHICLE NO. Z lOR PEOESTRIANI
DRIVER'S NAME (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE)
1-
ADDRESS (STREET & NO,)
(<.
)(
OCCUPATION
)(
CITY
STATE
1-
DOL DCOl
K
YEARS OF DRIVING
EXPERIENCE X.
ZIP CODE
X
19
9
20,>(
STATE ZIP CODE
~ (<..
STATE
X2bf
I-
29
-
2X
I-
IJ 7
26
{
rEHICLE NO. Z DAMAGE 27X
CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT
/ --{)I\RO~~ .....Q~ / ~
0'" IT ;"-1 0 , I :if" C/ ~ ~\ I I liD 29
B'..L......t=:=:::..: Z " Pcu ~ Cj'" .....__ ...9 I V
o ""'1 'Q=> . / 0\(1'0 Y
, ~ ,,'i - - I , , ' , ,.. 1'\ 1,/3 ,,-
.' rr :.3-. ~ -. I ~ ,"'~ '. 0 (
~.,II.,'~ ~/_" - ~ '6...l~-' ;\"4 ~
y -.:. ~
o'Er "b{ ~
SP EO S'/~1 (1) SPEEO X
A~~8r~T L11 IT I M'};:~~EUM ?O~ 7? INDICATE NORTH A~~8r~T I LIMIT IM~~~M
BYARROW ><I'~J><
~~ St) I IS ~
VEHICl~ NO, I DA~AGES: Z HDVERTURNED J HUHDERCARRIAGE 5 LI OY FIRE 7 ~EHIC\E HO, Z DAMAGES: Z HDYERTURNEO J LJ UNDERCARRIAGE 5 L BY FIRE 7 34 I
Ii UNKNOWN n NO DAMAGE MOTOR I TOTALED 6 Rl OTIIER 8 n UNKNOWN n NO OAMAGE MOTOR 4 n TOTALED 6 I OTHER 8
~m]f;~:IOIl ('>p.:::k,YrLF ;t):~ I ,',.~ ,. -u..--:-~~"I- ,,1,'\ 1"\.1'1 \ ()/I?J ')09 "o1.."...,t. I_ )""''<:"7'- n.r
<"';~-,.,- l."~ I c<)h,::-/\ \ W, N<-,- -/\,:;~\ J t-.4""~- ,r-,"-. ':7"/f,c:: 'p- ~ ^ cA. ~<;' (.J. '1,oCf ~
K~ j) L2111\ ~,c ,G:>~.rj -77>8=<:' r/C A,<:, i .~L-..-<-~ ...<"~A-;U '77'''':l S~,...~
~t== r/~j'::';-r (F " J/ .J-. I EM) -),cp d ~ k2;""(! h.,-r- 5: 7"/1t"'"': ~r:;e- <\;~..L~.Lt,
y)..,~' rf'-41\<t:. 0 '- _
VEHICLE N , 1 OAMAGE
CHECK POIN S OF IMPACT
FRONT
.P!
...;..
OJ~ I
I'M d.o,\)~
,. ~ n--LS
~
, ~IJ
'.'
~
V1
'2
~
)~
~
()
{'
~
J
NJ
t<
~
x
36 (
8hfJllrEs CHAIlG D(/,C 1-.. -/lJ:=: I
9 In 11 12
----- --
----
1:1
I I
I I
~.l
I I
I I
14
15 16
--
NAMES OF INJURED. IF DECEASED. INCLUDE DATE OF DEATH
---
37(
:- <::).:) /'l:+,\- i
,~,e (' f'lV1 '0\ T 1-,(,.0 S
A
l A
l
o
,
~ C
~ 0
E
o E
---
-~
---
---
---
---....-
TRODPERjOFF:C R'S NAME
/ -,c~.c /\<:.-
r---
----
.=::><
-- --- ----
IOADGEiCODE Nf"!!,E.~J DEPARTMENT NAME AND CODE NUMBER
I ? \ ::>~ LJ...lP.- J _ .r-r
----
(0 U.J) IflfvIEW~Nq omCER
^~ ~,')i~."
-----
I DATE~P?~T lED~
~
~~
~~
~
\~
~;~
~*
~,
."
'}
~
~
~
~
r-.J
'-'
PAGE -L~OF / mGES
ACCIDE r ~A~t.J~r~JF 111M: ',\M PM I
'~H7t%(jjzrm ~'"%-rn
I t~ h OR02~: X
ROUTE~ lO-PR }TREET NAME AT SCEN}
~v~ 63/
COMMONWEALTH OF VlnG1NI^ . OEr'ArnMENT OF MOTon veHICles
POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT DMV COpy
A / L CUUNI Y UF i\CYUENI MILE POST NUMUEH 1~IAILm)AO CIIUSSII~G IU NU
/1 / fY?1Jc(r lei I . I (THIT 151 FT I I
ILANDMAHKS AT SCENE I~UMBEn Of OFFICIAL USE ONLY
X (HiS
lP21!Q66 <{11
nOU~MJER OR STREET NAME
""I AT INTERSECTION WITH 011 2 fX1 MilES n FEET n ~ r- n OF /i-'/: 7 G g
I V VEHICLE NO, I " VEHICLE NO. Z lOR PEOESTRIANI ./
~ 6ru~E[\; Ni\~ (LAST, FIRST, MIDOL~ / . / -::?.. . OCc..UI)lTION DRI~ NAME (LAST. FIRST, MIDDLE) OCCUPAlo/
*-/$4.#4 /('d/cJA~ &lJ/?///C R; 5w-~ " /
I J ADD~~ (~TREET & N~ /; ~,---.L L YEAHS OF DfllVING ADDHESS (sm~~ NO I Y)il{ns OF DI\IVII,r; 19
15 ./7:~ / DoX 7O:-~ /T EXI'EnlENC~ """ /..-(XI'EIiIEtICE !e.
ClTY~I/ . 1/ /. . / S!~/I Z~~.I. _ CITY "'" j..21'ATE ZIP CODE 20
/ /11/TI'l o-Q/' C/e~ 1//1. I.,{JI) / "'" /1 7'
I r ~h,O:t1RTI>>t~ID;;~C~;~~/97 OCOL I~ ~~~~h~FD~~RT;~car SEX IDfllvm~Nu/.m/ODL OCDL ISTME ~
VEHICLE OWNE~kMSED~E) VEHICLE OWNER'S NAME (LAST, FIRST, MA J
[E ADORES (STREET & NO,) ADDRESS (STREET & NO,) / "'" ~
/ 5 J I "'-, 2~ .
CITY ( ( S;A~E ZIP CO~EI CITY / ~ ZIP CODE ~
. ~ . :P~' VEHIC~ (SHOVl MOPED, MOTORCYCLE, AMOUt.P.~i~c..\i) I~~ I ~~~ ~ MAKE & TYPE O~CLE (SHOW MOPED, MOT0flCYCLE, AMOULAN~,~~_,:/ I YtN\J REPAIR COST 24
rt1lQ: r>I Dr. nHAZMATlo I r~ /' nHAZMAT l'-... /
W4~f~3R I~ NAMd~'71-AIAGtIIl) -7PLATENUMOEll IST^TE.IIIAMEoF~lsunAIiCECO'(NOTAGENT) ~12);
DAMAGE 0 [[>IOOJECT STRUCK (TREE, FENCE, ETC.) OWNER'S NAME (LAST. FIRST. MIDDLE) ADDRESS I REPAIR COST 2fi-.
PllOPERT X C/1
OTHER TH~ V j
VEHICLES /'0
I j7 YE IClE NO. t DAMAGE ACCIDENT DIAGRAM VEHICLE HO. 2 DAMAGE 2?
cf... CHEC POINTS OF IMPACT CHECK POINTS OF IMPACT ;<
Fn JOOI' ('-lEV 1.'101
I
~~.
f--l
17
31
1--1
1--1
18
)<
1--1
I
FROH
J1(}
"D~ ~~ I
o' I I I 0
8"~ 2
o 0 ~ 0
7 . 9 ~ :' 3
O"'~"'O
6' " l . _ 1 '4
hs'
Q,I
28
/
1--1
29
lJ
30
~
31
i
1--1
3~
--I
X
FRONT
~'.'. L ~! .'.}f
~
? I ~ I .8
0' ~."O
6', l__ 1....4
'o'S
..'-.:
/
CL:J
r /\ -I ^ roo- /)
1\ f)(j f 't~I~((~' I ~
V 'U V V (") tbint O~ rmp~:t-
-p; /Xv, kmeJ1t
@
SPEEO
8EFOnE I LIMIT IMAXIMUM
ACCIDENT I I SlifE
1 I
SPEED
A~1!iltl~ LIMIT 1 M~~WM
17 ,),".,-I,~
VEHICl~ 0, IOAMAGES: 2 HOVERTURHEO 3 I, I UNOERCARRlAGE 5 HBY FIRE 7 I VEHIC\E NO, 2 OAMAGES:2 HOVERTURHED 3 . I UNOERCARRIAGE 5 HOY fiRE T 34.
II U 'NOWN n NO OAMACE MOTOn 4 rxJ TOTAlEO 6 OHlER 0 n UNKNOWN n NO OAMAGE MOTOR 4 I TOTAlEO 6 OTmR 8 J
~f~'i:I!~'[~lllrl //,->/}:P/ ~Q//!r-: /)/k'-"r c;.( "IJ'U/7cJ ?~//,. CI)fr/ t(/tl,'J' ~f1c'l- r3l t::1/-"7cf/A-er 35
/Jr,fJ '-//C:/I/r///J~ //7 1/C-h;e;X/) ,;L.c,.jJ(<I, (,leA :ft/ {.(./C/5' ("f{/iL.1c/r:r/ c.++, ;-;'id- ;-\
I'd< c/OJo.// ""r? ';"-);c:.- /'/<:.h j-, ol/er /' U/'Fec 'k-c.{ S-r/'/k }j?t:,,-:;""J;r-. L.=/ffrx./J1ta?''';nr
f1Y1rl1,k I c-.~f2~~ <('I'd't"~ .I-J....p '.Pr,a,....-l. r.,p.V eJ(}<cr'- ..-!,._"rd~.'Vi (JP h j::t }
I (7
INDICATE NORTH
OY ARROW
3Ii_
0(
OFFfNSE
omvfR
I ,I
CHARGED /Y I'jlY ;-
37
>.
9
A /
L A
l
0
I
" C
J
U 0
A
,
0 E
10
i
11
9"
12
/
13 14
.c I&:> 17C/ r-
I I
I I
I ---L-.
I I
IS 16 NAMES OF INJURED. IF DECEASED, INCLUDE DATE OF DEATH
L/ A" Hr::-//n7Ci/7/1 karc.'lI/Y7 ./ _ c::..
,/
TIl~iliOFFICER'S I/liME
-/ J.:,?., Y'- r) "'" ..
IIl>\OG~ NUMUlIl IDElj'IV~llNr NAME AND CODE Nl1l,IUlJl... '" .r....) Illlf.'LI.EWltlG O/.fIClIl
I / /) L1/j,.~/Y1_ .-/ ~ /_ ;/{} /:.t: I. \lL',\
I DAlE HEPOHLfILED
I C".:, _ J-c' ')
'lr
..
j),'!: j- j7!
/7
//;~~)" (L( e./
G/YfZ
2114 Virginia Ave.
McLean, Virginia 22101
May 13, 1992
RECE'vr::~
.1 . _ ,
MAY? 9 1992
PLANNING fiE~'
RE: VDOT Location and Design Proposal
0708-002-241, C 501 Routes 708 & 631
I"" It. - 8 trill'" I-s"'..s,
This letter is respectfully submitted to you for your consideration of the above
ret rences road improvement project located at the intersection of routes 708 & 631 in the
Re Hill - North Garden area of the county. It is intended to bring to your attention my
co cerns regarding this project as proposed as well as an existing alternate plan for this area.
I am the owner of the property located on the northeast corner of the present
int rsection of routes 708 & 631 approximately 0.75 miles north of Walnut Creek Park,
According to VDOT, the stated purpose of this proposed road improvement is to
im rove access to Walnut Creek Park. I feel that this proposal does not accomplish its stated
obj ctive and actually creates a greater danger than the intersection that it is intended to
rep ace, Further I feel that this proposal has been driven by economic concerns at the
ex ense of safety and serviceability considerations, I also feel that this proposal is limited in
its iew of the long term needs for improvements to route 708, in regard to future traffic
flo in this area. As well I do not think the VDOT has properly taken into account the rural
res dential nature of this area, For these reasons, outlined below, I feel I must exercise my
t to protest this proposal and bring to your attention what I consider its deficiencies,
I am aware there is a need to improve access to Walnut Creek Park with particular
reg rd to sight distance from route 631 to the west as well the grade and hairpin turn of the
we tern approach of route 708 to its intersection with route 631. After reviewing the
loc tion and design plan I agreed that the horizontal alignment of route 631 would improve
sig t distance to the east, however, the vertical alignment of four (4) to four and a half (41/2)
fee of cut and fill would only marginally improve sight distance to the west. Further, the
pi as conceived does nothing to address the ninety (90) degree plus hairpin turn angle right
or he eight (8) to ten (10) degree grade of route 708 le:lding into its intersection with route
631. In fact I believe this improvement as conceived actual! y creates a greater hazard than
,the existing intersection, in that by widening the roadbed from eighteen (18) feet with two (2)
our (4) feet of unusable shoulders to thirty-three (33) feet with six (6) feet of usable
ulders on each side, a total width of forty-five (45) feet, will cause erratic speed and
ap roach patterns to develop. I feel that this design will encourage impatient drivers
fol owing slower moving commercial traffic and travel trailers to utilize the turn lane and
sh ulders to pass in this area. Further the widening of route 708 will encourage higher
s approaches to the hairpin turn while being funneled back into the old roadbed width of
eig teen (18) feet with less than two hundred fifty (250) feet before engaging this turn, As
en isioned the proposed improvement would depart route 708 at the first driveway to the east
of he current intersection, that belonging to Mr. Charles Nash, swing approximately fifty
fee north of the existing intersection and reenter route 708 at the lower driveway entrance,
tha being Mr. Gerry Wilkes' driveway. It was explained to me by VDOT officials at the
pu lic Location and Design Hearing that this concern was baseless because these actions are
ill ai, It is also illegal to cross a double yellow line to pass though this occurs at times on
oth r locations on route 708, as related by long-time residents of this area,
Route 708 is traveled daily (including weekends) by dump trucks from Red Hill
Qu rry, two (2) miles to the west of this intersection as well as other commercial traffic
by assing Charlottesville to the south, between route 29 to the west and route 20 to the east.
M tor homes and travel trailers also use this corridor to access and egress the KOA
ca pground on route 708 one (1) mile to the east of route 63 I. Both routes 708 and 631 are
us extensively by bicyclists as a bicycle touring route. With the opening of Walnut Creek
Pa k, campground and bicycle as well as auto traffic should be expected to increase.
According to accident report records from the Albemarle County Police Department,
January 1988 to March 1992 there have been fourteen (14) accidents on route 708
bet een route 706. one (1) mile to the west and route 708's intersection with route 631. Of
the e fourteen (14) accidents, only one (1) has occurred in the area of this proposed
im rovement. Seventy-one percent (71 %) occurred May through September, seventy-one
per ent (71 %) occurred in clear weather, eighty-five percent (85%) occurred on dry
pa ement, sixty-four percent (64 %) were single vehicle accidents and fifty percent (50 %)
oc urred during daylight hours, Further, sixty-six percent (66%) of the drivers involved in
acc dents in this area were between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-five (25) years of
ag . I feel it is safe to assume that Walnut Creek Park will be the county park of chOIce for
stu ents from the University of Virginia, given the park's proximity to the University, 10
mil s due south. In addition to these reported accidents. Mr. Gerry Wilkes. whose home is
loc ted at the hairpin turn. has since January 1990 noted sixteen (16) off the roadbed events
on his turn. These "accidents" are unofficial in that they were not reported and did not
req ire medical or police assistance. but are attested to by the scarred trees and numerous
aut parts on the ground in this area.
This proposed improvement is not the only plan that has been committed to drawings
by he VDOT. Two years ago I reviewed an alternative plan, that for the sake of
cia 'fication I'll refer to as Plan A. Plan A would have departed route 708 0,2 to 0,3 miles
we Lof its intersection with route 631, intersect route 631 0.1 to 0.15 miles to the south of
,
present intersection and reenter route 708 0.2 to 0.25 miles east of the present
rsection, I do not know what the disposition of this plan was as it never reached the
lie hearing stage and I have been told by VDOT officials that it is no longer available for
pu lie consumption, therefore the actual distances may vary somewhat as they were extracted
fr m memory, I have concluded after conversations with VDOT officials and the Albemarle
C unty Planning Department that Plan A was dropped primarily for economic reasons,
Wile Plan A is costlier, perhaps three (3) to four (4) times this proposal, Plan A addresses
m re directly the safety and serviceability problems as well as the future needs of this area.
PI A accomplished these objectives by: (1) creating an intersection with near zero (0)
gr de of all four approaches, (2) eliminating most of the hairpin turn and grade problems of
th current intersection's western approach, (3) creating an intersection that can be upgraded
wi h four way stop signs or a traffic light (the proposed plan leaves no avenue for future
im rovement) and (4) being more consistent in keeping with the VDOT target speed for
ro te 708 of 50 MPH.
Further, I disagree with VDOT's description of this area as agricultural in nature, in
th t in its short span of 0,23 miles, this "improvement" directs traffic now towards two (2)
existing single family homes and renders the Jot on the northeast comer unbuildable as it
en roaches on the only drain field site. I feel a proper description of this area would be rural
res dential. I also feel that VDOT's estimate of projected traffic now for this area will prove
to e too low. They state that traffic now in 1986 was 730 vehicle trips a day and this can
be expected to increase to 1310 vehicle trips by 2001. On peak days the County Parks and
Re reation Department estimates that 400 vehicles a day will visit the park (that is 800
ve icle trips) the majority of which will travel through this intersection. Also I do not think
the VDOT estimates take into account accurately the buildout potential of this area nor could
it ave taken into account the traffic that will be generated by the shopping center now under
co struction at routes 29 and 692 in North Garden.
I also feel that I should state that my concern in this project is the long term safety
an serviceability of the road system in this area and not in the possible loss of a buildable
lot. On the contrary, with the intersection improved and given its proximity to the park, it
mi ht seem an ideal location for a commercial use that serviced the park to keep traffic now
on routes 708 & 631 to a minimum, I am not inclined in this direction as I stated above I
fee that this is a rural residential area,
In closing r would like to say that I feel that this proposal as it stands does not
mplish its stated objective of improving access to Walnut Creek Park and that safety and
se iceability should take priority over economic concerns, even if this means delaying work
on oute 708 until the monies can be found to accomplish a truly meaningful and long term
im rovement in this area. I feel that a revival of Plan A is the prudent approach to this
pro lem area to insure the safety and welfare of the people and to maintain the integrity of
thi secondary road system of Albemarle County and the State of Virginia and that this
pro osed improvement as envisioned be dropped now and forever.
I urge all involved in the review process to visit the site of this proposed improvement
to reason for themselves the nature of my safety concerns, the inadequacy of this project as
co ceived and to insure a reasonable and responsible disposition of this proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
C::::~ ~ R---
Carroll Douglas A~ton
cc: Members of County Planning Commission,
County Board of Supervisors, et aI.
. .
-~
1./ ' .J f&!?!72.
!,'CCR. I.~ ~
2<=-.
2114 Virginia Ave.
McLean, Virginia 22101
May 13, 1992
RE: VDOT Location and Design Proposal
0708-002-241, C 501 Routes 708 & 631
D 6t1~J (;) p: S~.c~.4t//~~
This letter is respectfully submitted to you for your consideration of the above
refe ences road improvement project located at the intersection of routes 708 & 631 in the
Red Hill - North Garden area of the county. It is intended to bring to your attention illY
con ems regarding this project as proposed as well as an existing alternate plan for this area,
I am the owner of the property located on the northeast corner of the present
inte section of routes 708 & 631 approximately 0.75 miles north of Walnut Creek P:UK.
According to VDOT, the stated purpose of this proposed road improvement is to
imp ove access to Walnut Creek Park, 1 feel that this proposal does not accomplish its stated
obje tive and actually creates a greater danger than the intersection that it is intended to
repl ce, Further I feel that this proposal has been driven by economic concerns at the
exp nse of safety and serviceability considerations. I also feel that this proposal is limited in
its v ew of the long term needs for improvements to route 708, in regard to future traffic
flow in this area, As well I do not think the VDOT has properly taken into account the rural
resi ential nature of this area. For these reasons, outlined below, I feel I must exercise my
righ to protest this proposal and bring to your attention what I consider its deficiencies,
I am aware there is a need to improve access to Walnut Creek Park with particular
reg d to sight distance from route 631 to the west as well the grade and hairpin turn of the
west rn approach of route 708 to its intersection with route 631. After reviewing the
location and design plan I agreed that the horizontal alignment of route 631 would improve
sight distance to the east, however, the vertical alignment of four (4) to four and a ha]l- (41/~)
feet f cut and fill would only marginally improve sight distance to the west. Furthl'r, the
plan as conceived does nothing to address the ninety (90) degree plus hairpin turn angle right
or th eight (8) to ten (10) degree grade of route 708 leading into its intersection with route
631, In fact I believe this improvement as conceived actually creates a greater hazard than
the e isting intersection. in that by widening the roadbed from eighteen (18) feet with [Wo (2)
to fOl r (4) feet of unusable shoulders to thirty-three (33) feet with six (6) feet of usable
shoul ers on each side, a total width of forty-five (45) feet, will cause erratic speed and
approach patterns to develop, I feel that this design will encourage impatient drivers
fo11o ing slower moving commercial traffic and travel trailers to utilize the turn lane and
shoul ers to pass in this area. Further the widening of route 708 will encourage higher
speed approaches to the hairpin turn while being funneled back into the old roadbed width of
eight en (18) feet with less than two hundred fifty (250) feet before engaging this turn. As
envis oned the proposed improvement would depart route 708 at the first driveway to the east
of th current intersection, that belonging to Mr. Charles Nash, swing approximately fifty
fed I mth of the existing intersection and reenter route 708 at the lower driveway entrance,
that eing Mr. Gerry Wilkes' driveway, It was explained to me by VDOT officials at the
publi Location and Design Hearing that this concern was baseless because these actions are
i11ega. It is also illegal to cross a double yellow line to pass though this occurs at times on
other locations on route 708, as related by long-time residents of this area,
Route 708 is traveled daily (including weekends) by dump trucks from Red Hill
Quar y, two (2) miles to the west of this intersection as well as other commercial traffic
bypa sing Charlottesville to the south, between route 29 to the west and route 20 to the east.
rv10to homes and travel trailers also use this corridor to access and egress the KOA
C;lll1P ~roulld 011 route 708 one (1) mile to the east of route 631. Both routes 708 and 631 arc
used 'xtensivcly by bicyclists as a bicycle touring route, With the opening of Walnut Creek
Park, campground and bicycle as well as auto traffic should be expected to increase,
According to accident report records from the Albemarle County Police Department,
from January 1988 to March 1992 there have been fourteen (14) accidents on route 708
bdw en route 706, one (1) mile to the west and route 708's intersection with route 631, Of
these fourteen (14) accidents, only one (1) has occurred in the area of this proposed
impr vemen!. Seventy-one percent (71 %) occurred May through September, seventy-one
perce1t (71 %) occurred in clear weather, eighty-tive percent (85%) occurred on dry
paver 1ent, sixty-four percent (64%) were single vehicle accidents and tifty percent (50%)
occu cd during daylight hours. Further, sixty-six percent (66 %) of the drivers involved in
accid 'nts in this area were between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-five (25) years of
age, I feel it is safe to assume that Walnut Creek Park will be the county park of choice for
stuck lls from the University of Virginia, given the park's proximity to the University, 10
miles due south. In addition to these reported accidents, Mr. Gerry Wilkes, whose home is
lOCH d at the hairpin turn, has since January 1990 noted sixteen (16) off the roadbed events
on tll s turn. These "accidents" are unofficial in that they were not reported and did not
requi e medical or police assistance, but are attested to by the scarred trees and numerous
auto )arts 011 the ground in this area,
This proposed improvement is not the only plan that has been committed to drawings
by th' VDOT. Two years ago I reviewed an alternative plan, that for the sake of
claril cation I'll refer to as Plan A, Plan A would have departed route 708 0.2 to 0,3 miles
west )f its intersection with route 631, intersect route 631 0.1 to 0.15 miles to the south of
the resent intersection and reenter route 708 0,2 to 0.25 miles east of the present
inte section, I do not know what the disposition of this plan was as it never reached the
publ c hearing stage and I have been told by VDOT officials that it is no longer available for
pub I c consumption, therefore the actual distances may vary somewhat as they were extracted
fro memory. I have concluded after conversations with VDOT officials and the Albemarle
Cou ty Planning Department that Plan A was dropped primarily for economic reasons.
Whi e Plan A is costlier, perhaps three (3) to four (4) times this proposal, Plan A addresses
mor directly the safety and serviceability problems as well as the future needs of this area.
Plan A accomplished these objectives by: (1) creating an intersection with near zero (0)
grad of all four approaches, (2) eliminating most of the hairpin turn and grade problems of
the urrent intersection's western approach, (3) creating an intersection that can be upgraded
with four way stop signs or a traffic light (the proposed plan leaves no avenue for future
impr vement) and (4) being more consistent in keeping with the VDOT target speed for
rout 708 of 50 MPH,
Further, I disagree with VDOT's description of this area as agricultural in nature, in
that n its short span of 0.23 miles, this "improvement" directs traffic now towards t\\/O (2)
exist ng single family homes and renders the lot on the northeast corner unbuildable as it
encr aches on the only drain field site, I feel a proper description of this area would be rural
resid 'ntial. I also feel that VDOT's estimate of projected traffic now for this area will prove
to b too low. They state that traffic flow in 1986 was 730 vehicle trips a day and this can
be e, pected to increase to 1310 vehicle trips by 200 I. On peak days the County Parks and
Recr tion Department estimates that 400 vehicles a day will visit the park (that is SOU
vehi Ie trips) the majority of which will travel through this intersection. Also I do not think
the DOT estimates take into account accurately the buildout potential of this area nor could
it ha e taken into account the traffic that will be generated by the shopping center now under
cons ruction at routes 29 and 692 in North Garden.
I also feel that I should state that my concern in this project is the long term sa:'ety
and erviceability of the road system in this area and not in the possible loss of a buildable
lot. n the contrary, with the intersection improved and given its proximity to the park, it
migh seem an ideal location for a commercial use that serviced the park to keep traffic !low
on r utes 708 & 631 to a minimum, I am not inclincd in this direction as I stated abovc I
feel t at this is a rural residential area,
In closing I would like to say that I feel that this proposal as it stands docs not
accor plish its stated objective of improving access to Walnut Creek Park and that safety and
servi eability should take priority over economic concerns, even if this means ddaying work
on ro te 708 until the monies can be found to accomplish a truly meaningful and long :erm
impr vement in this area, I feel that a revival of Plan A is the prudent approach to this
probl m area to insure the safety and welfare of the people and to maintain the integrity of
this s condary road system of Albemarle County and the State of Virginia and that this
prop sed improvement as envisioned be dropped now and forc\'cr.
I urge all involved in the review process to visit the site of this proposed improvemellt
to r son for themselves the nature of my safety concerns, the inadequacy of this project as
con eived and to insure a reasonable and responsible disposition of this proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Sincerely,
Carroll Douglas Arrington
cc: Members of County Planning Commission,
County Board of Supervisors, et al.
1-\
I
/ ""~~
, 4
".',__ ',0
~"!~ ;\'( "
RECE'i\lr::q
. t;f ,~.\...
MAR" 1 3 1992
P~WNG DEPT.
.l,
I'
fuiH,t It) F l~;o L! EbjiJ . & i3'13 ;
~oith Garden. VA 22959
12 March 1992
After reviewing the proposed realignment of SR 708 (VDOT
roject number 0708002241C501) I find that the proposal is
raught with inadequacies. The project does not
atisfactorially take into consideration the safety of those
raveling the highway. It does not address the high amount of
icycle traffic. Further. homeowners in the immediate vicinity
ill be adversely effected from a safety and property value
tandpoint.
The greatest concern may be found (or rather. not found) in
he principle purpose of the pro,iect, which "... is to improve
rccess to the county's new Walnut Creek Park". This purpose can
e achieved in several ways, one of which should include the
'ntersection of SR 708 and SR 631. But any improvemeQt must go
eyond the stated primary purpose to include the utmost safety of
hose traveling the roads. The demonstrated proposal does not
o this. As outlined in the project description. the volume of
raffic will nearly double in the next nine years. By far; the
increase will be due to people traveling to Walnut Creek Park.
hese people will be unfamiliar with the terraine and.
pecifically west of the 708/631 intersection, the steep grade
nd excessive curves which are admittedly not to VDOT'~ code of
. ighway construction (personal communication with survey engineer
in field, summer 1991), The curvature of the first curve to the
est of the intersection is approximately~9 degrees (figured
from the plat of my property-by Snow and Associates, surveyors).
T is curve has a line-of-sight of approximately twenty feet most
of the way through: extremely 11ndesirable for traffic traveling
a speeds of 30 mph or more. By adding the turn and thru lanes,
t e curvature may increase. exacerbating an already bad
situation.
Because of the location of my residence, on SR 708 just to
t e west of the intersection, the number of accidents occurring
Roosevelt
Engineer
Department of Transportation
.0. Box 2013
:harlottesville. VA 22902
ear Mr. Roosevelt:
-..--/ -........, ~
o 1 the of i rst. C1JrVe weF~t. of the 1 ntF~rsect, ion has been observed to
he cxtraorclinary. Police records show fourteen reported accidents
FIt or near this curve in a t,h1'ep-yef\r perine!. During t,he la:3t
tf,Nenty-t,wo monthE; 1 h,']ve been keeping t\ personal record of
ace ident,s on the curve. and hr\ve found t.he number to be appall ing:
the freq\1P.ncy he.inr: once evpry five weeks \'lit.h the ma,jorit,y
oc'c-;uring during thcl warmer mont.ho under good weather conditions
(see attachment). 'l'he discrepancy between U1P police record and
IT i ne is tbr~t sOllie have been 1'e la t i v1 V minor and not reported. The
1 umber of i nc iden ts, coupled wi toh t,he pro.i ect,ed increase in
trc.lffic and no ntt.iC,r'1pt, to remedy t.he road conditions at the
curve, leuds to the llnfnrt,una te cone 1 usion that there wi 11 be a
rrastic increase in accidents_ To-date, some of these accidents
rave required medical attent.ion by the rescue squads. but
tortllnately none. yet have been fnta].
Not considered in the traffic count mentioned in the report,
is the great number of bicyclists using both SR 708 and 631. This
route is apparently a favored one for cyclists from
Charlott,esville~ indeed. lust weekend during a two hour period. I
counted 37 cyclists p;)sL my honse. Thif-, number will increase aE~
the weather getD \'lar'mer and the pat'k openE~ _ Needless to say, the
curve to the wect of the intersection is an accident involving a
cyclist waiting to happeT), especially considering the doubling of
\chicular traffic.
The s<'Ifety fac\'.or of aCCCSf\ to the county park is. affect~ed
lot only by the number of vehicles. as just demonstrated. but
Flso by t.he type of vehicle, Obviously automobiles will be the
{rimarv variety, bIlL others observed from my residence most days
c f the week inc Iude [.;chool buses. 10-- to 50-ton quarry trucks
rom the Mar t in Mr:Il' ie [, L.a s tone quarry (located on SH 708. h'JO
r ileF\ t,o the weF;L of the '10R/631 intersection). recreational
'ehicles traveling to and from the KOA campground (located two
I iles east on SR 'TOO), logging trucks, horse and cat.t.le t,rllcks,
(airy trucks. and an aSE;ortment of semi--tractor/trailer trucks
,hich i'lre traveling bet.ween rou\'.es 20 and ~:9. All of these
,ehicles hi'lve difficulitv with the hill west of the 708/631
intersection~ it is not unustihl to see a line of automobiles
ollowing one of these heavy vehicles due to the grade and sharp
curves to the west of the intersection. Add to this already
leavy-vehicle type useage a doubling of passenger cars and park-
1 e lat.ed serv ice vehie les. the probabi 1 i t,y of inconv ienence and
he potential for serious accidentG increases dramatically_ The
},roposed project will not remedy this situation.
,
./
In addition to the above conditions, the proposed realignment
is adverse on its impact upon homeowners who have to deal with
the roads bordering their properties on a daily basis. The
increase in traffic and the proposed realignment not only may
ave a negative effect on property value. but again. the safety
factor comes into play. Widening the road for turn and thru lanes
auld increase the speed light-vehicles travel. taking imprudent
dvantage of a wider road to pass a slower. heavy-vehicle. thus
lacing the residence and adjoining living space in a trajectory
f an out-of-control vehicle. The results could be disastrous to
ife and property.
As mentioned at the beginning of this letter. the need to
ddress the problems associated with the 708/631 intersection has
ecome necessary. I do not agree that the proposed realignment
ould be in the best interest to me, the homeowner. or to the
~itizens traveling the highway. Agreed, the proposal would be a
'guick fix" at the lowest cost possible. But in light of the
ounty's six-year plan which takes into account an increase in
ames and traffic in the Red Hill area. a more prudent plan would
Je to spend the money now on a proper realignment of SR 708 which
auld move the intersection south of the existing one. Plans for
his realignment have already been drawn from recent VDOT
urveys and was originally conceived as the only logical option.
ut because of the cost (approaching three times the cost of the
urrent proposal) of that design and comments from t.he church, a
econdary realignment (the current proposal) was cre~ted as a
ost-saving measure. The Virginia Department of Transportation
as a long-standing tradition of designing and constructing the
'inest roads possible and. if relieved from fiscal restraints,
ould want to maintain that heritage through their original plan.
ith that plan, the safety aspect of access to the park would be
nhanced, eliminating all of the observations listed above.
Some may say my interest in moving the intersection south is
urely self-motivated. To those people I would say that if this
ere done, to gain access to my property I would more than likely
ave to purchase additional property or easement rights. The
ealignment to the south wO\lld place my residence into another
chool district, affecting my children. Additionally, my postal
ddress could be changed from North Garden to the Charlottesville
ost Office, which would certainly affect all personal business
atters from credit cards, to licences and registrations, to
nsurence.
The County of Albemarle has gone to great expense to
onstruct a first-class recreational park for its citizens. It is
.
nly right that access to that park be of a similar high quality
nd projects what I am sure the county desires: its concern for
he safety and well-being to the residents of the County of
lbernarle.
c:J~U\? cllL:ed'
Gerald P. ,Wi lkes
c: Ed. Bain, Superintendant for the Samual Miller District
Wayne Cilimberg, Dir. of Planning and Community Development
-.
. ' . -a ..
OG OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ON THE FIRST CURVE WEST OF THE JUNCTION
OF SR 708 AND SR 631
(This is a partial list of vehicle accidents. There are skid
arks and scarred trees indicating other accidents not
rocnmented. During snow or ice in the winter. many cars are
ypically stranded on the hill.)
1990
May- 4:00pm. Toyota auto left road. UVA students.
June- -6:00pm. Chevrolet car goes entirely off the hill,
driver jumped before going over. Rescue sguad called.
.July- -2:00am. Honda car left road into woods. UVA students.
- -5:00pm. Motorcycle laid down on curve.
August- late afternoon. Toyota 4-wheel truck runs off road.
Child injured sent to hospital.
December- -8:00am. Semi-tractor hauling logs overturns
spilling load due to snowy conditions. TV29 documented
on evening news.
- several cars stranded on hill due to snowy
conditions,
1 91
February- afternoon. Dodge van runs off side of road. Little
apparent damage,
May- morning. Chevy pickup hauling hay fails to negotiate
curve winds up into tree.
-early afternoon. Jeep pickup leaves road head-on into
tree.
June- -10:00 am. County pickup with mower trailer leaves
road. meets tree,
- late afternoon. Bicycle lays down on curve.
July- ? time. Late model Olds found in inside ditch.
-11:00pm. BMW (NY plates) leaves road, high-centers on
berm.
August- late afternoon. Chevy pickup gets hung up along
embankment after leaving road.
September- late morning. Motorcycle lays down and leaves
road.
November- late evening. Ford pickup leaves road rests
broadside against tree.
1 92
February- early evening. Chevrolet car leaves road.
UVA students.
1-'" co
<t i0 I-
zoo ON<-lDO
o 0 (]) (]) :::::.., .-J
1-.... 1,0: LL
<.9 I - l[) en .-J ~ 0
Z od I- N O<tl'-<t
U I I Z w
0::: - - l[) r0 Q y> 0:
0::: r0 0::: <1: I- W <t
tOl-- ..001-
e::{ (f)Z 0::J0
. -w <tow
<.9 (f) 0 <.9 I- i:i 0: ~
::) I- 0::: <1: w ~ LL ~
I- U 0 0::: <l. > 0 CJ) ~Oo:
<1: 0._.. >(J)X
--1 od --1 I- 0:: W 0 l-
n.. --1 en W >- 0::: I- ~
mOLLl-1- ~
Z ..rvo(f)Z
o u.. <.9::)
(f) e::{ 0::: . <1: 0
- e::{l-oo::::U
>enuz..:::
-I- - W
~OLLW~--1
::) --1 0 I --1 0:: -
(f) >-I->~g
I-I-enw-
O::<1:l-roll
W 1---1-
0..0 0 <1: =-
OWu
O::I-en
o..e::{
WU
IO
1---1
:x: >-.....Q I I I.iJ
t::.....~lI:l.....>- o ~
~Q:~ ><~ ~~~::?1:
~~cne~~ V)"(O l-
I- 03:~~~
~Qtl~~1- i ClQ"(~O
I ~IX:~l.iJl.iJi
..........1-1-11)11) - 0 IX: :::-
Q:~!g:tl-"'" e l.iJC)eo~g 0
..... .....~lI:l IX:~~O"(Vl
:x:~e:l""'''''' "(--1.iJ1X: w
I- ~J: ..... :t~ :::-"(Vl 0
Q-QO.....I- ..J o IX: - I.iJ "( 5>
~~~...al-e Q: ONOt;Cl~
Q:.....~.....~ ~ .... I.i.. Cl 0
:I 1.iJ>-~ii:"(1.iJ
~~~~Vll- ~ !XlI- I- 1: 0:
Q~:tVlIX:1-
~j::Q...aU ...a 1.iJ:;)01.iJ~1.iJ W
QQQ:...a...a~ ~ 1-01:IX::x:Vl I
Q~~~~Q: I&. VlOII)I-I-O I-
~u !t).;0 0 ~I.iJI.iJOQ~ 0:
~U~ ...au Vl .... IX: ~ ~ :::>
...a~Q.~:tQ >- ~~"(I.iJ"(- LL
I-
..... ~ -0 0 ~ ~ 2~QIX:0~ w
:X:-Q:Q....a~ ~ 1-1.iJ~"(~ CO
I-Q..... ~ ~!Xl"(>-~O
l&.~~~~~ U .... I.iJ I.iJ I.iJ I-
o :;).....~ :;)"(I-1:I.iJO 0
:z:1-01-Q: ~ C)I.iJ"(I-1:~ Z
Q~Q~O"'" :i ~:X:O).;I-~
I-Vl.... ~ >-
..... .....Q: ~ I.iJ 0 - ~ 1: -
~1I):z:0:x:~ <t
:>8~1-1-1- Q: ~1-2:o~1- ~
Q ~~II)~1Ai ~ I-I-Vl 0
0~01.iJC);Z: (J)
...............:t~it8 I&. ~~~~3:~ I-
.....Q ..... 0
J:Q:~""'QlQ...a ..... VlI.i..Cl~1- 0
I-I&.:;)~~:x:~ I- 1.iJ1X:1.iJ1X:~~ .-J
..........1&......1-0 ~ :X::;) :::l:::l
:x::x:..........0~ 1-Q.2:Q.IX:Q.
I-I-Q:QI-~ II)
.,
;~
U
N
W
-.J
e::{
U
(f)
o
~\ \
~\
\ \
\ \
\
~\t
~\O
\ '2\~
\
\ ~
~\ ~\
\ \
~
I-
~
m
<;t
-o;t
m~
0,
· N
ml"-
o;t-
z
ZI-
Ow
o:(/)
o
53
0=
LLfi
ZlDN
O~~
0:0 lD
o;to)
o;t
(fl )
VZ'&VL
LL'vSk:
3,,9k:.IS.LZS
L v'k:6k:
<j"
If),
U>
U>
('J
.
<!U
<1:
.-~
00
--1'
N
3
lD
r<1
o
o
If)
(/)
,,, , '\.
'-' -...J
<1:
.--
OV
-'~
~
I'-
N
-0)
om
10 ,
o -
mO)
vN
Z
L k:'9Zr
Lk:'/Sk:
3,S/.9ZS
ZI-
Ow
a::(/)
~
\0 \
..0 ~
~ z
~
~
(P
(DU
<t
'-0
00
--1-
N
--J
::
o
N
= N
~<;tlf)mo
;:~~IOr<l
10 0 N"':Z
N~!2!2u
II U II U en
<to:.-Juu
8
3
o;to;t
-1"1
10 ,
<;tl"-
o l"-
t::-
Z
----
"
6L'66
\ rvN oM"IO.IO.Zk:N
N\.9.'E- Z Z I-
0::J <t
o .-J
Q;;LL .I n...
O:(J)
J<t~m
,zmm
3 , I
(/)~ml
wwNlJ)
.-J-lDN
......u. lD
u.. ll.. '
<twco '
I 'co
0,
Uod 0
8
'.1.&
----
Z~'Z6\
ONno.:J NOH/
M &9'&.,(
oi.jOI.SO.99S
~S~OHI
----
j
------g 0 1..
--
----
~
<;t-
o<;t
-m
0,
N~
. W
m
o
Z
:3
m-
<;tm
-m
o;t ,
~o
. N
~
lD
Z
<;t
Z
I-
<t LL ,
.-J u1~
n...
lDO o~
~N 0
I'-N OZ
-<t
I I OI
010 ~I-
I- LL(J)
1'-0 0
QQ .-J o(/)
~w
aiai 0: ::J.-J
w
eiei n... ~(J)
-w
<t N <.9 :?;n...
