The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-02-09 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 9, 2000 Februaw 11, 2000 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. * Woody Baker, on behalf of the Farm Bureau, asked the County to exempt farmers from the $125 permit fee charged to burn brush. Sarah Lee Barnes spoke regarding a proposal by Old Dominion Electdc Cooperative to build a power plant in Louisa County, about 500 yards from the Albemarle County line, and expressed concerns about the potential water problem. 5.1 Appropriation: EduCation, $5,475 (Form #99045) · APPROVED 5.2 Appropriation: Criminal Records Systems Improvement Grant 00-A3557, $12,200 (Form #99055). · APPROVED 5.3 Appropriation: Analysis of Criminal History Records Information Systems Grant .00-A3556, $16,000 (Form #99056) APPROVED ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Clerk: Acknowledge comments. County Executive: Bring back report at a future agenda. County Executive: Request David Hirschman to follow up on and bdng back report at a future agenda. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. · 6. ZMA-99-14. Hydraulic Dental Center (Signs #58). None. · APPROVED as proffered, dated 1/25/00. Clerk: Forward to Planning in Attachment A. 7. SP-99-67. Hydraulic Road Dental Center (Sign ~62). · APPROVED subiect to ten conditions 8. Public Hearing on FY 2000/01 to FY 2004/05 CIP. None. · HELD. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Board authorized the Chairman to participate in a joint press conference with the Mayor to announce several joint initiatives involving the County and the City in the areas of regional planning and cooperation. 9. Adjoum. .· Meeting was adjoumed at 8:46 p.m. Lee Catlin: Contact City counterpart and prepare media release. /ewc Attachment A Agenda item No. 7. SP-99-67. Hydraulic Dental Center (Si.qn #62). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow construction of professional offices in accord w/Sec 18.17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, Ps 36 & 36A1. Property contains 1.23 acs, and is located Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) across from Albemarle HS. Znd R-4. Rio Dist. APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 10. All new structures and parking shall conform to Sections 21.7.1, 21.7.2 and 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; The applicant shall provide a sight distance of 425 feet, as required by VDOT, at the existing entrance to the professional offices on Hydraulic Road (Route 743). In addition to Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets; SP-78-09 for a day care center on this property is revoked; Setbacks for new structures shall be as described in Section 21.7, except a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the 20 feet setback adjacent to the parking/travelways on the south side of the site (adjacent to Old Oak Court) may be requested for the purpose of construction of the travelways and parking. Screening shall exceed that required by Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance according to the discretion of the Design Planner and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements will be supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Planner to provide good screening for the adjacent residential district and along Hydraulic Road. No portion of the permanent parking or travelways shall encroach on the 20 foot setback; If the existing house on site is removed and replaced with a new structure, the new structure shall be governed by setbacks per Section 21.7 of the Zoning Ordinance; The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as Hydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Site Plan Sheet I of 1 by Muncaster Engineering dated 12/20/99. Locations of buildings, parking, and travelways are approximate and may change but indicate the general intent for site use and density; A wooden fence shall be built between the subject property and the adjoining residential properties of at least six (6) feet in height. Screening vegetation shall be planted on the residential side of the fence; The site shall be developed in a manner so as to preserve as many existing trees throughout the site as is reasonably possible consistent with the development of the property according to the conditions set forth herein. A conservation plan for the existing trees shall be submitted at the time of preliminary site plan submittal. Particular attention shall be paid to tree preservation and screening along Hydraulic Road; and Massing materials and building configuration shall be in harmony with the existing complex on the site adjacent to the north, and shall be subject to the review of the Design Planner. Albemarle County Farm Bureau Position Statement County Bum Policy The Albemarle County Farm Bureau, at its annual membership meeting in August, 1999, adopted several resolutions related to local government. One resolution calls on the county to exempt farmers from the $125 permit fee charged to bum brush. The membership believes this fee is excessive and unnecessary and was adopted by the county without representation or input from the agricultural and forestal communities. Further, we believe that the burn permit fee is a bureaucratic obstacle that is contrary to the County's Comprehensive Plan which states as a goal that the county will "promote the continuation of a viable agricultural and forestal industry." In 1993, the Board of Supervisors appointed an Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee, charged with reviewing the current Comprehensive Plan as it relates to agricultural and forestal issues. This committee was asked to make recommendations on implementation of stated goals and over the course of eighteen months produced and presented to the supervisors a detailed set of recommended policies and strategies for supporting and promoting agriculture and forestal industries in Albemarle County. Excerpts from this work include: "I. County policies and regulations should support Agricultural/Forestal Interests 4. Review County ordinances to be sure they are realistic and serving the intended purposes. Keep number of ordinances to a minimum. Enforce ordinances properly. 