0: Z ~o
W .-J <trA
0 .-J U
W W Z .-J
Z U W W (J)I
0 0: 0: ~ <tI-
N <t W 0 I-
>- n... l.L 1-3
w w
I- 0: Z o<t
0: 0 .-Jw
W 0 ....J 0:
n... <t >- I<t
(/) 0 ~ <.9 .-J U
W 0: W Z <tLL
l- n... I- .-J 0 wo
0 <;t 10
Z -' N to
m ~
0 a.. II) ~-.~
I"- <t ~ Q: G \t~ \ ^ (j 0 "
~ .....
II) II) ",..'l-\t "'-1",
II) :>
:i Q:
>- ..... '4. . >- t0~
:I Q.
I- 0 ;:) o <l: \)\
Z U II) 0::...... 0
,r ~.r<) I
U Cl U. r-: 3:~ ~ ~
5> :z: 0
co i Q -' '\ ~"'. ,~
:z: 0 a::
0 ~ .c: <( 1;)\~ ~ ~ P., ~
I"- ~ U 0
U !Xl ,,~~ \ 0 ~
,. 0:: <,.,
< I- >- >- \'1) "'>
0: l- I-
;z: ;z: ~f' .y~'
\'\ ;:) ;:) .. .l~! 0 ') C. ';t,
0 0 ....~..~~;.;~~.;~. .,.:-:,.r r
U U
.q.
I'-
o
ro
Z
o
I-
<.9
Z
0:0:
00:
LL<t
<.9
:::>
o
o
U<t
z-
-z
:-C>
Uo:
0-
(/)>
(/)
<t ui
..,.-J
-1
>-5>
<t(/)
o:w
.1-
3;1-
o
O:.-J
wo:
<.9<t
OI
O:U
W
.-J
>-
<t
C>w
UZOl
~ZN
I <t I
-00)
QJO)
, od r--
~ '
~<iCI:!
o
z
I
o
J
o
ZZ
O::J
0:0
_LL
}-- - - ---.-----
(J)
~
a)
N
LJJ
.-J
>-
<t
C>
OlD
z-m
ZN(\J
<t I I
01"10)
JNO)
odO)N
'CD '
<t ,rn
0'
z 0
I
o
J
3
N
o
N
o
m
10
(/)
o
ZZ
0::J
0::0
_LL
fftlc
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMISSI HER
:#
S'J"
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
p, o. BOX 671
CULPEPER,22701
Hay 30, 1991
THOMAS F, FARLEY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
Proj: 0708-002-241, C501
Fr: 0.20 Hi. V. Rte. 631
To: 0.20 Hi. E. Rte. 631
Albemarle County
Car 011 Douglas Arrington
211' Virginia Avenue
McL an, Va. 22101
Pro erty Owner(s):
Virginia Department of Transportation is considering improving or construct-
the section of highway noted above. In order to plan new highways and to
ove existing highways, it is necessary for a survey to be aade to determine
safest, most economical and most serviceable route. It appears that this
necessltate enterlng upon your property to gat er this survey data.
Thi survey work on your property does not indicate that a highway across your
pro erty is imminent or that a decision on a route location has been made. It
is or the purpose of gathering data for an economic analysis of the proposed
imp ovement and is one of the early steps toward locating routes.
No inal decisions will be made concerning this proposed improvement until after
a p blic hearing has been held, if required. Any public hearing will be well
adv rtised in the local news media. - ...-...-------
The survey party is not in a position to answer your questions involving future
pIa s or highway policies. The attached booklet "Let's Take a Look" will
exp ain to you the reasons for this survey and attempt to answer some of your
que tions. If you have questions concerning the manner in which the survey is
bei g conducted, you should contact the District Location and Design Engineer
lis ed below:
Hr. F. E. James
District Location & Design Engineer
Va. Dept of Transportation
P. O. Box 671
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
4.7~1l
,: E. J
Supv.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
') . '
//J~"?' ( ,.:.:' _! l.~'" {.. "-...-
f -- ,'" .
:.#3
',~/~/(.-;"
ci '/.. " "
~/("J'/-
0/ -"-j- ( ,;.
PG. 1
~#~I
03-1 -1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS PERSONS PERSONS PEDES. PEDES.
INJURED KILLED INJURED KILLED
N T REPORTABLE 0 0 0 0 0
P D.O. ACCIDENTS 11 0 0 0 0
I JURY ACCIDENTS 3 4 0 0 0
F TAL ACCIDENTS 0 0 0 0 0
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
T TAL 14 4 0 0 0
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
COLLI
THAN
0-
2-
4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TOT
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 ',' 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 ~ 0 0 0 2*
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2*
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2*
0 0 0 0 0 1.' " 2* 0 2*
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
2 1 2 J 2 7* 0 14
O~'\ -----------------------~---------_.~----------------------------------
..,
ION TYPES WITH HIGHER "..,); ACCIDENTS
F~, -;1"
XPECTED FREQUENCIES: 9. FIXED OBJECT-OFF 6
2. ANGLE 4
TOT
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFEN E TYPES WITH HIGHER
THAN XPECTED FREQUENCIES: 20. FAILED TO YIELD
6. RECKLESS DRIVING
OFFENSES
2
2
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
DRIVE ACTIONS WITH HIGHER DRIVERS
THAN XPECTED FREQUENCIES: 1. NONE 6
3 ~ ., OTHER . . 3
--------- -------------------------------------~--------------------------------
FEMAL DRIVERS, AGES 16-20 ( 4) WERE PREDOMINANTLY INVOLVED IN
NTS AT THIS LOCATION ALONG WITH 3 OTHER AGE/SEX CATEGORIES
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
INANT WEATHER AND ROAD CONDITIONS
LEAR AND DRY, RESPECTIVELY
.,.~
.
03-1 -1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
PG. 1
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
","
ACCIDENTS PERSONS ' PERSONS' PEDES. PEDES.
INJURED KILLED INJURED KILLED
T REPORTABLE 0 0 0 '0 0
D.O. ACCIDENTS 11 0 0 0 0
JURY ACCIDENTS 3 4 0 0 0
TAL ACCIDENTS 0 0 0 0 0
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
TAL 14 4 0 0 0
..2.._~--'~'"
ACCIDENTS BY MONTH OF OCCURRENCE
NUMBER ,PCT.
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC,
~~&~~,-~
TOTAL
o
1
1
o
3
3
o
1
3
1 "
o
1
0.00
7.14
7.14
0.00
* 21.43
* ;".;;21.43
, 'Y\
"; 0.00
....1
) 7.14
* ~,21.43
','';;' 7 .14
0.00
" 7 .14
?:
------
------
14
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS BY NUMBER OF VEHICLES
NUMBER PCT.
1 VEHICLE
2 VEHICLES
3 VEHICLES
4 VEHICLES
5+ VEHICLES
_9 *
,5
, " '0". '-', ,',
o
o
'64.29
35'. 71
0.00
0.00
0.00
------
------
TOTAL
14
* INDICATES GREATER:THAN AVERAGE
.
03-1 -1992
'",,","
."-.-
" .
:t,' .~-....._~:..-.
!'
......~.
.:t :,;f,
.~'.;. ,
...,. ."
,.~ . ~ ':.
PG. 2
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERS. 5.0
','
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOM ER
CEL %
ROW %
COL %
0- 2
2- 4
4- 6
6- 8
8- 0
10- 2
ACCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY (A.M.) BY DAY OF WEEK
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TOT
'"
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00',,. , 0.00 7.14 0.00 7.14
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00
...'....<f.
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 7.14
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 7.14
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 0.00 7.14
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ", '0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-~f'
0 0 -- 0 0 0 1 ,,~ --0---- I
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 7.14
0.00 0.00 .;0.00 0.00 0.00 '100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 p.OO 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
03-1 -1992
. '
.~'"1
~..
PG. 3
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAF~~C RECORDS ~7STEM - VERSo 5.0
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PE~IOD: 01/0~/88 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUM ER
CEL %
ROW %
COL %
4
18- 0
22- 4
TOT L
ACCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY (P.M.) BY DAY OF WEEK
)
, ,
~ '.'j
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TOT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 *
7.14 0.00 7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29
50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
....~ ... ,~,
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 *
0.00 7.14 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 0.00 14.29
0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 *
0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 14.29
0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00
0 0 0 0 0 2 * 0 2 *
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00 14.29
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.00
-'l ---- ------.--. -
1 0 0 0 0 .~/ 0 0 1
7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ;"'"0.00 0.00 7.14
100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,./'0.00 0.00 0.00
50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
------ ------ ------ ======_... ------- ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
2 1 . - 2 0'. .. 2 7 * 0 14
14.29 7.14 14.29 o . OC)" 14 . 29 50.00 0.00
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
--
03-1 -1992
PG. 4
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERS: 5.0
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88,TO 12/31/92
; . ,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
!,.. ..
....,.- WEA~.CONDITION~
ACCIDENTS BY
,
. . peT.
NUMBER
1. C~ 10 * 71.43
.'
2. CLOUDY " 4 28.57
1~' 3. FOG 0 0.00
4. MIST """7' 0 0.00
5. RAINING 0 0.00
6. SNOWING 0 0.00
7. SLEETING 0 0.00
8. SMOKE/DUST 0 0.00
9. OTHER 0 0.00
------
------
TOTAL 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS BY SURFACE CONDITIONS
NUMBER PCT.
1. DRY 12 * 85.71
2. WET 1 7.14
3. SNOWY 0 0.00
4. ICY 0 0.00
5. MUDDY 0 0.00
6. OILY 0 0.00
7. OTHER 1 7.14
------
------
TOTAL 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS BY LIGHT CONDITIONS
NUMBER PCT.
1. DAWN . , 0 0.00
2. DAYLIGHT ' '~'7' 50.00
3. DUSK 0 0.00
4. DARK - LIT 0 0.00
5. DARK - UNLIT 7 50.00
6. OTHER '0 -'0 . 00
,,;-'. ~-==== .~ '
TOTAL '.'
; 14
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
" . ~ .:
03-1 -1992
--;:, ~~~
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
PG. 5
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS BY TRAFFIC CONTROL
NUMBER ; PCT.
"
1. NO TRAFFIC CONTROL ~-'" 10 * 76.92
2. OFFICER OR WATCHMAN 0 0.00
3. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ~'''--:. .-, 0 0.00
4. STOP SIGN 1 7.69
5. SLOW/WARNING SIGN 1 7.69 .
6. LANE MARKINGS 1 7.69
7. NO PASSING LINES 0 .: ;-. 0.00
8. YIELD SIGN , 0 0.00 :
9. ONE WAY .>;"_~l: 0 0.00
10. RR XING ~/SIGNS 0 0.00
II. RR XING W/SIGNALS ~..,.. 0 0.00
12. RR XING W/GATE 0 0.00
13. OTHER 0 0.00
- ------
------
TOTAL 13
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS BY ROADWAY DEFECTS
NUMBER PCT.
1. NO DEFECTS 10 *
-,<
2. HOLES/RUTS/BUMPS 0
3. SOFT/LOW SHOULDER 0
4. UNDER REPAIR 0
5. LOOSE MATERIAL 2
6. RESTRICTED WIDTH 2
7. SLICK PAVEMENT --1>__
8. ROADWAY OBSTRUCT. 0 ....
9. OTHER DEFECTS 0
------
------
TOTAL 14
* INDICATES GREATER THAN'AVERAGE
71.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.29
14.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
I ,
03- 0-1992
.... ~'..:
. ;
." -
- +,4':::-'.'
....~~;~ >-
"S 'I....: .
ALB~MARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
,,- .'
PG. 6
ACCIPENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
-------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS BY PRIMARY COLLISION TYPE
';'~ -
NUMBER PCT.
1. REAR END
2. ANGLE
3. HEAD ON
4. SIDESWIPE - SAME
5. SIDESWIPE - OPP
6. FIXED OBJECT-IN
7. TRAIN
8. NON-COLLISION
9. FIXEDOa.J'ECT-OFF
10. DEER.;
11. OTHER ANIMAL
12. PEDESTRIAN
13. BICYCLIST
14. MOTORCYCLIST
15. BACKED INTO
16. OTHER .
o
4
o
o
1
o
o
"'''''-'-'''1
6
2
'0
o
o
o
o
o
0.00
* 28.57
0.00
0.00
7.14
0.00
0.00
7.14
* 42.86
14.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
"'~:"'O -; 00
0.00
0.00
---------------------~------------------------------------------------
..~>o .'^
------
------
TOTAL
14
ACCIDENTS BY TYPE
NUMBER PCT.
I. DRIVER ERROR 11 78.57
2. DRIVER OFFENSE 5 35.71
3. SPEED INVOLVED 4 28.57
4. ALCOHOL INVOLVED 4 _2 !3--!.-,5 7
+- -----
5. HIT & RUN 1 .d . 7. 14
~,.
6. VISION OBSCURED 3 ;..f - 21. 43
7. FIXED {)BJECT 6 42.86
8. PEDESTRIAN 0 '"", 0.00
9. RAILROAD, CROSSING 0 0.00
10. ROADWAY-DEFECT - 4 "28.57
II. SLICK 'ROAD 2 ,.
14.29
12. SINGLE VEHICLE 9 64.29
13. NIGHT '~t:rME 7 50.00
TOTAL ( 14) .-
,
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
03- 0-1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
PG. 7
'y,..
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
--------------:~~-:~:_:3~:~~:_~:~~:~~~_:~_:~~::~:~____________________
;. ;f,
" ..,'-:"
'.::t. '
ACCIDENfs/VEHICLES BY VEHICLE TYPE
,.~;
NUMBER PCT. VEHICLES PCT.
/I .
1. AUTO ~(," 9 64.29 10 * 52.63
2. PICK-UP 7 50.00 7 * 36.84
3. VAN 1 7.14 1 5.26
4' . STRAIGHT TRUCK 0 0.00 0 0.00
5. TRACTOR TRAILER 0 0.00 0 0.00
6. TWIN TRAILER 0 0.00 0 0.00
7. MOTORHOME/RV 0 0.00 0 0.00
8. OVERSIZE 0 0.00 0 0.00
9. BICYCLE 0 0.00 0 0.00
10. MOPED 0 0.00 . 0 0.00
II. MOTORCYCLE 1 7.14 1 5.26
12. FIRE 0 0.00 0 0.00
13. RESCUE 0 0.00 0 0.00
14. POLICE/SHERIFF 0 0.00 0 0.00
15. GOVERNMENT 0 0.00 0 0.00
16. MILITARY 0 0.00 0 0.00
17. SCHOOL BUS 0 0.00 0 0.00
18. TRANSIT BUS 0 0.00 0 0.00
19. INTERCITY BUS " 0 0.00 0 0.00
20. TAXI/LIMO - , 0 0.00 0 0.00
",;.
2I. TOWING/TOWED 0 0.00 0 0.00
22. FARM VEHICLE ',\ 0 0.00 0 0.00
23. OTHER 'f.;.~, 0 0.00 0 0.00
.~~_:"~ ~s.. ------
~ ------
TOTAL ..~. ," r, 14) 19
.,-- '<,.,
,.....- -,
.,:' ~
.,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.t"
.; ~'"':"'~"'..
. .
03-1 -1992
;i;:~f "'...,
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERS. 5.0
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
'.~.'
.&f..1f;.:
PG. 8
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
J\y
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
~--3 0
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
ACCIDENTS/DRIVERS BY DRIVER ACTION
NUMBER
NONE
EXCEEDED SPEED LIMIT
EXCEEDED SAFE SPEED
OVERTAKING ON HILL
OVERTAKING ON CURVE
OVERTAKING AT INTERSECT.
PASSING SCHOOL BUS
CUTTING IN
OTHER IMPROPER PASSING
WRONG SIDE OF ROAD
DID NOT HAVE R.O.W.
FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE
FAIL/IMPROPER SIGNAL
WIDE RIGHT TURN
CUT CORNER - LEFT TURN
TURN FROM WRONG LANE
OTHER IMPROPER TURN
IMPROPER BACKING
STARTING FROM PARKED
DISREGARD OFFICER
DISREGARD STOP LIGHT
DISREGARD SIGN
DRIVER INATTENTION
FAIL STOP AT THRU HWY
DRIVE THRU SAFETY ZONE
FAIL SET OUT FLARES/FLAGS
FAIL DIM HEADLIGHTS
DRIVING W/O LIGHTS
IMPROPER PARKING
AVOIDING PEDESTRIAN
AVOIDING VEHICLE
AVOIDING ANIMAL
CROWDED OFF ROADWAY
HIT AND RUN
CAR RAN AWAY
BLINDED BY LIGHTS
OTHER
---........--~
.~.."....:~....'.'.;;.,..'.:..
".,~
'.':."
TOTAL
(
PCT.
6
..0
2
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
3
42.86
0.00
14.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
U")\."~' 0.00
0.00
7.14
14.29
7.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
\--:'f-' -~
7.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o. O--o-~._-~
7.14
0.00
0.00
7.14
0.00
0.00
21. 43
14)
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
DRIVERS
6 *
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
,1
2
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
---- ----._---
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
3 *
------
------
18
PCT.
33.33
0.00
11.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.56
11.11
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.56
0.00
0.00
5.56
0.00
0.00
16.67
~'t .-~
. ....-...' ~
!Ii:'''''
~-
03-1 -1992
j~ );.
PG. 9
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
"
ACCIDENTS/DRIVERS BY DRIVER OFFENSE
NUMBER PCT. DRIVERS PCT.
1 D.U.I. 1 7.14 ~1 20.00
2 REFUSED D.U.I. TEST 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 SPEEDING - RADAR 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 SPEEDING - OTHER - 0 ,-~.,.._...,..:,. 0.00 0 0.00
5 RECKLESS SPEEDING 0 0.00 0 0.00
6 RECKLESS DRIVING 2 14.29 2 * 40.00
'" 7 HABITUAL OFFENDER 0 0.00 '0 0.00
8 HIT & RUN . 0 0.00 0 0.00
9 FOLLOWED TOO CLOSELY 0 0.00 0 0.00
10 FAIL KEEP PROPER CONTROL 0 0.00 0 0.00
11 STOPPING ON ROAD/HWY 0 0.00 0 0.00
12 IMPROPER TURN 0 0.00 0 0.00
13 IMPROPER BACKING 0 0.00 0 0.00
14 IMPROPER PASSING 0 0.00 0 0.00
15 IMPROPER LANE CHANGE 0 0.00 0 0.00
16 WRONG WAY/ONE WAY STREET 0 0.00 0 0.00
17 FAIL OBEY HWY SIGN 0 0.00 0 0.00
18 FAIL OBEY HWY SIGNAL 0 0.00 0 0.00
19 FAIL OBEY SIRENS/LIGHTS 0 0.00 0 0.00
20 FAILED TO YIELD 2 14.29 2 * 40.00
21 FAIL KEEP PROPER LOOKOUT 0 0.00 0 0.00
22 FAIL TO GIVE SIGNAL 0 0.00 0 0.00
23 FAIL STOP FOR SCHOOL BUS 0 0.00 0 0.00
24 NO/EXP. DRIVER'S LICENSE 0 0.00 0 0.00
25 SUSPENDED LICENSE 0 0.00 0 0.00
26 ALLOW UNLICENSED OPERATOR 0 0.00 0 0.00
27 NO SAFETY RESTRAINT 0 0.00 0 0.00
28 NO INSURANCE 0 0.00 0 0.00
29 NO/EXP. INSPECT. STICKER 0 0.00 0 0.00
. o. 00--- -----_._-~.. -
-30 NO/EXP. REGISTRATION 0 0 0.00
31 NO/EXP. LOCAL TAG 0 0.00 "". ..~;"., 0 0.00
32 NO/EXP. STATE TAG/PLATE ..;.,', 0 0.00 0 0.00
33 VEHICLE OVER WT/HT/LENGTH 0 0.00 0 0.00
34 ALTERED SUSPENSION .~~t" 0 0.00 0 0.00
35 USE RJ,DAR DETECT. DEVI~ ""',;' 0 0.00 0 0.00
; .
$:
'--~
. ". ~,.&
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
"
(MORE . . . )
.
03-1 -1992
I','-'~~
V}'~"""__~'
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
.......$10:. -'7
ft
PG. 10
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE ,~!RIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
----------------------~~----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS/DRIVERS BY DRIVER VISION OBSCURED
NUMBER
. NOT OBSCURED
. RAIN/SNOW ON WINDSHIELD
. WINDSHIELD OTHER OBSC.
. OBSCURED BY VEH. LOAD
. TREES/CROPS/ETC
. BUILDING
EMBANKMENT
. SIGNBOARD
. HILLCREST
PARKED VEHICLES
. MOVIIJG VEHICLES
:, "... .
SUN/HEADLIGHT GLARE
. OTHER
TOTAL
(
14)
....~~."
PCT.
DRIVERS
7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3
o
o
o
o
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
---0-: 00-----
,",0.00
21. 4 3:...,
0.00 "
0.00
0.00
0.00
"if,
* INDIdiTES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
','1f~
-!.,1.
PCT.
10 *
o
o
o
o
o
.-.- -----,-
o
o
5
o
o
o
o
66.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
------
------
15
.
03-1 -1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
C'.. .... .
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO'12/31/92
PG. 11
'---------------------------------------------~--------~---------------
,
ACCIDENTS/DRIVERS BY ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT
~ :~,. ,
NUMBER . . PCT. DRIVERS PCT.
r>
. NOT DRINKING 8 57.14 12 * 75.00
DRINKING - OBV. DRUNK 1 7.14 1 6.25
DRINKING - IMPAIRED 1 7.14 1 6.25
DRINKING - NOT IMPAIRED 0 0.00 0 0.00
DRINKING IMPAIR. UNK. 2 14.29 2 12.50
. OTHER 0 0.00 0 0.00
====~=
TOTAL ( 14) 16
4,
,.~, ,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
~ ,
ACCIDENTS/VEHICLES BY VEHICLE MANEUVER
NUMBER
PCT.
VEHICLES
1. STRAIGHT AHEAD
2. TURNING RIGHT
3. TURNING LEFT
4. U-TURN
5. SLOWING/STOPPING
6. STARTING IN LANE
7. START FROM PARKED
8. STOPPED IN LANE
9. RAN OFF RD.-RIGHT
10. RAN OFF RD.-LEFT
11. PARKED
12. BACKING
13. PASSING
14. CHANGING LANES
15. OTHER
10
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
o
o
o
o
o
71.43
0.00
7.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.14
14.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
------
------
TOTAL
(
14)
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
.'."of',",
G~.:'-.t.-
....,J
J":.
PCT.
14
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
o
o
o
o
o
* 77.78
0.00
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.56
11.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
----'---~---
0.00
18
....'..11.
03-10-1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
PG. 12
--------- --------------------------------------~-------------------------------
ACCIDENTS/VEHICLES BY SPEED INVOLVEMENT
NUMBER
~! ,"''''
. STOPPED OR PARKED
. UNDER MAX SAFE SPEED
. EQUAL MAX SAFE SPEED
. 1-15 MPH OVER MAX SPEED
. > 15 MPH OVER MAX SPEED
OTHER
""'-:0,0.00
0.00
35.71
14.29
28.57
PCT.
VEHICLES
PCT.
0.00
~..
.,.,-..
o
7 *
2
4
o
o
0.00
53.85
15.38
30.77
0.00
0.00
o
5
2
4
o
o
TOTAL
~r.-
-' ~::..~~,!<
~~::~;;
14)
------
------
---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---..- ----- - - - - - - ------------------ ------ ---- -------
13
(
~..,~~.' ".
ACCIDENTS/VEHICLES BY COLLISION TYPE - 2ND EVENT
VEHICLES
".--" , NUMBER PCT.
I. REAR END 0 0.00
2. ANGLE 0 0.00
3 . HEAD ON 0 0.00
4. SIDESWIPE - SAME 0 0.00
5. SIDESWIPE - OPP 0 0.00
6. FIXED OBJECT-IN 0 0.00
7. TRAIN 0 0.00
8. NON-COLLISION 0 0.00
9. FIXED OBJECT-OFF 2 14.29
10. DEER 0 0.00
II. OTHER ANIMAL 0 0.00
12. PEDESTRIAN 0 0.00
13. BICYCLIST 0 0.00
14. MOTORCYCLIST 0 0.00
15. BACKED INTO 0 0.00
16. OTHER 0 0.00
TOTAL ( 14)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
-------
o
o
------
------
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
PCT.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
".....-----..
0.00
0.00
2
~!<..
. '
. ,
03-1 -1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
PG. 13
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR ~HE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENT INVOLVED DRIVERS BY AGE AND SEX
NUMBER
CELL %
ROW %
COL %
1-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
:9t:"~"<l'
'. . .-.:":' ~
.'~'"
MALE FEMALE
0 0
0.00 O.od
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
2 * .,' 4 *
13.33 26.67
33.33 66.67..
20.00 80.00
3 * 'cc, 1
20.00 '~~6. 67
75.00 25.00
30.00 20.00
2 * 0
~ - "7' 'J'
'13.33 0.00
100.00 0.00
20.00 0.00
1 0
6.67 0.00
100.00 0.00
10.00 0.00
- 0 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
TOTAL
o
0.00
6 *
40.00
~ "
4 *
26.67
2
13.33
1
6.67
o
0.00
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
(MORE ...)
. .
03- 0-1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
PG. 14
~
--------
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/88 TO 12/31/92
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENT INVOLVED DRIVERS BY AGE AND -SEX (CONT '.D)
~f;.~.
NUMBER
CELL %
ROW %
COL %
MALE FEMALE TOTAL
41-45 1 0 1
6.67 0.00 6.67
100.00 0.00
10.00 0.00
46-50 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 ~"-:-?"~~ ,
51-55 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
~...:
56-60 1 0 1
6.67 aoOO 6.67
100.00 ' .00
10.00 .. ~ .00
~....;!.
61-65 ~.:t. 0 0
" 0 ."~~.
'::<':0. 00 0.00 0.00
Jt1~b : ~ ~ 0.00
0.00
66-99 0 0 ~-o--- --_._---~ .--
0.00 0.00 ~..oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------
TOTAL ''-''t~ 10 * 5 15
66.67 33.33
MEAN AGE = 26.33
-;~
.
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
.~
~.~,'
1.J4.' '
'.." ".'
" ..
. ;w;-
"-~~
03-1 ':"1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
PG. 15
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD: 01/01/~8 TO 12/31/92
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
. '~,: ~ ,,",'. .
OCCUPANT INJURIES BY RESTRAINT USAGE
NUMBER
CELL %
"; ROW %
COL %
INJURED KILLED TOTAL
IN USE 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
NOT USED 4 0 4
100.00 0.00 100.00
~ioo.oo 0.00
1.00.00 0.00
.
------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------
TOTAL 4 0 4
100.00 0.00
* INDICATES GREATER THAN AVERAGE
~
f"
','
:'-'..'........ ......
.."t,.,." :.
. ~'~ '~
,
~-- ~>
. ,
,"!"
. .
03-1 -1992
ALBEMARLE CO. POLICE DEPARTMENT
MICRO TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM - VERSo 5.0
111'1 . "1I!~~
ACCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
--------------:~~-::::J1f:~:::::::::::::~:::~::::----~---------------
PG. 16
NUMBER
PCT.
DISTRICT
o
14
-0.05
------
------
TOTAL
%-26544
.
~?~
~.'"
.:~
t
'-"""."
'~I:'
'~,
..,JY'
t. .
fA/c.1 :;:1.1
GEOLOGIST
E. O. GOOCH
CHARLOTTES ILLE
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS. FOUNDATIONS, EARTH DAMS, SOIL ANALYSI..,
BLAST DAMAGE, GEOLOGICAL eo LAND USE STUDIES a REPORTS
1111 ROSEHILLDRIVE,SUITE5
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22901
(804) 293-7780
ENGINEERS
H. G. LAREW, F. E.
CHARLOTTES' ILLE
E. O. GOOCH AND ASSOCIATES
Consulting Geologisu and Engineers
October 10, 1989
Mr.Doug Arrington
2114 Virginia Avenue
McLean, Avenue 22101
~e: Soils and Geological Study
T.M. 101-12
State Routes 631 and 708
Albemarle County
~ear Mr. Arrington:
As requested, we have completed a soils and geological
study at the referenced site. The purpose of the study w~s
to determine the suitability of the soils on each proposed
lot for the disposal of sewage by means of individual septic
tank/drainfield systems. The investigation has consisted of
drilling a series of at least five (5) hand auger test holes
to determine soil profiles on each lot. A log of each test
~ole is shown on the enclosed individual soil profile sheets
along with a sketch showing the approximate hole locations,
The holes have been flagged with orange ribbon for future
reference. The individual lot corners had not been staked
and the lot lines had not been flagged ~t the time of, our
study so the hole locations are approximate only.
Generally, the soil profile on each lot consists of
about 6 inches of topsoil beneath which there is a layer of
clay, silty clay or silty clay loam of variable thickness,
This upper clay, silty clay or silty clay loam layer is
underlain by clay loam and/or loam which, in turn, grades
vertically into the underlying amphibolite. We encountered
some mottling in the soils on portions of lot 2. Drainfield
lines can not be placed in the mottled soils.
In our opinion, drainfield lines can be placed in the
silty clay loam, clay loam and/or loam as percolation tests
run on similar soils in the area have yielded percolation
rates that meet the current Health Department requirements.
The house sites shown were selected to correspond to
the proposed drainfield sites. Any changes in house sites
that infringe on proposed drainfield sites could require
additional soils investigation before a drainfield permit is
issued.
It is possible that the drainfield sites on lots 2 and
3 are the only areas on these lots where the soils are
2
suitable for installation of drainfield lines so careful
planning will be required to "fit" the house, drainfield and
well on each lot.
As you know, final approval of the drainfield sites
rests with the sanitarian with the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Health Department.
We hope this is the information you need. If you have
any questions, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
E.O. Gooch & Associates
st~~
Steve Gooch
SPG/cg
Encls.
soil profile cont.
rr.M. 101-12
lot 2
~ole
Slope
Depth
(inches)
Material Description
E
8%
0-6
6-48
Topsoil
Brown-yellow to
red-yellow clay loam
Red-brown clay loam
48-72
F
7%
0-6
6-30
Topsoil
Red-brown to yellow-brown
silty clay
Green clay loam
Hard
seeping in hole at 30 inches
30-54
54
Note: water
G
7%
0-6
6-36
36-60
60-72
Topsoil
Red silty clay
Red-brown silty clay loam
Brown loam
H
7%
0-6
6-36
36-72
Topsoil
Brown silty clay loam
Red-brown clay loam
I
7%
0-6
6-48
48-72
Topsoil
Red silty clay loam
Red-brown clay loam
Remarks: Favorable percolation rates can be expected
in the silty clay loam, clay loam and loam
in the vicinity of holes D, E, G, Hand T.
Drainfield lines should be installed approx-
imately 60 inches below the surface. A pump
system will be required for the house site
shown on the sketch. It may be necessary to
limit the house to 3 bedrooms to insure
sufficient area for the 100% reserve site.
E. O. GOOCH & ASSOCIATES
Consulting Geologists and Engineers
Soil Profile
T.M. 101-12
Location
Lot 2 A K A' ).. D+ 19
~ ,of
t:>r.ll
XC( { <:.. I ' '-:./00 '
aT]'1 - po fe.t ~ Cf ( d~1 C
./ '1.1I11'1/1<
~it-e..
.~.
Hole
Slope
Depth
(inches)
Material Description
A
13%
0-6
6-18
18-30
Topsoil
Red-brown silty clay loam
Yellow-green clay with
gray mottling
Hard
30
B
8%
0-6
6-36
36-60
Topsoil
Yellow-green clay
Brown-green loam
c
9%
0-6
6-42
Topsoil
Red-brown to red-yellow
silty clay
Brown-green clay with
gray mottling
Topsoil
Red silty clay loam
Yellow-brown loam
42-54
D
9%
0-6
6-42
42-54
'-
J
COUNTY OF ALBEMr..:,\ t
.
..
'.
f: '" .-",..~-"
i~i MAY 2ft 1992 .;
r I ,',
IHl\ /~ ~
~' ,~; ~." , .. "~-;(';~ 1i
i i ~;\;::i .?~~;~; ',:':r 11.,,1, tiJ
EXECUTIVE OffiCii
;~:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
..- ;;,. "12
" -" 'I' - <,
J.' /",
p;, 01./-(' ~-~.:] frj
EMORANDUM
.
Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg,Director of Planning andtl~
Community Development
May 27, 1992
Rt. 708/631 Intersection Improvements
he County initiated this project through the six Year Secondary
oad Plan (1988/89 to 1993/94 Plan) in anticipation of increasing
raffic volumes at the intersection due to the new Walnut Creek
egional Park. As Mr. Roosevelt's letter (attached) points out,
he intersection currently has limited horizontal and vertical
ight distance. This project is ranked fourth (out of a total 62
rojects) in the County's current priority list of improvements
(1992) .
he proposed spot improvement includes regrading the intersection
t its existing location to improve sight distance, removing the
uper elevation along Route 708 and constructing a left turn lane
estbound on Route 708. The proposed improvement does not meet
DOT ultimate design standards. A waiver of the speed limit has
een granted for the improvements to be constructed as proposed.
irginia Department of Transportation representatives and County
lanning staff evaluated alternative re-alignments of the
'ntersection during the VDOT preliminary field review process.
lternatives A and B (in the attached) were considered
ignificantly more expensive than had been anticipated in the six
ear Plan (estimate of $800,000 plus right-of-way and design
ost). The project as prioritized in the County's Priority List
f Road Improvements was for a spot improvement with the cost
stimated at $100,000 (1988) to $150,000 (1990). The current
. cst estimate for this spot improvement is $320,000 including
',' ,
.
.
.
ob Brandenburger
age 2
ay 27, 1992
ight-of-way and design. The primary advantage of the higher
ost Alternatives A & B is the improvement of the horizontal
lignment of Route 708. Both A and B would eliminate the sharp
urve west of the intersection and establish a crossing
'ntersection with all approaches at a right angles. Alignments
and B would not meet VDOT ultimate design standards for
ertical design.
urrent traffic counts (1990) at the intersection are:
-708 west of intersection 822 ADT
-708 east of intersection 637 ADT
-631 north of intersection 838 ADT
-631 south of intersection 391 ADT
he park is anticipated to generate 800 vehicle trips during peak
eriods. This estimate is based on traffic observed at Mint
prings and Chris Green Parks by the County Department of Parks
nd Recreation. The park can be accessed from Rt. 631 either
rom Rt. 712 to the south of the park or Rt. 708 or Rt. 631 to
he north. Walton Middle School and Red Hill Quarry are located
n Rt. 708.
UMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
he original intent of this project was to provide improvements
o the intersection to better accommodate the additional traffic
enerated from Walnut Creek Park. The project is intended to be
n interim improvement to accommodate this additional demand and
ot an ultimate improvement to the alignment of Route 708 and
oute 631. Although Alternatives A and B provide additional
orizontal improvements to the alignment of part of Route 708,
oth are much more costly and would not provide for the ultimate
ertical curvature improvement. Both alternatives are beyond the
cope originally intended for the project.
ue to the existing intersection conditions and the anticipated
'ncreased traffic at this intersection, staff believes an
'mprovement will be necessary. However, due to the significantly
2
.
.
.
, ,
.
ob Brandenburger
age 3
ay 27, 1992
igher cost of Alternatives A and B and the marginal advantage of
hese alternatives over the lesser spot improvement project,
taff concurs with Mr. Roosevelt that this project should proceed
s presented at the VDOT public hearing.
C/DBB/j cw
c: Dan Roosevelt
Gerry P. Wilkes
Douglas Arrington
3
.
.
.
....'.. ,
RAY D. PEn TEL
COMMISSION R
...
.D7~~~~\~
~,\,~CI"',~C~
~l? :1 "~), C'\}1~
l '.ili.':i\. \.~
\~ ..l\1\ ~,.
\1 ''1',"~;,\;,::;;,~ (:!
~l?~:~ '>?\"J~!.~'~
,,~~r~.;,~ T'f'-~-'~~J.
~'::~~:..i-;::.......
~~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Mr. Uayne Cilimberg
Depa tment of Planning
401 cIntire Road
Char ottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
po. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
D, S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
April 28, 1992
Route 708
Project: 0708-002-241, C501
Albemarle County
Attached is a report on the results of the public hearing on the above
capt'oned projeet. I request that this report be forwarded to the Board of
Supelvisors and this issue be included in their agenda for the May 6, 1992
meeting.
DSR/Y"'m
attac~ment
Yours truly,
AJ /' I?e~v<ek
/1/, ~) .37<1
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
"", I . ,.
..
.
0708-002-241, C501
Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Location & Design Public Hearing
This project was initiated to improve ~he intersection of Route 708 and 631
to b tter accommodate the anticipated traffic increase due to the construction of
WaIn t Creek Park south of this intersection. This intersection currently has
limi ed horizontal and vertical sight distance. At a public hearing held on
. Marc 12, 1992, a single alternative to widen along the existing roadway was
pres~nted by the Department. A handout which discussed the project location and
desi n was made available at the hearing and during the two week period prior to
the ~earing.
The hearing was attended by approximately 50 people. Seven people spoke
concprning the proposed improvement. The seven people were opposed to the
propbsal to widen Route 708 at its existing location. We have also received
elev n letters during and after the hearing, including six from those who spoke
at t~e hearing. Of the eleven letters, four spoke in favor of the improvement
and seven were against the proposal. Those who favored the proposal were members
of t~e Mt. Olivet Church which is located on this project and did not own
prop~rty which is directly impacted by this proposed project.
.
Prior to the selection of the improvement along the alignment of the
exis ing roadway, the Department and County Staff reviewed three alternate
alig~ments (see attached sketch). A survey was completed along line "A" as shown
on Ule attached sketch. A cost estimate for construction on line "A" was in
exce s of $800,000. This cost does not include right of way and design costs.
Line "B" is in the same general location as line "A", but requires considerably
more fill material which will make this line more costly than line "A".
Aligjlments "A" and "B" do not meet design standards for an ultimate improvement.
In 0 der to meet requirements for vertical design, the grade at the new
inte section of Routes 708 and 631 would have to be lowered. This grade change
woul~ require additional grading along Route 631 which would affect the cemetery
and hurch. Alignment "C" was not chosen because the offset intersection would
not ~eet our design requirements. The improvement along the existing roadway,
whic~ was presented at the public hearing is estimated to cost $320,000,
incl~ding right of way and design costs.
A review of the comments received as a result of the public hearing indicate
that the majority of the people were not in favor of any improvement at this
inte section. However, since this is a spot improvement to address the increased
traf ic as a result of the park construction, it is the Department's
reco~mendation that the project proceed as presented at the hearing. I request a
reso ution from the Board of Supervisors supporting the location and design as
pres~nted at the public hearing.
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
. DSR/lTrm
.
. . <, ,
.,
o
,I
,0.'. (I',
J' - ;:;- jll,
, ,J _ _ _, I _
'--"-. , / ,- (I ,
"-.. ) Ill;.... I' (
"-.~I)- ,.(1-
,,) , -( y
,xj;l/ ,0 ./(il I
,. \.:v>.... (
'-'- .01>::;;~;~((\\~
\,J.,JJ> "/rf((" \
~"yJ-/ YAfLG _
',,~ ---/ ',;f;:(l ~J ~ \
. '/I( IJC- ~\
j).1 < ./ II( ,.. , \
,~ CC "\
,
\
\,
.
./
./
I
/./
(((fr'
f((
.
-....-.;""~~::<<-,.,.,.? '_-V. _"_
(~
1/
A",J ,,~i<
vi p,.
1'. ~e ~
/t~~
~~
~ ~
~ '"
~~
{\ ~
~~
~
~
~
~
DATE _Qr;tQJ }V0 to I \ qq3
AGENDA ITEM No.3.
~
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form. 3
7/25/86
II
~~(i
10 ~O& -q3 bC5
J~Gr
".
PIEDMONT VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Office of the President
The Piedmont Virginia Community College Profile
In Albemarle County
Piedmont Virginia Community College is committed to providing quality education which is
geogr phically, educationally, and financially accessible and which responds wisely and quickly to local
needs and changing technology. PVCC's service to Albemarle County reflects this philosophy,
PVCC celebrated its 20th anniversary in 1992-93. Total enrollment from September 1972
throu h the spring semester of 1993 was 59,521. Some 4,185 degrees, certificates, and diplomas have
been warded since the fIrst commencement in 1974.
In addition to Albemarle County, PVCC serves Charlottesville and the counties of Greene,
Fluva a, Louisa, Nelson, and northern Buckingham, The college is part of the Virginia Community
Colle e System which was founded in 1966 and consists of 23 community colleges on 35 campuses,
The c llege is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schoo s to award associate degrees.
PVCC offers university parallel/college transfer programs, occupational/technical programs,
devel pmental education, and continuing education/community service programs. The college offers
13 ass ciate degree programs in 24 majors and specializations, and 17 certifIcate programs;
The college's continuing education division administers an evening program at Albemarle High
Schoo. This program provides a full range of classes from all of PVCC's academic divisions. In
1992- 3, 64 cJasses were offered at Albemarle High with a total enrollment of 1,069. PVCC rents
some 5 classrooms each semester at a cost of $18,000 per year, Courses also are offered at Western
Albe arle,
PVCC began working with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC)
in 197 , The college's continuing education division develops and administers classes and rents the
classr om space. In 1992-93, the college offered 12 classes at CATEC, enrolling a total of 155
studen s, an increase of 40 percent over the previous year,
The Tech Prep partnership between PVCC and Albemarle County.schools continued in 1992-93.
Dr. D nna Klepper, associate director of continuing education at PVCC, and Dr, Vicki Behr, director
of CA EC, serve as co-directors of the program which is developing applied academics for integration
into curriculum for all the high schools in the PVCC service area, Tech Prep is supported with
federa funds and is administered through PVCC, In addition to educators, the program involves about
two d zen area employers who provide input into employment needs and who are assisting with
curric lum development,
ROUTE 6 . Box 1 . CHARLOTTESVILLE . VIRGINIA 22902-8714
PHONE 804-977-1620 . FAX 804-296-8395
Tech Prep combines high school and postsecondary education using the concept of a "seamless
curriculum" that can lead to a community college degree, While providing technical preparation to high
school students, the program is also designed to sharpen basic academic skills so the college-level
student will be able to concentrate on advanced work. Targeted for participation in this program are
students who likely have not considered further education beyond high school. The program's initial
focus is on the business curriculum but other possible fields for future development include science,
engineering, mechanics, food service, and health,
In 1992-93, PVCC served 6,993 individual students, 2,657 of whom were residents of Albemarle
County, This accounted for 43.2 percent of all students enrolled from the college's service area and
3.9 percent of the county's total population. The previous year, the college served 2,699 Albemarle
residents, 4 percent of the county's total population.
In fall semester 1992, a total of 1,652 students from Albemarle County took both on- and off-
campus classes from PVCC, Of these 1,652 students, SO.7 percent were part-time, 63,S percent were
women, 7,9 percent were African-American, and 74.S percent were returning students. In comparison
with the profile of the total student body at PVCC, about the same number of Albemarle County
students were part-time students and women, fewer were African-American and more were returning
students,
In 1992-93, PVCC enrolled 26 percent (92) of the 354 members of the 1992 graduating class
of Albemarle High School and 25;9 percent (57) of the 220 graduates of Western Albemarle, about the
same as the previous year.
In 1992-93, PVCC provided tralmng to Albemarle County employees and to Albemarle
businesses including Comdial, GE Fanuc Automation, Murray Electrical Products, Sperry Marine, and
Teledyne. In addition, more than a third of the clients served by the Small Business Development
Center of Central Virginia were from Albemarle County,
PVCC hosted two special business related events in 1992-93, In July 1992, the college was the
site of a trade fair sponsored by the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce, In
May, the college hosted an economic development conference for citizens of the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District, Dr, Donna Klepper, associate director of continuing education at PVCC, is serving
as the 1993 chair of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber.
The PVCC student profile for the 1992-93 academic year (based on fall semester 1992 data) is
as follows:
. SS,9 percent were residents of the PVCC service area, Another 9.4 percent came from
other areas in Virginia and 1.7 percent were classified as out-of-state residents.
. SO.6 percent of the PVCC students attended part-time,
. 63.4 percent of the students were women,
. 11.2 percent of the students were African-American; a total of 14,6 percent were
minorities,
.
69.2 percent were returning students.
mjklS-31-93
,.
.
Resi ents Enrolled in
Virgi ia Institutions of Higher Education
Albe arle County
Institution
,j"'
Piedmont Virginia Community College
University of Virginia
James Madison University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Virginia Commonwealth University
Other
VPI
5%
Number
Enrolled
From
Locale
1,587
598
202
156
95
371
3,009
VCU
3%
OTHER
12%
% of Students
From
Locale at
Institution
53%
20%
7%
5%
3%
12%
100%
UVA
20%
So~: SCHEY R-!, Fa1Il991
I
Ii-I ~. ~
flltf/!~-. S-?~.-/
">
September 30, 1993
DRAFT
. and Mrs. Charles McRaven
81 Productions, Ltd.
awer G
ee Union, Virginia 22940
1781 Produc~ioDS
ar Mr. and Mrs. McRaven:
article from the Fredericksburg "Ledger-Star" was recently brought to our
a tention which discusses the proposed Outdoor Theater and reference in the
a ticle indicates that certain changes to the historic event to be portrayed at
t e Outdoor Theater may be made.
In discussions of this matter during the
s ecial permit review, it was the Board's understanding that this event would
f llow specifically the historical account of Jack Jouett's ride.
Based upon
t at, we approved the special permit.
We simply wanted to bring to your
a tention the concern that the Board has for possibly deviating from what we
u derstood would be an a historical drama, portraying those events as accurately
a possible.
I have attached a copy of this article and hope that we do not have a conflict
our understanding of the approval for 1781 Productions.
ould you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
Sincerely,
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
D B/dbm
93.059
At achment
cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
mE]
BOARD OF SUPERVISOpc
----,~~,,,...-_..,....j
I
~
~.- ~~
~ s ~ 2~ ~ ;-e-~~ ~ co
(1).;0..
....-.t t...."':
.o~ ~
:;;.:.~~~-ClJ ";""'~iU~';;:1
;.:::J >,....
I-
C\1
Q)
c: , 'i ,Saf.~~2 e ~~~]~ i:'] ~ ~ ~ : ~~~ '
... '1 ~'" :fl. g!.9:fl '" 0 I::;fl-;;;.Q ~: 0 '" ~
- 1 bOS '0 < ~,~, "':2.c.B.Q~ "'al ~ o.~ "'Ol~
Q) i . s... ~ '5 +J Q) '- .... ~ ~ s... t: e >- 0 Co c: ....u:::: 0
I -g :5Cil'E '" .s 0 E > ~~ gj ~ E .c~.a ~ill!!
s~o~.s S~~~~~'" ~ Jz_",o.~
..... I ~ '" '0 0 g ~.g ~ 0 '" '" il ~.o 0 2:: 0.0 ll: ell
~ i 1~~~:fl~C"'Oe~.s~E~'" ]E~a",~
'" 1 ::l] t: > S S {i 1':Q ~ '" '" ~ ell bO'Oj'5. '" 0
1 ~~ ~"'o"'''''~ ~~'O:2", s",o.",~~
I....... - COs...C ;J:::: ()~ GJ ~ (J_
Q) wi> '" 8~v bO~.s bOS ~ E.c1Di! g d3~]'a.Q @
u 1 ell ..."'....slj "l:fl. ~ 0 gj!.15 "'''' '" 0 ~ g! '" bO;g
..c: >- 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ C"! .... I):; ~.~ ~ '" 0 bl)~ ~ e ",.c :> ",.~,g
o ! f-t'~ tn C s::; c:: ~ .a "0 c 1: Cl) rJ:I U) 0 :5 .... ~ ~.. .....
.., j 0 '> '" 0 eo.... '" . '" '" ~.s 0._ ~ j .; _ '" !;l '"
.". ..... "':"'J-. ~L ...J <<I ;> ~ ~ ~ g} = C:::5"tj a ..c:.a ~ E 0 0 c..:a
""__:-c.:''''t:'a: "e;l:::rJl ~.S !U -;::.8 ; ~ S'C i..~,~:::: .2 ~.; ;g.2 .
.c '- ~ o~ ~~ g:~6~1:d~ ~]~~~~~E~~~ lij~
.0. CXI 1 :5.Q~.a.s ",.c;..s '" .!l_.o "'~ ~ 0 '"
E
C\1
Q)
-
-
--
>
tn
Q)
.....
.....
o
-
?-
m
.l:'
o
a:
1&1
~
<
'1>11I
':z:
~
Jr...
o
o
-c
..... '
::s
o
tn..
S;:s'
CU
-
C.
Q)
-
a.
:J
o
(.)
., ,.~ . . ~"" "'vio i:~
~~ .sJJ,3"gj'g g :B8 5 g .s ~2:: aa
.Q)..lcu- '0' s...~c:a~~ c:- o~~ .s
CI)"OILo~ L.o .s o~ c. ..... Q) C
>, C I'" ca 0. '" ",'8 'e ~ C l!! > go.a ~ ~ ~
1Jl.ai~ ~ g ~18:>'.~ '" "'z oE "'>;;::ci alca,s .~tl
~- -....... o~ = OUJ -u :J,-
C en:bD 0 .... c 0 .c (,) fn ~ Q) ~ 1-0 Cd Q,).t:" .c~"
~ :2 i ~ :; 1:! ~ gj 8 ~ ~ ~ bl)~ 0 ~ ~ '8 o'~ ,~~
p:: 'Sllj 2 1;; ~ ~ ~ t: '" 2:: ,5 S ~.B '" e :Iii _ ..c .o~
o cJ~ 0 C m.- ~ ,- o:!i! 0 '" 2 ",:2 0 ....
~ '" 1 0 0 0 ..., ~:a ~ ~ :> :5 ~.c "', '" .0 bOt.) '"
;: el~ Q) ~ Q)"c ~ en ~-....,~...... QJ ~'I~ ~~
~"'I:>~ !:l~"'bOOl~O:3"'.Qrrllt 0 ,3 ~a
E.ci~.c --.c5o..r=~C,)c:~~._cu ~ CUCU
;<;:;1'" 0 '" l!! C -, Jl '" lj '" '" ~ 8.a Ii ... >,JJ > :E
8 ::<I";;;.c .s ",.-! '" C ,.s~ 8 o.o,g~UjE-< ~'"
..r=~ ~>~ o~~o~ ~w ~~ u
~~;~:>'.~~~ ~~~:It~~alOlJg~ ~]
.Q "'I 1:: ' 0 >, 2 > '" ~:E'" :P Q, 0 '" :S '" ~
.s~I:~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~.~ ~t:'c8g ~t: ~
.~ .~Ip. ~ a .s '0 ~ o...l.Q.S ca '" ._ '" C
I
'"
l1J
'"
OJ
'"
Cl.
c:
..
"
'"
ll:
"
::t
'"
'"
.,
'"
~ "
ti:
a..
CD
>
liuih
::s a: CD _ CD ...
a. _ .c C)....::s
~ ;CD ::s 't:S COO
CU ._ 0 ~ .c
l1.'t:S...I..CU
&!'~ ~ ~ g ~ ~
o .s ~ :( .; t3 .s
~~ 2'0 "'.... 0.
1l.Q~i:' to .;
~oS~~ 8~ Jl
",.N~:2 ::::fl .!l
..0.0.'" ::1_, to:
'" 'F;.c: O';:l :::I
~~cae ~t:: ~
"'~S8 'O.~ .s
:u ,0_ >, 5
~~:Ec:>'.1:::; .
8 .~ 5 ~...., QJ.8 B
It]lS8~ 8"'~~
~ '" ~ '" ~~'~ '"
..c:lij ~-;::.r:: ."'~
E-<ai ","'E-<~t:'
> ",e::;,.9
C
Ql
>
CIl
0:
u
~
1Il
Ql
-.:
CIl
.c
()
. ,;"".... ,\-~;,;I\\"./,' I. ,"~ f-,':\' ,.; ",,' ,> ,
"..~.~ - ...\..)0)' ..~j.'l"'" .... it"'tf <l1';'~. "(I .'
-~. " 1"1' '". J',.\ 'to
~~Nr- .~ ~1~I:~i/'I."Y..""" ~)V~~.' '''"J',.'~.1..\l' ~ ,>>.
"" li~.........-'(" I> .' "( ',. ^1~~tJl,.. \( ',,. ........:.,:', ..1"),'
.. .'h....., "~~f-" )'1,t't/\~h~.'t.~. ::;rll~:';, ,,,~\t
i'....'-.~~. ,;tJ,i .:(o.~:t1'ol i" 7..\_,/1, '<"'-V)' .~,
~"'~.:~~~lI.}p..,~. . ol .t l..~~;.1 'if '''IJ,\',fI
. .".~' "-ti"....!r' ~l(t!f\:.l'in'.;'.I< ',~ '\,", ',',' ~:' ~
>\l, ~;r'f::..,.j,''''''I/ - "V'\' !l-.' ..'t{,,*'" I'" ('
,--~~~~~"", ~t-':~l~'(~''''''' " '~t '.''<', >11 ;"r j,
M~1~;:.-~Jlif;' H'H,~ J"~"~;:;:~:\. 'fli: :' I' I \'.:- I ..~\.. .
I..', .....,~~..~ '..' ,'~'j1.J .
1'~~Jf.~ t -.:-; :'-"',:, \'f',--,~,\'" '_~VI~' ," llJ
, fl "j~lr I!' "'.' It . '.. . .,,^ ,
, t ,.., 1"'\\ 'i '.-~ f 1", 1
~~ . l""'~, ~. '1\ '1 , \- , '\
,- f':~ , /,.~' II" I ' .,'
;',.. ~ I j '..::: ' ~. '
t~ . ",,,L ,:,1 >, 1\,:,.: /.,
!4llP.~ l . 't j '< f...\. J "~ ,.:..1/ t /-7 '
~"Oi ..': ,,'F, 'i'~ \ 1,-; ," ( ,
tl'~~ ,. N' ct' 1'".1\ ..\ !,' ;)t i\ f ,.. )'1' . < '
li*!~' ~;l.'t:.: .'.\\ ,c\ \,'; r:.,J :"}} "
t"M~);~~.I.~Ji. ,~, "i;l-.,!",~",'dl::;y.,<Y>,;"
~~~~~ .-? -t\ ~ ~ . .... -.// ~:.. ", ..~ \ :\ .. ~ . 't.:
J',J': iJ:'w!'~4''..i'''::''~,-,-\:.',;;'\,'':':--"j'.~ t:,"~."~'~.~';'-, :~',~
I,~,.. , :;-;' ''''~'''-''''- . .07.c. '~"I''''' ,h,...\~.,
l' ~,Jr:t'vJ .,~: l .~~.:'" : It: ..~~~ J~'~t ..l ,~
, __ _ t Ii, t; ,/<.,;:~}~ a7 \ \.\'.... {~ 1.:'\..:\' ~:5,~.'I
"'.~~,'I" ,:;r" l.,.. ", "~" ~.t'(tt"''''~, :.A
~":~~'D' '. I II ~. ,', " , ~
~~l"" ,~ (\'~ '\ ',' ""f'- ~;i"."t., ...
~~ t...:. ,.~;, ", # / ,...." ~ .,.:.... ....!~ '''1'" .....1
~.."~~.~. \ .';' 1/.:,' ~J" '. . ~.., '~" :;>1 ", ,:
!II:', ,'." \\l" ,. t ",': '. ~. " ';' '. "i {!.(,-..,....l'
,",' \"tl . t.~r' I......~ l' ",., ~ " ."\;;"'... ~." ,
.. ..... .:~. 4'..~.. l' '.!l t" " ,.t :.'~1
r4:!l 'fr..I,,' -:." I..; .~.r ., ;~'Y.J""_""q""'~.
IIIIi '!:~ ~.~, .,J j..". t ..... t.< .":1~,: _.. t: j(,l..'
I~.' , .. """i..<,jl.""'\' 'j..,-.,'t.,," "f ':~""'.' ,',1
.,~ '. .j.~;i:":~"!":';~'.:~~i~;~> ~:~';\"~)>i,:
.... '. '., ,.,. 'r'.' ," . ,~I(. I.t. "
~j ,', . ".,.." ~',~l'I," .,'- ,.,~" '~,~~,,,"'('\-.'
. ....'~",~. ,',,' ,".'." 'f'" "::1'\"'\' ,~.l.;l-';.'"
.... ' '4---"_A- ' . ~ \I. . ',_ I . '. 4"'" ,.t..'~ 01 "f
u. IgJ5i.Eal:U.!!~Q)ooGi
Olll't:>IIl"tlQ):=Q.EQ)O_
..J:!EIllIll"tloc1:io8~~13
..J<(.ca:CO=Gl.cQ)IIl:J.c
WW()~,f!~~:::Gl.aQ)O"
Oa: ..::1Il1ll ..Q.c=.cC
C :a7ij"j;-m
r.r.
()-
.l
E -g cU ~ ~ ii 'iU Co' .~tf ~
"'0$ "'j:;fl::2 ",~:a~
It.c~to:"'~.d S.!l'<ao~
2~.s~.s ':a 'in ~"'S2
'" '" 0 -Eb~ 'I:: '" E-<.5 ~
~ ~ .5 :. :> ~ l:Q to:, '0 '" j .!!l
'r;:~~~o...", .9'c~ ~
~ gj 2:61>,fl "'.s ~ g! tl :
~ e~E",.s >, oi iil....~
- 0 ,!!l $ '" bO.Q '" ::I 8
~ t: jf;. g.:E al 'iU 3 ~ ~
o ~ '" ~.>l'o gj ",,g.c~,,,-g
...E: rrl>bl) ~ :a' 0$
.B ~ ,~~.;j ~.~ 'E ll: g
al rl: > <0 '" "'.Q '" l:Q 0 ~ '
~~11~~ E ~ ~ ~'~~~1
.2!.s:g ~~ fl: ~..a~!'3
"", >O'C>" C
,... .!o:a~ .Q:fl 0 ...., .>!:l '"
'q> . c'Og~ e
c; QJ.... 0 "b1)"
'S ~ bl) ~ 0.~:P :af e ~ ~
.s ::S Etca"O.E! gr;s.....
{J':: .8 8 '3 ~ ~ &! ~,5
~ is 'Oll i~~::l,5.!l
.B ~2, g,eo ~,5 ,] If ~lS:j
'" >.e",~.8.... .' ....
'@'" ,'" >'~.r:!.c 8 '3'" 0
ro CU:a:JOO 0 C
.s ~ '" .'9 .",.!;=... 0 0 "':;(
'0. :q ~.2!'- ::< s:. ~ ~ 'Ol :Q ,5
~ 8~;..~g.i'l'8 ~ ~~al
~ ~. Vj Ja:t Q., > c..O~ oJ:: fn G.l >
ot-G.l 0. G.l"'::;s=
f5. ;!_....t:~~ '" ..:t:.g! 0 0
.'C.a' .ff.ff ~-~ lij~ '6b~'i
~
~ ,........,~ CU QJ '"'0 Q) ~ 0 l.
~::s "'~uicom-fo
t::.8 0 G.lG.l~-~.....
'3 ~ 0$ C, ~ t::E ... ~ >,~
If ~ i '" ",..8:E ~.s ~ ~
~~ ~ >':::1 bOOl,5 ~ 0
'''';>> "''''0'''- ...
~ <<J -oCl1:;:::i::.ca;asen
.g ~~..; '" ~.!!l ~ g;::Jl:2 g
~~~~.8>~~e~"'~]1
..c~...",,,,"lCl) Ol...t!i'"
.. ",c'3l):; .c . '"
~ ~ ii) ~ 0 i5!1l ~ ",.5 8.. E-<
~Ill c~ ~ .5~~'~"'.8 '" s
~ .2l ~ u ~ c ~. ~ CI) ~ '" ~ ,g
c"':::l~ 0. ",S,-.Q.c'3 '" C
",:a~. '" E;",...", ",~.c 0
:x: l" ~ 8~ 3'3 &: '3 ~ '" al :g
· ~.s:E! .g~ ~.s{igjE
~~,5 ~ tJ g:. .,~S ~~ ~
UO_c..,Q)t::.t: ""Co as
8cCl)-;::0~ :>;tj...",,,,
",,5] ~ ~ '6J, f! -aiS~ ~ ~
.s ~ "'U~ 0 Gl.s_l:lq.c
~b~~~'~Ol] ~.2! S~:E
~ !3.... ~ .. , ~, >,"C ~ c
.88:<=l:Q8 ~'~""o
oS ~ ~ -8' c ~ <iI e ~ ~'9.
al'3 l:Q '" ... '" 0 0 0 is.
c,3<'O ~~ ~ .s,.2~,fl ~
a5"';"'.s~~ ~;g"'11'''''
!'5 ~ 11~i ~ ~~ rJ~
:x: ~ ~ 8 f~ ~ :s .s ;~
bOj 1. . i '" "" '''' '" '''' El '" b 8 C,' oS. "'.>l ' '"
~ lit ~. :2 Fl.5 8c .s '3 ~.s '!Ii '3 ~. 0 ~ Iii ;9'.s ~ ~ :S
'I:.~ ca.. ~O!'l~ 0 ...."l.. ~....o
~ rl Q,~-g~.B '0 ~ fl:r;;, '5 ~ ~I):;!lI 2,u <!'; ,5
'" 0~~0l"'bl) oii=:2 alCl)",o= ~:::I=Gl
k~Q,~]~~:S] li:2~"'~ '9.~~~~ t~i~1
'" CI) 01 Q, ~ 0 bl) ~ 0 ~'O it: ~ ':l '" ~ ,!'l >.:S is.
~0.8C1)d",.9 8~~~~~ c8e",0 bl):!i!1Il0
.:g-e-iil",:s.o~~ ~ W<CCl) ~oCl)518 5!i0l~S
"'&a~jS",,,, 0 r;;~~.s :E~~~~ ~"'.8E~
~e:>t', ~'E:i ~~:S~.8~-;'3-g~~-~ .8:S:gcg,
o Q,i::S . a 0 3 lIS oS ~ '" ~ "'.Q e 0 c '0 _' e ::I ~ ,
~:s~-gc~ol ~'O~~g~~~.8~81~1,g~.s&
"'5~0l~:>0'8 2~"'ii~",,g~>,:Sbl)"'~~~=~,,,
~~~~~I~~~!e~i~li~I~~~.2!~~~:S~
~~:q!~I~Si~I~~~5~t:f!:l~~4~",g!!1l~
oS It 0. 0 ~ ~ > fj '/il .o.c.c ,5 Q,~.5 ~ III .s .s J:: 3
'" '" 9! ';.0 lil ~ Ill:fl ..!. >, .~ gj d..!l..!. "'!l! >,~ tj
.s E;lISeC ~~...... elll :>"'8'~0:s;. 1::..c",
'0 ca .s .8 ~ ~ ,g.B ~ 8.~ .e g ~ 'i bl)'il '0 8. :g '2' ~
l: .a '" '" i! .s!( tj '" ::s 0 0 ls..s ... ,~ 3 lij 8 ~ 0. ..;
.bl) lj ~ 'c g! :S g "':a ~ .~ ~ "'.'" ~.N '" ~ Q, 0 ~ >,
S ~0~1u ~b", 08 <I) IlSgjQ,g!:::I.;",~..g!
i:' i.8 '" d> :l-Eb g]l 'E ~ ;;' ~li e b 8 -e- gj:S .:0 ~
'" c~~1 lij~o.... "'.c --~_c"'~o'O~~>
~ r..: s:::: i'" . ~ ~ co as 0 ... .G 8-"0 as :s tJ o...c: :a >. CU
>,~~. ~ 1!lll.!!l't:i l:Q;t 1;;Ns~8~e."'~'CJljP::o
m>,o. ~ CU CUO '2"0'0 ..O'O'....05-t"_
p.>''''o .9 ~ ~o ~~ ]"'","':lca"'2~~"'~
'" ... '" ~ 0 ~ Dl .c'" <<l ,~al '" ~ .s.c ~ '" ,!!l '
e~~~~.c:..;c",,,,g 22 b"'al'O~J~5~-5g~
g!"'o~ot.)c"'.....c<<l .8'0 ;t:C'ObOUl"'_"'C CI)",
~~~~~o>x _ -Q) V~cccQ)C ~
"'", -"'~-<<l"'= '<~ "'.c--8"'>~"'E~.s0
-B ::= "'" (j ~ .... 0:: c Cl3 >. fJJ 0 ..... (,J .... Q) en ':b..
5 '" ~:::I 0 ~ <J C ..:::5"i€.2! > .~ bO,5;;:; al:a - ~ o:&, g>,,:g
E 3 ~ 0 a ~ .b:E ~ ~ ::1 0 r--. ~ . ~ .5 1U Q) .~ o~.~ as ~ ::I .5 g
~Vl ~:Et\Sro OQJEo ~~ ~~g:.c\Cg~ .8-:5~
.u
'"
OJ
~
E
o
<l::
t::
(1)
::..
~
ex:
(.)
~
~.
..S) ~ t<\
\\.~
~\~
, \~
~ ~
~
10 3 \;;Id
FAX
To:
401 Mcintyre Road
AIbcmadc Coun1y Office Building
C'harloUaniIlo, Viqpnia
(804) 296--5822 fu 972004060
From: Chattel & Unda Mc;Rawn
1781 Productiolllt Ltd.
P.O. Drawer 0
Froe Unioo, ViI'gtnia 22940
(804) 973-41'9 fax 973.3S03
For Distribution Prior to Wednesday, 10/6/93, daytime
meeting.
Cover Page plus 2 pages
\;;IW\;;l~a~OOaln018L1
E05EEL5P08 1E:L1 E551!50!01
i
1781 Productions, Ltd.
CrNti,., II .'door _r t""".r far Chlrl"UadU, IN I,tf.",,', "'""Y
Or...~ G - ~.. Qft~OD, V1~1Di. 22'40 -- (10.> 171-"11 f.. 171-1101
Ootober S, 1993
Mr, David P. BoWCDnm. ChaiImm
Albern.- County Bo8rd of Supc:rviaors
County omce Building
ChadottaYiDe. Vqini& 22901
Dell' David,
Thank you for tiIxini to UI . dDft copy ofyOW" 1eUer regarding the historical vfll'&City of the play
we will be producina,
At, you must understand. I was rather tUen aback yesterday aftamoon to learn that lJ;&Q ~
Pro..- had obtained . copy of this letter to us at 1'781 P:roduc1ions from you, as Board ofSuperYison
Clwinnm. bdm; it bId.GGD lzslm.ISIW to us. It is of grave concem to us, givcm the sensitive nature of our
project and the pat cxpcmaea in time and money that we have inmmed. that the pre88 shou1d receive
private and ofticial conespondence in such an untimely manner. It would seem that the only purpose of
someone in or near your office leakinB such com:apondence to the prell mUlt be to "generate t\uther public:
deb8te" md to m'C8tc "diYiRve:ncu" within the community.
In rcprd to the content of your lettcr,lllow me to addreaa that briefly now. At, I told you on the
phone yeaterday, we know that the Albemarle community would not eccept anytbina that is not flm.rate,
profeslional, honest, and true. And we are not the sort of people who have set out to do something
cxploit8iive and foolWhly melodroma& or vau.dcMDian in the hope oftutning. fast budc. The Boud of
Superviaon would not have J[IJI.ted us a special pemdt if we were -. yow- review of CUI IoU and intent
certainly has been thorough enough that that would not have been possible.
Nor would we wish to exploit lisni&ant eventa in tho history of Albemarle County and the
SurTOlDldina rqion II merely ajumping-offpoint for a laIply ficIional exttavapnza. 1bis would be
contrary to our own best interests, We have oondu.c:ted exhaustive :reaearch on outdoor historicll1 dnuna -.
II a genre and II . busilas III1taprise -. and we know that the most 8UC()essfW dnmll arc in1rinai&:ally
linked to a specific !oWe and to ~Ult hiatorical eventa that oc:cwred on or near the site orthe
production itHIf. We know. too, that when sud\ outdoor drlmu sby too far from the historical record or
lose aiaht of the need for dear and IWOUlate chawrter portrayal. they are courting diJuter. We have seen.
plays in which Denial Boone is portJ'ayed u a stock fhmtiel" chuaoter oflitde depth, and 1his detraots from
veracity and believability. "'Tbe Common OIOfy," a hiibly '\Klocuful outdoor dmma wri.tt-. by Paul ~
the Pulitzer Prize-winning "father" or outdoor histolioal dnma in America. ultimately cloeed in
WiDiamsbWJ because, among other things, the prod\K:eD tried to "jazz" it up after many years and strayed
from the hiltoric$l recol'd. In the end. that play even included a pmt&l1 by a patriotl
I assure you, we arc not interested in pratDlla and ridiculously conjeQtumJ melodnma. Our
interest. our focus, is the historical MCOrd, what *t most loaically sus:gem. and how it tells us today of
important VIluea that were esaential to the founding of our COlDl1ty. Jefferson closed the Declaration of
1ndepancIence with the pledae of "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" to he tttit nation of
British exploitation.. That is our thrust, and that is why the story of Jack Jouett is important mOle than 200
yem later. He risked evesytbing 1br 111 ideal, to save this country.
00 :3 'Vd
'VW'VdGdOOGln018L1
E09EEL5P08
1E:L1 E551!90!01
E0 38 d
We hi" done ~ reuarch on the events and the prineiplll we aim to por1ny in OW'
hiItoriaIl dnma - lack Jouett, Themu Je~ Pa:lrick Hany. Daniol Boone. Dr. Thornu Walker.
CoL BanuInl-r.dcton, Martha.lc&Don, ctcl. In many roprda. tU bietolUlal ~ ia ~
. Tadeton's memoir is self-serving, and repeatedly omits or bruahe8 over events that do not
show him in the best light.
. For Jeffenon, this was IIJ, espeoially dit1Wult period, given his wife'. failins hc8lth (she died
tile foJlo'winI year) and the petty bicbrinB direct:ed toward him as ~, BJ1d no
oorrespondenee to his wia has been left to posterity, (Hiatorians poItulate that he probably
deItroyed private comspondcn.oe after his wife died.)
. Jouett moved to K.."tuclcy shortly afb!r the events we will portJay end married a young woman
&om Goochland whosc fimily also misrated Kentucky at about the 18m. time. And Jouett left
no paperI that mi@hthave found their way into an archive. He wu a man of action. not of
re:Olction - he served in the Kentucky lefPslature for a number of years and wu iMtrumental in
the establilbment of the thoroughbred hor$e indu.stry in Kentucky. One ofbia IOI1J becmle a
famous painter; anotherwu an ot'ftcer of note in me War of1812.
- History doeI not even tell ua how lack louett knew orCol. Tuleton'. intent to captum VUJinia'..
Revoluliormy leaden. Did he. & YOlmg man who lived in Ch8dottesv.ille, see tbem near Cuckoo
and guess their objective? Did Jle1lII come directly trom Riohmond? Or did hc or someone eJse
overhear a conversation at the Cuckoo Tav~ where T.seton li.bIy stopped on his way from
Richmond to Ch8110ttesviDe and where we know Tarleton puscd? The mOlt likely scenario is
the latter. cspcciaJly because his fil.ther had landholdinp near CUctoo tbal Jec:k Jr. periodicl8lly
ovenaw.
The play itJe1( the script. ia in development Ilt thiI time. When & tinal draft is completed. it will be
vetted by the leading au1hcxitiea in outdoor historWal drama in the Unitod States. u wellaa by hiatoriena
wboee area of expertise is the Revolutionary War m.
If you have any quellionJ.. pleale don't hesitate to talk to me or to Riolwd Tillman. our busineu
1n8nlpl'. who illIIso lVorking on teacanlh and smpt development. And 1et's1rult tbst any future
oomspondenoe between the Board and ourselves will not become public record befote that oormpondence
hu tIbn Pace.
LMMlIdh
cc: Ahnade County Board of SUpervisors
Frederick Payne
~w~~a~ooaln018Ll
E09EEL5t'08
lE:Ll E551/90/01
RESOLUTION
OF
INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
oes hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section
2,0 and any other ordinances necessary to allow for an interim grading/site development
Ian; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission hold a public
earing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning
ommission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W, Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
o a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
a a regular meeting held on October 6, 1993,
~ I dp-' 1d t"tW~l
id;rV,Board of County Scrrvisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
r-
I, ~~o) ~, (~, D~, !], vlj lS': 'I', ,',,' L ;
; ~~,r- " -~lr~!fr$
~ . . :. .,-' '':;' - f .i L \:
? . ,'-/-9) ~i'
, G ,,"'. ,,,,....
,','. ! n /.. ,.. ,_'.' ,.,:.w4;r t,4-
; UtJ ',,' ,~'~.) ; L-,i
" 1
..
.
AGENDA T
Resoluti
Allow For Grading Site Plan
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
11 01? /11& <;,If
ACTION:
X Resolution
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
To allow
planting
suffice
conditio
to
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
On a re
and pri
to a b
develop
standar
activit
in Albe
reviewe
tentati
posted
:
urring basis, there are requests for borrow (cut) and waste (fill) areas for public
ate purposes. There is currently no provision for approving earthwork which amounts
rrow area and/or which involves the loss of wooded areas on a site zoned for
ent, unless the developer submits a site development plan. We recommend
izing a procedure and conditions to allow an interim sitework plan. Earth disturbing
is necessary to prepare a level site when working with topography such as that found
arle. Under current procedure, the proposed grading plan (erosion control plan) is
in conjunction with a plan for development. The earthwork may begin once all
e approvals have been received for the site plan and an erosion control bond is
nd permit issued.
Staff is also being confronted with increasing numbers of requests for borrow or waste areas
with no site construction proposed at that time. It is typically a case where an off-site
develop ent will have excess soil, and the receiving property's contours are such that fill
is nece sary to provide level buildable area, or vice-versa. This was an issue with the
Route 2 0 East widening project, and is becoming one with the Route 29 North project. It
also oc urs within large private projects, such as Sams, Walmart and Forest Lakes.
e of the more topographically challenging sites remain for development. Balancing
and fill may not be possible on these sites;
The
this is an issue at this time is as follows:
lic projects such as roads (new and expanded) require fill or have excess cut;
for soil are increasing;
dfilling the excess cut is too costly and not considered a feasible option;
A September, 1992 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance "Tree Cutting" section 4.3 has
re tricted earthwork to sites where trees will not be disturbed. (Attached)
DISCUSSI
The Zoni g Ordinance currently restricts earthwork through two separate requirements: the
earth ca not be disturbed (cut or filled) in a way that kills trees, without an approved
site pI n; and borrow areas are not permitted within development zoning districts
(commerc'al, industrial). The current practice requires extensive case-by-case review of a
grading lan, including site visits, and results in frequent disapprovals. Staff is of the
opinion hat this unreasonable administrative and cost burden on both the public and the
staff de racts from the overall protection efforts such ordinance measures intend. This
proposed interim plan could improve a site's eventual development. For example, we allow
Develope A to rough grade a site and replant now. In 5 years, by the time the development
r
~
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Allow For Grading Site Plan
Octobel 6, 1993
Page 2
occurs, the trees are established at a reasonable size for their intended buffering purpose,
and thE~ are better able to thrive during the stress of construction. Current practices can
drive \ p the costs of public projects that will have to either import or export soil at
significant cost.
RECO ATION:
Based o~ these findings, we recommend the Board adopt a resolution to the effect that a plan
which ehows grading and plantings without structures, may be approved under Section 32.0
"SiteI:evelopment Plan."
The prpcedure for approval would
notification to adjacent owners and
to the ~ntrance Corridor provisions.
to the ~lanning Commission, even if
follow the normal site plan review procedure with
referral to the Architectural Review Board, if subject
In sensitive areas, staff could chose to refer the plan
no objections are filed.
Standar~ conditions for approval would include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Architectural Review for entrance corridor buffering;
M~nimum buffers established adjacent to residential zoning (in accordance with the site
p~an ordinance through existing or new plantings);
Cpmpletion of a tree survey on the property to identify and evaluate significant
e~isting stands for preservation and for compliance with the tree canopy ordinance;
Protection of areas as designated in the open space plan;
Cpunty Engineering review to be mindful of the provision of future utilities, access,
apd drainage structures.
This p ocedure and these conditions should provide a framework for review, which is
reasonaple and does not sacrifice sound planning principles, to allow earthwork related to
public ~nd private projects.
93.145
,
..
--,
4.3 ------BRAINA6E (Repealed 9-9-92)
4.3 TREE CUTTING
4.3.01
a. In districts other than the RA, cutting of trees shall be limited
to dead trees and trees of less than six (6) inches in diameter
measured at six (6) inches above ground; except that trees may
be cleared as an incident to the preparation of land for the
establishment of some other use permitted in the district,
provided that:
1. Such use is exempt from the provisions of section 32.0
hereof; or
2. A site development plan for such permitted use shall have
been approved in accordance with the provisions of section
32.0 of this ordinance;
b. The following regulation shall apply in all zoning districts:
1. Unless otherwise specifically approved to accommodate
development pursuant to section 32.0 hereof, no tree within
fifteen (15) feet of any perennial stream or water supply
impoundment may be cut, except for dead trees or trees of
less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six (6)
inches above ground; or in order to provide access for
livestock or for another permitted use;
c. The foregoing notwithstanding, the zoning administrator may
authorize cutting of trees which:
1. Are deemed by the zoning administrator to pose a clearly
demonstrable danger to buildings or other structures or
otherwise a danger to public safety; or
2. Have been specifically recommended for removal following
field investigation by the Virginia Department of Forestry
as being virulent or pestilent to other trees in the vicini-
ty;
d. For the purpose of this ordinance, the term "tree cutting" shall
be deemed to include sawing, burning, bulldozing, poisoning,
girdling or any other activity which could reasonably be antici-
pated to result in the death of a tree. Fill and waste areas
shall not be deemed a permitted use but preparatory activity to
establish a permitted use. (Added 9-9-92)
FILL AREAS, WASTE AREAS
Fill and waste areas shall be permitted in all zoning districts.
and waste activities shall be permitted only in accordance
section 5.1.28 of this ordinance. (Added 7-3-83)
Fill
with
-29-
(Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
.
~
RESOLUTION
ALLOWING AN INTERIM PLAN SHOWING GRADING
AND PLANTINGS WITH NO ACTUAL "DEVELOPMENT"
TO BE APPROVED UNDER SECTION 32,0
"SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN"
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
ereby approves the request to allow an interim plan showing grading and plantings with
o actual "development" to be approved under Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, "Site
evelopment Plan" subject to the following conditions:
(A)
Architectural Review for entrance corridor buffering;
(B)
Minimum buffers established adjacent to residential zoning (in
accordance with the site development plan ordinance through
existing or new plants);
(C)
Completion of a tree survey on the property to identify and
evaluate significant existing stands for preservation and for
compliance with the tree canopy ordinance;
(D)
Protection of areas as designed in the open space plan;
(E)
County Engineer review to be mindful of the provision of future
utilities, access and drainage structures;
(F)
Notification of plans being presented should be included on the
Board of Supervisors' consent agenda for its approval.
* * * * *
I, Ella W, Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
o a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
r gular meeting held on October 6, 1993,
~fjR LtJi 0~MZ/\
~irk, Board of County SU/Jrvisors
Y"
{, .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
:l'
/0 - /-1_.?
AGENDA
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
t?'~, t 9,5,-._c,~:;L
INFORMATION:
ACTION:--1L-
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CO
Messrs.
:
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
ty is in the process of issuing bonds in the amount of $11,900,000 through the
Public School Authority.
DISCUSS ON:
This p ocess requires a number of resolutions to comply with Federal and State legal
require ents. The attached resolution will authorize the County Executive to sign the Bond
Sale Ag eement which must be returned to VPSA by October 8, 1993.
authorizing the County Executive to sign
93.133
fDPl@ m !UH 1m!
? n ! ] f:/ " .: ; d
'l' , ;. ';~)\,j ii' ;
".~. I-I
t~~t?~ OF SUPERVISORS.
,~ ..
: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C~unty, Virginia, held on the 6th day of October, 1993, at which
t~e following members were present and absent:
PRESENT:
;
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Mr. Charles S. Martin
Mr. Walter F. Perkins
Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Mr. David P. Bowerman
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris
ABSENT:
None.
t~e following resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
NAYES:
None.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR EXECUTION OF BOND SALE
AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$11,900,000
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle
co~nty, Virginia (the "County"), has determined it is necessary and
ex edient to borrow an amount not to exceed $11,900,000 and to
is ue its general obligation school bonds (the "BondS") for the
pUfpose of financing capital projects for school purposes; and
i WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best
interest of the County to pursue the financing through the Virginia
Pu:t>lic School Authority ("VPSA") by selling the County's Bonds to
VP5,>A; and
I
I
I WHEREAS, VPSA' s schedule contemplates execution of a Bond Sale
I
Agreement anticipated to be dated October 8, 1993, with the VPSA
~
roviding for the sale of the Bonds to VPSA (the "Bond Sale
greement") and
WHEREAS, the County will hold a public hearing,
n October 13, 1993, on the issuance of the Bonds
ith the requirements of Section 15.1-228. 8A of
irginia 1950, as amended; and
waEREAS, it is anticipated that the Board will approve the
suance of the Bonds after such public he~~ing;
duly noticed,
in accordance
the Code of
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
BEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The County Executive, is authorized and directed to enter
to a Bond Sale Agreement, in substantially the form submitted to
e Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved, and to
liver the Bond Sale Agreement to VPSA. The issuance of the Bonds
subject to the public hearing and final approval of this Board.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes
a true and correct extract from the minutes of a regular meeting of
t e Board held on the 6th day of October, 1993, and of the whole
t ereof so far as applicable to the matt~rs referred to in such
e tract.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Board of Supervisors
o Albemarle County, Virginia, this b~ day of October, 1993.
rvisors
ty,
( SEAL)
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
BOND SALE AGREEMENT
dated as of October 8, 1993
Nam~ of Jurisdiction (the "Local Unit"): Albemarle County
Sale Date: Not earlier than October 25, 1993 nor late-r than November 10, 1993.
Closing Date: On or about November 18, 1993.
Principal Amount (Not to Exceed): $11,900,000
Amortization Period: Twenty (20) Years
*********************************************************************************
1. The Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") hereby offers to purchase your general
obligation school bonds in an amount not to exceed the Principal Amount set forth
above from the proceeds of the VPSA's bonds, the sale of which is scheduled to take
place on the Sale Date.
2. You represent that on or before the Sale Date, your local governing body will have duly
authorized the issuance of your bonds by adopting a resolution in the form attached
hereto as Appendix B (the "local resolution") and that your bonds will be in the form
set forth in the local resolution. Any changes that you or your counsel wish to make to
the form of the local resolution and/or your bonds must be approved by the VPSA
prior to adoption of the local resolution by your local governing body,1
3. VPSA's commitment to purchase your bonds is contingent upon VPSA's receipt on the
Closing Date, of (a) your bonds which shall have and otherwise meet the Standard
Terms and Conditions contained in Appendix A, (b) certified copies of the local
resolution and the school board resolution (see Appendix E attached hereto), (c) an
executed agreement, among VPSA, you and the other local units simultaneously selling
their bonds to VPSA, Central Fidelity Bank and Public Financial Management, Inc. (the
depository and investment manager, respectively, for the State Non-Arbitrage Program
("SNAP")), providing for the custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of
your bonds and the other general obligation school bonds, and the payment by you and
the other local units of the allocable, associated costs of compliance with the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any costs incurred in connection with your
participation in SNAP (the "Proceeds Agreement"), (d) an executed copy of the Use of
Proceeds Certificate in the form attached hereto as Appendix C, (e) an approving legal
opinion from your bond counsel in form satisfactory to VPSA as to (i) the validity of
the bonds and the exclusion from gross income for federal and Virginia income tax
The local resolution has been drafted for the issuance of bonds by a county, Bond
counsel will need to make appropriate changes in the local resolution for the L<;suance
of bonds by a city or town.
purposes of the interest on your bonds, (ii) the conformity of the terms and provisions
of your bonds to the requirements of this Bond Sale Agreement including the
appendices attached hereto, and (Hi) the due authorization, execution and delivery of
this Bond Sale Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement and the validity of the Proceeds
Agreement, (f) a transcript of the other customary documents not listed above, and (g)
the proceeds of VPSA's bonds. Two complete transcripts (one original) of the
; documents listed above shall be provided by your counsel to the VPSA on the Closing
Date or, with VPSA's permission, as soon as practicable thereafter.
4. This Bond Sale Agreement shall take effect on October 8, 1993.
Virginia Public School Authority
Albemarl
By:
Authorized VPSA Representative
Tucker, Jr.
By:
Title: County Executive
(For information only; not part of the Bond Sale Agreement.)