5. Existing regulations, including the new state forestry water quality law, are sufficient to ensure good forestry practices ..... 6. County policies should support the farmers regarding nuisance conllicts in Rural Areas. 7. A permanent agricultural/forestal committee should have the opportunity to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the impacts of proposed ordinances on on agriculture and forestry .... " The Albemarle County Farm Bureau supports the Bum Permit process and encourages its members to adhere to bum regulations; however, we recognize that many of those who bum do not bother with required permits. If bum permit fees are a method to generate funds to support fire/rescue costs, we suggest more stringent enforcement and collection of fines as an alternative method of generating funds. Farmers must clean up debris and blowdown to maintain their property. One storm can take years of clean-up. Stacking of such debris often encourages undesirable plant species and weeds. Farm dumps are no longer used and landfill fees are too expensive. Some farmers must pay $750 per year (6- two month permit fees) for the privilege to bum when they feel atmospheric conditions are favorable. Farm Bureau recognizes tb.e complex issues related to fire safety and desires an equitable system of enforcement of regulation; however, we do not want to be penalized for problems related to fire safety and nuisance conflict which may exist in non- agricultural/forestal settings. Farmers have a right to maintain their property without having to pay a fee for the privilege to burn. January 2000 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to bring to your attention a serious potential water problem in my neighborhood. This is an issue that should be of concern to Albemarle County. I have been following the progress of a proposal by the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to build a power plant in Louisa County (about 500 yards from the Albemarle County line) off Rt. 231 on Klockner Road. With each passing day, I have become increasingly concerned about the issue of water consumption for this power plant. The Southwest Mountains are NOT known for having an abundance of water. A few years ago, the farm next to us had to drill four wells to find enough water, and it was during a drought not nearly as severe as the one this past year. This summer, for the first time that we know of in the 270-year history of Cloverfields, our spnng ran dry. It was a major drought. As a result, we had to sell all of our cattle since the streams had long since dried up. While it may not look like it to those who randomly drive down our road, there are a number of farms along 22 and 231 that actually depend on the business of farming for their economic viability. In fact, either the largest or second largest sheep farm in the state of Virginia is less than two miles from this proposed power plant. I can relate to you another story in which heavy use has impacted the well directly across the road from a major water user in my neighborhood. According to ~ literature given out last week at a public information session for ~4;LC their nitrogen oxide emission control the~ee&44,100 gallons per hour and that translates to 8.8 million gallons per year. ODEC says that it will mn the plant 75 days a year on propane and 8 days a year on oil. When oil is being used they will use 14, 552 gallons of no. 2 fuel oil per hour). They plan to have a 2 million gallon fuel storage on sight. That in and of itself is a concern if there is an accident or a leak. Imagine what alX oil spillage would do to our groundwater. The power is not expected to be for local consumption, but rather to be sent elsewhere, unless the area changes and there is a greater demand for power. With that scenario, even more water will be used and there will be more than 8.3 days a year of peak usage. You can see why the nightmare grows with each passing day. According to ODEC~ they are looking at options of securing thi-s water from Bowlers Mill Reservoir site runoff, wells and/or Gordonsville LTTP wastewater. Is this sufficient information about their planned water source to determine that those on the so-called Keswick aquifer will or will not be affected? I am seriously concerned that if this plant taps into our underground water supply, we simply do not know if there is enough water to support the farm businesses in the area (not to mention the residences), and the power plant. I can only imagine what a nightmare it will be for all of us along 22 and 231 if our groundwater decreases to the point where we are unable to farm; such a scenario will seriously impact the value of our livelihood, our homes, and farms. I know that it is awkward for one County to become involved in the business of another County, but water doesn't know where the county lines are. We all must share in the benefits of such a vital resource and likewise, we all must share in the responsibility for the stewardship of this resource. What can Albemarle County due to determine if this is an issue or not? I am asking you to please help the residents of eastern Albemarle County determine the ramifications of this power plant on our life and livelihood. Can you help? Sara Lee ~Bames PS. The emission information given out by ODEC at the meeting last week follows: even with nitrogen oxide control equipment using the above mentioned quantities of water, they will emit 243 tons of nitrogen oxide per year, 41 tons of sulphur dioxide, 86 tons carbon monixide, 8 tons a year of volatile organic compounds and 24 tons of particulate matter. -) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99054 in the amount of $5,475.00 for various donations received by several schools. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Castner, Breeden, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2000 ACTI O N: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $2,475.00. These donations will be used to purchase data processing supplies, instructional materials, books and subscriptions and staff development for the school. · Cale Elementary School received a donation of $1,000.00 from Marie Riordan. This donation will be used to purchase a computer for the 5th grade class. · Burley Middle School received a donation of $500.00 from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. This donation will be used to purchase materials for the gifted program at Burley. · Walton Middle School received a donation of $500.00 from J.W.K. Properties, Inc. This donation will be used for instructional materials for the school. · Monticello High School received a donation of $500.00 from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school. · Red Hill Elementary school received a donation of $500.00 from the State Farm Good Neighbor Grant Program. This donation' will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriations totaling $5,475.00 at detailed on Appropriation #99054. 00.018 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER 99054 ADDITIONAL x TRANSFER x NEW X YES NO X SCHOOL PER SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO EXPEND DONATIONS RECEIVED. CODE 1 2215 61411 580500 Murray Staff Dev I 2215 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions I 2215 61101 601300 Inst. Supplies 1 2215 61101 601600 Data Processing Supplies 1 2214 61101 800700 Cale ADP-Equipment 1 2251 61104 601300 Buriey Inst. Supplies 1 2254 61101 601300 Walton Inst. Supplies 1 2304 61101 601300 Monticello Inst Supplies 1 2207 61101 601300 Red Hill InstSupplies EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $250.00 $350.00 $150.00 $1,725.00 $1,000.00 $500~00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation TOTAL $5,475.00 AMOUNT $2,475.00 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: TOTAL $5,475.00 EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE JAN 28 2000 o2 -/.~- ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Criminal Records Systems Improvement Grant 00-A3557 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99055 in the amount of $12,200.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller; Ms. Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: This grant project request centers on replacing and upgrading the Police LAN Server for the Police Department. The funding requested is for equipment. Installation will be handled by County Information Services personnel. The current server is almost five years old and is unable to process photographs. It needs to be upgraded. DISCUSSION: The equipment will be funded by a $9,150.00 federal grant and local match of $3,050.00. The local match will be funded from current operations and does not require additional funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99055 in the amount of $12,200.00. 00.021 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 NUMBER 99055 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. CODE I 1526 31012 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 80070'1 DATA PROCESSING EQUIP $12,200.00 TOTAL $12,200.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1526 33000 33000'1 FEDERAL GRANT $9,150.00 1526 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 31050.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: TOTAL $12.200.00 POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE FEB. 1. 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Analysis of Criminal History Records Information Systems Grant 00-A3556 SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request approval of Appropriation 99056 in the amount of $16,000.O0. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Gulati BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: / This grant project requests professional assistance to examine the Police Department record-keeping systems and to develop measures to significantly streamline and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the network. DISCUSSION: The study will be funded by a $12,000.00 federal grant and local match of $4,000.00. The local match will be funded from current operations and does not req u~re additional funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99056 in the amount of $16,000.00. 00.022 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GRANT FUNDING FOR ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS INFORMATION SYSTEM. 99056 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1527 31012 312701 DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANTS $16,000.00 TOTAL $16,000,00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1527 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $12,000.00 2 1527 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 4,000.00 TOTAL $16,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE FEB. 1, 2000 1999 FOURTH QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C& D) III.Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment -2- During the fourth quarter of 1999, 147 permits were issued for 147 dwelling units. In addition, I permit was issued for a mobile home in an existing park at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $2,500, I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 JAN 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 FEB 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 MAR 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 APR 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 MAY 44 62 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 JUN 54 48 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 JUL 58 62 81 186 51 87 59 74 69 AUG 58 126 116 49 44 105 34 221 56 SEP 55 48 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 OCT 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 61 48 NOV 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 48 42 DEC 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 48 57 TOTAL 614 