Please have the presiding officer, or other specifically deSignated agent, of your governing body
execute 2 copies of this Bond Sale. Agreement and return them, along with the tax
questionnaire attached hereto as Appendix D, no later than close of business on October 8,
1993 to Gary Ometer, Debt Manager, Virginia Public School Authority, [by mail] P.O. Box
1879, Richmond, Virginia 23215-1879 or [by hand or courier service] James Monroe Building-
3rd Floor, 101 N. 14th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. If your governing body or bond
counsel requires more than one originally signed Bond Sale Agreement, please send the
ppropriate number; all but one will be returned at closing,
f: SHARED\DEBT\ VPSA \ I SSUE\ 93C\BSA, 93C
September 10, 1993
.... '. ..
Albemarle County, Virginia
$11,900,000 General Obligation School Bond, 1993 Series A
Schedule of Events
Be ard of Supervisors Meeting Dates:
First and Third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m.;
Second Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m.
Sc~ool Board Meeting Dates:
Second Monday of each month (work sessions are scheduled
fourth Monday of each month)
E ents
Date
H ~W circulates School Board Resolution and Board of Supervisors
Rt solution approving financing concept and execution of Bond Sale
A reement
Completed
C< unty publishes notice of public hearing on Bond issue!.'
September 28 and
October 5
H ~W circulates draft Bond Resolution Providing for the Issuance of the
B< nds and Use of Proceeds Questionnair~
September 29
C< unty adopts Resolution approving financing concept and execution of Bond
Sa e Agreement
October 6
C< mments due on draft Bond Resolution, County returns questionnaire to
H~W~!
October 6
H ~W sends out Bond Resolution in final form, along with circuit court
cl rk's receipt~!
October 6
C< unty returns Bond Sale Agreement to VPSA~!
October 8
Sc~ool Board adopts Resolution
October 11
H ~W circulates draft closing certificates for review by County and VPSA~!
October 12
B< ard holds public hearing, adopts Bond Resolution
October 13
C< mments due on draft closing certificates
October 15
C< unty Attorney files Bond Resolution with circuit court clerkY
By October 19
V PSA Bond Sal&!
October 26
H ~W sends out closing certificates to County for execution2!
November 1
C< unty obtains signatures on closing certificates
November 2 through
November 11
C< unty returns executed closing certificates to H&W.!2!
By November 12
Pr~-closing!!I
November 15-17
Clpsing!1!
November 18
~. .
./
!I Second publication must follow first publication by at least one full week and public hearing must follow
se< ond publication by at least six days but not more than 21 days.
'Y The Bond Resolution provides for the details of the Bond issue, The Public Finance Act of 1991 allows
de egation of final terms of bonds. This resolution delegates final terms to County officials. The Use of
Prl>ceeds Questionnaire will provide information necessary to complete the required Non-Arbitrage Certificate,
J.I This will be the Resolution circulated in draft on September 29.
~I Sending documents out on this date should get them to you in time for inclusion in Board packages. Final
fo m of Bond Resolution will reflect changes suggested or required by the County or VPSA.
~I VPSA will send you this contract, which provides for the sale of your Bond to VPSA. The Resolution to be
adopted on October 6 will authorize its execution and delivery to VPSA,
~ There will be eight or nine different certificates for signature by various County and School Board officials.
TIlese certificates will document compliance with federal tax laws, Virginia laws and VPSA requirements,
TIley will be based on information contained in the questionnaires.
11 Required by Virginia Code ~ 15.1-227.9, Code provides for a 30-day waiting period after signing before
cl< sing. See Virginia Code ~ 15,1-227.28.
!!1 VPSA sells its bonds to provide funds to purchase your Bond. VPSA charges you interest at rates which are
gr~ter by 1I1Oth of 1 % in each year than the rates VPSA gets on its bonds.
21 The final versions of these certificates will reflect changes suggested or required by the County or VPSA.
lQl These need to be returned in advance of closing so they can be reviewed and any necessary corrections
rru de in advance of closing,
!!I Representatives of VPSA and its bond counsel will independently review documents related to your Bond
fo compliance with federal tax laws, Virginia laws and VPSA requirements.
1lI Your Bond is delivered to VPSA, and your proceeds are made available for your use,
..
.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
ATLANTA, G ORGIA
BRUSSELS. BELGIUM
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
KNOXVILLE TENNESSEE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
RIVERFRONT PLAZA, EAST TOWER
951 EAST BYRD STREET
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROL! NA
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
WARSAW, POLAND
WASHINGTON, D. C,
Mary Jo ite, Esquire
Direct Dial: (804) 788-8309
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219-4074
TELEPHONE (804) 788 - 8200
FACSIMILE (804) 788-8218
File No.: 26222,16
September 29, 1993
F DERAL EXPRESS
. Melvin A. Breeden
rector of Finance
bemarle County
partment of Finance
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Albemarle County, Virginia
$11.900.000 General Ob1iqation School Bonds. Series 1993
D ar Melvin:
In connection with the County's financing through Virginia
P blic School Authority, I enclose the following documents:
1. Schedule of Events;
2. Transcript List (to show what documents will be needed
in the financing);
3. Use of Proceeds Questionnaire; and
4. Bond Resolution.
I would appreciate receiving all final comments on the Bond
R solution by October 6. I will then send you copies in final
f rm that evening.
Please return the enclosed questionnaire to me by October 8.
If you have any questions on the enclosed, please do not
hesitate to contact me, or in my absence, Barbara Kimlel (804-
788-8433) .
{' r, ."-rt...... {"f ^ \ ')C~~At~t ·
\..:.\';:..1" I l "i J'\l_L..J",,'I'.. ,. ,ui!!l '
~.
ij
.'
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
r. Melvin A. Breeden
eptember 29, 1993
age 2
As always, it is a pleasure working with you. I look
orwarding to completing this financing for the County.
Sincerely,
.~~ .~I
Mary Jo w~ D
llU U)::z_
JW/dmc
nclosures
c: Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Dr. Robert W. Paskel
George R. st. John, Esquire
..-
'.
COUNTY OF 'ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/t) - 7'
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
1/1 leU '" ;;,- If S-
INFORMATION:
ACTION: Yes
SUBJECT
92/93 ov
Approval of FY
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
-
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Huff, Breeden
BACKGRO Expenditures in FY 92/93 exceeded appropriations in five areas of the General
Fund 0 rations totaling $12,966.
DISCUSS ON: The departments/areas that exceeded appropriations are:
. Clerk of the Court $ 3,600.00
Cost of indexing records exceeded
budget projections.
. Forest Fire Extinction 165.00
Amount billed by the State Forester
exceeded budget.
. District Home 7,000.00
County usage exceeded projection.
. Soil and Water 2,200.00
Wages were projected based on a
part-time employee. Due to this
employee working part-time in
another County department, the
total hours made them eligible for
benefits. This was not anticipated
in the original budget.
. City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement
Official calculation of revenue sharing
formula exceeded project.
1.00
RECO ATION: Appropriation of funds from the General Fund Balance to cover
overexp nditures as detailed on attached appropriation form 920082.
93.125
r~.7 & l~. u w ~ @..'..
J11 ~- i U:1
, 1993 ,
L
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
TYPE F APPROPRIATION
YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920082
ADVER ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO X
GENERAL
E OF APPROPRIATION:
AL OF FY 92/93 OVEREXPENDITURES.
PENDITURE
ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
******************************************************************
11000 1060350300 CLERK OF COURT INDEXING . $3,600.00
11000 2040560500 FORREST FIRE EXTINCTION 165.00
11000 9000563000 DISTRICT HOME 7,000.00
11000 2030221000 SOIL & WATER RETIREMENT 1,300.00
11000 2030231000 SOIL & WATER HEALTH INS. 900.00
11000 1034580405 CITY/COUNTY-REV. SHARING 1.00
TOTAL
$12,966.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***** ******************************************************************
21000 1000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $12,966.00
TOTAL
$12,966.00
***** ******************************************************************
COST CENTER:
FINANCE
REQUE
APPRO
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIREC
OF FINANCE
9-./7-~:iT
/~-~-P?
f
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
"
~-'
"
AGENDA T TLE:
Appropri tion - Transfer
SUBJECT
School F
STAFF CO
Messrs.
BACKGRO
School
overexp
DISCUSS
Expendi
appropr
Facilit
categor
Huff, Breeden
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION:~
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
/() -- I . 73
ITEM NUMBER:
f'1((o{)c",>1'r
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
~----
(
are appropriated annually in five categories. Two of these categories were
as of June 30, 1993.
ON:
ures in
ation.
es of
which
the School Fund totaled $54,166,734 which is $886,079 less than their
Overexpenditures in Administration, Attendance and Health of $65,185 and
$270 can be covered by a transfer of appropriation from the Instruction
had an unexpended appropriation of $597,973.
RECO ATION:
Staff ecommends approval of the transfer of appropriation as detailed on attached
Appropr'ation Form #920083.
93.141
-\
..
,
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
TYPE F APPROPRIATION
YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920083
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER X
NEW
ADVER ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND
SCHOOL
PURPO E OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANS ER TO COVER OVEREXPENDITURES IN FY 92/93.
E
COST
*****
PENDITURE
ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
******************************************************************
ADMINISTRATION,ATTENDANCE,& HEALTH $65,185.00
FACILITIES 270.00
INSTRUCTION (65,455.00)
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***** ******************************************************************
TOTAL
$0.00
***** ******************************************************************
COST CENTER:
FINANCE
LS:
OF FINANCE
SIGNATURE
~
DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
/cJ-6 -V
,~
l
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA T TLE:
FY 1992- 3 Overexpenditures
School D'vision Self-Sustaining Funds
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION: X
SUBJECT
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Breeden
'~J '\','
/.6 -/ -<j 3
'~,'. ..,'-....""'--........----_........"""',..~-
ITEM NUMBER:
91/ IV(,IL,~. <;,'/7
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGRO :
Several self-sustaining funds incurred expenditures in excess of appropriations. All
expendi ures can be funded from excess revenue and/or the fund balance of each program.
DISCUSS
92/93:
Expenditures for the following programs/grants exceeded appropriation for FY
. AHS Food Service $ 45,127.20
This amount can be funded from
additional revenues and fund balance.
. Chapter I 22,078.29
This amount can be funded from
additional revenues which exceeded
expenditures.
. Drug Education Grant 7,975.58
This amount can be funded from
additional revenues which exceeded
expenditures.
RECOMME ATION:
Staff r commends approval of the appropriation as detailed on attached Appropriation Form
#920084
93.148
F,r~o rn@rn" w ~ ~il',
',,' 1- ----,1 n ",11
'I ".
'J ; il':
lj . \ ';';
n, '
'I It I, .
tutti
t~~RO OF SUPIERV1SOHS ,
;
j
",.
\.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
TYPE F APPROPRIATION
YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920084
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVER ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
SELF SUSTAINING
E OF APPROPRIATION:
AL OF FY 92/93 OVEREXPENDITURES.
PENDITURE
ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*****************************************************************
0301119300 A.H.S FOOD SERVICES SALARIES $45,127.20
0301600200 A.H.S FOOD SERVICES FOOD SUPPLIES
1101112100 CHAPTER I SALARIES
1311312700 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT PROF. SERVICES
22,078.29
7,975.58
TOTAL
$75,181. 07
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***** *****************************************************************
23001 0301161204
23001 1000510100
23101 3000330101
23107 4000240500
AHS CAFETERIA SALES
AHS FUND BALANCE
CHAPT.ER I
DRUG -~EDUCATION
TOTAL
$42,008.54
3,118.66
22,078.29
7,975.58
$75,181. 07
***** *****************************************************************
TING COST CENTER: FINANCE
ALS: SIGNATURE DATE
OR OF FINANCE /"/P~/9- ~~ 9'-:2?j?-7 3
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ff-/L4 It) C7 /~-6-73
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/0 -/7.)
AGENDA ITLE:
FY 92-93 Overexpenditures for the Emergency
Operatio s Center
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION:
x
ITEM HUMBER:
91/ {tOt", s-<J 8
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF C
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Breeden
serves as the fiscal agent for the Emergency Operations Center.
ON:
ures for the Emergency Operations Center exceeded the FY 92/93 appropriation by
5, all of which can be funded internally through excess revenues and fund balance.
. Emergency Operations Center
Revenues exceeded budget by
$2,500.01 and the balance of
$3,771.54 can be funded from the
fund balance.
$
6,271. 55
RECOMME ATION:
Staff ecommends approval of appropriation form #920085 for $6,271.55 for the Emergency
Operati ns Center.
93.149
ill ~ @ ~ 8!Q~i ~ !~
J
1
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR~
,
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920085
TYPE F APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVER ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
EMERGENCY OPR. CTR.
E OF APPROPRIATION:
AL OF FY 92/93 OVEREXPENDITURES.
PENDITURE
ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*****************************************************************
1040600100
EMERGENCY OPR. CTR. OFFICE SUPPLIES
$6,271.55
TOTAL
$6,271. 55
24100 6000169900
24100 1000510100
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***** *****************************************************************
E.O.C.~OTHER CHARGES
E.O.~.-FUND BALANCE
$2,500.01
3,771.54
TOTAL
$6,271. 55
***** *****************************************************************
COST CENTER:
FINANCE
REQUE
APPRO
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIREC
OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
!
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/6/' '7.3
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
t?:Z
f II ! O()~, 'i1j /
INFORMATION:
AGENDA TI~Ir.r...E: FY92-93 overexpenditures in
Capital I~provement Fund
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
SUBJECTlpIOPOSAL1REOUEST: Request approval
for appro riation of $3,819.34 for
overexpeneitures in two FY 92-93 CIP projects
(#920086)
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CON'J~ACT (S \ :
Messrs. T cker, Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
Ye~
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGRomlm :
FY 92/93 operations resulted in two projects with minor over-expenditures.
DISCUSSI.~N:
Over-exp~nditures were incurred on the following projects:
stone-Robinson
Woodbrook
Appropriation
$ 68,872.01
252,740.51
Over-Expenditure
$ 532.10
3,287.24
These ame unts can be funded from the CIP Fund balance. These expenditures have been included
in the YEar-end report totals and will not affect the unallocated fund balance shown on the
report.
RECOMMENI)ATION:
Staff re~ommends approval of these amounts as detailed on Appropriation Form #920086.
-.............
- ~ 1""".,,\
~L @ ~~~-:' i
'BOARD OF SUPERVISQRSJ
....
93.152
..
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
I
FISCA;L YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920086
TYPE pF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
,
I
i
I
ADVER~ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
I
I
I
I
FUND I
I
PURPObE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPRO~AL OF FY 92/93 OVEREXPENDITURES.
I
E PENDITURE
COST ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***********************************************************************
YES
NO
x
CAPITAL
1900060210800902
1900060212800901
STONE ROBINSON
WOODBROOK
ROOF/MASONRY
BLDG. RENOVATIONS
$532.10
3,287.24
TOTAL
$3,819.34
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***********************************************************************
2900051000510100
C.I.P.-FUND BALANCE
$3,819.34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*****~*****************************************************************
I
I
REQUE~TING COST CENTER:
I
APPROfALS:
DIRECfOR OF FINANCE
BOARD I OF SUPERVISORS
I
I
I
I
I
TOTAL
$3,819.34
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
9-..2. - 'go
<...~ "
'\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'I :';\1',U ;'o:~D ~ () EC';;\;',{) i'~"i,H::I~>
,.",.L2....:J - ;; "2;>
---_.., ,,~~ ,,"_.-..,-~
AGENDA TfrTLB:
Visitors Center Appropriation
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
9 J. 10{) (., STl.
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request ~pproval of $67,734.48 for FY 92/93
Visitors Center Financing (1920087)
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACTIS\:
Messrs. ~ucker, Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY'~~
BACKGROtnm:
Albemar e County is the fiscal agent for processing the loan payment of the Visitor's Center.
Lease p~yments are made directly to the bank with the bank automatically deducting the loan
payment~ from the account.
DISCUSSlrON:
princip~l payments ($20,551.57) and interest expense ($47,182.91) were incurred in FY 92/93
with an equal amount of rental revenue being received.
RECOMMEImATION:
Staff r~commends approval of the appropriation as detailed on Appropriation Form #920087.
;- rn '] w ~ 01
Ji11 ~ @ --~\~\1
"'J[ Ld"
1,,\~ ~!~.j
un \ ., \ G ,
\ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\
l
93.150
.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
TYPE F APPROPRIATION
YEAR
92/93
NUMBER
920087
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVER ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
VISITOR'S CENTER
E OF APPROPRIATION:
AL OF FY 92/93 OPERATIONS.
PENDITURE
ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*****************************************************************
050910024 VISITOR'S CTR. PRINCIPAL $20,551.57
2050920024 VISITOR'S CTR. INTEREST 47,182.91
TOTAL
$67,734.48
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***********************************************************************
2980015000150229
VISITOR'S CTR.-RENT
$67,734.48
TOTAL
$67,734.48
***********************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/0 - / - 9_3
AGENDA ITLE: Reappropriation of FY 92/93
capital Projects
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION:
x
ITEM NUMBER:
91, (O{f,. 'in
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGR
Total appropriations for Capital Improvements in FY 92/93 totaled $14,474,252.44;
expendi ures during the year totaled $7,844,692.32, leaving a balance of $6,629,560.12.
REVIEWED BY:
--
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF C
Messrs.
Huff, Breeden
DISCUSSION:
A revie of the uncompleted committed projects shows a need to reappropriate into FY 93/94
$5,346,585.00. The difference of $1,282,975.12 results from projects completed for less than
the bu geted amount and from revised estimates for uncompleted projects based on current
estimat s.
On the revenue side, the Capital Improvement Fund experienced a shortfall in revenues of
$500,33 .36, resulting primarily from the fall in interest rates and the expenditure of bond
proceeds at a faster rate than anticipated. The adjustments in project expenditure estimates
coupled with the revenue shortfall resulted in an unallocated CIP Fund balance at June 30,
1993 of $899,707 after the reappropriation of FY 92/93 committed projects. Actions already
taken b the Board in FY 1993/94 reduces this amount to $600,579. These resulting CIP fund
balance are reflected in both the June and september financial reports included on the
consent agenda.
RECOMME ATION:
Staff r commends approval of reappropriations as detailed on the attached Appropriation Form
#930020.
~ ffi @ ffi U~~ ~,\
t UU !".'~d \ W
I I ~"-'I
BOARD OF SUPE~~
93.147
4
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930020
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
HEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
HO
x
FUND
CAPITAL
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEG DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
1900 12200800301 INFO. SERVICES COMM. EQUIP. $46,012.57
1900 21050331000 JUVENILE CT. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,866.95
1900 31010800100 POLICE DEPT. MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 56,900.00
1900 31040312703 EMERGENCY OPR. E-911 LOCATOR SYSTEM 139,830.00
1900 31040312705 EMERGENCY OPR. E-911 STREET SIGNS 10,500.00
1900 31040950085 EMERGENCY OPR. E-911 JOINT-CITY/CTY. 753,429.97
1900 32010800510 FIRE DEPT. SERVICE VEHICLES-NEW 30,000.00
1900 33020700002 CORRECTION REGIONAL JAIL 261,333.03
1900 41000800960 ENGINEERING STREET LIGHTS 40,000.00
1900 41000800961 ENGINEERING ST. LTS.HYDRAU./COMMONWE 16,000.00
1900 41000800962 ENGINEERING ST.LTS. HYDRAU/GEORGETOW 16,000.00
1900 41000800963 ENGINEERING ST LTS-WHITEWOOD/GEORGTN 12,000.00
1900041000800964 ENGINEERING ST LTS-GEORGTN/COMMONWEA 16,000.00
1900041000950011 ENGINEER~G HYDRAULIC ROAD SIDEWALK 33,211.39
1900041000950035 ENGINEERING NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD 3,800.00
19000 1000950039 ENGINEERING MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY ENGI 116,398.21
19000 1000950059 ENGINEERING KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE 1,653,328.21
19000 1000950072 ENGINEERING PARK ROAD EXTENSION 41,000.00
19000 1000950073 ENGINEERING SIDEWALK-FIFTH STREET 78,000.00
19000 1000950090 ENGINEERING IVY ROAD 1,667.00
19000 1000950091 ENGINEERING BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK 11,000.00
19000 1000950096 ENGINEERING LANGFORD ROADS 22,000.00
19000 1020950036 STREET IMP. BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENDED 168,734.21
19000 1020950051 STREET IMP. AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR 70,700.00
19000 1020950065 STREET IMP. COMMONWEALTH DRIVE 650.00
19000 1020950081 STREET IMP. REVENUE SHARING-ROADS 129,800.00
19000 1020950098 STREET IMP. MECHUMS WEST 44,300.00
19000 3100800901 STAFF SERVICES BUILDING RENOVATIONS 201,149.02
19000 1020800901 HEALTH DEPT. BUILDING RENOVATIONS 2,690.00
19000 1020950095 HEALTH ~~PT. HEALTH DEPT-NEW WING 50,739.00
19000 0100800675 SCHOOL BOARD PAVING 2,882.00
19000 0100950042 SCHOOL BOARD UNDERGROUND TANKS 7,260.20
19000 0100950087 SCHOOL BOARD ENERGY MANAGEMENT 28,439.22
19000 0100950089 SCHOOL BOARD FIRE ALARM UPGRADE 19,853.07
19000 0201312350 BROADUS WOOD PLANNING SERVICES 1,543.33
19000 0201312375 BROADUS WOOD CONCRETE/STEEL TESTING 4,185.80
19000 0201800605 BROADUS WOOD CONSTRUCTION 607,398.65
19000 0201800903 BROADUS WOOD ASBESTOS REMOVAL 4,604.86
19000 0201800950 BROADUS WOOD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1,073.50
19000 0202312400 BROWNSVILLE PROF. SER. ENGINEERING 265.75
19000 0211800901 STONY POINT BUILDING RENOVATIONS 5,221.72
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
ROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM FY 92/93.
1900060212312400 WOODBROOK
1900060215312300 AGNOR-HURT
1900060215312365 AGNOR-HURT
1900060215800200 AGNOR-HURT
1900060215800605 AGNOR-HURT
1900060216580000 V L MURRAY
1900060216800200 V L MURRAY
1900060216999999 V L MURRAY
1900060251312300 BURLEY SCH.
1900060251312400 BURLEY SCH.
1900060251800901 BURLEY SCH.
1900060252312300 BURLEY SCH.
1900060255312350 URBAN AREA SCH.
1900060255580000 URBAN AREA SCH.
1900060301312350 ALBEMARLE
1900060301312375 ALBEMARLE
1900060301800200 ALBEMARLE
1900060301800901 A~BEMARLE
1900060301800903 ALBEMARLE
1900060303800660 MURRAY EDUC.
1900060303800903 MURRAY EDUC.
1900060304312350 NEW HIGH SCH.
1900071000580411 PARKS & REC.
1900071000950003 PARKS & REC.
1900071000950009 PARKS & REC.
1900071000950010 PARKS & REC.
1900071000950018 PARKS & REC.
1900071000950047 PARKS & REC.
1900071000950083 PARKS & REC.
1900071002800650 RIVANNA PARK
1900073020312350 LIBRARIES
1900073020950062 LIBRARIES
PROF. SER. ENGINEERING
PROF. SER. ARCHITECTUAL
PROJECT COORDINATION
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONTINGENCY FUNDS
PROF. SER. ARCHITECTUAL
PROF. SER. ENGINEERING
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
PROF. SER. ARCHITECTUAL
PLANNING SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
PLANNING SERVICES
CONCRETE/STEEL TESTING
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
ASBESTOS REMOVAL
BUILDING ALTERATIONS
ASBESTOS REMOVAL
PLANNING SERVICES
A.D.A. COMPLIANCE
CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS
SCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER
CHRIS GREENE LAKE
WHITEWOOD ROAD
BEAVER CREEK PARK
ST. PT. RURITAN BASEBALL
BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION
PLANNING SERVICES
LIBRARY RENOVATIONS
TOTAL
704.25
17,280.00
8,000.00
4,475.59
13,683.25
13,375.00
5,712.21
10,000.00
1,252.29
25,000.00
898.31
7,782.38
122,288.08
10,000.00
20,709.95
437.85
525.00
90,000.00
4,798.75
46,141.45
4,594.64
8,352.00
79,995.46
44.57
8,405.83
18,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
894.04
18,334.70
8,019.00
31,112.74
$5,346,585.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2900019000120605 E911 SERVICE TAX $903,805.24
2900019000199923 FIVE SENSES TRAIL-CITY 10,000.00
2900024000240750 STATE RECREATION ACCESS FUND 126,139.50
2900051000510100 CIP FUND BALANCE $4,306,640.26
TOTAL
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
************************************************************************
$5,346,585.00
APPROVALS:
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
~~/9~~~
ff-tfte ~7
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
BOARD OF SUPERVIS
DATE
P-/7~9..3'
/cJ -h -9-3
~
;f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
jQ-~~--,_. .-_..-,~
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
7/1 I ()()0, )' S' z...-
INFORMATION:
: Reappropriation of FY 92-93
nd Projects and Requests
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
Request approval
priate FY 92/93 funds in the amount
general government
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
have been received from a number of departments for the reappropriation of
d funds from FY 92/93.
DISCUSSI N:
The tot 1 request to reappropriate $575,070 is primarily for projects not completed in FY
92/93 a items on order at June 30, 1993 that total $482,659. Also included is a request
to reapp opriate $92,411 in unexpended 92/93 funds to purchase needed items or unanticipated
expenses that were not able to be funded in the FY 93/94 budget.
The year end financial report, which is included in the October 6 consent agenda, shows that
General Fund FY 92/93 expenditures were $1,065,302 less than appropriations. Of this
unexpen ed June balance, $575,070, the majority of which resulted from uncompleted FY 92/93
project , is being requested for reappropriation into FY93/94. After this reappropriation,
the net savings in General Government operations for FY92/93 will be $490,232, which when
added t the general fund revenue surplus of $731,688 will allow an available surplus of
$1,221,920 from FY92/93 to be transferred to the fund balance.
A reco endation on the unexpended FY92/93 balance and the County's fund balance reserves
will be rought to the Board in November as part of the discussion of setting budgetary goals
and pri rities for FY94/95.
RECOMME
Staff r commends approval of these requests totaling $575,070 as detailed on attached
Appropr'ation Form #930021.
,....fD1 ~ @ ~ U IC~ I, m!
~1 ..."-".. ,
I ~-
i ROARD OF SUPERVISORS
,
93.151
~
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
TYPE F APPROPRIATION
YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930021
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVER ISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GENERAL
E OF APPROPRIATION:
OPRIATION OF PROJECTS AND REQUESTS FROM FY 92/93.
PENDITURE
ENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
******************************************************************
11000 2140520100 FINANCE POSTAL SERVICES $10,000.00
1100012140800700 FINANCE ADP EQUIP. 5,000.00
11000 3020520100 BD. OF ELECTIONS POSTAL SERVICES 3,300.00
11000 1020601200 GEN'L DIST. CT BOOKS & SUBSC. 1,500.00
11000 1020800200 GEN'L DIST. CT FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1,000.00
11000 2010130000 COMM. ATTORNEY SALARIES-P/T 1,500.00
11000 2010520100 COMM. ATTORNEY POSTAL SERVICES 200.00
11000 2010800200 COMM. ATTORNEY FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1,500.00
11000 2010800700 COMM. ATTORNEY ADP EQUIP. 1,500.00
1100031013601100 POLICE-PATROL UNIFORMS 4,320.00
1100031013800100 POLICE-PATROL MAC. & EQUIP. 1,480.00
1100031013800101 POLICE-PATROL MAC.&EQUIP. REPLACE. 740.00
1100031013800501 POLICE-PATROL VEHICLE-REPLACEMENT 40,000.00
1100031014800100 POLIC~-INVEST. MAC. & EQUIP. 1,110.00
110031020800300 SHERIFF COMM. EQUIP. 7,000.00
1100031040950054 E911 MISC. IMPLEMENTATION 980.00
1100032011601400 FIRE/RESCUE SUPPLIES 2,000.00
1100032011800300 FIRE/RESCUE COMM. EQUIP. 2,500.00
1100032011900700 FIRE/RESCUE ADP EQUIP. 5,000.00
11000 1000312700 ENGINEERING PROF. SERV.-CONSUL. 3,500.00
11000 1000331100 ENGINEERING REP.&MAINT.-EQUIP. 150.00
11000 1000331901 ENGINEERING DETENSION BASINS 1,500.00
11000 1000550400 ENGINEERING TRAVEL-EDUC. 1,000.00
11000 1000600100 ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 300.00
11000 1000800200 ENGINEERING FURN. & FIXTURES 800.00
11000 2040390001 SOLID WASTE KEENE 210,912.00
11000 2040390010 SOLID WASTE CURBSIDE RECYCLING 95,000.00
11000 2040510430 SOLID WASTE TIPPING FEES 1,707.00
11000 3000160805 STAFF SERVICES SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 5,000.00
11000 3000331200 STAFP SERVICES REP.&MAINT.-BLDG 45,500.00
11000 3000332200 STAFF SERVICES MAINT. CONTRACT-BLDG 12,050.00
11000 3000550400 STAFF SERVICES TRAVEL/EDUC. 150.00
11000 3000600700 STAFF SERVICES REP.&MAINT.-SUPPLIES 1,200.00
11000 3011800700 VPA-MANAGEMENT ADP EQUIP. 5,400.00
11000 3012800201 VPA-BENEFITS FURN.&FIXT.-REPL. 32,600.00
11000 3012800700 VPA-BENEFITS ADP EQUIP. 8,800.00
11000 3013540100 VPA-SERVICES LEASE/RENT-EQUIP. 300.00
11000 3013571103 VPA-SERVICES SSBG-PURC. OF SERVo 1,500.00
11000 3013800201 VPA-SERVICES FURN.&FIXT.-REPL. 1,650.00
11000 9000563000 CONTRI.-HUM.DEV. DISTRICT HOME 6,061.00
11000 1010312700 PLANNING PROF. SERV.-CONSUL. 2,600.00
1100081010312701
1100081010350000
1100081010390000
1100081040350000
1100081040800200
1100081040800300
1100081040800700
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
ZONING
ZONING
ZONING
ZONING
DIP CONSULTANTS
PRINTING & BINDING
PURC. OF SERVICES
PRINTING & BINDING
FURN. & FIXTURES
COMM. EQUIP.
ADP EQUIP.
5,000.00
2,100.00
30,260.00
2,300.00
3,000.00
1,800.00
2,300.00
TOTAL
$575,070.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2100051000510100 FUND BALANCE $575,070.00
TOTAL
$575,070.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
FINANCE
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
5'- gd-;r3
/(}-6 -7~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
J 0 I "/?
AGENDA ITLE:
Appropr ation Adjustment - eIP
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
C'7 ~-
7/, Jtlh.. 5> ') ")
INFORMATION:
ACTION: -1L-
SUBJECT PROPOSAL RE UEST:
Request Board action to "deappropriate"
$$42,46 .18 from the Broadus Wood eIP
Project.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
:
Huff, Breeden, Ms. Higgins
REVIEWED BY z
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGR
As the
$42,46
"deapp
availa
throug
projec
it wil
UNO:
Broadus Wood Elementary School Renovation Project comes to a close, it is known that
.18 will not be needed from the current 1993-94 CIP appropriation. Action to
opriate" this balance will return these funds to the eIP fund balance and make them
le for planning purposes to be used in funding the 1994-95 eIP now making its way
the Planning Commission. This process is in response to Board concern on previous
s that money should be returned to the eIP fund balance as soon as it is known that
not be needed.
RECO
Staff
that appropriation adjustment #930022 be approved.
93.142
;::: 1
I [~@ ~ n w ~ Ii
l r--
.i( ;.
Hi o.
l
l~OARD OF SUPERVISO.. _
It
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930022
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
CAPITAL
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
TMENTS TO BROADUS WOOD PROJECT.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
60201343105 MOBILE HOME RELOCATION ($10,000.00)
60201580000 MISC 10,000.00
60201800200 FURNITURE & FIXTURES (25,000.00)
60201800605 CONSTRUCTION (57,466.18)
60201800670 UTILITIES (50,000.00)
60201800750 PURCHASE OF LAND (50,000.00)
60201800903 ASBESTOS REMOVAL (30,000.00)
60201800950 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 100,000.00
60201999999 CONTINGENCY 70,000.00
TOTAL
($42,466.18)
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2100 51000510100 CIP FUND BALANCE ($42,466.18)
TOTAL
($42,466.18)
**** *******************************************************************
APPR SIGNATURE
DATE
REQU
COST CENTER:
ENGINEERING
OF SUPERVISORS
~-fe)-93
/tj-b--y3
DIRE OF FINANCE
)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
, \> t ~),\::D 1,\~J,~~~;:f.'::
j(;-I-(;~
---...--....,..,-...----''''-..-----......
: Reappropriation of FY 92/93
Projects
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION: X
ITEM HUMBER:
9:;, / ()() 0' , s<;zj
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT P
reappropr
committed
to
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
:
Huff, Breeden
BACKGRO
The Stor
1993.
Fund has a number of ongoing projects which were uncompleted at June 30,
DISCUSSI
Total a
$1,119,9
uncomple
to comp1
N:
ropriations for stormwater projects in FY 92/93 were $2,570,286.44, of which
0.22 was expended leaving a June balance of $1,450,316.22. A review of the
ed projects based on current estimates shows a need to reappropriate $1,375,357.55
te these projects.
the adjustments from revised estimates of uncompleted projects and this
iation, the Storm Water Fund will have an unallocated fund balance of $69,179.99
for future capital projects.
RECO ATION:
Staff re ommends approval of reappropriations in the amount of $1,375,357.55 as detailed on
attached Appropriation Form #930023.
~ ~ tll~'
!!.; Ii
93.146
.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930023
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
STORM WATER
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
ROPRIATION OF STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FROM FY 92/93.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
41000950093 ENGINEERING STUDY/PLAN $133,693.65
41034800975 BERKMAR DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS 15,506.21
41035312400 FOUR SEASONS PROF. SERVICES 14,914.54
41035800975 FOUR SEASONS IMPROVEMENTS 75,085.70
41036312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PROF. SERVICES 1,546.45
41036360000 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE ADVERTISING 300.00
41036800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PURCHASE OF LAND 3,000.00
41036800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 85,100.00
41039800975 LICKINGHOLE IMPROVEMENTS 875,712.90
41040800975 BERKELEY IMPROVEME~TS 2,372.50
41041800975 LYNCHBURG RD IMPROVEMENTS 17,500.00
41043800975 FOUR SEASONS IMPROVEMENTS 20,000.00
41046800975 BERKSHIRE IMPROVEMENTS 1,700.00
41049800975 WOODBROOK IMPROVEMENTS 26,000.00
41050800975 WINDHAM/JARMAN IMPROVEMENTS 82,075.60
41051800975 FIELDBROOK IMPROVEMENTS 1,850.00
41052800975 LLOYD/STRICKLANDIMPROVEMENTS 19,000.00
TOTAL
$1,375,357.55
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2910 51000510100 FUND BALANCE $1,375,357.55
TOTAL
$1,375,357.55
**** *******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF FINANCE
.9-.27-5..7
/0 -&-73
OF SUPERVISORS
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I,,! i..: t
!D'-/ -7,
. -'77
AGENDA T TLE: Appropriation of Federal
Grant 93 A8041J
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION:
x
ITEM NUMBER:
f'f I C{),~ . -;-S-S
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
study
Intake Processing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
---
ATTACHMENTS:
Huff, Breeden
The over-representation of minorities in correctional institutions in the U.S.
lly come to the forefront. Research regarding juvenile processing indicates that in
tances race and other extra-legal factors may make a difference in outcome decisions
while i others they do not. The Albemarle Charlottesville Court Services Unit proposes to
examine the impact of race, sex, and social class on juvenile court dispositions. This Grant
is dire tly related to the Intake Processing Study.
ON: This Grant will be administered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
County designated as fiscal agent. The County will receive funds and immediately
m on to the Court. The Court will perform the required services and file all
le State reports. The Grant is for $18,781. There is no local match.
ATION: Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the Grant as detailed on
ation Form #930025.
93.127
ITOOo ffi@ ~.'.[j\W-. IC~1.'
.'! u!
': 1993 ~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-
...
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FIS L YEAR
TYP OF APPROPRIATION
93/94
NUMBER
930025
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GRANT
OF APPROPRIATION:
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTAKE PROCESSING GRANT.
XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1152 29402312700 CONSULTANTS $18,525.00
1152 29402600100 SUPPLIES 256.00
TOTAL
$18,781. 00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2152 33000330402
DCJS GRANT-INTAKE PROCESSING
$18,781.00
TOTAL
$18,781. 00
**** *******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF FINANCE
~-.:;l..--?'J
,
/C~6-73
OF SUPERVISORS
.. /
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/6- /- ';i?J
AGENDA ITLE: Appropriation of Federal
Grant 93-A8040J
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ACTION:
x
ITEM NUMBER:
9" /(;ot ",Sr
INFORMATION:
Recidivism
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Huff, Breeden
The over-representation of minorities in correctional institutions in the U.S.
lly come to the forefront. Research regarding juvenile processing indicates that in
tances race and other extra-legal factors may make a difference in outcome decisions
others they do not. The Albemarle Charlottesville Court Services Unit proposes to
the diversion and aftercare services of youth in this Court system. This Grant is
related to the Recidivism Reduction Program.
ON: This Grant will be administered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
County designated as fiscal agent. The County will receive funds and immediately
m on to the Court. The Court will perform the required services and file all
le State reports. The Grant is for $31,640. There is no local match.
ATION: Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the Grant as detailed on
ation Form #930026.
93.129
ill
:~ ,~
BOARD OF SUPERViSe
'-
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCI\L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930026
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE~TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GRANT
PURPPSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUND NG OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION PROGRAM.
~XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
1152 D29401312700 CONSULTANTS $31,440.00
1152D29401600100 SUPPLIES 200.00
TOTAL
$31,640.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2152P33000330401
DCJS GRANT-RECIDIVISM
$31,640.00
TOTAL
$31,640.00
**** *******************************************************************
REQU~STING COST CENTER:
APPR(~VALS :
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRE(~TOR OF FINANCE
BOARI OF SUPERVISORS
~~~~.-LI~
at 7 -
. - ...d tr./ ::'UA1
?-~~ -;r~
/d--/ --95
/
/ ,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,~tSU
\I .ju - / ~ (/ .,
........,.'V.~'"_.~", ',___....~,
i '" "~(:-: ,"Afj' :~ "
-., ~"'.'-'..- ~,
of Federal DW
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
cJ;llOOl ~-S--~
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X
SUBJECT
Microcom
Purchase of
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
-
STAFF CO
Messrs.
The shared usage and hardware limitations of the microcomputer located in the
epartment results in inadequate review of crash and other vehicular data. The
of a new microcomputer will allow timely updating and reporting of information. It
ved that the additional information will be useful to analyze various alternatives
encouragement of increased seat belt usage.
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
Police
purchas
is beli
for the
DISCUSSI The computer will cost approximately $1,925. It will be purchased using $1,500
in Feder 1 funds with the balance of approximately $425 funded by the County from the Police
Departme t's existing budget.
RECOMME ATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the grant and approval of the appropriation
as detai ed on Appropriation Form #930027.
93.128
1000 ~ @ ~ f \'II ~ m,l
I. r-::;:l ~ '.l
..~:J
BOARD OF SUPf~vlsORsl
"
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FIS 93/94
NUMBER
930027
TYP OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADV RTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUN
GRANT
OF APPROPRIATION:
OF FEDERAL DMV GRANT FOR PURCHASE OF MI~RO COMPUTER.
EXPENDITURE
COS CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*** ********************************************************************
115 031143800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $1,925.00
TOTAL
$1,925.00
2153 33000330305
2153 51000512004
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
DMV GRANT-FEDERAL
TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
$1,500.00
425.00
TOTAL
$1,925.00
**** *******************************************************************
COST CENTER:
POLICE
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF SUPERVISORS
C}-' -..;2L:') -9...7
""
/t;-?-/3
DIRE OF FINANCE
~
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/(J-/n(I-~
AGENDA IT.LE: Reappropriation
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
9~ / C~ f ,s-rr'
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
SUBJECT PROPOSAL RE UEST: AHIP / CDBG Grants
Housing Rehabilitation Crozet Crossing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
The Crozet Crossing grant was awarded for $300,000 with a $300,000 local match.
The Boa d of Supervisors appropriated and transferred $40,000 during the 1990/91 fiscal year
and $5 0,000 during the 1991/92 fiscal year. Expenditures prior to July 1, 1993 totalled
$545,6 9 leaving the balance of $54,351 to be reappropriated.
:
Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF C
Messrs.
The Alb
with a
during
contri
balanc
marle Housing Rehabilitation Program Grant was awarded October 22, 1991 for $500,000
317,820 local match. The Board of Supervisors appropriated and transferred $747,294
he 1991/92 fiscal year with the balance of $70,626 included in the $268,502 1992/93
tion. Grant expenditures prior to July 1, 1993 totaled $378,864.33 leaving the
of $121,135.67 to be reappropriated.
DISCUSSION: The Crozet Crossing project is scheduled to be completed soon and the
Rehabilitation Grant is scheduled to be completed in October 1993.
RECOMME ATION: Staff recommends approval of the reappropriation as detailed on
Appropr'ation Form #930028.
93.126
ffi~@~iO,:~,ID
QOARD OF SUPERVISORS\
"J .
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
OSE OF APPROPRIATION:
PROPRIATION OF FUNDING FOR HOUSING REHABILI~AION AND CROZET CROSSING
TS.
EXPENDITURE
COS CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
93/94
NUMBER
930028
OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADV RTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
AHIP
1122481027563110
1122481027563120
AHIP/CDBG HOUSING REHABILITAION
AHIP/CDBG CROZET CROSSINGS
$121,135.70
54,351. 00
TOTAL
$175,486.70
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2122 33000330081 HOUSING REHABILITAION GRANT-FEDERAL $121,135.70
2122 33000330082 CROZET CROSSING GRANT-FEDERAL 54,351.00
TOTAL
$175,486.70
**** *******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
FINANCE
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF SUPERVISORS
.:?.- 2t!J - .?....7
/J -~ -73
TOR OF FINANCE
\.
.
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
() -- / Y/L.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA T
Demonstr
Watershed Project (DWP)
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
/7"
",/' ',lfl,;" C<' 9
/ ! i ;,JL/.J.." , JJ /
<i4,/Cflf,;, :-'1. C.
INFOIQ(ATION:
ACTION: X
SUBJECT
DWP Memo
Appropri
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
ATTACHMENTS: Yes (2)
REVIEWED BY:
Hirschman
BACKGRO
Albemarl has a CIP for a Master Drainage study to identify and correct drainage
problems from existing and future development in the County/City/University shared Moores
Creek d ainage basin. The City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia are
collaborating on this study. This is the first phase of the County-wide effort to address
runoff ality and quantity issues in a systematic fashion. Also, the study is addressing
stormwat r quality issues in the County and City in anticipation of complying with future
Federal and State criteria for stormwater discharges from municipalities.
In conju ction with this study, the Albemarle County Engineering Department submitted a grant
application to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Division of Soil and
Water Co servation under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The application submitted by
Albemarl County proposes to augment the Moores Creek drainage study by expanding the scope
of the technical work, supplementing the water quality monitoring program, promoting
voluntar adoption of agricultural and forestry practices to reduce runoff pollution, and
implemen ing educational programs to include area schools and the general public. To perform
this wor , the Engineering Department requested $51,750 in Federal funds. This entire amount
was gra ted by EPA. The outcome of the project will be an enhanced public awareness of
runoff p llution issues and a cross-jurisdictional capacity to address identified problems.
DISCUSSI N:
The fund were granted by EPA and no local match is required. The grant will be administered
by the irginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). DSWC will reimburse the
County f r expenses incurred to carry out the tasks outlined in the grant application. This
request is to set up the expenditure cost center to spend $51,570 on this "Demonstration
Watershe Project," all of which will be reimbursed by DSWC. To formalize the receipt of
this gra t, the County must sign a Memorandum of Agreement with DSWC.
RECOMME
Staff r commends the appropriation of $51,750 for the "Demonstration Watershed Project,"
understa ding that this entire amount will be reimbursed by the Virginia Division of Soil and
Water C nservation. It is also recommended that the Chairman be authorized to sign the
Memorand m of Agreement with the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
m~&n:~oo
93.136
;{
80~'~, <~
_,:UPERVISORs
..-
..
,
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FIS 93/94
NUMBER
930029
TYP OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
?
YES
NO
x
GRANT
OF APPROPRIATION:
FOR DEMONSTRATION WATERSHED PROJECT G~NT.
XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1154041055950012 DWP GRANT $51,750.00
TOTAL
$51,750.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2154 33000330310
WATERSHED PROJECT GRANT
$51,750.00
TOTAL
$51,750.00
**** *******************************************************************
REQU STING COST CENTER:
APPR
ENGINEERING
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRE TOR OF FINANCE
;P- 2'<;j'- ~
/J-6 -7)
I'
BOAR OF SUPERVISORS
~.- -
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
E:
Mr. George St. John - Albemarle County Attorney
David Hirschman - Water Resources Manage~
September 23, 1993
MOA with DSWC for Demonstration Watershed Project
P ease find enclosed an unsigned Memorandum of Agreement between the Virginia
D partment of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
( SWC) and the County of Albemarle. The MOA applies to a Demonstration Watershed
P oject that was a grant application submitted to DSWC by the County Engineering
D partment. The MOA must be signed by a County representative in order for us to receive
th grant funds. Attached to the MOA are the project workplan and budget, as requested in
th cover letter from Deborah Southard of DSWC. This item is on the Board's agenda for
o tober 6. Please review the MOA at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much.
A PROVED AS TO FORM:
1Je~)/
Geor
/
Aer-t8~ 4J
Date
Edward H, Ba n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
David p, Bow rman
Charlottesvil e
Charles $, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
David Hirschman
Water Resources Manager
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~~
TE:
October 7, 1993
BJECT:
Memorandum of Agreement with the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation
At its meeting on October 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
thorized the Chairman to execute a Memorandum of Agreement
b tween the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
D'vision of Soil and Water Conservation and the County of
A bemarle. Attached are three signed original agreements.
P ease provide this office with a copy of the agreement after it
h s been signed by the Director of Soil and Water Conservation.
C:mms
tachments (3)
Jo Higgins
Melvin Breeden
Richard E. Huff, II
Robert B. Brandenburger
*
Printed on recycled paper
.. .
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Agreement Number - CI99-319-94-5
's agreement made as of this 1st day of October, 1993, by and between the Virginia
D artment of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, herein
r ferred to as the "Party of the First Part" and the County of Albemarle, herein referred to as
" arty of the Second Part. "
e parties of this agreement, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations set out
h rein, agree as follows:
SCOPE OF SERVICE:
e Party of the Second Part shall provide the service to the Party of the First Part set forth in
A chment A, the terms of which are incorporated herein.
TIME OF PERFORMANCE:
e services of the Party of the Second Part shall commence on October 1, 1993, and shall
te . ate on September 30, 1995.
time limits stated are of the essence of this agreement.
COMPENSATION:
e Party of the Second Part shall be paid by the Party of the First Part as set forth in
A chment B. Funds will be transferred to the Party of the Second Part upon receipt of quarterly
bi . ngs or at other times agreed to by the Party of the First Part. The Party of the Second Part
sh spend the funds according to the specified categories of the contract budget. Minor shifts
of the funds among categories not to exceed 10 percent may be permitted by the Party of the First
P , but in no case can the total expenditures exceed the amount provided by this contract.
ASSISTANCE:
Party of the First Part ag~~s upon request of the Party of the Second Part to furnish, or
o erwise make available to the Party of the Second Part, copies of existing non-proprietary
m terials in the possession of the Party of the First Part that are reasonably related to the subject
m tter of this agreement and are necessary to the Party of the Second Part for completion of his
pe ormance under this agreement.
1
";'~.~;~::';':-;~'::':5~~~'-?;rrn':-~~,;::}, $f~,a~"':..i::'~~'rr'.A1l7r1f1ftn~~'~"''''''~.<':''4'''''~''':'''';".(Y"'<"'~"''''"'''''''-:'''':''''.''.o7'.,,:~:..''c,;' ,;,""','","r'-~'"~",,i'''''''-'..-''','''' ,'."';',''''''.'' (';"',._","~~.. .
,.J ,
(9) ANTI-DISCRIMINATION:
DUrring the performance of this contract, the Party of the Second Part agrees as follows:
The Party of the Second Part will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin, except where religion,
sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the
normal operation of the Party of the Second Part. The Party of the Second Part agrees
to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment,
notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
The Party of the Second Part, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees
placed by or on behalf of the Party of the Second Part, will state that such Party
of the Second Part is an equal opportunity employer.
Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law ,
rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of the Section.
TIre Party of the Second Part will include the above provisions in every subcontract or purchase
order of over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor.
I
(l~) APPLICATIONS:
TJls agreement shall be govemed"'in all respects, whether as to validity, construction, capacity,
petformance or otherwise, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(11) SEVERABILITY:
Eaph paragraph and provision of this Agreement is severable from the entire Agreement; and if
any provision is declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in effect.
(1 f) CONTINGENT FEE WARRANTY:
Th~ Party of the Second Part warrants that he/it has not employed or retained any person or
persons for the purpose of soliciting or securing this Agreement. The Party of the Second Part
fUljther warrants that he/it haS not paj.d or agreed to pay any company or person any fee,
co~mission, percentage, brokerage f~, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon the
a$d or making of this Agreement. For breach of one or both of the foregoing warranties, the
A~ency shall have the right to terminate this agreement without liability, or, in its discretion or
otllerwise recover, the full amount of said prohibited fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee,
gif): or contingent fee.
3
.-
-(""-~"";'4"~"c'~I'<'X}f;'~'''''-'''~'~_'1 _ ~ "" "" "'_""~"",,,,""'....._,"','."'. "",._~,~'. ,......<^"..__,..... '.."".....~..',...<..
oJ
schedule for submittal of the quarterly reports shall be as follows:
SUBMITfAL DATE
PERIOD COVERED
January 15, 1994
April 15, 1994
July 15, 1994
. October 15, 1994
, January 15, 1995
April 15, 1995
July 15, 1995
October 15, 1995
October 1 - December 31, 1993
January 1 - March 31, 1994
April 1 - June 30, 1994
July 1 - September 30, 1994
October 1 - December 31, 1994
January 1 - March 31, 1995
April 1 - June 30, 1995
July 1 - September 30, 1995
In witness whereof the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by the following duly
au orized officials:
TY OF THE SECOND PART
PARTY OF THE FIRST PART
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
This agreement has been reviewed by the staff
of the Party of the First Part. Its substantive
terms are appropriate, and sufficient funds
have been obligated for its performance.
By:
Ti e: (!;JlltA ;'H-Il
......~.:lIl':."O::'.~..".:.....__~
Title: Director, Div. of Soil and Water
Conservation
(Jl,bk 1/ /'1 Y3
.
Date:
5
I
01
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
0\ VI .J:>. W tv ......
.
t;l en t;l en t;l 9 t;l (j-
"l:l "l:l o 9
0 0 ~ ~ 0 0
- 0 ::s en en"l:l
:2' ::s 0 ::s ~ ..... 7-
en - en ..... 0'Cl eno
0 0 0 0 .g S'::s ::r9
>; >; "l:l >; 5'~
"l:l .-+ ~ ~ ~ 0
@ ~ 3 ~ O'Clo. ('1) g
en (') c: .-+ 0. "l:l ..... '"C<fJ
0 ::r;:;' 0 a 3
::s o ..... >; 0. a ::1.
S" >; I en ..... 0'Cl'E,.
~ 3 ::r tf> 0'Cl (')
.-+ 8- tf> PJ 0 PJ c:
o' o 8- 0 3 3 -
::s I 3 3 a
>; ..... ~ g
tf> Fr~ ..... e!.
- ..... ::s
en ::r8- 0. ~ .-+
- 0 .-+ (') -
0; o c: 0 tf>
::r .....
"l:l (') (') -
0 8- 0 -<
~ - 3
~ .....
"l:l .-+ (')
..... c:
a 0 ..... c:
(') (')
::s I ~ e. .....
0'Cl e. c: .-+ a
PJ "l:l ..... -
0 "l:l e!.
3 "l:l 0. ::s ::r
en ~ ~ 3 '<: to
tf>
0 rr ..... ~
~ (')
::s .... ft e. '"C
tf>
"l:l ::1. - tf>
>; 0' e. ~
<2. c:
>; tf> 0 tf>
~ - .....
en 0' 0 ::s
.... (') 0'Cl 0'Cl
::r >; .....
8 ! (')
- e.
en
~ [
0.
0'Cl
a
.. c:
"l:l
f.I>
o
::s
0'Cl
o
5'
0'Cl
00
-
\0
.J:>.
VI
-
\0
.J:>.
.J:>.
-
\0
.J:>.
.J:>.
-
\0
.J:>.
\0
-
\0
.J:>.
i
.. .
. ,
ATTACHMENT B: PROJECT BUDGET
B dget Item County/City. 319 Funds.. Total
C BJECTIVES 1 & 2
C onsultant study:
(a) hydrologic study & 115,000
computer model
(b) ordinance 15,000
consolidation 130,000
) dministrative expenses for 1,500 1,500
) dvisory Committee (travel
r imbursement, printed
n~terials, miscellaneous)
1 raining for staff: seminars, 1,000 1,000
cpnferences
( raduate Student Stipends: 2,500 2,500
1 students for 1 semesters
a~ $2,500/student/semester
( ther Expenses: phone, 2,000 2,000
cppying, postage, report
r roduction, graphics
~UBTOTAL 130,000 7,000 137,000
OBJECTIVE 3
nata Acquisition 1,000 1,000
raining for Staff 1,000 1,000
( raduate Student Stipend: 5,000 5,000
student for 2 semesters
I MP Implementation 20,000 20,000
(estimated TJSWCD
Cost-Share
appropriations)
(~ther Expenses: phone, - 1,600 1,000
wpying, postage, graphics
~UBTOTAL -- 20,000 8,000 28,000
(~BJECTIVE 4
*onitoring component of 35,000 8,500 43,500
(onsultant study + additional
l~boratory expenses
~ .
. .
* Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville have appropriated funds to the project for FY 92-93
and FY 93-94. The city and county appropriations will be spent during the time period 3/93 until the
end of FY 93-94. See Appendix C for more information on approved city and county funds for the
project.
** Any funds obtained through the 319 Program will be spend during the grant period of October 1,
1993 - September 30, 1994. Of the city and county contributions, $60,000 will be spent during this
grant period. The local cost share is based on this $60,000 figure. See Appendix C.
** The $200,000 figure is made up of the county contribution of $90,000 for FY 92-93, county
contribution of $60,000 for FY 93-94, a city contribution of $30,000, and an estimated Thomas
Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District expenditure of $20,000 in the watershed for BMP
implementation.
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/U - I -1 _3
AGENDA
School
IT.LE:
ivision Grant Appropriations
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
SUBJECT
Request
separat
#930032
PROPOSAL RE UEST:
to appropriate $125,902.94 for four
school division grants (#930030,
#930033, and #930034).
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
1'-, 1M: t ,f?c/
:f-'7;J..(CL~1 5'("J{
tKJo'ORMATION:
1'1- /Mfr, ,~-ft;1
n, /i{)\~ ,.:;"Z'i
INFORMATI6N:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF C
Messrs.
:
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
the attached appropriations was approved by the School Board on September 13,
Carl Perkins Grant
$36,653.33
This is a continuing grant from FY 92/93 and will be
primarily used to purchase computer equipment at AHS,
WARS, and Murray High School. #930030
Adult Education Grants
$71,269.00
Funding will pay for the position of Regional Adult
Education Specialist to plan and carry out training for
instructors, provide services to adults working towards
a high school diploma or GED. #930032
Title II Grant
$10,382.32
Funds will be used to develop a packet of math/science
assessment tools for teachers and parents. #930033
.
Drua Free Schools/Communities Act Grant
$7,598.29
Funds will provide education and staff training for the
prevention of substance abuse. #930034
RECO ATION:
Staff r commends approval of appropriations as detailed on attached Forms #930030, #930032,
#930033 and #930034.
93.153
SI:fOS/AH3dn
I €6b! ---. i i ;i
rn ~ lA\ U ~ @ !tW;
...
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930030
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GRANT
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
ROPRIATION OF FY 92/93 BALANCE ON CARL PERKINS GRANT.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
1320 61190115000 SALARIES-CLERICAL $1,792.40
1320 61190210000 FICA 108.98
1320 61190221000 VRS 203.62
1320 61191800101 MAC/EQUIP-REPLACEMENT 17,941.83
1320 61192601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES 180.00
1320 61191800101 MAC/EQUIP-REPLACEMENT 6,077.81
1320 61192800101 MAC/EQUIP-REPLACEMENT 10,348.69
TOTAL
$36,653.33
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2320 51000510100
2320 33000330107
CARL PERKINS GRANT-FUND BALANCE
CARL PERKINS GRANT
$20,226.83
16,426.50
TOTAL
$36,653.33
**** *******************************************************************
REQU
APPR
SIGNATURE
DATE
COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
OF SUPERVISORS
~~'/? ~~-
cried lJ! (jrk^J
9'-"?eJ - 9 ?
/d ~~; -73
DIRE OF FINANCE
FISC L YEAR
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
93/94
NUMBER
930032
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
SCHOOL
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
PRIATION FOR REGIONAL ADULT EDUCATION SPEC~ALIST GRANT, GENERAL
EDUCATION GRANT AND ADULT BASIC EDUCATION GRANT.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
61118111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT $17,500.00
61118115000 SALARIES-CLERICAL 3,531.00
61118210000 FICA 1,609.00
61118221000 RETIREMENT 2,389.00
61118231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 1,109.00
61118232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 42.00
61118520000 COMMUNICATIONS 1,000.00
61118550100 TRAVEL 3,000.00
61107112100
61107210000
61107111400
61107112100
61107115000
61107210000
61107221000
61107231000
61107232000
61107360000
61107550100
61107580500
61107601300
SALARIES-TEACHER
FICA
7818.86
598.14
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-CLERICAL
FICA
RETIREMENT
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
ADVERTISING
TRAVEL
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
RE/EDUC SUPPLIES
3911.13
20981.5
882.67
1971. 82
544.9
332.64
12.6
400
964.74
870
1800
TOTAL
$71,269.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
24000240252 ADULT EDUC SPEC GRANT $30,180.00
24000240240 GENERAL ADULT EDUC GRANT 8,417.00
24000240225 ADULT BASIC EDUC GRANT 32,672.00
TOTAL $71,269.00
*******************************************************************
COST CENTER:
FINANCE
OF SUPERVISORS
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
~~'/9~
~/h lei ~:z~(:}
9-.70- 93fT
/6 -,6 -;Y-)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930033
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GRANT
PURP SE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUND NG FOR TITLE II GRANT.
XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
1320 61101152100 SUB WAGES-TEACHER $2,000.00
1320 61101160300 INSTRUCTIONAL STIPEND 1,000.00
1320 61101210000 FICA 153.00
1320 61101312500 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000.00
1320 61101350000 PRINTING/BINDING 847.00
1320 61101601300 EDUC/REC SUPPLIES 4,382.32
TOTAL
$10,382.32
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
1320 33000330208
CARL PERKINS GRANT
$10,382.32
TOTAL
$10,382.32
**** *******************************************************************
REQU
COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRE
OF FINANCE
5?- .!Ii' e:I ~..:3
OF SUPERVISORS
/d-& ~~?
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930034
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GRANT
OF APPROPRIATION:
FOR DRUG FREE SCHOOLS/COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES ACT GRANT.
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
1310 61101601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES $3,033.82
1310 61311580000 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00
1310 61311580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 2,000.00
1310 61101601300
1310 61311580000
INST/REC SUPPLIES
MISCELLANEOUS
1,300.00
264.47
TOTAL
$7,598.29
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2310 24000240500 DRUG FREE SCHOOLS $6,033.82
2310 51000510100 COMMUNITIES ACT GRANT-FUND BALANCE 1,564.47
TOTAL
$7,598.29
**** *******************************************************************
REQU
COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRE
OF FINANCE
~-:?e:1 -f ~
OF SUPERVISORS
/O~6; -93
GQUWTl OF ~B~
.~,;,~t, ;(!jl'~"~ ,~ .'" t'\ ~"l<' "'~' ,
~':( \', .' ~,_~~.7'. _.",' ~".- '~ ':: ~~
,,',ld~ ._, 'd"'H~,;
:.(:.i ~r:) ~o lqQ~ ~I..'" If._~....
't \ \ It \.,
.....\ 1 .).. / \~ '~
[. . ,:,- -'.; >'iilI'.'{" ,rJj
Vlo:' .-, -~,'J-f"~...' ,~ ':+""".,JHi'
iY{.~;l:r:i'l';~ ~"it'u
ALBEMARLE COUN1Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
September 17, 1993
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert W. Paskel, Division superintendent~
Request for Appropriation
At its meeting on September 13, 1993 the School Board approved the
llowing:
. The reappropriation of the remaining fund balance for the Carl
Perkins Vocational Grant. Carl Perkins Vocational Grant had a fund
balance of $20,226.83 at the end of the 1992-93 fiscal year. The
funds will be used to purchase computer equipment for Albemarle High
School's vocational department, educational supplies and clerical
expenses.
. The reappropriation of the Carl Perkins Grant. At its December 14,
1992 meeting, the School Board accepted funds for the Carl Perkins
Vocational Grant in the amount of $105,399.00. Of this grant
money, Albemarle County Schools received $88,972.50. Of the money
received, $68,74.67 was expended during the 1992-93 fiscal year.
Reappropriation of the $20,226.33 fund balance has been requested
above. In addition to the $20,226.33 reappropriation, an amount of
$16,426.50 can be appropriated for the 1993-94 fiscal year from the
original amount. These funds will be used to purchase computer
equipment for ARS, WARS, and Murray High School.
. The appropriation of the Regional Adult Education Specialist Grant.
The State Department of Education Office of Adult Education approved
Albemarle County Schools' application for $30,180.00 in State
Department of Education funding to support the Regional Adult
Education Specialist position. This is the second year for approval
of funding for this position. The Regional Adult Education Specialist
will plan and carry out Regional Staff Development activities that
include preservice and inservice training for instructors and
administrators, plan strategies for a Regional Recruitment Plan and
provide Instructional Technical Assistance for the Adult Literacy and
Basic Education instructors in the planning district.
. The appropriation of the General Adult Education Grant (GAE). The
State Department of Education Office of Adult Education approved
Albemarle County Schools' application for $8,417.00 in State
Department of Education funding to support the General Adult Education
(GAE) Program. The General Adult Education Program provides
instructional services to meet the needs of adults who are working
toward a high school diploma.
. The appropriation of the Adult Basic Education Grant (ABE). The State
Department of Education Office of Adult Education approved Albemarle
County Schools' application for $32,672.00 in State Department of
Education funding to support the Adult Basic Education (ABE) program.
The Adult Basic Education program provides instructional services to
adults whose skills in reading, math, and other subjects are below the
8th grade level to help them improve their skills in order to prepare
for the GED exam.
R~quest for Appropriation
S~ptember 17, 1993
P~ge 2
. The reappropriation of the Title II Grant. The Title II Grant had
a remaining fund balance of $10,382.32 at the end of the 1992-93
fiscal year. The funds will be used to develop a packet of
math/science assessment tools. Training will be provided for teachers
and workshops for parents to understand the Math/Science
curriculum, rationale and techniques for higher level thinking.
. The reappropriation of Drug Free Schools/Communities Grant. The
Drug Free Schools and Communities Act was funded in the 1992-93
fiscal year. The funds were not fully expended during the 1992-93
fiscal year and the remaining fund balance of $6,033.82 will provide
education and staff training for the prevention of substance abuse.
. The reappropriation of the Communities Act Grant fund balance. The
1992-93 Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Grant had a fund balance
of $1,564.47 at the end of the 1992-93 fiscal year. The funds will
provide education and staff training for the prevention of substance
abuse.
It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation
o dinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment.
RI1P/smm
A tachment
xi-: Mel v in Breeden
Ed Koonce
Ella Carey
MOTION: Mrs. HU1l\phris
SECOND: Mr. Martin
MEETING DATE: october 6, 1993
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Alhemarle County Board of supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meeting was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of s~ervisors herehy certifies that, to the best of
each member' s knowledge, (il only public husiness matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of supervisors.
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. aumphris. Messrs. Martin. Marshall and
perkins.
VOTE:
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Bowerman
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Bowerman
County
"c.....R~R~,
! I - l ... / '" ..-----
f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA T T.LE: Accessory Apartments
(Housing Committee Report)
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
16(a)
,/?, / it! ~,;l' I~'
INFORMATION: .K
ACTION:
SUBJECT
addition
the Boar
County A
BE PRESE
CITY EXP
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Keeler, Cilimberg
BACKGRO
With re ommendation by the Housing Committee, the Planning Commission has indicated a
willing ess to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow an apartment unit as accessory to a
single- amily dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit would not count towards density
restric ions and would be available in any zoning district allowing single family dwellings.
The mat er was discussed with the Planning Commission in March, 1993 as to strategies to
satisfy the intent of the provision (Attachment 1: Staff Report of March 2, 1993). The
Plannin Commission acknowledged that such provision may not significantly improve the
low/mod rate cost housing stock, however, for additional reasons believed the measure to be
appropr'ate. As with other housing strategies, the Planning Commission has forwarded its
views t the Board together with a possible ordinance amendment (Attachment 2: Staff report
of Apri 19, 1993.) At its July 7 meeting, the Board determined that matters raised in the
March 2 staff report had not been satisfactorily addressed and requested additional
informa ion.
ON:
Board's discussion of July 7, the staff has assumed the following assignments:
sess the likelihood of conversion (See Attachment 3) together with impacts on various
" ardware" infrastructure (L e. -roads, water, sewer, etc. See Attachment 4).
2. alyze effects on population distribution and CIP implications (i.e. - predictability
provision of services on a spatial basis where density is not a controlling factor.
e Attachment 5).
3. dress administrative/interpretation and other problems as to when the accessory unit
uld "count" as a dwelling unit (See Attachment 6).
4. sess prevalence of deed restrictions/covenants forbidding apartment units in
bdivisions (not available at this time).
addition to these efforts, staff has requested that appropriate City staff be
e at the Board's October 6 meeting to discuss actual City experience in this area
kground city staff reports, see Attachment 7).
which may be of interest to the Board are found in Attachment 8.
ATION:
for information and discussion in consideration of the possible ordinance amendment.
93.144
,/rolL & ~"O, ',H rnJ, ~"".f
l,;I,U, HU ij ~/@:
, :J ;
t~~C:A~ OF S~PEFV!SOAS I
----'~....,...-......-""'-..._"....-.. i
..." ,--
:
M ORANDUM
T
A TT ACHMENT 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Albemarle County Planning Commission
\&\l-I~.v ,
Ronald S. Keele~~Chief of Plann1ng
David B. Benish~hief of Community Development
March 2,1993
Accessory Apartments
Housing Committee Report
T e purpose of this memorandum is to identify certain issues
related to the Housing Committee's recommendation regarding
"accessory apartments." This matter would normally be addressed
i the same manner as any other proposed zoning text amendment.
Ho ever, in this case, exhaustive analysis has not been
u dertaken for two reasons.
Firstly, the only reference to "accessory apartment" in the
Ho sing Committee report is in strategy (B8). No detail is
p ovided as to the need and effect of introducing a hybrid
d elling type into the rural areas and all residential districts.
That is to say, nothing in the report deals with issues as to how
this measure would function (Who would be served? How does this
affect housing costs? To what extent would real opportunities
fo affordable housing be created? Who would suffer?) .
Th refore, in this preliminary analysis, certain assumptions have
be n made. It would be appropriate and productive in responding
to this issue if the Housing Committee members could present
th ir findings and reasoning on this matter. If this is inten~ed
a key issue, then more explanation and discussion would allow
e thorough evaluation.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
P ge 2
M rch 2, 1993,
condly (if the assumptions are correct), implementation of this
rategy would theoretically double allowable zoning densities in
e rural areas and all residential zoning districts. This
tion would clearly violate maximum density recommendations of
e current Comprehensive Plan in certain zoning situations.
en confronted with a situation in which the proposal is clearly
d profoundly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff
s uniformly recommended denial of a zoning text amendment or
rsuit of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
ile you will see from the remainder of this memorandum there
e several. other issues which warrant measured and deliberate
proach to this matter, based on these two discussed issues only
I IS RECOMMENDED THAT NO DECISION BE MADE REGARDING ACCESSORY
A ARTMENTS AND THAT THE ISSUE RECEIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION
DING REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
T is would allow the Housing Committee opportunity to issue its
f'ndings as to the purpose, need, anticipated effectiveness and
o her issues favorable to the proposal. It would also allow the
Panning Commission to entertain alternatives such as doubling
d nsities of undeveloped growth area properties and expansion of
g owth areas which could serve the a similar purpose without
c allenging the rural areas nor unnecessarily disrupting family
n ighborhoods. It would provide opportunity for input on more
1 cal experience; effects of a similar measure in the City could
b better assessed. Finally, it would be consistent with the
H using Committee's recommendation that action regarding
a cessory apartments be taken by Spring, 1994.
is recognized that the Planning Commission is anxious to
dress certain strategies of the Housing Report immediately. If
lay of review is not acceptable, then, at a minimum, a panel of
unty staff should be established to provide the Commission with
mment. City staff and other governmental agencies should be
vited to participate. The Community Development division
ould attempt to identify short-and long-term implications of
ch a measure in terms of ability to plan on a spatial basis,
frastructure requirements, CIP implications and the like as
w 11 as consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
d'vision should review this proposal for consistency with the
v rious criteria of the Zoning Ordinance and Code of Virginia.
F'nally, it is strongly recommended that regardless of when the
, ,
bemarle County Planning Commission
ge 3
rch 2, 1993
mmission determines to decide this issue, special media notices
provided to inform the general public. This recommendation is
sed on two facts:
1. The City sought to restrict certain types of dwellings in
order to maintain traditional family neighborhoods. This
action would introduce a hybrid dwelling into family
neighborhoods throughout the County. Such an action may
result in a more divisive and controversial situation than
experienced by the City (see Attachments A & B);
2. Such action could be held as contrary to past County
efforts, made at public request, to ensure that areas of the
County are reserved for family-oriented residential
development (Attachment C).
STRATEGY (B8)
S rategy (B8) of the Housing Committee report states:
(B8) Allow accessory apartments in all zoning districts
(Though size and form of the provision of the accessory
apartments may be limited, every area would be inclusionary
of low and moderate income residents) .
T e housing committee identified a range of recommendations and
s rategies which together are intended to making housing costs
m re affordable in the County. The strategy for permitting
a cessory apartments in all residential districts is intended as
a means to implement the recommendation to improve the condition
a d supply of affordable housing.
is strategy was recommended based on discussions and input of
mmittee members, the City's deliberations on similar issues and
formation from various publications and reports including the
port to President Bush and Mr. Kemp on regulatory barrier to
fordable housing ("Not in My Back Yard"-Removing Barriers to
fordable Housin ).
is understood that permitting accessory apartments in all
sidential districts was perceived by the committee as a way to
crease the supply of rental units in the market; units which
pically require less cost to develop. Increasing the supply of
ntal units in the market could not only make more units
ailable to low and moderate income families, but also help
duce the market rents in the area. Accessory apartments could
so allow a means to provide housing to family members in need
assistance.
bemarle County Planning Commission
ge 4
rch.2, 1993
stated earlier, certain assumptions have been made based on
t is pretation and media items. "All zoning districts" means all
d'stricts allowing residential use by right. The following
c nstruction is offered:
· "Accessory Apartment" would be an additional dwelling unit
incorporated within the structure of the "main" dwelling
· which would not "count" as a dwelling for purposes of
density
· but could be controlled as to size and form; except that
· "accessory apartment" would be provided in all (rural areas
and residential) zoning districts (as a matter of right).
zoning ordinance contains the following definitions:
Two-Famil : A structure arranged or designed to be
cupied by more than two (2) families, the structure having only
o (2) dwelling units.
lex: A two family dwelling or a series of attached single-
mily dwellings containing two (2) dwelling units.
erefore, UNDER CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, A DWELLING WITH AN
CESSORY APARTMENT IS A "TWO FAMILY DWELLING."
CESSORY APARTMENT: TERMINOLOGY' INTENT
her definitional issues arise with the term "accessory
artment", particularly if it intended to be a dwelling which
es not count as a dwelling. These issue may manifest as
foreseen results.
Accessorv use. buildinqs. or structure is defined by the
ning ordinance as a "subordinate use, building or structure
stomarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied
the main use or building." If accessory apartment is deemed
be "customarily incidental to" the "main" dwelling, then, by
finition, it may prove difficult to confine these dwellings to
lected zoning districts (if desired). That is to say, if it is
ccessory" to'a single-family dwelling, then it would be
a cessory under all circumstance.
xt being the question as to whether or not "accessory
artment" could be specifically restricted to single-family
tached dwellings. Staff is unaware of any accessory use
. .
bemarle County Planning Commission
ge 5
rch 2, 1993
ailable to single-family dwelling which is not available to
her dwelling types. Could not there be an argument mounted
at such restriction would be discriminatory to the owner of a
plex? triplex? townhouse? particularly if accessory apartment
es not count as a dwelling.
Aoartment connotes rental as opposed to ownership and also
plies a relatively temporary occupancy. However, "if you can
nt it, you can sell it." Therefore, if not under conventional
bdivision, then under condominium regime, any "accessory
artment" may be sold. Since the unit would no longer be under
e same ownership as the "main" dwelling, it would no longer
nction as "accessory" to the main use (Would the owner of the
in dwelling be entitled to another accessory apartment?)
amendment of this type to the zoning ordinance serves to
ceive and defeat other zoning regulations and restrictions
.e-density, type of dwelling permitted in a given district).
e ordinance would be internally inconsistent. In order to
oid difficulties of interpretation and administration, it may
necessary to include qualifying language in many areas of the
dinance.
SIZE AND FORM
e Housing Committee has recommended that accessory apartments
y be regulated as to size and form. Other localities have
posed maximum floor area restrictions, locational requirements,
en restrictions on door location. Such restrictions are
nerally intended to make a two-family dwelling appear as a
ngle-family dwelling. The accessory unit receives the
scriminatory treatment.
you recall, a similar approach was recommended for mobile
mes (i.e.-siding, roof treatment, etc). Staff did not support
ch regulation sould be hesitant to endorse any "peculiar"
gulation of accessory apartment intended to hide or confine its
istence. The County has not imposed a maximum floor area on
yother type of dwelling nor restricted entry location.
aff believes the County may require the accessory apartment ~o
located within the main structure as opposed to a
eestanding shed or garage (An attached garage is considered
rt of the main structure for purposes of setback and,
erefore, would likely be susceptible to conversion to apartment
e). Likewise, adequate parking may be required.
A bemarle County Planning Commission
P ge 6
M rch 2, 1993
WHEN TO COUNT
I this section of the memo, accessory apartments are referred to
a "shadow units," not in a derogatory sense, but descriptive as
t the discussion which revolves around this question:
When would an accessory apartment count as a dwelling and
when does it remain in shadow?
e notion of not counting accessory apartments towards density
s basis in policy as opposed to practicality and sound planning
ocedures. Much ordinance regulation is based on matters of
nsity (i.e.-recreation requirements, tree canopy, secondary
cess, etc). All rezoning reports where an increase in
sidential density is sought contain comparative impact
atistics. Zoning proffers have included a specific maximum
mber of dwellings; cash proffers have occasionally been
cepted based on the number of units.
ads are sized based on the number of dwellings served. Private
ad maintenance agreements are based on the number of dwellings.
equacy of water and sewer capacity is analyzed as to demand
pressed by numbers of dwellings. School impacts are based on
e number and type of dwelling proposed.
e "shadow unit" would overwhelm this process. As intended,
adow units could be located anywhere, including existing
veloped areas where infrastructure is in place (i.e.-roads,
ter, sewer), possibly resulting in expensive upgrading.
the Commission and Board intend to endorse the shadow unit
proach,then staff should receive direction as to when to
ount" these units and when to allow them to remain in shadow.
BENEFITS OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
1 provision of accessory apartment would allow "retrofit" of
all existing dwellings with an additional dwelling unit.
Obviously, some units would be available to low and moderate
income renters.
2 The provision would allow addition of an apartment for
family members. This would include the elderly needing
assistance as well as other family members experiencing
(short or long term) economic or other distress. Some
. .
A bemarle County Planning Commission
P ge 7
M rch 2, 1993
owners would likely
suffering distress.
income groups, such
economic benefit if
or moderate income.
make the apartment available to friends
While not confined to low and moderate
a provision could be a particular
the owner or apartment occupant were low
3. Such provision would improve the income status of low and
moderate income groups by augmenting income/offsetting
mortgage payments.
4. Property values in some cases would be elevated by real (or
potential) income which could be derived from accessory
apartment.
5. Additional security could be realized through provision of
accessory apartments. Also, such units could function as
"bartered quarters," where the occupant provides certain
services in exchange for reduced rent.
6. Theoretical increase in the number of dwelling units with
use of accessory units would increase the supply of housing
in the community, expanding the opportunity of housing for
all income groups.
PROBLEMS OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
1. Allowing accessory apartments everywhere would be disruptive
to many existing single-family neighborhoods. People who
value the single-family character of their neighborhoods as
a good environ to raise children and enjoy a family
atmosphere, may view such a measure more as a social
architecture than a land use matter. Historically, the
family has been viewed as important, if not essential, to
the moral and cultural fibre of a community. Through
zoning, the County would jeopardize any certainty for
establishment of new and maintenance of existing single-
family neighborhoods.
2. Use of accessory apartments by family members only may be
short-term,if at all, and highly unenforceable. As was
discussed with mobile homes, it is doubtful that occupancy
can be limited to family members only.
3. While the provision may improve the economic status of
exiting low/moderate homeowners, new purchasers may pay in
purchase and taxes for the economic value of real (or
potential) income which could be realized, whether or not
the buyer intends to establish the unit.
County Planning Commission
4. While lower value properties may be enhanced by this
provision, higher value properties may be depressed. Not
permitting any area of the County to be devoted to
"single-family atmosphere" would devalue properties to the
extent that such an environment is desired by the general
public. Properties protected by vigorously enforced deed
restrictions could increase in value, while unprotected
subdivisions may suffer.
5. Since most dwellings constructed in the County are single-
family detached units and since developers are highly
market-responsive, new developments may be deed restricted
against accessory apartments regardless of zoning
provisions, thereby, negating much of the intended
effectiveness.
6. In certain situations the additional density potential
(additional unit) could lead to speculative purchases in
single family neighborhoods.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION
I is difficult to evaluate the differences between the intent of
t e provision and likely results. The context is not the same as
w'th the City which was seeking to restrict certain dwelling
t pes in an all-but developed community. In the County, the
p oposal is to introduce a hybrid dwelling in a community
c ntaining significant undeveloped areas. Alternatives not
a ailable to the City should be evaluated in the County
('.e.-increasing density of undeveloped properties; expansion of
g owth areas).
to the effectiveness of the proposal, only a "best guess"
enario can be provided. Based on the following, it is
ticipated that provision of accessory apartments would result
"slight to moderate" success:
1. While the objective is to increase the supply and location
of low and moderate cost housing, the County cannot require
that such units be rented to low and moderate income people.
2. The provision would primarily serve renters as opposed to
increasing opportunities for ownership.
3. Some property values could be enhanced and others depressed.
Raising property values at the lower end of the scale could
effectively exclude some low/moderate income people from
homeownership.
. .
~ .
.
A bemarle County Planning Commission
P ge 9
M rch2, 1993
4 Over time, the provision would likely be limited by deed
restriction.
5 The provision could serve to draw students into the County,
reducing incentive to the University to increase on-grounds
housing. For longer term educational disciplines (i.e.-law,
medicine) it may be desirable to purchase property and lease
the accessory apartment to offset costs.
6 Practically, review agencies would consider each lot as two
units. This would result in under-utilization on the one
hand (i.e.-water/sewer capacities) and over-development of
infrastructure on the other hand (i.e.-road category
requirements). Both of these situations would unproductively
and unnecessarily add to housing costs and infrastructure
wastage.
e Housing Committee report contains 38 other strategies, many
which can be implemented with 100% effectiveness. While the
fectiveness of the accessory apartment proposal is difficult to
edict, it is obvious that certain forces will work against it,
a d may, in fact, increase housing costs under certain
c'rcumstances.
SUMMARY
e Planning Commission will determine the need to allow
cessory apartments to provide for housing of low/moderate
come people or for some other purpose. It should be noted that
ning decisions are intended to be deliberate as opposed to
perimental, based on specific Code provisions. The County is
ligated to consider these Code provisions, one against the
her,in any amendment process. Should the Planning Commission
oose to pursue the provision of accessory apartment as opposed
other alternatives, the exhaustive analysis required by the
de will be provided. This analysis would include input from
e Zoning Administrator, Inspections Department, County
torney, City staff, and possibly other localities which have
nsidered or implemented accessory apartment provisions.
wever, at this time, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A MORE DIRECT
PROACH BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING which would avoid many of the problems
tlined in this memo.
.' .
~ .. ...
A TT ACHMENT 2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
EMORANDUM
ith further research into the issue of permitting accessory
a artments, staff has contacted the Health Department, the
irginia Department of Transportation, and other localities. The
HaIth Department has stated that their review for septic fields
i based on the number of bedrooms per structure rather than the
n mber of dwelling units within the structure. Therefore, the
t tal number of bedrooms served by the septic system will be the
b sis for Health Department review/approval. The Virginia
D partment of Transportation determined that the impact of
a cessory apartments on road design would not be significant due
t 1) the anticipated infrequency of occurrences for accessory
a artments; and 2) an accessory apartment would not necessarily
d uble the number of vehicle trips per day occasioned by a
r sidence as there would be shared services (mail, waste
d'sposal, etc.) utilized by the residence and its accessory
a artment. Concern for on-street parking can be addressed by
r quiring additional off-street parking.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and community/~~
Development ljl
April 19, 1993
Accessory Apartments (Housing Committee Report)
per the Planning Commission's directive from the March 2, 1993
rksession, staff has contacted fifteen localities as to the~r
ovisions for accessory apartments. The results of this
formal survey can be evenly divided into three categories.
e-third of the localities did not have provisions for accessory
artments, one-third allowed such units through interpretations
other provisions (such as "two-family dwellings") and the
maining localities have specific definitions and regulations
County Planning Commission
1993
or accessory apartments. A summary of those localities
ermitting accessory apartments is included as Attachment A.
enerally, the regulations have been tailored to address the
eeds and concerns of each locality and the intent of the
rovisions and the zoning districts in which accessory apartments
re permitted varies.
he Housing Committee saw accessory apartments as having possible
enefits for housing affordability and as a means to address
articular family needs. The Planning Commission also saw the
otential benefits of providing accessory housing for family
embers, caretakers, students or supplemental income for
omeowners.
lthough no final intent for accessory apartments has been
i entified, staff has prepared a proposed definition and
s pplementary regulations to guide further discussion of the
issues (see Attachment B). The proposed text assumes that
" ccessory apartment" would be allowed by right in any zoning
district permitting single-family detached dwellings.
C/RET/mem
TACHMENTS
" --
ATTACHMENT A
F~UOUIER COUNTY
[efinition:
Family - An independent subordinate dwelling unit
located on the same lot as the home of the
apartment resident's relatives.
Efficiency - An individual dwelling unit contained
within a single family residence structure or its
appurtenant and clearly subordinate to the
principal dwelling.
Zoning:
By special permit through the Board of Zoning
Appeals in the following districts: RC Rural
Conservation, RA Rural Agricultural, RR-2 Rural
(with 2 acre lot size), V Village, R-1 and R-2
Residential.
S~pplementary: Limit of 800 square feet for family and 600 square
feet for efficiency.
F~IRFAX COUNTY
Definition: A secondary dwelling unit established in
conjunction with and clearly subordinate to a
single family detached dwelling unit.
Zbning: By special permit in all residential districts
which allow single family detached dwellings.
Supplementary: Must be within main structure unless on lot
greater than two acres. Not more than 35% of the
gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit.
Not more than two bedrooms in the accessory
apartment. Only one accessory apartment per main
dwelling unit. Occupancy only for family, elderly
and disabled. Five year limit on approval.
S~AFFORD COUNTY
D~finition:
A dwelling unit which is subordinate to a
permitted single-family dwelling in terms of size,
location and appearance.
Zbning:
By-right in A-1 and A-2 Agricultural and R-1
Residential.
Supplementary: Accessory apartment shall not be occupied by more
than two persons, at least one of whom must be
related to the owner and occupant of the main
residence. Can not exceed 25% of the total gross
floor area of the main residence. Appearance
shall remain as a one-family residence.