866 80,5 939 596 835 905 874 770 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month IChart B: Three Year Comparison. of New Residential D.U. by Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1.1997 =1998 1:31999 I Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Develo0ment Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources -3- 4th Quarter, 1999 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C, Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/'I'H DUP MF I MHC AA D.U. D.U. RIO 12 010 0 0 0 0 22 15°/~ JACK JOUETT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2% RIVANNA 47 2 4 0 0 2 0 55 37°/~ SAMUEL MILLER 19 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 14% SCOTTSVILLE 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 14% WHITE HALL 22 2 0 0 0 1 0 25 17% TOTAL 123 4 14 0 0 6~ 0 147 100~ Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 10 0 14 0 0 0 0 24 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0= 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 8 0 0 0 C 0 0 8 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVANNA VILLAGE 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 57 4 14 0 0 0 0 75 RURAL AREA I 12 0 0 0 O I 0 13 RURAL AREA 2 18 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 RURAL AREA 3 19 0 0 00 1 0 20 RURAL AREA 4 17 0 0 0 0 2 0 19 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 66 0 0 0 0 6 0 72 TOTAL 123 4 14 0 0 6 0 147 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources 4th Quarter, 1999 Ill. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. AmountS No. Amount-$ RIO 22 3,789,242 14 123,593 1 600,000 19 289,268 56 4,802,103 JOUETT 3 525,000 8 166,900 2 45,000 3 178,843 16 915,743 RIVANNA 55 11,008,234 41 754,484 7 7,771,000 8 15,290 111 19,549,008 S. MILLER 21 5,695,500 49 2,967,993 I 1,000 10 2,576,510 81 11,241,003 SCOTTSVILLE 21 14,470,801 39 329,887 4 98,000 12 273,104 76 15,171,792 WHITE HALL 25 4,506,841 39 ' 648,650 2 130,000 9 47,344 75 5,332,835 TOTAL 147 39,995,618 190 4,991,507 17 8,645,000 61 3,380,359 415 57,012,484 - Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category. IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/'FH DUP MF I MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hurt 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 11 6.40% Bmadus Wood/Sutherland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Broadus Wood/Jouett 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 7.56% Brownsville 14 0 0 0 0 0 O 14 8.14% Crozet 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.49% Greer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,58% Hollymead 8 4 7 0 0 0 0 19 11,05% Meriwether Lewis/Henley 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.58% Meriwether Lewis/Jouett 4 0 0 0 0 01 0 4 2.33% Murray 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.65% Red Hill 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.91% Cale/Buriey 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 5.81% Cale/Walton 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 17 9.88% Scottsville 1 0 01 0 0 0 0 1 0.58% Stone Robinson/Buriey 141 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 9.30% Stone RobinsonANalton 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.74% Stony Point~Burley 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.07% Stony Point/Sutherland 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 3.49% Woodbrook 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 26 15.12% Yancey 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.33% TOTAL 128 16 15 0 10 3 0 172 100.00% Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources -5- 4th Quarter, 1999 IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA RIO 14 0 0 0 0 I 0 15 JACK JOUEq-]' 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 RIVANNA 52 9 15 0 10 0 0 86 SAMUEL MILLER 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 25 SCOTTSVILLE 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 WHITE HALL 20 2 0 0 0 2 0 24 TOTAL 128 16 15 0 10 3 0 172 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNITTYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 100 8 0 0 0 0 18 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 61 0 0 0 0 8 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 1 0 0: 0 0 0 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0101 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 11 2 0 01 0 0 0 13 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 24 37 0 0 0 0 34 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 RIVANNA VILLAGE 11 0 00 0 0 0 11 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 75 16 15 0 10 0 0 116 RURAL AREA 1 13 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 RURAL AREA 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 RURAL AREA 3 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 RURAL AREA 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 53 0 0 0 0 3 0 56 TOTAL 128 16 15 0 10 3 0 172 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources 1999 YEAR END BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) II, Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C& D) III.Comparison of Ail Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment -3- YEAR END, 1999 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U. RIO 45 0 10 0 0 1 1 57 7% JACK JOUETT 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2% RIVANNA 236 44 48 0 0 3 2 333 43% SAMUEL MILLER 114 9 0 0 0 5 0 128 17% SCOTTSVILLE 83 20 0 0 0 8 0 111 14% WHITE HALL 107 8 0 0 0 10 0 125 169 TOTAL 601 81 58 0 0 27 3 770 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 43 0 42 0 0 0 1 86 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 29 12 0 0 0 0 0 41 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 44 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 36 8 0 0 (3 0 0 44 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 48 8 0 0 (~, 0 0 56 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 63 16 16 0 ~ 0 0 0 95 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 RIVANNA VILLAGE 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 294 81 58 0 0 0 1 434 RURAL AREA 1 59 0 0 01 0 8 0 67 RURAL AREA 2 84 0 (3 0! 