'RbANOKE COUNTY
Definition: Defined by the intent and general standards which
states: Intent - Accessory apartments afford an
opportunity for the development of small rental
units designed to meet the special housing needs
of single persons, persons with fixed or limited
income, and relatives of families who live or
desire to live in the County. Accessory
apartments provide a degree of flexibility for
home owners with changing economic conditions
and/or family structure, while providing a
reasonable degree of protection for existing
property values. In addition, these provisions
are provided to formally recognize previously
established apartments and provide for improved
safety and physical appearance.
Zpning: By-right in agricultural districts, mUlti-family
districts, and office districts. By special
permit in R-1 Residential.
Supplementary: Owner must reside on premises. No front
entrances. Accessory apartment must be a minimum
of 300 square feet and a maximum of 25% of the
finished floor area of the principal unit. Must
be located in the principal structure unless the
lot size is greater than 3 acres and the accessory
structure meets setbacks.
J~MES CITY COUNTY
D~finition:
A separate, complete housekeeping unit that is
substantially contained within the structure of
and clearly secondary to a single-family dwelling.
The accessory apartment may not occupy more than
35% of the floor area of the dwelling.
Zl:>ning:
By-right in A-1, R-8 Rural Residential, R-2 and'
R-5 Residential. By special permit in R-1 and R-6
Residential.
S~pplementary: Need to provide off-street parking.
, ..
LINGTON COUNTY
efinition:
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) - A room designed,
arranged, used or intended for occupancy by one
person for living purposes (not transient
occupancy) which: (1) has access to bathroom
facilities; (2) direct access to common area; and,
(3) may have partial cooking facilities.
Zoning:
By-right where density permits additional units
otherwise by special permit in single-family
zoning.
S pplementary: One parking space per four rooms. Minimum of 70
square feet of sleeping space. Each SRO must have
emergency door or window and the window area must
be 8% of the floor area of the unit. Room cannot
be used by other tenant for access to common areas
of the house.
.
.
ATTACHMENT B
~.O DEFINITIONS
Jccessorv ADartments: A separate, independent dwelling unit
contained within the structure of and clearly subordinate to a
single-family detached dwelling.
~.1.34 ACCESSORY APARTMENT
a. An accessory apartment shall be permitted only within the
structure of the main dwelling to which it is accessory.
Usage of freestanding garage or other accessory structure
for an accessory apartment is expressly prohibited. Not
more than one (1) accessory apartment shall be permitted
within any single-family detached dwelling.
t. The gross floor area devoted to an accessory apartment shall
not exceed thirty-five (35%) percent of the total gross
floor area of the structure in which it is located.
c. The floor area of such accessory apartment shall not be
included in the floor area of the main dwelling unit for
calculation purposes such as 5.2 HOME OCCUPATIONS or other
like provisions of this ordinance.
d. An accessory apartment shall enjoy all accessory uses
availed to the main dwelling, except that no accessory
apartment shall be permitted as accessory to another
accessory apartment.
e. Any single-family detached dwelling containing an accessory
apartment shall be provided with three (3) off-street
parking spaces.
f. A single-family detached dwelling, whether or not
incorporating an accessory apartment, shall be deemed to be
one (1) dwelling units for purposes of area and bulk
regulations of the district in which such dwelling is
located.
g. A guest cottage shall not be deemed to be an accessory
apartment but shall be deemed to be a single-family detached
dwelling, whether or not used as such, subject to area and
bulk regulations of the district in which such cottage is
located. No accessory apartment shall be permitted withln
any guest cottage.
h The owner must reside in any dwelling to which the apartment
unit is accessory.
~ "
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
M$MORANDUM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TQ:
I
I
I
I
~OM:
I
D4TE:
I
I
RFj:
I
I
I
I
I
A~ its July 7 day meeting, the Board requested projections as to how many
aclcessory apartments could be anticipated to be established in the County.
~e following analysis is based on the City's brief experience with accessory
apartments (Based on prior comment from Zoning, the projected figures may be
10 , since conversions are currently allowed in all but the R-l and
R-2 zoned provided density is maintained).
I
I
A ~ecommendation in the initial staff report of March 2, 1993 was to assess
th~ rate of conversion of existing dwellings to include accessory apartments.
In~that memo, staff's primary recommendation was that the issue of providing
fo accessory apartments be undertaken during review of the Comprehensive
Pl n, citing among other reasons that:
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
Thf memo went on to suggest that if it was desirable to address the issue
i*ediatelY, among other things, "City staff and other governmental agencies
sh uld be invited to participate" in a panel discussion. Mr. Ron Higgins of
Ci y staff will be present at the Board of Supervisors meeting of October 6, to
pr vide a short history of the City's efforts and to answer Board questions
re ative to accessory apartments.
I
I
~E OF CONVERSION
ATTACHMENT 3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community
Development
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
September 29, 1993
Projected Conversion of Single-Family Dwellings to
Include Accessory Apartments
It would provide opportunity for input on more local experience; effects
of a similar measure in the City could be better assessed.
I
I
Si~ce adoption of the R-lA zone which provides for accessory apartments,
Ch rlottesville has experienced a conversion rate of three apartment
un ts/lOOO eligible dwellings per year. While this rate is based only on a
I
!
I
.
ge 2
ptember 29, 1993
ploying Charlottesville's experienced conversion rate together with the
unty's construction of new single family dwellings over the past five years,
s aff has projected total dwellings and accessory apartments to the end of
year 2003,
o-year experience, staff would recommend usage as the best available
formation.
P OJECTED CONVERSIONS' JANUARY 994 - J
o
~
July 1993
January 2004
Total single family dwellings
Ac essory apartment conversions
18,194
23,184
627
SP TIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CONVERSIONS
ff has also projected conversions in urban and rural locations.
erienced rural versus urban distribution of construction over the past five
rs provided projection rates.
July 1993
January 2004
RURAL
~
RURAL
URBAN
al single family dwellings
essory apartment conversions
12,731
5,463
15,481
427
7,703
200
S
Y
ten years, the County could anticipate that conversion of existing housing
ck would create about 630 accessory apartments. About 70% of these units
ld be located in rural areas which appears inconsistent with a primary goal
the Comprehensive Plan to encourage development and population within urban
as.l
As to population housed, it is anticipated that accessory apartments would
ex ibit occupancy characteristic similar to studio, one bedroom and two
be room apartments. Current population per unit for all apartments is 1.97
pe sons/unit in growth areas and 2.26 persons/unit in rural areas. In the.
'At this writing, the County Attorney has not received
ults from a title insurance company's investigation as to deed
trictionsjcovenants prohibiting apartment units in
divisions. The results of that effort could significantly
er these projections.
.
29, 1993
jected 10 year period this could represent a rural population of 965
sons and an urban population of 394 persons in accessory apartments (Total
359 persons). For comparison:
.......-................ - . .."......,.,..----...".
.....................-.....'...'.'...'.',..-.'..,..........._..-..,.,'....,.'..,-...................'.-.........".. ...."...., .,-" .
$!!~atyApa:tt1Xa~~~~ ..<~ft~t...1.6 ..y~ata)........
. --. . '. .........--.-.."'........,..
..... .,................"."...."...............
. -.' - '. -.. '--'.:";"."-'-'::'-"""-':::-'."-:-".',".'..,-:::-.,.,.,..'..,..-..<<:,'.'.,..-.........',..
.July 1993 P()p\lla.ti()l1EstllIla.#~>>..
345 persons
836 persons
364 persons
413 persons
Scottsvi11e (unincorporated)
965 persons
394 persons
RS Ijcw
~
A TT ACHMENT 4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
(804) 2%-5823
M ORANDUM
TO: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
FR M:
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
DA E:
September 29, 1993
RE:
Effects of Accessory Apartments on Existing Development
PR FACE-POLICY ISSUE
As stated in earlier staff report, a single-family dwelling with an accessory
ap rtment is by current definition, a two-family dwelling. While attempting
to avoid "duplex" units (Le. - both units of the same size) by limiting the
accessory apartment to about one-half the size of the main dwelling, it should
be oted that the existing R-l and R-2 Residential zones, are by prior
de ermination of the Board, restricted to single-family dwellings. Under
prior zoning ordinance, within rural locations, two-family dwellings were
pe itted by special use permit on the same minimum lot size required for a
s1 gle-family dwelling (i.e. - 2 acres). That provision was amended to allow
two-family dwellings by right on four acres (Le. - "by-right" density
mai ta1ned) while maintaining the special use permit provision. Under current
zo ing, two-family dwellings are available in the Rural Areas zoned only if
de ity is maintained (i.e. - two dwelling units require 4 acres).
wise, the current definition of "family" is differential as to zoning
rict (see Zoning Administrator's memo: Attachment 6). Based on these
e deliberate determinations by the Board in the past, two of which were
at public request, it would appear that it has historically been the
d's intent to reserve certain zoning districts for exclusively single-
ly usage. A specific provision of the Code of Virginia (~15.l-427) is
t residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family
" Whether or not exposing all rural and residential areas of the County
wo-family dwelling is contributory to or deleterious to this purpose is a
er of policy-decision by the Board.
29, 1993
remainder of this memo will address issues of "retrofit" of existing
elopment to accommodate "accessory apartments.
VDOT has previously stated that a low conversion rate for accessory
rtments should not have significant effect on roadways. However, it has
n VDOT policy not to accept roads which could ultimately be exceeded as to
ign capacity (i.e. - Forest Lakes North; Bentivar subdivision). If
essory apartments are uncontrolled by density, then the County would be
ble to assure VDOT that design capacity within a given subdivision would
be exceeded.
T employs the ITE TRIP GENERATION HANDBOOK to determine traffic generation
a particular type of land use. VDOT uses a trip generation of 10 vehicle
trips per day (vtpd) per dwelling for single-family detached dwelling. That
e land use code assesses a traffic generation based on "vehicles" from
gle-family areas to be about 6.3 vtpd. Assuming that an accessory
rtment would represent at least one vehicle (R-l, R-2, R-4) and as many as
vehicles (R-A, R-6, R-lO, R-15), potential trip increase could vary from
to (less frequently) as much as 600%. Staff would recommend that an
rease of 63% would likely be more prevalent than a 600% increase. Based on
t VDOT position, road capacity in a subdivision design will be based on
imum potential traffic generation. This could result in oversizing
dways or, if applicable, proffers by the developer not to include accessory
rtments. Either case would directly involve the County. Oversizing
dways would, in staff opinion, be contrary to keeping housing costs down
e antithesis of the Housing Committee's recommendation), or force
elopers to proffer out accessory apartments. This raises a legal issue __
a developer through proffer prohibit a use which the Board has
determined to be "accessory" (i.e. - subordinate and customarily incidental
1). If proffers can limit "accessory" as well as "main" uses, then
ffers can effectively involve the Board in deed/covenant restriction.
example, a developer could proffer his development would not allow
evision antennae, an accessory use, and the Zoning Administrator could be
uired to enforce what has been traditionally a deed/covenant restriction.
the Board deems accessory apartments to be accessory to the main use, what
the public purpose to be served by calling it "non-accessory" in certain
uations1 This is another "hair-splitting" situation into which the staff
ommends that the County not become entangled. That is to say, if it is
ly deemed to be "accessory" permit it in unfettered fashion; it does not;
m reasonable to allow a main use and limit or prohibit accessory uses.
SYSTEM PUBLIC SEWER
lie sewer is more "flexible" as to loading than septic system. Generally,
lie sewer capacity is limited by sewer line size and sewerage lift station
acity. However, on at least four occasions, staff has been notified that
lic sewerage capacity was unavailable. The unpredictability of additional
,
. .
Pa~e 3
September 29, 1993
dw~lling units (i.e. - by right and not attributable to density limitations)
co~ld complicate sewerage capacity allocations.
As to septic systems, the Virginia Department of Health bases septic
dr~infield size on the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit (i.e. _ 150
ga Ions per bedroom per day. Whether or not some additional capacity is
re~uired for a separate dwelling unit has not been pursued).
WArER CONSUMPTION
Ad~itional water demand would be comparable to additional sewer demand or abut
150 gallons per bedroom per day.
POPUlATION
It is anticipated that occupancy of an accessory apartment would be comparable
to that of any other type of apartment unit. Population would depend on
beJroom capacity of the unit. For all apartments, the urban occupancy rate is
1. 7 persons per apartment and the rural occupancy rate is 2.26 persons per
ap rtment unit.
SIJllMAI{Y
Wh,ther or not deemed for policy reasons to count toward density, impacts of
accessory apartment units will be real. A summary of estimates follows:
T~FFIC
S~ER/WATER DEMAND
POPUlATION
6.3 vtpd (minimum)
150 galfbedroom/day
Urban Occupancy
Rural Occupancy
1.97 persons/unit
2.26 persons/unit
RSI</jcw
,
A TT ACHMENT 5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
cessory apartment "provisions" in the ordinance may make it
mewhat more difficult to measure/estimate potential
pacts/service demands on community facilities/utilities. Most
timates/projections of service demand are derived based on the
tal number (and characteristics) of households. Presently the
mber of household can be determined with relative ease and
nsistency by equating the number of households to the number of
isting dwellings and the potential dwellings based on the
isting or proposed densities for undeveloped areas. One
elling is assumed to contain one household. With accessory
artments permitted, this assumption is less valid. It would
t ke some period of time to determine the trends for
de elopment/conversion of accessory apartments before the impacts
ca be factored into projections of service demands. How
si nificant the impact of accessory apartments are to facility
ca acity and service demand projections will be based primarily
on how significant their use will be.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community
Development
David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development
September 28, 1993
Accessory Apartments, CIP Implications
potential popularity of accessory apartments in the Rural
as could create additional service demands where the County is
empting to limit service delivery. Otherwise, as for the
ect impact to facility capacities, there is no substantial
itional impact to total services within the County since it.is
umed that the accessory apartment resident would have
erwise located in the County and affected the demand for
ices. However, again it may be difficult to predict or
esee capacity problems in particular existing facility if
e~sory apartments become very popular within a particular
ice area for a community facility.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
A TT ACHMENT 6
MEMORANDUM
0:
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator~
August 23, 1993
Accessory Apartments
nk you for soliciting our comments on any potential problems
olved with enforcing or interpreting the proposed regulations
accessory apartments.
Po ential inter retation roblems
we discussed, there are difficulties arising from the
iguous status of the accessory apartment as dwelling unit.
posed supplementary regulation (f) states that an accessory
rtment and the dwelling in which it is found would count as
dwelling unit under the area and bulk regulations. Perhaps
s should be expanded to include not just the area and bulk
ulations, but the entire Ordinance.
example, our application of the definition of "family" to
essory apartments would depend on whether the unit was
sidered a separate dwelling. If, in an R-l, R-2 or R-4 zoning
trict, a family of three lived in the main house and two
elated people shared the accessory apartment, would the two
ups of people violate our definition of "family"? If the two
ups lived together as one household, they would clearly exceed
limits of this definition.
re are other definitions in our Ordinance that would have to
changed to accommodate accessory apartments, unless it is made
y clear that accessory apartments are never to be considered
arate dwelling units. These definitions include duplex;
lling, mUltiple family; dwelling, single-family; dwelling,
-family and dwelling unit. A distinction must be made between
essory apartments/principal dwellings and duplexes, because
latter are not allowed in two zoning districts.
requirement for site plans is also tied to the number of
lling units; ~Quld accessory apartments count as a separate
23, 1993
elling for the purpose of determining whether a site plan is
quired? For example, if a citizen owns a duplex, and wishes to
d an accessory apartment to one of the duplexes, will a site plan
site plan waiver be required under Section 32.2.1(b)?
uld accessory apartments be considered separate dwelling units
r the purpose of septic disposal? Section 4.1.6 requires primary
d reserve septic fields adequate to serve a 3-bedroom house
fore a building permit will be issued. Unless accessory
artments are exempt from this requirement, it is possible that
ur septic fields would be required to serve a dwelling containing
accessory apartment. If the accessory apartment is not
nsidered a dwelling unit, a reserve field adequate to accommodate
e additional bedrooms should be required.
F' nally, accessory structures such as garages and sheds may be
b ilt closer to the property line than dwellings. We recommend
anging Sec. 4.11.2.1 to make it clear that accessory apartments
e not considered accessory structures for the purpose of reducing
tbacks. The Ordinance also limits the height of accessory
ructures to 24 feet. This may not be applicable to accessory
artments.
tential enforcement roblems
L'miting the floor area of the accessory apartment to a percentage
o the floor area of the existing building could present some
oblems. It will take longer to verify the square footage of both
e accessory and principal units than it would to check just one
asurement if the size of accessory apartments were limited to a
s t square footage. Zoning inspectors do not usually inspect
s . ngle-family homes. Inspecting accessory apartments for
c mpliance with the Ordinance would increase the workload of either
b ilding or zoning inspectors. Minor interior changes made without
a building permit could easily increase the square footage of an
a cessory apartment beyond the Ordinance limits.
Ware also concerned about conditions relating to who can live in
e'ther the accessory apartment or the primary dwelling. It is
d'fficult to prove that someone is living where they should't be:
i takes repeated, frequent surveillance. We continue to be
c ncerned about the difficulty of enforcing these regulations
w'thout some provision for notifying future owners of the property
t at their use of the accessory apartment is limited. As part of
t e permitting process, we recommend that a copy of the approval
d any conditions be put to record in the Clerk of the Circuit
urt's office.
F'nally, perhaps some thought should be given to the amount of
r view and a fee added to the fee schedule to cover the cost of
Pa~e 3
Au~ust 23, 1993
of review. If accessory apartments were allowed by special use
pe~it, rather than by right, some of the technical issues such s
ro~ds and septic fields might be better addressed. Perhaps the
Bo~rd of Zoning Appeals could review such requests, as happens in
Fa~rfax County. This could reduce the cost of review and the
ti~e taken to process applications.
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
VIRGINIA
A TT ACHMENT 7
MEMO
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
Satyendra S. Huja, Director of Planning & Community Development
Jim Herndon, Planner I~~
January 10, 1990
Accessary Apartment Data
c
.
add
According
An additional scenario that could take place is if an accessory apartment
s two bedrooms. The following formula stands true in that case.
Living space - 120 square feet
Dining space - 80 square feet
Kitchen space 50 square feet
1st Bedroom 70 square feet
2nd Bedroom 70 square feet*
TOTAL 390 square feet
* Please note that 70 square feet is used because that is the minimum size
o a single bedroom.
If 400 sq. feet is used as a maximum for an accessory apartment, no
m re than two persons would be allowed to occupy the unit.
c: Ron Higgins
Jerry Tomlin
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning Commission
Satyendra Singh Huja, Director of Planning and Community Development ~ '~'l\-
January 24, 1991
"ACCESSORY APARTMENTS" IN THE PROPOSED R-IA ZONE
Please find attached a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office
which outlines some of the issues discussed by the sub-committee on the
above subject and provides a draft ordinance to allow "Accessory
Apartments" by-right in R-1A zones.
I have also attached two ~preliminary alternatives" that were used
to stimulate discussion by the sub-committee and include other ways to
deal with some of the i~sues rai~ed by the_s~b-committee.
, , ,
I also want to take thfs opportunity to indicate to you that the
proposed draft by the sub-committee,- in my view, is contrary to the
original intent of creating R-1A~as a single-family residential lone. I
realize the need for some flexibility and would be happy to work with the
Planning Commission to find some reasonable alternative limiting the
potential number of accessory apartments, so as to not change the
character of the single family area.
Once I have reviewed the comments from each Planning Commission
member, and if there is a significant agreement with the proposed draft,
I will advertise it for the Joint Public Hearing on February 12, 1991.
But, if there are sign ifi cant quest ions, I wi 11 try to arrange another
meeting before Monday which is the deadline for the legal ad.
Please call in your comments no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday.
January 25. 1991. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me or Ron Higgins at 971-3182. Thank you.
RLH/sdp
Attachments
cc: City Council
Cole Hendrix
Ga ry 0' Conne 11
Clyde Gouldman
Craig Brown
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
M E M 0
Planning Commission
W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City Attorney v.fi~
S. Craig Brown, Deputy City Attorney~L()
Accessory Apartments in R-1A
January 24, 1991
===============================================================
The planning and legal staffs met with Ms. Bowen and Ms. Lewis
dnesday afternoon to discuss a number of issues regarding acces-
ry apartments in the new R-1A district. The following is a list
those issues, with the recommendations made by the Commissioners
attendance:
) Should the accessory apartment be allowed by right or by
ecial use permit?
By right.
many people should be permitted in the accessory
swer: Two.
( ) Is the apartment allowed only in houses in existence when the
o dinance is adopted?
single family dwellings constructed in R-1A in the
have accessory apartments.
the apartment be contained wi thin the single family
the apartment should not be in a garage or accessory
() Is enlargement or expansion of the single family dwellipg
a lowed to accomodate the apartment?
Yes.
Should the single family dwelling be required to have a lot
square feet and a floor area of 2,000 square feet in
have an accessory apartment?
No.
Planning Commission
Accessory Apartments
January 24, 1991
Page 2
) What is the maximum floor area requirement for the apartment?
400 square feet.
) What are the parking requirements for the apartment?
swer: An additional off-street space should be required for the
cessory apartment. Since the Code now requires one space for a
ngle family detached dwelling, the attached draft requires a
tal of two off-street spaces for a single family dwelling with an
cessory apartment.
( ) Should accessory apartments be prohibited when "more than 25%
the dwellings in the census block where the property is located
ntain more than one unit", as suggested by the Planning staff?
swer: No.
These recommendations are reflected in the revised drafts of
ctions 34-146 and 34-150 on the attached page. It should be
ted that the Planning Department staff disagrees with several of
e recommendations, and believes that additional restrictions on
cessory apartments are necessary and appropriate.
The R-1A accessory apartment will be advertised for the
mmission's regular February meeting. In the interim, please call
with any questions or suggestions.
Satyendra S. Huja
Ron Higgins
January 24, 1991
[R-1A ACCESSORY APARTMENT]
S~c. 34-146. Permitted uses - By right.
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-1A
D strict:
(1) Any uses permitted by right in the R-1 Residential
D strict, subject to the height, yard and area regulations set
f ~rth below. However, any two-family or single family attached
(~p to two) dwelling for which a City building permit has been
i !;sued and was at least twenty percent constructed on the site
p ior to [date] shall be considered a conforming use.
( 2) Any single family detached dwelling may contain an
ac~cessory apartment, provided that it meets all of the following
cclmdi tions :
(a) A separate entrance to the accessory apartment is
n<l>t located on the exterior front of the house;
(b) The accessory apartment is contained wi thin the
s ngle family building, which building may be expanded or enlarged
tc accomodate the apartment;
(c) The total floor area of the accessory apartment does
n< t exceed 400 square feet, and the area occupied for sleeping
p\rposes within the apartment is less than 150 square feet; and,
(d) There are at least two off-street parking spaces on
tle property.
SEC. 34-150. Area Regulations.
(1) A lot to be occupied by a single family detached
d~elling, with or without an accessory apartment, shall contain at
least six thousand (6,000) square feet.
(2) A lot to be occupied by a two-family dwelling shqll
ccntain at least seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet.
( 3 )
acres.
Cemeteries shall have a minimum site area of twenty
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
VIRGINIA
MEMO
-.,
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:
Satyendra Singh Huja, Director of Planning and Community Development
s;: ,'S". H'
DATE: _ February 4, 1991
RE: R-IA - ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with some
additional variables you may wish to consider on the above topic. This
list of variables is not what'I reco~mend, but is what has been used by
vari ous commun it i es .'," ..:1
A.
Lot Area: Many communities utilize the
reflect the increased:density :in people
consider this variable, we would suggest
be consistent wi,th,?u"r present ordinance.
'.... - - o. ~.~ . '._ - . .
minimum lot area to
per lot. I f you
7,200 square feet to
.' ..', -. :-,~";~<{ .~ . . .
B. Character of the'Conmunity - Density: Thi scan 1 imit the
number of propertie~'which may have more than single family
dwellings, so as not. to constitute a sufficient change to
modify or di srupt the 'predomi nant s i ng1 e family character of
the neighborhood. If you intend to use this criteria, we
would suggest that 25% is a reasonable number based on our'
current neighborhood data.
c. Owner-Occupancy: The City of Lynchburg and Fairfax County.
allow second unit only when one unit is occupied by the owner.
Fairfax County adopted their ordinance in 1983, whereas
Lynchburg has had it since 1960. As per your request, I have
contacted both the localities and neither have had any legal
challenges. Please note that the City Attorney has given you
his opinion recommending against this kind of requirement.
D. Elderly and Handicapped: You could limit the occupancy of one
unit at least by elderly or handicapped. Fairfax County does
this and only allows second unit by special permit.
E. Renewal Limit: Some communities require that the special
permit for second units be renewed every five years so as to
monitor the use and adjust to the changes.
Planning Commission
RE: ,R-1A - Accessory Apartments
February 4, 1991
Page Two
.
F. Buildinq Area: Many communities specify that accessory units
cannot be more than a certain percentage of the main unit.
They usually require between 25 and 35_pel:cent.
As I indicated earlier, the
protect the single family character
realize the need for flexibility,
overriding objective of this zone
modifications.
R-1A zone was primarily created to
of residential 'neighborhoods. I
but hope that_ you will keep the
in mind. as jou propose any
:... J...
We have also collected some additional data on type of units by
neighborhood that we will be happy to share with you if you so desire.
If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free
to contact me at 971-3182. Thank you.
, '
SSH/sdp
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
IlACCESSORY APARTMENTIl PROVISIONS
PREPARED FOR
PLANNING CO~1ISSION SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
JANUARY 23. 1991
1. "By-Right. Altem~tive
ec. 34-146. Permitted.Uses - By Right.
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-1A District:
(a) Any uses permitted by right in the R-1 Residential District, subject
the height, yard and area regulations set forth below. However, any
t a-family or single family attached (up to two) dwelling for which a City
b ilding permit has been issued and was at least twenty percent constructed on
t e site prior to (date) shall be considered a conforming use.
(b) Any single family detached dwelling may contain an accessory
a artment, provided that it meets all the following conditions:
(i) A separate entrance to the accessory apartment is not located on
the exterior front of the house;
(ii) The accessory apartment is wholly contained within the main
structure as it exist on (date) ;
(iii) The total floor area of the accessory apartment does not exceed
400 square feet, and the area occupied for sleeping purposes within that
unit is less than 150 square feet;
(iv) The lot has a minimum area of 7,200 square feet;
(v) One additional off-street parking space is provided;
(vi) The house has at least 2,000 square of gross floor area as of
(date) , and;
(vii) That no more than 25% of the dwellings in the census block where
the property is located contain more than one unit.
2. .. pedal Pennitll Alternative
S c. 34-147. Special Use Permit
The following uses shall be permitted by Special Permit in the R-IA
D strict:
(a) Any uses permitted by Special Permit in the R-l Residential District
s bject to the height, yard and area regulations set forth below:
(b) Any single family detached dwelling may contain an accessory
a artment, provided that it meets all the following conditions:
(i) A separate entrance to the accessory apartment is not located on
the exterior front of the house;
(ii) The accessory apartment is wholly contained within the main
structure as it exist on (date) ;
(iii) The total floor area of the accessory apartment does not exceed
400 square feet, and the area occupied for sleeping purposes within that
unit is less than 150 square feet;
(iv) The lot has a minimum area of 7,200 square feet;
(v) One additional off-street parking space is provided;
(vi) The house has at least 2,000 square of gross floor area as of
(date) , and;
(vii) That no more than 25% of the dwellings in the census block where
the property is located contain more than one unit.
....
~ .._~ .
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
City Counci 1
Satyendra Singh Huja, Director of Planning and Community Development ~.~. t\.
,
DATE:
RE:
April 11, 1991
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
~
The purpose of this memorandum is to forward to you Planning
Commission recommendations'and;::Some'';:-comments on the issues which have
been raised relating to_R:-l~_;~P.!).e:~;~o~rding and requirements concerning 8-5
zones " ..-.... .,.::,~"..i:'o..~:-;c f' '. ~~.
. ' , ,,~,~--;"fi9;";'>~J ." '-.,~ (
" i'~ f~{P;J~~-:::=~,7;f . .ii :''-:''
. '", ',. ''ll11~~,.; ;~ ~ ,-' 'f"".
1 PurDose ' ;:,,;.,.... ,~ti i', I.' , :' ," r ,';'; . ,.,., '
. _ .) ,-' 1,..11.4. I ~.t - ,'.- '.(i -~ -::...... -
~. ~-~~ ~~ 'i~~ ::.~~",
I woul d ,l,ike'1:t~:?:r;~mj\l1d:~~~Uy,!Counc'i 1 that R-1A was proposed for
stabil izing predq!itiriar:ttTy! single family areas and thus any
changes to the ordi nance; wh i ch move away from the single famil y
character would weaken:the ,original intent of single family
areas. . .,'.' ~- r:..:.~ ; l':~/"';"';'~'~"
. -
2. Accessory Units
I realize the need for some flexibility to allow accessory
units, but if the accessory unit was allowed by-right in every
unit, it will defeat the purpose of R-IA. It would more
appropriately be called R-2A. I also feel that accessory units
should be within the existing building and should be limited in
overall size and bedroom size so as to limit to no more than two
people.
3. Bv-RiQht vs. SDecial Permit
If the conditions can be defined for by-right in R-1, in a
manner so as to treat people in an equitable manner, th~n it
will be appropriate to stick to by-right. I think it is hard to
imagine all the possible conditions where accessory units might
be appropriate. For this reason, I prefer a combination of
by-right and special permit. The by-right portion could clearly
define the most likely situations (e.g. lot area - 7200 or 6000,
building area - 2200 or 1600). Furthermore, the ordinance could
allow the opportunity for special permit for accessory units
I
I
City Council
RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendments
April 11, 1991
Page Two
based upo~ the impact on the neighborhood which could consider
existing densities, ownership characteristics,' etc. Special
Permit can also be further defended as it will allow everyone
who wishes to have accessory units an opportunity to be heard.
Whereas, at the same time, the neighborhood will have an
opportunity to share their views. The March 5, 1991 draft is
one such example where you can provide flexibility with
reasonable constraints.
4. Data RelatinQ to Lot and BuildinQ Size
Attached is a table which gives you some estimates of the number-
of units under different lot and building sizes. Please note
that all estimated numbers are cumulative.
"
. 5. 'oWner OCCUDanCy
, . ~~
As' you are aware, the City Attorney has serious concerns about
making this a requirement. Besides that, enforcement of the
owner occupancy requirement will take special effort. I realize
that owner occupancy can be a positive:: benefit to the
neighborhood and property. Cities like Lynchburg and Fairfax do
have such requirements in their ordinance.
,.6. B-5 Zone
.,:~
I would highly recommend that City Council include the B-5 zone
in the proposed ordinance and map. It does not make any sense
to have B-4 and B-6 districts and notdeal~with the West Main
Street issue at the same time. The Height and Bulk controls
could have the most positive benefit along the West Main Street
corridor given the potential for new development. I also wish
to indicate to you that 'the floor area ,ratio of four to one
by-right is quite generous and -reasonable/compared to other
localities (e.g. Alexandria - 3 to 1; Norfolk - 2.3 - 5 to 1;
City of Fairfax - .74 to 1). I would request'that City Council
adopt B-4, B-5 and B-6 as originally advertised and if there are
some practical problems, they could be accommodated at a later
date.
Please feel free to contact me or Ron Higgins at 971-3182 if you have
any questions or need further information. Thank you. .
~SH/sdp
Attachments
cc: Cole Hendrix
-.....::.. '. .,
. --' -
, -....." J
,
,i l\
"
/
/
i
,
/
ATTACHMENT 2
March 5, 1991
P.M.
PRO PO ED ALTERNATIVE TO FOLLOWING SECTIONS IN THE OFFICIAL TEXT
Sec.
Permitted Uses - By Right.
he following uses shall' be permitted by right in the R-IA District:
1) Any uses permitted by right in the R-l Residential District, subject
to th height, yard and area regulations set forth below. However, any two
famil or single family attached (up to two) dwelling for which a city bUilding
permi has been issued and was at least twenty percent constructed on the site
prior to , 19 shall be considered a conforming use.
(2) Any principal structure containing as of , 1991, 2,000
squar feet of gross usable floor area as defined in the Virginia Statewide
Building Code may contain an accessory unit provided that:
(a) A separate entrance to the accessory apartment is not located on
eri or front of the house; "
(b) 'The lot has a minimum area of 7,200 square feet;
(c) The floor area of the accessory apartment sha 11 not exceed 400
square feet; , .
(d) The area occupied for sleeping purposes within the accessory
apartm nt is less than 150 square feet; and
(e) BUilding may not be. ~xpanded or enlarged to accommodate the
access ry dwelling unit.
Sec. 3 -147. . Same - With Special Use.Permit.
T e fOllowing uses shall be permitted by special permit in the R-1A
Diistri t:
() Any uses permitted by special permit in the R-l Residential District
subjec to the height, yard and area regulations set forth below:
() Any single family detached dwelling may contain an accessory
apartm nt, provided that it meets the standards otherwise applicable to special
permit and all of the following conditions:
(a) A separate entrance to the accessory apartment is not located on
rior front of the house;
(b) The accessory apartment is contained w'ithin the existing gross
floor a ea of the 'single family structure" as of , 19 , but.
the bU'lding may not be expanded or enlarged to accommodate the apartment;
(c) The total floor area of the accessory apartment does not exceed
re feet, and the area occupied for sleeping purposes within the
t is less than 150 square feet;
(d) There are at least two off-street parking spaces on the
special
(e)
permit
( f)
permit
Consideration shall be given to possible adverse impact of
approval on the single family character of the neighborhood; and
Consideration shall be given to possible adverse impact of
approval on the owner occupied character of the neighborhood.
. special
D.C.D.
3/5/91
ATTACHMENT 1
NUMBER OF PARCELS ALLOWING ADDITIONAL
UNIT BY DIFFERENT ORDINANCE CRITERIA'
Lot Area Bui 1 di ng Area~ 'Estimated
" Number
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 3,200 59
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 3,000 " 70
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling >'2,800 '145
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 2,600 221
7200 SQ. ft. w/single family dwellinq > 2.400 273
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 2,200 443
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 2,000 " 664
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 1,800 922 "
7200 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 1,600 ' 1;132
6,600 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 2,000 ~.686
6,600 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 1,800 , ": 938
6,600 sq. ft. w/single family dwelling > 1,600 ' 1 '142
., ,
I,
6 000 s . > 2 000 808
6,000 sq. > 1,800 1,006
6,000 sq. > 1,600 1:238
,.';2
Apri 1 1991
PREPARED BY
DEPARTl1ENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
f'
A TT ACHMENT 8
h:";S,~
,(.-0;':
t. (.j
~{~. j~ t ii.'
~.i;f d
-.:;.~
~~,S'
~ii\\i c: 6 l~~fJ
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Inspections
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -4596
(804) 296 -5832
[~-~~ ~ L ">, ;,.~s l(r~: ~ ~..) ,f' ;[ ~.i_..-_'_C! ~l q~,] Klt ~
' i'C1.;i!~1UE~'~~<~~ """ ~_~
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Keeler - Chief of Planning
David Benish - Chief of Community Development
From: Jay Schlothauer - Deputy Director of Inspections~
Date: January 25, 1993
Re: Accessory Apartments
My first concern, during our conversation about "accessory
apartments" at last week's Red-X meeting, was for fire separation
of the apartment. In apartment buildings, condominium buildings,
townhouse rows, and similar situations, the building code requires
fire separation between the various dwelling units. Due to the
wording of the building code definition of what is typically
referred to as a single-family dwelling, such a separation would
not be necessary if one "accessory apartment" were created within
a house.
The 1990 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code identifies the
Use Group classifications of R-3 or R-4 as pertaining to one and
two family dwellings. R-3 and R-4 are the classifications for all
attached and detached residential buildings, excluding multi-level
apartments and condominium buildings. In other words, the code
will allow two families to live in a building that has been
adequately designed for one family, with no extraordinary fire
separation measures being necessary.
Sjjs
c: Jesse Hurt
Reading File
r-\..J:::[:; "";' '~"
-p., , , GovERNMENT: '-'. ./t'~\~:;::;:..v;,t G;:\~ ,:""> '
:ii!{,l""...;"""':.,"."',._,,,',':,.,,,,,,'.,:,""'~"'{:.,:,',,' ,/\..t,i' M~ G. J l'if j, B~iiffIJR4~~':~cl)~i~f~l1:i;'ikir
','-,' .. - ',-' I ' .~,>:~:~l,"II'~>:. ,~:,~~:.j/~l:< ;':::~!t:-f~>i.'~i\:t~;'h".-::%-~~~~;: ','". ;.
i, lanners delaY' "pfopo'se'
~}o',dinance another month'"
I
.'-'<" .' .
~;;':) y MI~T~~~~~JOWE
~F;;('.:;:B CKSBURG - An ordi-
~fnance, imed at reducing noise in
~~~areas~';: oned for single-family
'~,b~,6mes:',as:,discussed at Tuesday
~p:igl1t~s, ,PlanIlingCommission
_'r,~ e.~J(1! ,,:?;;:~1;~: " '
'" "r:tlt,ls-i!'}aw,ihat, if passed, could
;;~ri~a'*~t9:ii.s~pds of lost dollars ,for
1~1sQl11e; orne owners now rentmg
~hlp'artm nts 'built onto' their
~~b.omes. ',',:- "
r;~i:;~;ift/.',it?salsoan ordinance so con-
~~}fusi~g;, at eyentown offici~ls
~don,tc mpletely understand It.
tiHfhe'Pla ning c;ommission, which
~hasbee discussing the ordinance
~:;since::' "ecember, delayed action
~'until jf )un~;meetjng and sched-
~~uled 'a'ork session for Tuesdav to
rhalk ab ut it, ~ome more. .
~<' " ,Th : proposed ordinance is
;~~omew. at,9q,mp~ex, but its main
R"l.m~nt,~ ,:to_~requlI:.e ,home o~ners
.@toll\~e}theh<?use If they WIsh to
~contIn~, rentmg the accessory
~,apartm nt.'
\~~ttr,',
. .'J'""IL__~ .......-.--- ~_......~_.'\..-_...... _. '~.-'_"''''--._:^''''''''''''''''';.:'_ ._'............;"O"':\,;\;,.II"".:;.""'-~.~ J~r
"<r:;~~i~J.~~~~:
"Dwelling units in single~unit: John Sk~lton, a,JQs~!~~~~;tfii;1
zonin~ districts that are,not owner tate, agept,:sCl;1~tthe(?.fqf'p'...,!~~e1"",~!~
occupIed, create an .unrea~on~bly would.pep~hze,m~nysi.~~" ..:~
burdensome and ~l~r.I:lPJ~v~:ll:n-, zen,s:whQ:,if,ely,on;',J.llone'
pa~t upon surr.9'~,~d.~ng:x:esld.entH~J " ':ren,t(il,tin.ir,.!\~~i':'~ ;:~Z:~~,
nelghborhoQds, >reads the,ordl::- "';,", ';:,'r"':' .' ';,t',v".,
nance, "";',;:'~';" '- :'." _',' .::~,:,. ' ,!j'One:qu.estlq,n?aq.9ti.s~!.., ",Jo
' ';'::'. ", . ..,. ,: >, .:.nance that'temains'giun'lea,
The regul(itlons dont,: st9P .' ',. '~'.-, '_:""''SJ'''r1c'.,!, ,> '8<"1'.
there. ):+:': ,'~.,' '",~;.~ ,~~(,~,~;'wh~the~::~':Vne.r~ti~!~~a~t ~g
. ;,:., ',", ""~-';";C ".~t,q both theIr,~' home';andl;fia cesso~
' The ordmance,also,says,that ""', '.",,~. ""'-"'"""',,,,"'v;';~!$:
if rcnting an aGcessory,apartment: ,'fl.P~rtmep.twIl!.b,e"al!Q~s~t~~i&{~
cause? "a ch,ange~n character" tm~e. y~,~er.a ~.a~~,f~!~;5~~~!hi;:
from Its presentus~;then the own-, . In o.ther actIon,:tl:i~';pla gEl
er would lose.,~he flghtto,rcnt theCommission:recomiriendea :~~
apartment.. ';,.;' ",,~: :.,;': " "proval:of a special~U:se'iperml '9';':i.
That m,~'~ri~~faqui~t,coui1e-' lo~ing::Blacks.bur~'s#~~~9~f ' ,
ous student~oycs fr()m,an ~cce~-' program to mov_emto.:s.~C\~c"
sory apartment; the owner wIll not Presbyterian ,church:."'-){'0ti@
~e allowed t<? r~nt to a loud, party-' '; H' 'd"'S . it d....;j~:~fl.;'f.! .,,;,:
109 student It. .,; . ". :. ea: tart, a . ~,eJ;a,);,~~~,~~;
Supporters of the proposed' ment program !or pre~c~p,?l.~~JMk;qj
law say they are tired of thc' noisy dren from low-Inc~meJaW:iJl,~fi.~~.~t9.
parties and run-down houscs in' no~ at Glade BaptIst Chu.r,S~'.;:Sq,l:t~
their neighborhoods, whileoppo- neI~bors of the c~urch:l;1~:y,~~CQ~^~i
nents say the ordinance would pe- pl~med about nOlse~1l4.t,f$~~~5,tW
nalizc every house with' anacces- '. .. Town ,CounciL wiIL,decid,+?
sory . apartment when only a few, next Tuesday whether:toappro"~''',~
cause problems. 'the; special-use permit::::;<..,",:, , -'
". .~. .' " , ,'."" .~. .;r '::'-"':-":"""~oJ
",#"
"
,-...,'~". ::';"-~.:":!'1': ~}.:,.",.'r
.:. ;:. .' ':, ' "_~:o 8 ~.:: v c i:: . .!. '<v; S 8 c-5 v
. :~.c, ',~~;(:n':~,;: e->' c'5::t:::;:: v'5 v'v ;g 'C ~ 0 ~ 0 cd Q
-,,-;,:.;,,';', :~..:;;;..;:; i':"}Cl':cdt'~ '5 '0 ;.. 8!=; ~ t:: v'- Vl v
'''~''':r-rn':'' ~~r~~'.r~.-=;:~S ~ .~ Q) t:: ~ ~ V) 5 c;2 ~ ~ bl)
..-'.' i"';"~' r.-"'v"'O~ 't:: Vl v cd.o cd 00 v ~ ~ .S
:-Q:~~, ,~:.':: ,..t,.i:'=';'(5 i:i':- Vl N 0. 8 ~ ~ t:: g cd Vl e::
'~:"-""" J '~~:r, :~; o1."~"o "0 Vl 'E:'= cd 0. v _ 0 cd '00 ~
., ;. ',\,\1 ;C"VlV<t::\ V V cd >. .0'._ - t:: Vl V_
"~::' "~':'....." :.;: '.c' Vl t:: e:: L.' V Vl '0 .- v ~ p..
:~ 'C::--"~ t,,:.!,~^ -...... ;;::l' 0 V 0 Vl;;::l cd V V '0 ~ 0
"", 'ZtE..",....,......O o.Vl .cU. ~ .-
:;~~": 'l -;';r.'t;-'~ '~s ...... '0 O. 0. ~ cd e:: 5 0 ;;::l - e::
v,"; ~:!i"~-.~._;.=I.O V -? 00. '0 u u 8'Vi _ V 0' Vl ~
.~, ~'_->""W~'Vl ~,' - u ~ e:: '-.c V ~ 0
':"m!'~;'~~').'S' ,v'\,~ '';::' Cl .;;::l cd V cd Vl U - ~ t:: -
,,:::;>, ,:;:1'!-",(,..,!.cI~V' Cl) :> V) 0 ... to;;, e:: V e:: V :>:>v
-J"", ;..;.l;J' ,-"-()~~ ~ ;> '0, ~... ._ ~ ;;::l ~ ;>;> .c
..' < (.,:, , ....~ ,._t,o v 0 0 ,cd, cd '0 !=; 0 cd Vl' cd 0 _
"~';/;'E" . ,~;:";:::" ':0' 0.' ~ '0 0 .c >. ~.;:: u ~
,.. ' ,'. ... ~ ';;::l . 0.' '.c v - _ 0 Vl!=; e:: ' i:: .c ..:
,'';;;'', ," .~..'~-~ V '.~o:. >. t:: ~ U.- t:: v' V cd 0 V V V - t::
,,,,,,{ - ';"'!..'-'o'O-J~ ;~'v,;;::l 0 e:: ~ 0 .c:: ;.. '0 _ N .c:: ~.:; v
: ~.:J,rSt4.:' ,...,~>~5,ff!.a'~<:'. ~,'5, ~ ~ g V,e:: f-< t= ~ >.:~ 'f-< !=; ;> 8
. '.,. .:~"{ ~~,..~ V)~~,.i::;;"" '0.'0 .~:.a ;g v ~ ~ U 1; @ t
" '~" ........00.",.. ~..- t:: v .... o.c e::.... ;> - 0. V cd
:~:,~ ":''.i ~'..S:,-~~:"e>.,~..cd t:: o.c ~ ~ '0 cd C;; cd >. 0.
,.-;::,~ ' .. .;t~~,,~.:i;$,;..; f,~.j,". ~
'}~1'. "IIiI'..\t,;l"""!""~,;:~""",,,:,-,,,,, ~ ';'
~:.ol.,,~.:" ' ".,:.1it~1~.U)","'~'""" .,~>-.....,,_ I Il~ ~....,.. ...... I I I....." I
~"!<<" "~'" ,.... ._'- ' '-.'-'..... U cd.o ~ .- e::'~ v t V 0 0 >.
":'\i~~tmi~'!f'-: ""oI,~,.t:: V~.o cd'';:: ;;::l u, - Q.) V t:: cd t V) c t
-""lli)': ',,,,,,,,~,Cl)I'"'' ;;::l.,1=l cd o.e:: o.e:: cd ~ - ~ 0. ';;::l ~'cd
~;,~.:-.,'. . ':,:::~~,:t;)v':3' '. v ~'e:: 8 V cd cd .c !=; U O'cd "0 u:::9 0.
'~;Jf54, :,:j;~~'8~.......:~~"". Cib'o 0 -- ~ 0.:: -: ~ e u u =' ""
<','.... ':;CE<';:.'.~~.~f02\1:. e:: -o'~ Cl)'Vi -;;::l"E >.'~ ~ ~'~ ~ cd 0 '0
,''''~ "--OboI:cd' ..,.- V';"'V cd................... ~'t::~;;::l
" 4)', ;1 .f;l:~;O:....i'.;,. en t:: .....- .... - 0 V) cd U - -. "~ cd ,-,' 0
'~~:';m ;!~:~ :~.'t-.S ~. g '0.2 ~.~ ~ ~ >. e:: v~ i:: 50 8 ~-;
~;.~{. '~i~..,':..;.li....::::,.. \V ... I ~ .... .... ..... - L.....- 0_ V') a..> '" 9 ~ 0'
~ . "f" "'.......c. v V) ... Vl'- 0 cd 0 ;;::l ~ ". _ ;>
";$1', :~';,t."- - 0. - ~ .....- '0 U V) Vl"' . . ti-< 0 _
, .. "':I; ;. -t. .. ~'.. -f~ 0 ...... "\01 ro "'0 s:::: "0 Q) V) - 0 - It/')
:.c::;.; \', ~".:.:t:' 0...... .... Cl.c ;;::l '0 cd U v OO.V) _ .- vv i::
>. . "h",j,~\' '" "oo.;;::l- v'O 0 e:: V e:: U Cl V V);...c v
',;.~ ..., ~""f' .~' Cl) " -..., . Vl - e:: cd ~ cd U cd Vl _ e:: 0 _ ....
; ,),~ : 1'" . ' "\, ::;:\'''''fV),JCl -' 00 - cd cd t:: . e:: cd.c ;;::l.c cd
),.:'. '.".>i."\~ ~1'0~ cd, 1=l U v ;;::l '0 ~.- U 0 00 v 8 _~ 0
I ~~: ~"''1tlO~.-;'E ':,=;C ',t V Vl 0 V~ '0 t:: .c 'C 8 t:: -
:;-;;;}ii '. . ~"';';k.c:: .t::."v v' <v;:_ 8 - ] ~ (5 cd cd' ~ ~ ~
"...."<,'~.. ...., ';~!"N v;t:o.'-' '~.- '0 0 V ~ ... ~ v v _ ~ !=; ~
: :\':t~ ,"'~!1.~.c"o.'-", 1""\ '0. V V).c 0 ;;l V 00 .c.c cd 'Ot ~
,-,~:"I: :,roO<; ;'~,' .',1 cd ~ 00'- e:: - .0'- .c, II) - - .c;;::l cd 0
I ':'$i'~ ct'" v-:;;,;.,1\.O '-" '-', ~'t:: 0. v ....c ;;::l r- t:: V ~ ..: r- V; 0.=
'..:o~!' ,';" "~"~'V~V''O ~ .- ;;::l '0 ... ell t:: '';: Vl !=; Vl Cl Vl _ cd
If-,,'''''.;' "", ,!~":,,,-..c::.c, v t:: ,U .... 0._ t:: ;;::l 0 ~ v '"
:', li~'f:..o. ~''1'.~,..~'.~ . en 0 U ;;::l 0. v U v cd 0 ~ 'o;;::l >.'.ov
1...j.~\;"~.o;,r~,;r.{,V;I.v.:;;;::l N 0.0 ;;::l t:::.= ~ U J::..... !=; L.
;~};~~I.~- ,:t~J.r$~(y.~~\..~~
'::~~t~~IIII;~':1~H;~.~;??, ~ ~'~ ~.; ~:g.g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~
.', "~ ;;",;'~. '0 ,".'.:.c::'=: v V);;::l ~ ~ e:: V) d ~ .... Vl ~.:::;
""'~'f~" ~ i.........-"I". "'0 Ol) ......,.-4 0 (1).0 ~ \0 0 ~ '-I
:-f',,'\-":'(fI~;-.-: cd 1=l~'- ;;::l, t:: .... Vl t r-... u .... t '0 0
'".1.;,"',;~ . " '>-,' , .;:: '.~ ~ .0 ,en cd ~ cd 0\ '0 v~ cd ~ t:: '- : ~~'
~~t~:~ ....,~'.:.'.~O,,),? ......'roviu oc......- >0.' <<:I..... '0'.....
"''::'l;',r~. {.,","-V_enV)~.....cd "cdv;;::l ~cd>.V)t:: ''-'
l":";;JU~:~:""-.o '~:7~ '0 '00 Cl;:;::: u 0 0;> c~'~ ~ ~ ~
.,}'~'; . 1~",,,::S"~'l",;,s:c'o~(1).,,,,,,, >-'c::::JU -..-s:c............
(.\ll!:i'~' .;,'t'it'..o. en't' 0 ,!=; ._ '0' 8'- 00 .c .- 0 "_ ~
'').t~?:- iJ;;.'c': v ~>...c ~~ ;g-E _ en V).S Vl~ ~ i:: 8 ~':; 0
.. !l:;:;.~~,,:,:;t"J,t:,t.~'.c cd-" ,- 0 V);;::l ~ '0 - ~ V) v. 0.<'.-6~'Cl)
~~~~1~~\~'_~t:t;'i;:.~.,P'(j!~~ S:=.Q..c 0 u ~.~ . <<J ~ ~~ ~."CtJ_!.'~'::;'O,.)-~
,., .....l:.- . "-',,,,..~,en;:._.v u.c. u ~ >< '0 V u OJ t::" "::; ,"V)-
"~'''''1;'"a1;;;.~:;:.;it::7~',f.t::.'v'~S"S1=l.v 00'" cd 0 V V >'cd v:>'O"ov
': .'It..;'l;.,.s:J,~r.r';;.~ ',~" 1 ...:2.;.cd ..... v f-l ;;::l '0 - >. - _ V);> Cl' - 'a. '-'
''':::<':an' ~Jf:.i':.... ..' to.;; '1-o:.c:: 0 0 :> C;;..... t:: 1=l ... ;;::l 0 cd vi 0'-
, t:,,;,. ~~':";;::l' ,,:~ I '"cd ~ cd ,-,' 0;> OJ V v -:: _ .... ;;::l
.,":9";" I;' . ~... '0,"""."v 0. ';::.c.c ~ t:: cd ""' u.- t:: v v e:: ,.., 0'
.':;..~ ~jJ,.O ~cd'O'" ~... V V V ~ V.c V) cd ....V
.'t~J~; !. ,J-....of ~:S::=1r~. ~rCU,. CO.Oo ~ 0 o..!:: 4..) '-t Q) f--t =' ~. \o.c
'o-~C'Iii",.!t"" O"OCl~~Etc cd.... .0 ZO.o cd.o 1=l V).o 0 v -.~en ......
-, : . ... '._~rI" en'- ..... .c A\ 0 V . ... _ OJ
,)". ~1=l....::"'oI;~ V:> ~ 00 v ~ _' - ~ V Vl..... ."'"
'~;'''';'i3'{''\','''- ,'-'io!:< V) '0 '-' L:::'- ;.. 0 !=; ;...~ V V' , ;;::l
>'\~. "', ..'0. 0-,. V cd 0 V V cd.c v 0 cd e::.c -;:, fZ
:;i.~',1.<1" ~ ~? 0.;:': (). () to;;, ..... Cl .c _;;::l .c.c;;::l _.... ;>
~~fE!II~",~~~ft.2J::i L.:'~ :'t::;;::l" .s 8'.'8 a ~ ;g g .g ~ "gk ,5
":,1:::: :.:!'fl.~\:,",S',~,'j.\" ;> Q 0,) ..... 0..... > ..c ~ OQ ...r=
'-ie: . "'''~~~;~ ,.,' ,0 v cd ~ U .... V) ~ v Cl _
,t.:~'/'::"CI)'l~'~ ;/ ~ U ;:;h.SCl . v t:: Vs '~s' .";::: ~':Vi,.....
,!:'Ft}; : '~7iw'''' J;i.~ :<' v Cl 0li'O v V) Q ~ ~ .... ;;-{
'-V",,, \.'~, ,'" (.c 2 '-' S'O .0:3 S '0 V) V)....... ~
....,J";'{ . 1''''%'':5:'''>''' r-' ~ 0 0 e:: Cl '@:C; cd 0 .~
(/;;.~~~,:, ",,.,, ":\~(.' !"', 0 <v; t 0 .- 0 <n 00 ~ >. 0
-,;.-: :1;~,,, " \;",'::;..,:,.:0;';;:'1 f-l ... ,Cl cd.c '0 'E -; U ._ _ ;..
't'<'.~.,~ '~' """,.-}-Of ~ , - cd 0. ""' V ,~ V) ""' ~._
. " ".~:;,C/)'rr.~ " V) i:: cd 0 .::::.c >. Ol) ~ cd 61J vi Vl
.,. '" I,." ,,,:.. ' , " r'" cd 00.0 V) e:: ~ >._ "' '0 _
"'O'"",'.kml "''Co '.....'~ . ~;'. '-' ,0 e:: _^ cd Q.) ~._ ~ - "' .;::: 0 1=l
."'" h~ .. ^-t."",w'> ,,""' >. s.- ......c ""' u v t:: ;> ~ ~ 0 v
':\ :..iJ: '~"",:,.-::' 'C>" ~,cd' . Vl t:: 00 '0 Cl ;.. V.c t:: '0
;:~:.~,..,-..::;,,,,<(~, : ~ '0 v ~'u'o V) cd 0 t:: 0 0. - .--e ._
'j:1JJ\~fm' ':...;:;:".u::.... ,,; !Xl ~ 1=l o..;;::l 1=l cd 1=l ~ ;.. i:: g =g ..c::_v ] ~
,.' :~~" .'!~t.;o,,"!.'. ro: tI:l;;::l'j3 >."2 >. ~:.a .... Q.) .... w
. , .',< ,~.'.,. ~' " ~, ~ r-' -.... - - ... 0'0 8 V) v ih, 0
~~'.I:;';. ,'i?f:"t ~::; u~v cd;g '0'- 0 u t:: _.~ Vl ;..'- e::
:'~ ,I ' .':.\':~;(.;::.. d' ,;,. ~...... '0 0 ~ !=; 8 ......0 cd vi = ~ .... L. V
..:.. .."'""...,...... '.~' ,". ,cd V ~ '" ,cd ... V 00 w.c v V e:: _
..~. I . ." . ,'... .... !=; ....... .c - e:: 0. _ t Vl ;;::l
':L 'm""c'::.' ~" , ......t::"S!._ '0 v .~-;: - Vu'u._ .A'..... 0 lU..?;- "'"
-,':. ...'~. ' .... cd ... Cl V "'J ""' t:: - ....... OJ 0. -._ ....
. " l,~'l' ,1 I ~,flJ ~~roo" ":'::3';;::l ~ Q.) 0.,0.81,...
r ~ ~ I' I 1:1> d: :e:: "S v,, 0 8 ~ _<c;j;;::lVl.9 ,cd:, ~ I I
". ,. I 'c:2 1'"6 ~ Vl .D en"" _ .....- -.1" I"
;
i1i::~t:1 V i:U
-
!
Ac essory Units: The Back-Door
Ap roach to Affordable Housing
Cens s data indicate that people are living in smaller house-
holds than they did 20 or 30 years ago. There are more single
peopl ,either be€ause they are marrying later, divorced more
often, or living longer after their spouses die.'Working women
are h ving fewer children, meaning houses built during the
heigh of the baby boom are often too large and too expensive.
Yet ~ deral dollars for affordable housing have dried up,
forcin city officials to seek inexpensive ways to augment the
suppl of lower-cost housing in their communities.
W at can planners do? One thing, some planners and
gove ment officials say, is t(? change zoning laws to allow
acces ory apartments. Accessory apartments are indepen-
dent, omplete living units typically created from surplus
space in a single-family home. These units are also
called second units or, in Hawaii, ohana units. To many,
they' known simply as mother-in-law apartments or
grann flats. Such terms, however, besides being in-
sultin ,imply that only a certain kind of resident can
use a cessory apartments. In truth, just about anyone can
bene t.
Th benefits extend to the homeowner and the com-
munit . Accessory units add affordable housing stock with-
out dr mati cally changing the nature of neighborhoods, while
also k eping the American dream of home ownership alive
even hen housing costs seem prohibitive. By keeping more
reside ts within established neighborhoods, they also reduce
spraw while adding to the tax base.
Poten ial
Marti Gellen, in Accessory Apartments in Single-Family
Housi g (Rutgers, Center for Urban Policy Research),
estim ted in 1985 that from 10 to 18 million U.S. single-
familhouses have enough surplus space to be candidates
for co version. Not all owners, of course, want to make the
chang ,and the design of some houses makes conversion
too di ficult. But Gellen points out that converting only 15
perce t of these dwellings over a 10-year period would add
150,0 0 rental units to the market each year.
Pat ick H. Hare, a planning consultant and coauthor of
Creali Ig an Accessory Apartment (McGraw-Hill, 1987),
estim tes that 15 million of the 48 million single-family
house in the U.S. have enough space to accommodate an
access ry unit. His estimates for potential conversion,
howe er, are much more modest than Gellen's. Communities
that al ow accessory apartments typically average one
conve sion yearly for every 1,000 single-family home~. says
Hare. t this rate, if all zoning ordinances nationwide.
permit ed, he would expect only 48.000 conversions yearly.
Neve heless, Hare says it would stilI be an important
contri utionto the supply of rental housing stock.
APRIL 1992
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
II
An accessory apartment is an inexpensive option for both
homeowner and renter. Construction costs are lower than for
free-standing rental units because the main building structure is
already in place. Although costs vary widely, Hare estimated in
1987 the average cost for conversion at $16,500, and new rental
units between $40,000 and
$60,000. Though that was
five years ago, Hare
believes the
The disadvan-
tage of a garage
conversion is
that it eliminates
parking. Fre-
quently, new
parking must be
provided on sire.
f/o'~
, ~V'(i
(~.,lJ<'!
~"
.'
~\,,"
(,1(0;
\,<P
.....
+""
\\,
~"(,
+,
competition for construc-
,.,\..~ tion jobs has kept the cost of
conversion about the same.
However, a lack of financing and
fewer tax incentives has made new multifamily development
even more expensive.
Partly because of these low development costs, the renter
generally gets an apartment at below market rates. Hare
points to a Montgomery County, Maryland" survey that
found that homeowners renting to nonfamily members
generally charged $140 per month less than the market rate.
Family members often paid nothing or a token amount. The
occupancy of second dwelling units, Hare notes, often
switches from stranger to needy relative and back again as
ownership and family needs change.
Obstacles
Despite the benefits and potential of accessory apartments,
there is often resistance from communities or individual
homeowners. The American dream has long included a
detached single-family home with a wide lawn. Multifamily
housing, especially rental housing, is often perceived as
threatening to an area's appearance-raising density and
bringing in people who are "less desirable" than homeowners.
Renters, of course, use heat, electricity, water, etc.. and
high rates for such utilities are another detrimental factor.
Results of a survey taken by Hare indicate that communities
with very high fees are unlikely to have a high conversion
rate. But an accessory unit, Hare claims, does not usually
result in more utility users than a family making full use of a
home without a second unit.
Despite such hurdles, planners in Seattle and Ontario are
trying to foster acceptance of second units. The Seattle city
council has tried twice to pass an accessory units ordinance,
only to encounter strong opposition from neighborhood
organizations. John Skelton, senior land-use specialist for the
city, says citizens in Seattle are very active; if they feel left
out of a planning effort, they'll make every effort to get the
plans vetoed. In response, Skelton and others are working on
an ordinance that will provide for parking, minimum house
size requirements, appearance standards, and the opportunity
for neighborpoo.d groups to participate. The city may launch
a pilot project to see how well such an accessory apartments
policy would work citywide.
Part of the impetus for drafting a local ordinance is coming
from the state. Variations on a proposal to require Washington
cities to allow accessory units, or else make other significant
efforts to promote affordable housing, have been bouncing
around the legislature for about eight years. The most recent
bill passed the state senate but stalled in the house rules
committee. Bill Lynch, staff counsel for State Rep. Dick
Nelson, says the bill could reappear next year. Although the
state proposals are rather loose, local governments, fearing
their authority would be usurped, have opposed them.
Ontario passed a law requiring local governments to adopt
an accessory apartment ordinance by last August, but it too
has met resistance. The province requires local governments
to identify areas appropriate for accessory apartments and
allow second units in them as of right. This would help
further its goal of residential intensification, encouraging the
use of existing housing stock and reducing sprawl. Although
Canadian provinces have more authority to control local
government planning than do most states in the U.S., the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario is pushing for
requiring owner occupancy of either the main or accessory
unit, a common requirement in U.S. zoning laws,
James Douglas, policy adviser in the Ontario Ministry of
Housing, says the province is currently working with
communities to draft bylaws that arc appropriate, but not so
restrictive as to effectively bar accessory units. Ontario,
Douglas adds, allows local input but has the right to reject an
ordinance that it considers too rigid.
Zoning Ordinances
Zoning ordinances in Nantucket, Massachusetts, Boulder,
Colorado, and Guilford County, North Carolina, all allow
accessory apartments under some circumstances in single-
family zones. But there are differences that reflect the
communities' varying needs.
Nantucket is a popular island tourist community. Year-
round residents have a difficult time finding affordable
housing because summer visitors will pay premium prices. In
response, the local government drafted an accessory apartment
ordinance that allows homeowners to build another unit only if
it is rented to year-round residents. Every three years or when
ownership changes, the homeowner must reaffinn that the unit
is occupied by an islander. The ordinance also stipulates that
the second unit cannot be sold separately as a condominium.
Other provisions resemble those elsewhere. The accessory
2
unit cannot be larger than 800 nor sma'ller tharl 300 square
feet. It cannot take up more than 40 percent of the principal
structure's floor area or have more than two be'llrooms. There
must be at least one parking space per unit. The acce~ory
apartment must be a complete living space, with kitchen and
bathroom facilities entirely separated from the primary unit.
The building's exterior must give every appearance that it is
a single-family house.
Boulder, Colorado, home of the University of Colorado,
has its share of students competing with long-term residents
for affordable places to live. Boulder stipulates that resi-
dences with accessory units must be occupied by an owner
who has at least a 50 percent interest in the property. No
more than 10 percent of the single-family homes in a
neighborhood may have second units. In lower-density areas,
second units are not allowed within 600 feet of each other. In
higher-density zones, the distance must be at least 300 feet.
The city has a first-come, first-serve policy.
Boulder also has size limits-no more than 1,000 square feet,
covering less than one-third of the principal unit's gross floor
area. The lot size must be at least 6,000 square feet, and the
house size at least 1.500 square feet. The entrance to the second
unit may face the street only if it is screened enough not to
detract substantially from the single-family nature of the
residence. Boulder prohibits speculation in accessory units and
forbids builders from including them in new buildings.
Guilford County, unlike most communities, provides for
detached accessory dwellings. These may be part of a garage, a
manufactured building, or a home built on-site. The unit must
have a sewage disposal system, meet setback requirements, and
be placed at least 10 feet from the principal building. The
detached unit may be no more than half the size of the main
residence. The ordinance requires that the lot size be at least 50
percent greater than the minimum required by the zoning
ordinance for houses without detached units. Lots with a main
and accessory unit must include four parking spaces.
Guilford also provides for attached units. These may not
exceed 25 percent of the main structure, but must be at least
250 square feet. A separate entrance may be added only if it
is necessary to bring the unit up to building code standards.
Evidence of the second unit,should not be visible from the
street; multiple mailboxes and side entrances are prohibited.
Only three parking spaces are required.
Enforcement Problems
Communities that prohibit accessory units often have them
anyway. Some communities, in fact, adopt an accessory
housing ordinance in part to bring homeowners with
illegal units within the law. This allows building code
inspectors to check on a unit's safety without evicting
residents.
For its illegal units, Seattle uses a complaint-based
enforcement system. Because the city used to allow acces-
sory units, some of which are legal today under grandfather
clauses, it is difficult to pinpoint illegal units. It is also hard,
Skelton says, to distinguish between a dwelling unit and a
family room with a wet bar. An inspector who notices a stove
in the room, along with other indicators, such as lockable
doors, two mailboxes, or nonfamily members in a single-
family home, will probably conclude that the building
includes a second unit. But, in his book, Gellen notes that
there are ways to hide illegal units. For instance, a second
stove-a dead giveaway for an accessory use-is easily
,1
repla ed,with ~ microwave or reinstalled after the zoning
inspe tor has left.
'Br an Wiese, senior planner in Nantucket, suspects that
there re many units in his community that owners rent only
seaso ally. Since accessory apartments are, by definition,
hidde ,it is hard to keep track of their numbers. Ultimately,
the 10 al government must trust homeowners. This may be
too m ch to expect because renting, especially in places such
as Na tucket, can be lucrative. Even when accessory units
are Ie ally used, homeowners must pay increased property
taxes, a strong incentive to keep quiet.
Go ernment officials can also expect enforcement
probl ms if they limit residency in the second unit to people
who e elderly, handicapped, or related to the primary
home wner. Such requirements, according to Hare, may
hinde the building of second units since owners may
have ifficulty finding tenants who meet the right crite-
ria. T is added responsibilty may also limit a home's
salabi ity.
Densi y Concerns
One f ctor government officials and neighbors often cite in
oppos ng accessory conversions is increased density. Extra
units, hey say, mean an incr~ase in on-street parking and
traffic congestion. A report by the Ontario Ministry of
Housi g about parking problems in areas with accessory units
sugge ts these fears are unfounded.
Alt ough parking needs rise with unit size, parking
proble ns are generally not created by accessory units, the
report said. Most serious neighborhood parking shortages
were r ported in areas close to shopping and other amenities.
The e tra demand, therefore, is most like]y from visitors. In
other ases, crowded streets resulted from residents using
garages for storage, not for automobiles.
. Th study also suggests ways for municipalities to
allevi te parking problems. These include legalizing front-
'yard a d tandem parking (one car behind another), legalizing
tental f surplus parking spaces and garages to neighbors,
'and es ablishing a central registry of parking spaces to bring
togeth r renters and owners.
Nei hbors generally did not perceive a loss of open space
due to intensification, the report also found. Few residents
conve ted yards to parking areas, and, when they did, these
areas ad been attractively landscaped.
A Ste Beyond
Chang ng a community's preconceptions about accessory
units c n be done, says Hare. It just takes time. He believes
there a e two phases involved in changing a zoning ordi-
nance 0 promote accessory units. The first phase is getting
the uni s accepted, even with what might appear to be
unreas nable restrictions. As time passes, neighbors who
origina ly opposed the ordinance find that the rate of conver-
sion is ather low and that their streets have no~ become
blighte . A few years later. there can be a second push to
ease re trictions, such as increasing the number of accessory
apanm nts allowed, streamlining application,processing,
reduci g fees, or dropping age restrictions.
One an adequate ordinance is in place, publicity may be
needed to get the ball rolling and units constructed. A few
comm nities, including Mount Pleasant, New York, Green-
wich, onnecticut, and Sonoma County, California, have
launch d campaigns to let homeowners know they have the
option to divide their houses into two units.
Gellen believes the greatest potential for conversions lies
with young couples buying houses they could not afford
without extra rental income. But young or old, converting
part of a home into a second unit is a daunting task. It
involves working with government officials, possibly
speaking at a public
meeting, hiring
"".
....~_....:~:
__-_~ "'>l.
<l~- '.
\ "
"
"
'\
'"
. " /
D"rO
I ...1
~, I r! .lJ
'l~'
, --,'
-.1,.....
J. New patio for
apartment.
2. New side entry with
optional porch.
3. New windows of size,
shape and height to
match existing.
4. Shutters on front
windows to match
house.
GARAGE
APARTMENT
AFTER
CONVERSION
6. Additional parking
space with grass pavers. ,
a contractor, screening
tenants, and setting rental
policies. Hare sees the need for a coordinating service to help
people through the process, and suggests that this could be
undertaken by groups that would benefit from an increase in
accessory units, such as remodelers, real estate professionals,
and advocates for aging and handicapped people and lower-
cost housing.
It may take perseverance and political savvy to get a good
accessory housing ordinance up and working. But the long- .
tenn rewards could be worth the effort. C.K.
Swallowing an Elephant
The 248 residents of Laytonsville, Maryland, face a momen-
tous decision. The town is located in affluent Montgomery
County, in a large area of agriculturally zoned land that has
attracted the attention of hungry developers. Landowners in
the area-among them the Mars Corporation-want the town
to annex 1,468 acres of farmland for a development of up to
520 luxury detached houses, expected to sell for over
$500,000 each. The development could increase the town's
population tenfold.
The proposal has split the community. Some re6idents see
an opportunity to share in the affluence of the new subdivi-
sion. The developers have offered amenities such as a library,
new parks, and a new town hall. Other residents oppose the
destruction of their town' s rural character and the loss of both
a valued quality of life and the control they have always had
over their public lives. Many are alanned at the fiscal respon-
sibilities that may ultimate]y result from the development.
The Montgomery County planning board seconds those
concerns. Board members feel that the developers have done
insufficient testing in the area of water and sewer service,
and that proposed new wells and septic tanks will be insuffi-
3
cient for such a large development. They also harbor serious
doubts as to the source of funding for the new amenities and
schools that would have to be built. The developers' commit-
ment extends only to paying for their construction, with the
municipality and county responsible for ongoing mainte-
nance. A county planning board spokesman was skeptical of
the developers' claim that property taxes would provide
sufficient revenue for this purpose.
A University of Maryland study commissioned by the
town has also raised questions about the project. So far, the
developers have not officially petitioned for annexation.
. Instead, over a two-year period, they have informally sought
a reaction from landowners, the mayor, and the town council.
The proposal has now been opened to public discussion at
town meetings where residents have expressed some strong
opposition. '. '
The opponents have time on their side. In cases where the
proposed new land use will be radically different from the
existing one, Maryland state law requires a five-year waiting
period before a town can rezone annexed land. The develop-
ment itself is expected to take more than 10 years to complete.
F.D.
Tables Turned
in Trumbull
A proposal to build multifamily housing in Trumbull, Connecti-
cut, met with opposition from the town government, but newly
passed state legislation may mean the developer will be allowed
to build.
Last year, developer Trammel Crow Residential asked Trum-
bull to approve a zoning change that would allow it to build 600
,
multifamily units on 38 acres of land. The local government
turned down the request; saying the density was too high,
That might have ended the matter, except for a state law
that took effect in October 1991. Public Act 91-392, aimed
at increasing the supply of affordable housing, requires that
zoning ordinances encourage the development of multifamily
housing and that plans and regulations consider the needs of
citizens within a state-designated planning region, not just in
a given locality. Previously, a 1989 law had shifted to
municipalities the burden of showing that planning and
zoning officials made a reasonable decision in rejecting a
proposal that includes affordable housing.
Zoning N~w, is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning
Association. Subscriptions are available for S32 (U.S,) and S38 (foreign),
Israel Stollman. ExecUlive Director; Frank S. So, Depuly Executive Direclor.
Zoning N~w, is produced in the Research Department al APA. Jim Schwab, Editor;
David Bergman, Fay Dolnick. Sarah Dunn. Michelle Gregory, Chris Harris. Carolyn
Kennedy, Linda Lamb. Marya Morris. Amy Van Doren, Reporlers; Publications
slaff: Paul Thomas, Assistant Edilor; Lisa Barton, Production,
Copyright <01992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E, 60th Sl., Chicago, IL
60637. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices al 1776
Massachusetts Ave.. N,W.. Washington. DC 20036,
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or ulilized in any
form or by any means, elcclronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or by any information slorage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
from Ihe American Planning Association,
Printed on recycled paper. including 50-70% recycled fiber
, and 10% po",consumer wasle.
@
4
Because of this, Charles Berman, Trammell Crow
Residential's division partner for the Northeast...had hoped
that the Connecticut court considering the appeal would
decide in his company's favor. Of the 600 units his finn
wants to build, 120 will be within the price range of house-
holds earning 80 percent or less of the local median income,
the state standard for affordability. But, in a recent decision,
the court remanded the issue back to the local government.
The town planning and zoning commission was scheduled to
meet in late March to further consider the issue.
The problem with Trammell Crow's proposal appears to
be density. It calls for 16 units per acre, but Trumbull allows
only six condominium-style units per acre, and development
at that density is on hold. James Wang, executive director of
the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, says 16
housing units per acre is too high, but that 12 units would be
an appropriate density. The RPC supports the concept of the
development, and Wang says he would like to see the town
implement regulations that foster affordable housing devel-
opment.
Burton Yaffie, Trumbull's lawyer, says that the high
density is more appropriate for cities like nearby Bridgeport,
but that e.ight to 10 units is the maximum density per acre in
nearby communities similar to Trumbull. The town already
includes 200 affordable units, he says, and it wants td
disperse new affordable housing development throughout
Trumbull, rather than concentrate it in one 38-acre area.
Berman counters that the town has never encouraged
affordable housing development. Trumbull chose not to join
a regional compact with Bridgeport and four other communi-
ties to build less expensive housing and has never offered
incentives for housing development, he says. Berman
defends the proposed density by saying that the units'
footprint would be 4,500 square feet, little more than the
4,200 square feet of those units developed at six per acre. In
addition, the total impact upon traffic and the infrastructure
is less than that of the office park approved for the site.
As of late March, the issue was still up in the air. The
town will have to meet its affordable housing responsibilities
somehow. but it is unclear whether it will do so by allowing
Trammell Crow Residential\to develop its proposal. C.K.
ZON/NGR1:J29rts
Sensitive Areas Ordinance;
Sensitive Areas Map Folio
King County Planning and Community Development Divi-
sion, 707 Smith Tower, 506 2nd Ave.. Seattle, WA 98104.
September 10, 1990. Ordinance: 101 pp. $3.25, including
postage. Folio: 13 maps for each of six sensitive areas. $25,
including postage.
King County's ordinance was the product of an extensive
planning process involving some highly controversial local
environmental issues but has become a model for many other
Washington counties and cities trying to comply with the
state's growth management act. The ordinance and map folio
can be purchased separately.
'1
Accessory
Units:
An Increasing
Source of
Affordable
Housing
ffordable housing, scattered invisibly
throughout communities, is a zoning
goal that can become a reality. Our
firm' 1989 study, "Installations of Accessory
Units in Communities Where They are Le-
gal," onfirmed this. The study also revealed
that any prestigious communities now per-
mit a cessory units.
Th most common form of accessory unit
is an partment created in the surplus space
of a s ngle-family home, Young households
are h ving fewer kids, and the baby boom
has b en followed by an empty-nester boom.
Roug ly one third of the single family homes
"in the nation have enough surplus space to
; acco modate an accessory apartment.
"-Th term ~ccessory unit also includes ac-
~so cottages and echo homes. These are
small omes installed on a lot with a single-
famil home. Accessory cottages are perma-
nent. cho homes are cottages installed tem-
porari y, typically to enable adult children to
take are of aging parents. Echo homes are
desig ed to be moved and to accommodate
poopl who are frail or disabled. Accessory
units Iso go by such other names as mother-
in-law units, second units (in California), and
ohana units (in Hawaii). Accessory cottages
and e ho homes are less common than acces-
sory a artments because zoning for them is
less mmon and they generally cost more to
install than accessory apartments.
No egative Impact
The li t of well-known communities that per-
mit so e form of accessory units is long. A
, partia list would include many communities
in sou hwestern Connecticut, such as West-
port a d Greenwich; eleven communities in
Patrick are and John Danbury are principals with Patrick
H. Hare Planning and Design, Washington, D,C,
PM
5
Patrick H. Hare and John Danbury
There is no known example of a community
that has reversed its decision to permit
accessory units. This fact adds to the allure
of accessory units.
Westchester County, New York; Boulder,
Colorado; Marin County, California; and
Montgomery County, Maryland, just north of
Washington, DC. There is no known example
of a community that has reversed its decision
to permit accessory units. This fact adds to
the allure of accessory units.
The accessory apartment is the type of ac-
cessory unit most commonly permitted. Ac-
cessory apartments are the least visible, be-
cause they are built within an existing home.
Zoning ordinances typically reinforce the in-
visible nature of accessory apartments by per-
mitting little or no change in the exterior of
the home.
Accessory cottages and echo units typically
are more visible than apartments, but barely
so. They are usually installed behind the
home, Zoning usually requires that they be .
compatible with the exterior finish and style
of the main home. The nature of accessory
units, and the experience and prestige of
communities that permit them, make it much
easier to amend zoning to permit these units
than it was in the past.
1 to 1,000 Ratio
Our 1989 study surveyed 47 communities
that permit accessory units. We found that
with "good" zoning, about one accesso0' unit
will be created per thousand single family
.
.'
, .
I
homes per year. "Good" zoning is zoning that
does not have any provisions that frustrate
homeowners' plans for such units. These in-
clude long permit approval times, high permit
fees, and regulations which permit apart-
ments only when homeowners or tenants are
elderly. Boulder, Colorado is one community
that has good zoning. Boulder has about
17,000 single family homes and has had an
annual installation rate of about 17 apart-
ments a year. Over the five-year period from
1984 to 1989, 86 accessory apartments were
installed.
A rate of I new apartment per 1,000 sin-
gle-family homes may seem insignificant at
first glance. But nationally, new construction
each year is not much more than one new
home per 100 existing homes. In a commu-
nity of single-family units, a rate of 1 new
unit per 1,000 single-family homes would be
a 10 percent increase in housing production.
In communities having little undeveloped
land on which to build new housing, the per-
cent increase in production of new homes
could be much higher. At the same time, the
apparently low installation rates in communi-
ties that serve to reassure civic groups that
any change will be small, gradual, and easily
controlled.
Below-Market Rental Rates
Accessory apartments rent for less for three
reasons: because they typically can be in-
stalled for about one-third the cost of con-
structing a conventional rental unit, because
homeowners charge less in order to get and
keep good tenants, and, finally, because most
homeowners are shocked by market rent lev-
els and charge less out of a sense of fairness.
Six studies of accessory apartments report
that the vast majority rent at below HUD
Fair Market Rents, with no subsidy. A recent
and detailed study conducted in Montgomery
County, Maryland, found that the mean rent
for 108 accessory apartments was $140 a
Who Benefits from Accessory Units?
Household
Older Homeowners
Young Homebuyers
Disabled Homeowners and Adult
Children With Disabilities
Single Parent Homeowners
Tenants
ProCessional Groups
Advocates for: affordable housing, the
elderly, single parents, and the disabled
Remodelers
Real Estate Agents
Bankers
New Home Builders
Home Health Care Agencies
Benefits
Trade underused space for added income.
Use rental income to help pay their
mortgage.
Have privacy with proximity to support.
Can hang onto a home with rental income.
Get affordable housing in good
neighborhoods.
Benefits
Get an economical way of solving their
groups' problems.
Can broaden their market.
Get a new way to sell homes, and an opportu-
nity to sell services managing tenants and
helping install apartments.
Get consumer loans which generate income
for repayment.
Get a way to make their homes more
affordable.
Get a way to keep clients in homes longer,
with more income to buy needed services.
6
PM September 1991
;.
.
mont less than the mean rent for conven-
tiona units. In addition, about 100 accessory
apart ents in Montgomery County were oc-
cupie by relatives who paid no rent. There
has b en no study of rent levels for accessory
cotta es or echo homes.
The Benefits
Acce sory units benefit a wide variety of
hous old types and professional groups.
They can provide such groups as older home-
owne s, young homebuyers, and single parent
home wners with added income, security,
comp nionship, and services in return for rent
reduc ion. Accessory units also help tenants,
who ften are relatives of the homeowners, by
provi ing affordable housing. Remodelers,
realt s, new home builders, bankers, home
healt care providers, and hospitals are
amon the professional groups that benefit.
The ays in which each household and pro-
fessio al group benefits are listed in the box
on pa e 6.
Fe people in any group understand how
they enefit from accessory units. For exam-
ple, n national affordable housing groups ac-
tively endorse accessory units. Even the na-
tional remodeling organizations do not seem
to rec gnize that accessory units can provide
them ith a new market. In starting a local
acces ory apartment initiative, it is important
to un erstand that housing and aging groups
may ave some awareness of accessory units,
but si gle parents' groups, older womens'
group, disabled persons' groups, banks, home
healt care agencies, hospitals, remodelers,
build rs, and others potentially having an in-
terest all need to be educated about the bene-
fits of accessory units. They also need to un-
dersta d how they can work with home-
owner and with each other.
Zo ing requirements for accessory units
shoul reassure opponents without making it
difficult for homeowners to get approval.
Home wners' groups often express fear that
access ry apartments will create overcrowd-
ing, in rease traffic and on-street parking, or
cause evere depletion of parking. There is no
evide ce that these problems have resulted
from I galizing accessory apartments. In
practi e, the fears represent nothing so much
as ho important people's homes are to them.
The i portance of their homes makes home-
owner aggressively cautious about any
chang . For example, most suburban neigh-
borh ds reach peak population density and
peak c r ownership levels about 20 years af-
ter th are built. At that time the homes are
full of teenagers with cars. Accessory apart-
ments re not installed in enough numbers to
come lose to that 20-year peak of kids and
cars.
PM S ptember ] 991 7
While it is impossible to eliminate all fears
about neighborhood change caused by acces-
sory units, the right zoning provisions will
help. For example, many communities re-
quire that the homeowner reside in the home,
permit little or no exterior change to the
home, and prohibit concentrations of
apartments.
At the same time, it is important not to
overwhelm homeowners with hurdles like
public hearings. Many people, particularly
the elderly, will not consider going through a
public hearing, A provision can be included
that exempts the homeowner from normal
special exception procedures, such as a public
hearing, unless requested by immediate
neighbors. This provision can reassure oppo-
nents without overburdening homeowners. A
draft zoning amendment to permit accessory
units that includes these and other provisions
.
The City of
Today Values
the Lighting
of the Past
SPHING CITY TH./\DITIOX'\L
OHl\::\i\IENT/\L L1GIITIN(J
Today, your city needs to present an image of
gracious hospitality with economic vitality, More
and more, people prefer to live and work in an
aesthetically pleasing municipal environment -
very civilized yet very lively! Spring City traditional
ornamental lighting posts will help you to achieve
these ends, providing the beauty of cast iron along
with modern lighting sources: mercury vapor. metal
halide or high pressure sodium. With Spring City
posts, you get maximum visual impact with maxi-
mum lighting output.
Our lighting posts are available in over 25 stand-
ard models, each an historically authentic repro-
duction of a model from the past. As you can see by
their names - for example, Washington, Hancock,
Harrisburg, Arcadian - each reflects a period in our
history or a particular locale Moreover, we will help
you to research your own city's hi:;torical posts,
implement the design, then metal cast them to
exacting accuracy.
For over 60 years, Spring City has been a leader in
cast iron ornamental lighting, Make our unparalleled
knowledge and craftsmanship available to your
municipality - call 215-~4H-4000 today!
SPRING CITY
ELECTHICAL MFG. COMPANY
P,O, Drawer A Spring City, PA 19475-0030
Phone: 215-948-4000 . FAX: 215-948-5577
" ...