0 3 2 89 RURAL AREA 3 101 0 0 0 0 7 0 108 RURAL AREA 4 63! (3 0 0 0 9 0 72 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 307 0 0 0 0 27 2 336 TOTAL 601 81 58 0 0 27 3 770 Preoared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development. Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources YEAR END, 1999 III. COMPARISON OFALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 58 9,400,934 120 1,717,036 16 4,682,502 103 3,956,512 297 19,756,984 JOUETT 16 4,472,500 44 1,486,339 6 2,063,501 60 2,330,024 126 10,352,364 RIVANNA 331 50,863,287 237 5,415,779 21 10,408,000 73 7,915,971 662 74,603,037 S. MILLER 128 29,814,150 175 7,378,358 7 6,945,020 28 3,312,632 338 47,450,160 SCOTTSVILLE 110 21,881,201 176 4,343,191 14 1,283,000 43 582,236 343 28,089,628 WHITE HALL 124 19,065,776 205 4,328,117 10 257,500 34 843,264 373 24,494,657 r TOTAL 767 135,497,848 957 24,668,820 74 25,639,523 341 18,940,639 2,139 204,746,830 · Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category. IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elemental' School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hud 17 0 27 0 25 0 1 70 11.57% Broadus Wood/Suthedand 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.33% Broadus Wood/Jouett 23 0 0 0 0 3 0 26 4.30% Brownsville 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 8.10% Crozet 15 '8 0 0 0 0 0 23 3.80% Greet 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 21 3.47% Hollymead 25 16 15 0 0 0 0 56 9.26% Meriwether Lewis/Henley 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7i 1.16% Meriwethe r Lewis/Jouett 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15i 2.48% Murray 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 261 4.30% Red Hill 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2.31% Cale/Budey 1 1 0 0 10 0 0 12 1.98% Cale/Walton 55 21 0 0 0 0 0 76 12.56% Scottsville 9 0 0 0 0 I 0 10 1.65% Stone Robinson/Budey 53 5 0 0 0 0 0 58 9.59% Stone Robinson/~Valton 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 1.98% Stony PointJBurley 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2.98% Stony PointJSuthedand 16 0 0 0 0 I 0 17 2.81% Woodbrook 59 16 2 0 0 0 0 77 12.73% Yancey 16 0 0 0 G 0 0 16 2.64% TOTAL 431 68 44 0 55 6 1 605 100.00% Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development. Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources -5- YEAR END, 1999 IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY {continued) Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial Distdct and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT ' SF BFA SFFrH DUP MF MHC AA RIO 30 0 0 0 45 1 1 77 JACK JOUETT 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 RIVANNA 165 38 44 0 10 1 0 258 SAMUEL MILLER 80 7 0 0 0 1 0 88 SCOTTSVILLE 72 15 0 0 0 1 0 88 WHITE HALL 78 8 0 0 0 2 0 88 TOTAL 431 68 44 0 55 6 1 605 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 2 0 0 0 20 0 G 22 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 27 0 27 0 25 0 I 8G URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 16 6 0 g 10 0 (:} 32 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 27 15 0 0 0 0 (~ 42 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 26 6 0 0 0 0 ~ 32 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G CROZET COMMUNITY 39 8 0 0 0 0 0 47 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 69 17 17 0 0 0 0 103 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 RIVANNA VILLAGE 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 250 68 44 0 55 0 1 418 RURAL AREA 1 39 0 0 0 0 3 0 42 RURAL AREA 2 27 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 RURAL AREA 3 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 RURAL AREA 4 49 0 0 0 0 2 0 51 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 181 0 0 0 0 6 0 187 TOTAL 431 68 44 0 55 6 1 605 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources -2- During the year of 1999, 767 permits were issued for 770 dwelling units. In addition, 17 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $42,500. I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chad A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 JAN 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 FEB 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 MAR 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 APR 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 MAY 44 62 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 JUN 54 48 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 JUL 58 62 81 188 51 87 59 74 69 AUG 58 126 116 49 44 105 34 221 56 SEP 55 48 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 OCT 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 61 48 NOV 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 48 42 DEC 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 48 57 TOTAL 814 866 805 939 596 835 905 874 770 Chad B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month 240 IChart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by MonthI 220 2OO ~80 160 140 120 ~oo 80 60 40 20 o JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP MONTH !