~ .
can save elected officials, staff, and citizens a
great deal of time and acrimony.
Installing an accessory apartment requires
permit approval, hiring a remodeler, making
design decisions, setting a rent level, deciding
upon and finding financing, finding and man-
aging tenants, and addressing tax implica-
tions. Many people will need help with these
matters. Most homeowners will make enough
profit so that they can pay for this help, if it
is available, But it is important to understand
that good zoning by itself still may not pro-
duce many accessory units-because the in-
stallation process is difficult.
The Need for Leadership
Leadership on zoning for accessory units
should be provided by an elected official, lo-
cal government manager, or department head
who can draw together groups that will bene-
fit. Leadership is required to stimulate cre-
ation of a public, private, or non-profit service
that will help people install units. Leadership
also is needed to get zoning in place to permit
units. Creating leadership to promote acces-
sory units, in many cases, is simply a matter
of explaining their benefits to homeowners
and professionals and putting them in touch
with each other. Once a community of inter-
est is created, leaders will come forward be-
cause there will be a widespread base of sup-
port. The box on page 6 lists people to be
ving for Retirement
ouldn't be Risky ~usiness.
Resources
For information on the second edition
of Accessory Units: The State of the
Art, published in June 1991, contact
Patrick H. Hare Planning & Design,
1246 Monroe Street, N.E., Washington,
DC 20017, 202/269-9334. State of the
Art reviews accessory unit programs
and initiatives at local, state, and na-
tionallevels and at local, provincial,
and national levels in Canada. The
publication is updated every six months.
For information on household match-
ing programs, group shared housing,
and service exchanges, contact the Na-
tional Shared Housing Resource Cen-
ter, 6344 Green Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19144, 215/848-1220.
invited for a community forum on accessory
units. The length of the list suggests that ac-
cessory units are an issue in which a little
leadership can go a long way.
A forum or other initiative thaf explains
accessory units to those who will benefit, and
which puts them in touch with each other,
can lead to something most people in local
government probably believe is impossible:
affordable housing with no public subsidy
and little political cost. PM
AI ost daily you read about the insurance industry crisis. Even Congress is calling
for 'ghter management and more regulation. So, why place all of your guaranteed
inv stments with one insurance company?
Wi the ICMA Retirement Corporation (RC), you don't have to. For more than a
dec de, we've managed insurance contracts on behalf of thousands of public
em oyers through the ICMA Retirement Trust.
To elp reduce risk, we spread investments among a variety of carriers. We perform
com rehensive credit research on each insurance underwriter, investing only with
thos that are highly-rated. And we continuously evaluate and monitor carriers to
help enhance fund safety.
') I
i I 1
IJ
retirement savings are too valuable to subject to risky business. For more
alion on RC-administered plans, call toll-free at (800) 669-7400.
Retirement is
our middle name.
777 North Capitol Slrecl, NE. Washington, DC 20002-4240. (202) 962-4600 Toll Free (202) 669-7400
~
.. ,.
,
. ... .
crrws. :F. ':Behrendt
P.o. $o?(85
!J{smli (jaraenl 0/.91. 22959-0085
-"' .!cZ::LE
..........-.... ,........-..<-.~-,._.-
804-977-7666 Ojfia. · 804-977-7668:r~
October I, 1993
ill ~ & u~ ~ 001
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
CHARLOITESVILLE V A 22902
BOARO OF SUPSMSORS
Re: Accessory apartments in rural areas
Dear Sirs and Madam:
This past summer a dear grandmother of mine died at the age of 98. Her children included my
mother (died shortly after my birth) and a somewhat mentally challenged (I believe that is the
proper contemporary description) daughter named Lucy. Except for a short unsuccessful stint at a
boarding school during her adolescence, my Aunt Lucy Sneed has always lived with her mother.
Some time ago my Grandmother confided in me that she felt I was the family member most
likely to look after Lucy's best interests after Grandmother's death. I willingly agreed to do so and,
thus, was made the trustee to a trust set-up with Lucy's needs in mind.
Shortly after Grandmother's death I pulled out my "Lucy's Apartment" file. Years ago my
wife and I decided that an "attached" addition to our home was close to impossible. This is
primarily due to the fact that our house sits on the side of a hill (next door to Red Hill School).
Also because it is two stories and would not accommodate a wheelchair. However, we could easily
build a separate building with an apartment for Lucy that would be wheelchair accessible. To us
the best alternative was a building with a carport and workshop at one end and Lucy's apartment
at the other. This would also allow both parties the privacy they need while still putting us in
close proximity. Besides, Lucy would want her own kitchen so an apartment, not simply an
addition, was needed.
I dusted off these old plans and proceeded to update them with the intent of beginning the
building project as soon as possible. Of course such a project must involve the various County
officials who see to it that building and zoning laws are obeyed.
This past Wednesday I was speaking to Paula Eubanks (County Inspections) about things like
minimum hall and door widths when she said I had better speak to Zoning about my desire to put
this apartment on my residential property. I was transferred to Marsha Joseph (Zoning). I
explained that the County's Comprehensive Plan showed me to be in a village residential area but
Marsha said that, although that was the plan, for now I was zoned rural. What that meant was if
I wanted to build an apartment for my aunt, with its own kitchen (important distinction) I would
have to buy an adjacent two acres.
It is no secret that many county residents are unhappy with some of the restrictive zoning
laws which they feel create greater ills than benefits. I believe that this is one such situation. I
know the intent of the "one-family unit per two acre" law is to keep the density down is rural areas
but I believe it is actually turning rural areas into low-density residential areas. Aside from that
issue, I would like to point out the direct affects it is now having on my family:
I
J
.".
..
~ -- .
.9lC6emarfe County f}3oara of Supervisors
Octo6er 1, 1993
Page 2
· The only land available to me is an adjacent farm which is currently locked into a
"sell-no-Iand" living trust situation
· Even if this farm land were available to me, I would be buying two acres of steep
hillside, good for little more than grazing, which I could not develop because my
Aunt's apartment precludes that and said apartment is to be built on my existing land.
To put it simply, the purchase of such land would serve no purpose except to drive up
the cost of housing my aunt.
· Because my aunt needs to be where she can receive regular (but not constant) attention,
it looks like I have only three choices:
1) To add on to my house thereby creating an ugly, convoluted monstrosity
(thereby harder to resell) where my aunt would become a 24-hour member of
the family which neither party could cope with for long.
2) To sell my home and move to where the zoning would permit me to
accomplish my "accessory apartment" goal. This is not a reasonable
alternative. The Samuel Miller District is my ancestral home. One branch or
another of my family has resided in Albemarle County for over 200 years. My
aunt and I have many Albemarle ancestors one of whom was William
Benjamin Sneed, Thomas Jefferson's principle tutor. The idea of being herded
(with the rest of the unzoned masses) away from my ancestral home simply
because I wish to live up to such a basic family obligation is quite ludicrous.
3) Locate Aunt Lucy somewhere else and drive, not walk, to get to her. I
don't feel that such an arrangement is in Lucy's best interests.
I guess at this point it goes without saying I am strongly in favor of changing the zoning laws
to allow for accessory apartments. All we need is one bedroom, a bath, a kitchen, living room /
dining room combination, and a screened-in porch for the rocking chair. It looks like less than 1,000
square feet attached to a shop of maybe another 300 square feet and a carport. I would think you
could allow one accessory apartment per family unit with a maximum square foot limitation and
without it having to be attached to the main house.
In closing I would like to ask a few broader questions for your consideration.
· Is it possible that the current restrictions on accessory apartments are attempts to attain
some ivory tower goal of low-density /preservation while turning a deaf ear to the needs
of the individual members of our community. Ivory tower goals have their own place and
legitimacy but are accessory apartments a real threat to these goals? In our community
attempts to preserve the land could we be overlooking the need to help preserve the
family or to provide affordable housing for those with low income?
· As the world market evolves and we continue to undergo the inevitable lowering of our
standard of living, as our health dollars are squeezed more and more, as the ''baby-
boomers" flood into their elder years further straining our heath care budgets, will
this community be ready? Will we offer a variety of choices for our elders or do we just
ship them off to "the home?" Maybe it is better to ask if we will have choices, will
we get shipped off? What if they/we can't afford "the home?" What if we'd rather
be with our children and they'd rather be with us? Do we have to cram ourselves, our
wheelchairs and over-the-bed tables into the same house?
.
.. ..- ....
.9Il6emart:e County 'Boan[ of Supervisors
Octo6er 1, 1993
Page 3
· I am a CPA, my wife is a nurse and we love Aunt Lucy. Isn't it more likely that we
could provide her with a better quality of life than some institution? Our elder
family members enrich our lives and the lives of our children. They have paid their
dues to our society so shouldn't our society reward them with at least a greater ease of
accessibility to their loved ones, the loved ones who will hold their hands during the
final minutes... the final seconds. What have we become if our only viable choice is to
house them elsewhere? Won't we have failed them and ourselves?
Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. I know that there are few issues that
have simple solutions. You have my sympathies and best wishes.
Yours truly,
~#rt!P~f
---
TFB/ml
Hand delivered by messenger on 10/1/93
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
m ~ @ ~ ~ I\" l~ pi
.". .'C" ,.'..-............'..':7',~..~~l.
.,~ ' -' -""197 ."
" , /1'') / ~i,,' '''fr'
'I J '''~'''''' I .
I : l . ,'''',,' ,',
.. ~ l~ ... ~ #"
__-.J
EOAHD OF SUPEHVISOFtS
,
AGENDA
Neighbo
study
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
16 (b) .__
91~,li t)t.,? ~/1:jJ
INFORMATION: ~
ACTION:
SUBJECT
Review
request
the PIa
hearing
Board has been
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
---
REVIEWED BY:
Cilimberg
BACKGR UND:
In 1992, the Board of Supervisors endorsed a neighborhood study process for the Growth Areas
in the County. The purposes of these studies are as follows: (I) Establish at the
neighb rhood scale' a more detailed, design oriented plan which achieves the goals and
object'ves of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) Support and further emphasize the Growth Area in
a mann r consistent with the County's growth management policy; (3) Establish a process for
public participation in the planning and decision making process; and, (4) Synthesize into
one pI nning document the other planning efforts/studies which impact the Growth Area.
A stud for the Neighborhood Three area was the first such study to be completed. A
commit ee made up of land owners, business owners, residents residing and working in
Neighb rhood Three and the Planning Commissioner representing the area was established to
direct he staff in the development of this study. The Committee completed its work and held
a publi information meeting on May 5, 1993 at the County Office Building to provide citizens
residi g and working in Neighborhood Three an opportunity to provide input on the Study.
Approx' ately 20 residents and business owners from Neighborhood Three and the surrounding
area at ended this meeting. The Neighborhood Three Committee subsequently endorsed the study
and fo arded it to the Planning Commission.
DISCUS ION:
The PIa ning Commission has held three worksessions on the Neighborhood Three Study. After
review f the study, the Planning Commission has recommended some changes to the document the
majorit of which deal with the rephrasing of the recommendation statements to a more passive
form a the insertion of a general statement that indicates that the quantitive impact of
funding any projects or programs recommended in the study on the budget shall be fully
underst od before County funds are allocated. These changes were recommended by the Planning
Commission to ensure that readers of the document clearly understand that recommendations in
this st dy serve only as a guide for development of Neighborhood Three and that adoption of
the st dy does not constitute a commitment by the County towards funding of the
recomme dations.
ers of the Neighborhood Three Committee believed that the changes recommended by the
Commission "water down" the study and were inappropriate since this study was
to represent the views of the citizens living and working in Neighborhood Three.
e, the Planning Commission recommended changes stand as a separate transmittal at
e.
RECO
Since t first Neighborhood Study to be completed, the Planning Commission requested
the Stu y be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for its comment prior to the Planning
Commiss'on's public hearing. In particular, the Planning Commission wishes the Board to
comment on its recommended wording and provide direction on whether or not this amended
wording should be a guiding principle for adoption of the study recommendations into the
Compreh nsive Plan.
93.140
.
he following are revisions to the Neighborhood Three study
ecommended by the Planning Commission:
eneral Comment in front of the Recommendations and
mplementations Section:
250 & Route 20 Landsca e
an
. 16 -Change the Recommendation to read:
ecommendation: Consider the development and possible
undin of ~~Y~J~p/~~~/j~pJ~~~~~ a Landscape Plan for the
oute 250 & 20 Corridor.
. 18 -Add the following to the Implementation Section
The quantitative impact of funding this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the oroject in regards to all capital. personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County projects in terms of possible fundinq.
Farm Boulevard Landsca e Plan
. 18 - Change the Recommendation to read:
ecommendation: Consider the development of ~~Y~J~p/~~~
'~pJ~~~~~ a lands9ape plan for state Farm Boulevard.
n Guidelines for New Develo ment and Redevelo ment
Routes 250 & 20
. 19 - Change the Recommendation to read:
utilize the general design guidelines
eveloped by the ARB for new development and redevelopment
long Route 250 and Route 20 within the Entrance Corridor
verlay District. New development and redevelopment should
e sensitive to the fact that these corridors are within
onticello's viewshed. Also, new development along Route
.
250 should consider occurrinq p)t)tyit in a manner that results
in a uniformed transition from Rural Area to more intensive
commercial development.
Monticello's Viewshed
p. 22 - Change the Recommendation to read:
Recommendation: In the short term utilize the voluntarv
quidelines listed below for development within Monticello's
viewshed. In the lonq term consider developinq and funding
of J!>~1~J.pp a Viewshed study for Monticello in conjunction
with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and property
owners in Neighborhood Three. Utilize the work on
Monticello's viewshed alreadY completed by the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation.
p,. 22 - Change the third paragraph to read:
~%/~/~j~j~yi~'/%~~/ The following voluntary guidelines for
development within Monticello viewshed should be considered:
tPt/j~)tJ.yi%jp~/j~/%~~/Yj~~%~~~/~tyi~t.
p. 23 -Add the following to the Implementation Section:
0 The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the t>roject in regards to all capital, personnel and
operating costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County projects in terms of possible funding.
Rivanna Greenway
p. 23 - Change the recommendation to read:
. Recommendation: Consider the development and funding of
J!>~1~J.PP/~/~~t~jJ.~~/~t~~~~~t/PJ.~~/~~~/j~PJ.~~~~t/t~~ a
greenway to meet the recreation and conservation needs of
the residents in Neighborhood Three as well as in the
County.
p. 26 -Add the following to the Implementation Section:
,
.
0 The quantitative impact of fundinq this project on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the proiect in reqards to all capital, personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible funding.
.
Historic Resources
P. 26 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider determining ~~t~t~j~~ properties
within Neighborhood Three that have the greatest potential'
for National and Virginia Historic Registration. Encourage
willinq property owners to pursue having properties placed
on the National and Virginia Register.
p. 29 - Add the following to the Implementation Section and
delete current reference.
o
The County has received a matchinq qrant from the
Department of Historic Resources to conduct a detailed
survey on potential historic sites to determine the
likelihood of a property beinq included on the Virqinia
and/or National Register. The five properties
indicated above as having the qreatest potential for
inclusion on the Virqinia and/or National Reqistrar
should be surveyed first. Other potential sites in
Neiqhborhood Three should be included in the survey if
qrant monies are still available.
o The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full imQact of
the proiect in reqards to all capital. personnel and
operating costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible funding.
Sidewalks
p. 29 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider the development and funding
Pt~Yi0e of a safe and integrated pedestrian system within
Neighborhood Three.
p. 31 - Add the following to the Implementation Section and
delete current reference.
o
The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds .
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the project in reqards to all capital. personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible funding.
.
street Liqhts
p. 31 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider ~~ntt~t monitoring night time
pedestrian activity along Route 250, Route 20 and South
Pantops Drive. If pedestrian activities are deemed high
during the night time hours, streetlight %~~~~~ may be
considered for for installation along these roadways.
p. 32 - Add the following to the Implementation Section:
o The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before Countv funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the proiect in reqards to all capital, personnel and
operatinq costs. OnlY after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County projects in terms of possible funding.
Bikewavs
p. 32 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider implementing and funding J~P~~~~~t
the recommendations of the Bicycle Plan for Charlottesville
and Albemarle County in Neighborhood Three.
p. 32 - Add the following to the last bullet on this page:
Provide a striped and siqned facility jt~t~~~~/%t~~~~~j
~/%~~t~~/t~~j~jt1/that runs along Riverbend Drive and
South Pantops Drive.
p. 33 - Add the following to the Implementation Section and
delete current reference:
o The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the project in reqards to all capital, personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible fundinq.
Bus Service
P. 33 - Add the fOllowinq to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider providing and funding 't~1j~~ bus
service to Pantops Shopping Area on a one year trial basis.
Consider providing future service to other portions of the
Neighborhood as it is developed.
p. 33 - Add the following to the Implementation Section and
delete current reference.
o The auantitative impact of fundinq this project on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of '
the proiect in reqards to all capital, personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible funding.
Commuter Park and Ride Lot
p. 35 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
o In the long term ~~~~~t~~~ consider the construction
and fundinq of a permanent park and ride facility east
of the Route 250/Interstate 64 and in the short term
explore with owners of large parking lots the
possibility of a joint-use park and ride lot.
p. 37 - Add the following to the Implementation Section:
o The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the proiect in reqards to all capital, personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible fundinq.
Rio Road/Route 20 Connector
p. 37 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider removing ~~~~y~ the Rio Road/Route
250 Connector Road from the Charlottesville Area
Transportation study.
Police Service
~
p. 38 - Add the ~ollowing to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Encourage the formation of business and
neighborhood watch groups in Neighborhood Three to help
reduce crime. Consider supporting ~~pp~t~ the Community
Facilities Plan's recommendation to provide a level of
service of one and one half (1.5) officers per 1,000
residents.
p. 37 - Add the following to the Implementation Section:
o The quantitative impact of funding additional positions
on the bUdqet shall be fully understood before County
. .
funds are allocated. Only after such analysis can this
proiect be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible fundinq.
Parks and Recreation
p. 38 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider providing and funding 't~1j~~
Community level park service to the eastern portion of the
Neighborhood Three by providing Community Park facilities at
Rivanna.
p. 41 - Add the following to the Parks & Recreation and
Libraries Implementation Sections:
o The quantitative impact of fundinq this proiect on the
budqet shall be fully understood before County funds
are allocated. This shall include the full impact of
the proiect in reqards to all capital, personnel and
operatinq costs. Only after such analysis can this
project be properly evaluated and prioritized relative
to other County proiects in terms of possible funding.
Solid Waste
p. 42 - Add the following to the Recommendation Section:
Recommendation: Consider implementing ~~p~~~~~~ the
recommendations of the Solid Waste section of the Community
Facilities Plan once it is approved. Consider encouraqing
the ~~~~~t~~~/~~~/establishment of recycling programs in the
Neighborhood Three business and residential areas.
p. 42 - Add the following to the Implementation Section:
o The quantitative impact of funding these proiects and
proqrams on the budqet shall be fully understood before
County funds are allocated. This shall include the full
impact of the~proiect in regards to all capital,
personnel andoperatinq costs. Only after such
analysis can this proiect be properly evaluated and
prioritized relative to other County proiects in terms
of possible fundinq.
Madam Secretary:
I uld be very pleased if you could distribute the enclosed copies of our statement to the
Alb arle COlmty Board of Supervisors.
Thank You,
/ I' t '
f/U-~-VLA
Alvin C. Egbert
Member, Albemarle Housing Coalition
~0;,
//) ,A
/~;: ,[i,' k)
( "'-.{
c..,/ '
-- /)
L'
~
Page 1
Statement
FOR THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
David P. Bowerman
Forest R, Marshall Jr.
Sally B. Thomas
Charlotte y, Humphris
Charles S,Martin
Walter F. Perkins ,Chairman
BY THE ABEMARLE HOUSING COALITION
SUBJECT: ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
Most people resist change. The status quo is preferred to the unknown, So it is with accessory apartments.
Opponents dream up scenarios that are beyond the reach of reality.
Commonly cited reasons (costs) fc)r rejecting accessory apartments are: Such apartments will lead to over
crowding (population density in excess of rational goals) ,overloading of utilities and general infrastructme,
, cluding roads, water and sewer systems ,power and, perhaps even, telephones. Moreover, real estate
peculation would ensue ,as buyers expect values to rise as permitted density increased. On the other hand
many believe that neighborhood home values would decrease as the character of the neighborhood
hanged from single-family to bi-family, In short, A lot of uncertainty exist.
estimony given before this Board as well as available studies do not bear out these apprehensions. (1)
ecause given the usual constraints placed on this type of housing , most residences can't qualify . (2)
ccessory apartments are constructed for one individual ,two at most, which would not result in a large
crease in neighborhood population.(3) Because AccessaIY Apartments are camouflaged to appear as part
e main structure, the character of the neighborhood remains essentially the same.
e benefits of accessory apartments are several :(1)For elderly people such an apartment can provide
dditional income, The elderly move into the accessory apartments and rent the main house to children or
thers. (2)They can provide companionship and security,(3) Accessory apartments can provide necessaIY
orne support services through the tenant. (4)They ,like reverse mortgages, permit older people to live in a
.. , home-like environment.(5)They can also provide such benefits for the handicapped as well as the
Iderly, It may be worth noting, too, that one subdivision, Forest Lakes, permits the construction of
ccessory apartments as well as separate cottages, commonly known as Echo Houses,
inally, and perhaps most important, accessory apartments can provide affordable housing for low income
eople" According to one estimate ,a one bedroom unit costs between $20,000 and $25,000.
n conclusion, the Albemarle Housing Coalition strongly supports an ordinance approving accessory
partments. They can provide acceptable housing for the elderly and other people with special housing
eeds at a very reasonable cost as well as providing for other social needs as noted above. One final note, if
ccessory apartments are approved ,request to construct them may not be received because people lack
formation on their availability, approved contractors ,financing ,zoning etc, Thus ,to make sure that
ceded accessory apartments are built, a fallow- up information and implementation program is required,
ee following page for references,
January 12, 1994
. ..
Page 2
REFERENCES
Hodges.Samuel J. AlJowingAccessoryApartments: Key Issues. U.S.Dept. of Housing 1983.
Alderman Gov. Doc. HH 1.2: AP 1 ,
Hare,Patrick H. Echo Housing, a review of zoning issues and other considerations. MRP 1983,32 p
Bib,
Fine Arts Oversize Stacks, HD 7287.92 U54 H37,
Haske Margaret, Accessory Apartments: Developing Private Partnerships, 1988.
derrnan Gov, Doc, HE 23.3002: AC 2/988.
arker, Valerie et.al, A Change For the Better,. How to make communities more responsive to older
esidents,MRP. 1989pp. 23-25.
January 12, 1994
, "
- /J~
D~\)-A.~ --pH~L
~~ /~-/--~3 ~
TECHNOLOGY PROPOSAL
.
for
Virginia L. Murray
Elementary Sc~ool
-
~
Karla R. Kirtley
Murray Technology Committee
September 24, 1993
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Surn..m.ary ......... ........ .... ....... ... ......... .Jo.. ....... ..fIJ... ..... ................... 1
Murray Vision and Mission Statement................................................. 3
Background Information and Rationale............................................... 4
StateIn.ent of Need..... ......... ....... ... ............ ......... .......... .... .........................6
Goals...................... .-................... ................................................................ 7
Objectives, Procedures, Evaluation Tables...........................................8
Budget.. ... ... .... ........ ............ .... ............ ........ .... ... ....... .......... ......... ...... ........ .19
J.
VIRGINIA L. MURRA Y ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TECHNOLOGY PROPOSAL
XECUTIVE SUMMARY
ackground Information
ur schools are virtually the only institutions where communications and computer
chnologies are not part of the daily fabric of activity. For this reason, technology in
e classroom needs to be viewed as an integral teaching and learning tool, not as a
eparate entity. With that thought in mind, the Murray Technology Proposal has been
esigned to provide direction for integration of instructional technologies into the
lementary school curriculum over the next 5 years. It will serve as a model for other
lementary schools in Albemarle County.
I mediate: During the first year, training and support ~for 6 selected teachers will be
rovided with the emphasis on existing hardware and software. This emphasis will
i clude use of basic graphics programs (for making illustrations), word processing, and
uthoring systems (designing original instruction) that can be used in any subject area.
eachers will also receive assistance in using Va PEN, Virginia's Public Education
etwork. (Va PEN is an electronic network that utilizes telephone lines to connect
s ools and educational institutions all over the world).
on -Term: Additional computers and supporting equipment will be added to each
c assroom starting in the second year. Our aim is to have 4-5 computers per classroom
t at will be used as a daily part of the learning process. Training and support will
c ntinue during each of the remaining 4 years and will include applications for specific
c rricular areas.
e training and~upport will be provided by a full time Technology Coordinator (to be
h red), with some part time support from graduate students at UVa's Curry School of
E ucation. The Technology Coordinator will spend the first 2 years full time at Murray,
b t may serve as a consultant to other county elementary schools on a limited basis.
E ch year thereafter, the Coordinator will be half-time at Murray and half-time at
a other elementary school. This person's responsibilities do not include technical
a sistance.
1
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (continued)
Budget
The first year start up costs are projected to be $103,300. Currently, $18,900 of this will
be funded through a local grant, Central Office, school budget, and the Murray PTO. It
should be noted that with these funds and support from the University of Virginia's
Curry School of Education we are implementing part of this project during the 1993-94
school year. We are looking for full time staff support to begin with the start of the
94-95 school year.
Year 2 is projected to cost $46,400.
Years 3 - 5 of this proposal are projected to cost $28,500.
..
..
2
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
VIRGINIA L. MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Vision and Mission for Success
Virginia L. Murray is a supportive community of leamerp that shares a vision, mission,
and philosophy.
VISION
We envision academic success, positive social values, civic responsibilities, initiative,
individuality, creativity, and physical and emotional well-being for all members of our
community.
MISSION
Our mission is to educate and challenge students to fulfill their potential within a
community where children are valued and empower~ to discover and appreciate who
they are, what they may become, and what they can contribute to others.
PHILOSOPHY
Our belief is that people have a natural desire to learn and be successful given support,
encouragement and challenges. The family, community, state, nation, and world will
benefit when people are aware of and respond to personal and social responsibilities.
When people are empowered they will freely choose to exert extraordinary efforts.
..
3
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
BACKGROUND INFORMATION & RATIONALE
At a time when our nation is examining it's schools and in the process of massive
restructuring, we are asking ourselves, "Are we doing all that we can do to prepare our
students for their futUre roles as productive citizens?" ~-
Traditionally, those students who are college bound have had the educational
advantages. Those students not getting a four- year college degree "have found it
increasingly difficult to earn a decent living". (Arnold H. Packer, Tracking vs. Choosing,
p. 20, Communications of the ACM, May 1993). The manufacturing jobs that once
abounded for unskilled labor have virtually disappeared. Our banks, public libraries,
small businesses, grocery stores, retail stores, entertainment industries, etc. increasingly
rely on computing and communications technology and a workforce skilled in these
areas.
Currently, "education stands in stark contrast to our other institutions where computing
and communications technologies are integrated into the daily fabric of activity. These
technologies are the new infrastructure, the new way in which people communicate,
make decisions, and develop artifacts." (Elliot Soloway, Technology in Education, p.28,
Communications of the ACM, May 1993)
Our schools should be viewed no differently. "The most powerful way to integrate
technologies into schools is in concert with organizational change, not as independent
learning systems or isolated rooms that remove students from the personal interactions
central to schooling. This means incorporating technologies as a key resource to these
changes, rather than , as is common now, viewing technology as a separate, difficult,
and expensive problem." (Ian Hawkins, Technology and the Organization of Schooling,
p. 31, Communications of the ACM, May 1993)
Albemarle COWlty and Virginia L. Murray Elementary School seek to address these
,challenges over the next few years. Consistent with these challenges is the goal for ALL
students to achieve a high level of competency. Our school's mission is to educate and
challenge students to fulfill their potential within a community where children are
valued and empowered to discover and appreciate who they are, what they may
become, and what they can contribute to others. For this to occur, there must be choices
for many field&of endeavor. The required skills that will afford students these choices
must begin in the elementary years of schooling. Skills in computing and
communications technologies are no exception.
4
ACKGROUND INFORMATION & RATIONALE (continued)
esearch has shown compelling evidence of the effectiveness of educational technology
i schools. Some major conclusions of a 1990 study (Ludwig Braun, "Educational
chnology: Help for All the Kids", The Computing Teacner, May 1993, Volume 20,
umber 8) conducted by the International Society for Tec~ology in Education (ISTE)
e:
1. All children learn more and learn better when they have access to
technology in an intelligently-designed environment. (Bialo & Sivin, 1990)
2. Technology is especially effective with at-risk children. (Bialo & Sivin,1989)
3. Teachers need training in the uses of technology in their curricula; time to
develop these uses; and support from their administrators in a risk-free
environment - -and they need these on a continuing I long-term basis.
4. To achieve the benefits from technology that are possible, we must restructure
our schools in dramatic ways.
search has demonstrated that change is rejected when it is imposed and that
e uipment thrust on non-trained teachers sits idle. At Virginia L. Murray we have a
s ared vision and mission and the willingness to move forward. Our school has
ready begun integrating technology into the curriculum and none of our equipment
si s idle. The society in which we live is technologically driven and Virginia L. Murray
E ementary School and Albemarle County must move toward using technology to
f ster the education of ALL of our students as we prepare them for their future roles as
p oductive citizens. Therefore, we are asking for support in developing and
i plementing a model technology plan into our curriculum.
e Virginia Dept. of Education's Technology Plan supports the above findings and
c Is for local school districts, including Albemarle Coun'ty, to develop plans for
tegrating technology into the classroom by January 1995.
0, E. and Sivil), J. (1990). Report on the effectiveness of microcomputers in schools. New
York: Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc.
0, E. and Sivin, J. (1989). Computers and at-risk youth: A partial solution to a
complex problem. Classroom Computer Learning. 10(4),34-39.
5
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
STATEMENT OF NEED
A technology plan is needed for Albemarle County, and each indvidual school, as is
mandated in the VDDE's Technology Plan.
In order to provide aid in the implementation and integration of technology in Murray
Elementary School knowledgeable personnel are essential. -
Telecommunications resources involving other schools, school systems, and
educational institutions are available via the Internet, yet are being underutilized due
to the lack of a compatible network.
Teachers at Murray Elementary, as in other schools, have greatly varying levels of
computer literacy and little training in how to teach with technology.
The learning opportunities for all students should be equal. The students' exposure to
technology varies widely in each class depending upon the level of "technology literacy"
a teacher possesses. In this "Information Age" students coming out of our schools
lacking the skills to access information will be at a distintt disadvantage.
A technology minded school is needed to serve as a model for implementing
multimedia classrooms in the Virginia Dept. of Education's Technology Plan. This
school must have both internal and external support. Murray Elementary School has an
internal commitment from the teachers and principal, as well as, an external
commitment from parents, local businesses, and Dr. Glen Bull at the University of
Virginia's Curry School of Education.
Computers and multimedia offer an efficient means of accessing information that is
consistent with a variety of learning styles. This helps meet the needs of all students at
Murray Elementary, including those who are at-risk.
Computer technology also offers an efficient means of school wide management, to
include portfolio assessment regarding student learning outcomes.
~
6
\i irginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
<tOALS
This technology plan will be implemented over the next 5 years and is designed to
serve as a model for the effective integration of computer and communications
technology into the Albemarle County elementary curriculum.
Stated goals include:
· Providing teachers with instruction in the use of technology in all areas of the
curriculum and supporting their continued involvement.
· Introducing students to a variety of technologies as effective and friendly learning
tools.
· Increasing the ratio of time spent on positive student/ teacher interactions.
· Providing students with additional technology related opportunities to achieve
success that are compatible with a variety of learning styles.
· Providing students and staff with a greater variety of informational resources than is
currently available in printed materials.
· Providing students with opportunities for real life experiences through the use of
technology.
· Fostering interaction between and professional development of the staff through the
use of technology.
· Providing means for effective classroom management through computer usage.
.
7
.
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Goal: The Murray Technology Plan is to be implemented over the next 5 years and is
designed to serve as a model for the incorporation of computer and communications
technology into Albemarle County's elementary curriculum.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
· For selected teachers An overall plan will be Observation
from each grade level to developed for teachers
demonstrate a beginning from grades K-5 to learn Checklist of basic skills
level of proficiency using basic skills. This plan will
computers, existing include use of self paced Periodic assessment report
software, Virginia's Public tutorials, independent written or edited by Tech.
Education Network, CD- exploration, and attendance Coordinator
ROM and laser disc tech- at workshops on hardware
nology during the first 2 and software usage.
yrs.
· Teachers will work Teachers will plan Technology Coordinator
cooperatively with peers technology assisted lessons may observe lessons and
and graduate students from in advance and use various offer suggestions.
~
the University's Curry hardware and software Discussions in Tech.
School of Education to applications at the point of Comm. of teachers'
promote technology use in instruction as well as for experiences.
the classroom and to independent student work.
develop curriculum related UV a professors evaluate
projects. OVa's EDES 545 graduate performance of grad
students will be assigned to students assisting Murray
teachers to help develop, teachers.
implement, and assess
appropriate projects for Interview conducted with
each class. teachers and grad students
by Tech. Coordinator.
Brief narrative submitted
by teachers as to success of
projects with suggestions
for improvement.
.
8
continued from previous page
Objectives
· All students will begin to
e technology as a means
t gather information, work
c operatively with peers,
roblem solve, generate
iginal work, and
c mmunicate with other
s dents in different parts
the country and world.
~
Procedures
Tasks that take advantage
of the use of technology in
any area of the curriculum
will be defined and
assessed by teachers and
graduate students. Uses
will include interactive
software and network
capabilities. Each class will
be equipped with 4-5
computers to be used on a
continual basis throughout
the day. Students will be
expected to gain familiarity
with these workstations
9
Evaluation
Checklist
Observation
Interview
Data collected from
network.
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Goal: The Murray Technology Plan includes providing teachers with instruction in
the use of technology in all areas of the curriculum and supporting their continued
involvement.
.-
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
· The Tech. Coordinator A full time Technology Compile information on
will develop and Coordinator will be hired. programs other school
implement staff training in Exisiting programs in other systems may be using.
general use of hardware, school systems will be
commonly used software researched.
and basic use of Va PEN Workshops in general Implement a checklist of
(Virginia's Public Education hardware care and use will hardware and software
Network). be conducted. Initial competencies.
(First 2 years of Tech- emphasis will be placed on
nology Plan). word processing and use of Keep records of task
authoring tools, such as completion.
HyperCard, that fit into any
area of the curriculum. "' Rate effectiveness of
Access and use of Va PEN workshops.
will also be included.
Training will be done by
the Tech. Coord. &UVa
grad students with support
from Information Services.
· Experienced teachers in Proficient teachers may Keep records of progress
computer technology will serve as mentors for 1 or 2 related to skill acquisition.
serve as models for inexperienced teachers in
inexperienced teachers. their own buildings. Note the frequency of
contact between
experienced and non-
experienced technology
users.
,i.
10
, irginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
( ~oa1: continued from previous page
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
· The staff and Technology A technology/curriculum _Develop evaluation form
( oordinator will target committee will be ' for software. Compile
s pecific curricular areas for established to examine siifferent teachers'
t( chnology initiatives. software packages, laser perspecti ves.
( rd, 4th, and 5th years of discs, CD-ROMs, etc. for
T ~chnology Plan) correlation with specific Survey teachers to
outcomes in each subject. determine areas of
.. (This may be Recommendations will be curriculum to focus on.
il pplemented sooner if made and a timetable set
bacher's are ready.) up for implementation. Teachers rate effectiveness
This committee will share of specific projects by
information with like number of objectives
committees from other achieved..
schools.
... Was implementation of
timetable for initiatives on
schedule?
.
~
I
i
11
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Goal: The Murray Technology Plan includes introducing students to a variety of
technologies as effective and friendly learning tools.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
· Students will Keyboarding will be ' A checklist of develop-
demonstrate a beginning available for all grades JIlentally appropriate skill
level of proficiency in through teacher instruction, levels will be established
keyboarding skills. software, and related for each grade.
independent activities.
· Students will gather and Students will access the Teacher observation of
compare relevant curricular laserdisc, CD-ROM students.
information using encyclopedia, the Internet
multimedia resources for a and/or other electronic A portfolio assessment of
specific project. sources of information. A completed student projects.
technology log will be kept
by each student. Examination of technology
log.
· Using technology, Students will use Teacher observation of
~
students will work inde- independent and students.
pendently and in teams to cooperativeleanting
create original work related strategies to complete A portfolio assessment of
to the curriculum. assignments.With the completed student projects.
teacher acting as a guide,
students must make
decisions regarding task
appropriate technology
and who is responsible for
each component of the
assignment.
· Using technology, Students will interact with Teacher observation of
students will demonstrate the computer during the students.
the ability to work time that the teacher is
independently while working with other groups
teacher works with others. of students. The nature of Measure the amount of
the tasks may be informa- work done on particular
.. tion gathering, original assignment.
writing, problem solving
with others or drill and
practice related to a
previously tau~ht skill.
12
----
. .
, irginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
( j;oal: The Murray Technology Plan includes a means of increasing the ratio of time
sbent on positive student/teacher interactions.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
41 Teachers will spend more Throughout the day while Observation
t me with smaller groups of the teacher is involved with
s udents. small groups, a group of 4- Teacher log of time spent
8 other students will rotate with small groups.
through computer
workstations. They will be
interactively engaged in
content appropriate
activities.
Initially specific students
may be trained as "peer
consultants" to help other
students.
..
I 13
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Goal: The Murray Technology Plan includes providing students and staff with a
greater variety of informational resources than is currently available in printed
materials.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
-Students and staff will Using CD-ROM,laser'disc, Observation of kind of
begin to use instantaneous and Internet technology equipment and resources
electronic and multimedia students will have at their being used.
information resources. fingertips current and
constantly updated Examination of projects
information available as a being produced.
resource for any subject or
unit of study.
The connection to the Keep a log of specific areas
Internet will remain on accessed on Internet.
during the school
day to allow students and
staff access in a timely ....
manner.
,j.
14
. .
, Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
( ~oal: The Murray Technology Plan includes providing students with additional
t~chnology related opportunities to achieve success that are compatible with a variety of
l~arning styles.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
I Identified students in Cross curricular unitS or 9bservation of students'
~ pecial Education and multimedia projects will be work.
( ~ifted Education will be identified that will serve
( ~allenged to use specific strengths or needs Portfolio assessment of
t~chnology to further of students involved. This student projects.
( evelop talents and will be done in cooperation
strengths or to assist them with students' regular Teachers rate effectiveness
i~ areas of need. classroom teachers and the of said projects according to
Special Ed. or Gifted predetermined criteria.
resource teachers.
....
,j.
I
15
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Goal: The Murray Technology Plan fosters interaction between and professional
development of the staff through the use of technology.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
-The staff will begin to The staff will set up -Examination of project
interact electronically with electronic projects plans.
other staff (and students) involving classes within the
inside and outside of the school.
local school environment. Interview staff.
Staff will explore the
"Academical Village" on Va Check the postings in the
PEN and encourage Academical Village.
students to make inquiries
into Science, History, or
other related topics. Examination of proposed
cooperative learning
The Tech. Coord. and Staff projects.
will investigate cooperative
and/or distance learning ....
projects with another state.
- Staff will begin to use The Tech. Coord. and Interview teachers
technology to increase teachers will identify regarding amount of use
professional growth and professional development and benefits of network
active research within the sources on the network. contacts with other
school environment. These may include professionals.
"discussion"groups with
other professionals
regarding subject areas,
school services or research
topics; documents of
information, or notices of
upcoming state or national
conferences, etc.
Use expertise of Murray
,j. School counselor who has
started an elementary
"Counselors'Discussion
Group" over the Internet.
16
--
. . .
-
'V irginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
( oal: The Murray Technology Plan includes providing means for effective classroom
n anagement through computer usage.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
- Teachers will begin to use Teachers will use various 'Evidence of data and
te chnology as a software programs for z:ecord keeping.
rr anagement tool. record keeping (Le.
portfolio, student
evaluation, student records)
and for collecting resources
(Le. content related
materials, journal articles,
etc.)
....
,j.
I 17
I
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Goal: The Murray Technology Plan includes providing students with opportunities
for real life experiences through the use of technology.
Objectives Procedures Evaluation
- Students will interact The students will examination of project
electronically with other participate in electronic plans.
students (and teachers) projects in vol ving classes
inside and outside of the within the school.
local school environment.
Students will begin to Routinely check the
explore the "Academical pos tings in the Academical
Village" on Va PEN and Village.
make inquiries into Science,
History, or other related Examine student logs.
topics. Keep a log of the
inquiries.
With the guidance of the .... Examination of cooperative
teachers and the Tech. learning projects.
Coord. the students will
participate in cooperative
and/ or distance learning
projects with students in
another state.
,j.
18
Total Cost
Items Y ear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
· 1 full time $32,000 $32,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000
staff position
· Inservice &
release time 12,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
· 25MacLCm
w / monitors 40,000
· 1 LTV card 600
· 1 Video
Spigot card 300
· 1 Laser print. 1,800
· 1 CD ROM
file server 3,000
· 5 memory
upgrades 1,500
· 1 Xapshot
camera 400
· 1 Scanner 1,000
· 1 Tape back-
up for server 900
· Software 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
. temet line,
outer &
odems 4,000
. Ethernet
xes (250@) 1,500
. early line
ental fee 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
. Com Hub ,j. 700
Totals 103,300 46,400 28,500 28,500 28,500
19
Virginia L. Murray Technology Proposal
Budget (continued)
Available From Existing Funding Sources
Items Y ear 1 Year 2 Year 3 ~- Y ear 4 Y ear 5
· 1 LTV card 600
· 1 Video
Spigot card 300
· 1 Laser print. 1,800
.1 CD ROM
file server 3,000
· 5 memory
upgrades 1,500
· Internet line,
router ,modems 4,000
· 6 Ethernet
boxes (250@) 1,500
· Yearly line
rental fee 4,500
· 3 Com Hub 700
· Software 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Totals 18,900 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 2,000
Additional Funding Needed
I.tems Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
· Staff Support 32,000 32,000 16,000 16,000 16,000
· Inservice &
release time 12,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
· 25MacLCm 40,000
· 1 Scanner ,j. 1,000
· 1 Xapshot
camera 400
· Tape backup 900
· Internet fee 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
Totals 84,400 44,400 26,500 26,500 26,500
20