=1997 =1998 I-I1999 I OCT NOV DEC Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics. and Information Resources COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hunting Enforcement Program - Year 1999/00 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Preliminary Report on Results of Expanded Hunting Enforcement Program for 1999/00 General Rifle Season STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Ms. Catlin AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGEN DA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: This year for the second straight year the Board authorized additional county resources to supplement the effort of game wardens to address illegal hunting during the deer hunting season in response to citizen concern. The Albemarle County Sheriffs Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten law enforcement visibility in the field, speed the response of officers to calls and respond to routine calls for service so that game wardens and police officers could concentrate their efforts on responding to more serious hunting-related incidents. Preliminary statistics gathered from the police and sheriff departments and from the game wardens during the 1999/00 season indicate that efforts to increase contact and visibility as well as actual enforcement actions were successful. When final statistics are available from the three agencies, a detailed report will be presented to the Board. DISCUSSION: Th e Sheriff's Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to meet the enforcement goals stated above. These deputies received five sessions of training encompassing traffic stops, radio communications, reporting, fire arms, officer survival and field training to prepare them for this effort. The deputies worked according to a calendar of special enforcement details that allowed them to concentrate manpower during the times of highest demand, specifically weekends and holidays. In addition, the Police Department's Community Policing Division conducted 11 special details focusing on illegal hunting. While a strong emphasis was placed on locating and arresting violators, the program also emphasized preventing illegal hunting through education, outreach and continued visibility and contact with the hunting population. During the season, the Sheriff's deputies responded to 111 calls for service (compared to 86 calls last year), checked neady 220 hunters for compliance with game laws (compared to 200 last year) and made almost 600 contacts with the public. Deputies also issued 30 summonses while on special detail, including hunting without a license, no blaze orange, transporting a loaded firearm, and various traffic-related charges. The bulk of the calls of service were for illegal hunting on posted land, road hunting, spotlighting, shots fired and trespassing. Police officers on special assignment from the Community Policing Division made 17. hunting arrests during 11 operations for charges including spotlighting, failing to tag deer, and various drug-related offenses. This combination of local law enforcement activity freed up state game wardens to place at least 80 hunting-related charges (compared to 63 last year) for offenses including trespassing, illegal firearm transport, blaze orange, and spotlighting. Final statistics are still being compiled by the Game and Inland Fisheries Department. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required by the Board regarding this item. 00.023 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1999. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2000 ACTI O N: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The 1998/99 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. T eld work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. DISCUSSION: Certificate of Excellence This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last four years and is coveted by localities.throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. General Fund The General Fund balance of $16,729,162 increased during FY 1998/99 by $1,854,405, resulting from a combination of revenues in excess of budget and expenditures being less than budget. The current FY 1999/2000 appropriations anticipate using $1,517,303 of this amount. School Fund Due to reporting requirements that require that school activities be shown as a component unit of local govemment, it is very difficult to compare the audit amounts to our actual records. A number of Federal Programs and what we consider self-sustaining activities are combined in the audit for reporting purposes. The fund balance for what we consider the School Fund increased by $1,464 in FY 98/99. Fund Balances The Combined Balance Sheet on pages 4 and 5 in the Financial Section details the assets, liabilities, and fund balances for various funds as of June 30, 1999. The schedule below is intended to reconcile these funds balances to those used in the monthly reports presented to you.. AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report February 2, 2000 Page 2 Fund Balances General Fund Capital - General School Fund Capital - School Per Audit 06/30/1999 $18,122,595 $ 6,336,763 $ 161,664,746 ~ 0 Fixed Assets (151,692,133) Debt Service (1,644,600) Jail Reserve Fund (300,000) Capital Projects (3,453,973) 3,453,973 Fire Service Fund (2,000,000) Cafeteria Fund (763,396) Storm Water Fund (763,707) Combined Funds (654,253) I nve ntory (28,878) (227,176) Sales Tax Reserve (862,055) (630,428) Prep Advance (688,677) Reserves - VDOT (500,000) Reserves - Waldorf (2,500) Adjusted Balance $16,729,162 $ 3,273,056 $ 1,910,110 $ 3,453,973 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 1998/99 annual report and for a better understanding of the County's financial status that you review the letter of transmittal included in the Introduction Section and the Notes on pages 13 - 48 of the Financial Section. 00.019 Agenda Item No. 5.7. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This report has been scanned as a separate document under "Financial Reports" County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robed W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive~~~ /- February 3, 2000 / Support of TransDomionion Express Attached is the information I received regarding the request from the Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express, which I discussed with you on February 2nd. I apologize for the confusion that may have occurred during the discussion on Wednesday but thought it might have been something we could dispense with quickly. As indicated to you last Wednesday, the County has gone on record supporting the TransDominion Express and we will follow up with another letter to our legislators articulating that support. The main issue that I had sought your advice on dealt with the funding of a lobbyist to support the biennium budget amendment ($10 million per year) requested of the General Assembly for implementation of the TransDominion Express. I am providing this attachment for your information as requested. You will note in the attachment that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is listed as one of the localities already having gone on record as endorsing this expanded passenger rail service. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWT,Jr/dbm 00.011 Attachment Albemarle County Executive's Office 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (804) 296-5841 LT. 6enofal ~ Wilso., ~airmmm ftampdefl-S¥cleey College (804) 223-6110 Mm/of David bwers City ef Roanoke (540) 853-2444 Deleg.telluf&Devle~ Culpeper (540)825-6000 Rex Hammond, Exemflve Sea'etofy Greater Lvachberg Chamber of Commerce (804} 845-5066 Town of 81ocksburg (5401 ~;~1.1148 ~d~/of Farnham Jmmrd 'City of Bristol (540) 645-0400 Bm/of Mm'shll Town of Morion (540) 783-6626 Dr. Tam Mofds President, Emac/and Henq College (540) 744-~6107 Vim Mm/of MeredJl~ RMmrds Cherlettesville (804) 984-1578 Sarah Terry Farmville Area Chombm of Commerce (804) 392-3039 Dr. Charles Warren President, Lynchburg College (804) 544-8200 The Committee to Advance the TransDomlnion Express P.O. Box 2027 · 2015 Memorial Avenue Lvnchburg, VA 24501 (804) 845-5066 · Fox(804) $22.9592 Emeil: info@lyflcht)urgchamber.org COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXEOUT~VE OFF,GE January 27, 2000 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Supporter: A statewide steering committee has organized to advance the TransDominion Express, expanded passenger rah service for Virginia. You are among an important group of individuals who have attended one of the regional passenger rah conferences or have indicated your support for this exciting project. We are writing to provide you with an update and to ask for your help. We are asking the General Assembly for $10 million in each year of the biennium budget to be earmarked for development of the TransDominion Express. Lawmakers in both houses of the General Assembly have introduced this legislation. In the immediate weeks ahead, we have an opportunity to convince our legislators that the TransDominion Express is worthy of their support. We are enclosing talking points, a list of endorsing organizations, a list of legislators and contact information, a sample communication, and an investment schedule for your review. As the old song suggests, "we have a long way to go and a short time to get there." Here's what you can do. Immediately, contact the legislators in your area (and any other legislators that you know) and Governor Gilmore and tell them that you support the proposed budget amendment for the TransDominion Express. Meiling, faxing, or emailing the enclosed sample letter would be helpful. However, assembling a group from your community to meet with your legislators would even be better. Get as many business and community leaders as you possibly can to communicate their support to your legislators and Governor Gilmore. We suggest that you organize an event in your community explaining the many benefits that the TransDominion Express will bring to Virginia. If we are to be successful, we need to generate thousands of communications to our legislators and Governor. o Consider joining the Committee to Advance the TransDo~ninion Express by sending a check based on the enclosed investment schedule. Every penny of your investment will go toward promoting the project in this legislative session. We need to know how much money to budget for support materials and lobbying. A check or pledge within the next two weeks would be tremendously helpful. For a variety of reasons, this is the best time to advance the TransDominion Express. Will you help us with this historic endeavor? The Steering Committee listed on the front, left of thiS letter is anxious to assist you. A group of 11 individuals is not sufficient to break through on this visionary project. However, if you can mobilize support from 100 people in your community and dozens of other TransDominion Express supporters do the same in their communities, we can s~end an unmistakable message. WE WANT THE TRANSDOMINION EXPRESS TO CONNECT VIRGINIA! Please make this a high and immediate priority. Don't put this letter down and plan to get back to it later - please, act now! Sincerely, Samuel V. Wilson, LT GEN, USA-Retired Steering Committee Chairman Committee to Advance the TransDom~uion Express Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express Membership Investment Schedule The Steering Committee has devised an investment schedule to solicit necessary funds for expenses to be incurred during thc 2000 session of the General Assembly. Time is of the essence. Based on the following inve~-ioient schedule, please submit the appropriate request to your organi?~tion. This effort needs support from cities, towns, counties, colleges, chsmbers, businesses, and individuals from across Virginia in order to m~ke the TransDominion Express a reality. 'Station Locat'i0ns (note locations below): $2,000 for city/town population of more than 20,000; ' $1,000 between 5,000 and 20,000; $500 for less than 5,000 Other Cities and Towns: $1,000 for population of more than 20,000; $500 between 5,000 and 20,000; $250 for less than 5,000 Counties: $1,000 for population of more than 50,000; $500 between 30,000 and 50,000; and $250 for less than 30,000. Colleges and Universities: $1,000 for large enrollment; $500 for medium enrollment; $250 for small enrollment Chombers of Commerce: $500 for membership of more than 500; $250 between 500 and 250; $100 for less than 250 Business Patrons: $500 or $250 (investor option) Non-Profits: $250 or $100 (investor option) Individuals: $250 or $100 (investor option) Station Locations listed in the 1998feasibility study are: Abingdon, Alexandria, Appomattox, Bedford, Bristol, Charlottesville, Christiansburg, Culpeper, Farmville, Lynchburg, Manassas, Marion, Orange, Pulaski, Radford, Richmond, Roanoke, and Wytheville. RETURN THIS FORM BY FAX OR MAIL Organization Address Contact Person City, State ZIP Email Address Yes No (check appropriate response) Can we count on your organization to invest according to this schedule? .... Will you set up a meeting/contact your legislators about your organization's support? Will you assemble a group of 10 or more business and community leaders to contact targeted legislators immediately prior to key committee votes? ........ Are you willing to offer legislative testimony in support of TransDominion Express? Please fax this completed form to (804) 522-9592. Or, mail your check and this form to: Committee to Advance the TransDominior& Express, P. 0. Box 2027, 2015 Memorial Avenue, Lynchburg, VA 24501. Call Rex Hammond at (804) 845-5966 if you have any questions. The (ommittee to Advunce the onsOominion press CONTENTS · Project Summary · Route and Station Map · Endorsing Organizations · Steering Committee Contacts · Sample letter to Legislators · Legislative Contact Information · Communication Tips Contact Us: The Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express P.O. Box 2027 · 2015 Memorial Avenue · Lynchburg, VA 24501 (804) 845-5966 · Fax (804) 522-9592 Email: info@lynchburgchamber, org TRANSDOMINION EXPRESS: EXPANDING PASSENGER RAIL ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH 1998 Bristol Rail Passenger Study, conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creation of the TransDominion Express would decrease traffic congestion on highways and interstates, reduce air traffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. The TransDominion Express system would link the following communities: Bristol, Abingdon, Pulaski, Radford, Christiansburg, Roanoke and Bedford with Lynchburg. There, the line would split, continuing north to Washington through Charlottesville, Orange, Culpeper, Manassas and Alexandria, or east to Richmond by way of Appomattox and Farmville. Trains would operate on existing tracks owned by Norfolk Southern Corporation, Conrail and Amtral% with the exception of a small section owned by CSX. Essentially, the only changes that would need to be made to existing tracks is the installation of spurs to allow freight and passenger Waffle to exist on the same tracks. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation would need to work out specific terms with the rail companies who own the rail in the TransDominion Express corridor. Modern trainsets would be used to allow trains to maintain higher speeds. Increased speeds would be competitive with ear travel time between desired destinations. Implementing the TransDominion system is relatively inexpensive when compared to multi- billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations, and to acquire equipment~ should be no more than $10 million in each year of the biennium allowing service to begin by 2003. The study projects that within 12 years ridership will be sufficient to cover operating costs. It is expected 372,000 passengers will ride the trains annually, increasing to nearly 800,000 by 2020. The Cascades line in the Pacific Northwest met its ridership projections within just a few years of initiating similar service. The fare is estimated to be $0.20 per mile, or approximately $70.00 to ride from southwestern Virginia to Washington, D.C. With the implementation of expanded passenger rail in southwestern Virginia, plans to expand high-speed rail from Washington, D.C. to Richmond would create a "passenger rail loop" in the Commonwealth. To date, over 70 counties, cities, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting expanded passenger rail in the Commonwealth. The TransDominion Express would be accessible to over 20 colleges and universities along the proposed train routes. 0 (I3 0 ...! '0 0 0 1999-2000 Endorsements for Expanded Passenger Rail Sel-vice CITY/TOWN COUNCILS · Town Council of Abingdon · Town Council of Altavista · Appomattox Town Council *Amherst Town Council · City Council of Bedford *Blaeksburg Town Council *Bristol City Council *Burkeville Town Council · Charlottesville City Council · Town Council of Chilhowie *Christiansburg Town Council · Culpeper Town Council *Drakes Branch Town Council · Farmville Town Council · Town Council of Gtade Spring · Town Council of Hillsville · Town Council of Kenbridge *Keysville Town Council · Lynchburg City Council · Town Council of Marion *Orange Town Council *Town Council of Pulaski · Radford City Council · The Council ofthe City of Richmond · Rural Retreat Town Council *Council of the City of Roanoke *The Council of the City of Salem *Town Council of Wytheville COUNTY BOARDS *Albemarle County Board of Supervisors *Appomattox County Board of Supervisors · Bedford County Board of Supervisors *Bland County Board of Supervisors *Campbell County Board of Supervisors *Charlotte County Board of Supervisors *Culpeper County Board of Supervisors · Cumberland County Board of Supervisors *Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors *Montgomery County Board of Super-visors *Nelson County Board of Supervisors *Nottoway County Board of Supervisors *Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors · Pulaski County Board of Supervisors · Roanoke CountyBoard of Supervisors · Smyth County Board of Supervisors · Washington County Board of Supervisors · Wythe County Board of Supervisors CHAMBERS/ASSOCIATIONS · Bristol Chamber of Commerce *Blacksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce · Charlottesville Regional Chamber · Faiffax County Chamber of Commerce · Farmville Area Chamber of Commerce · Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce *Giles County Chamber of Commerce · Grange County Chamber of Commerce · Orange County Industrial Development Authority · Orange County Visitor's Bureau · Radford Chamber of Commerce · Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce · Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce * Smyth County Chamber of Commerce · Vh'ginia West Business Legislative Coalition (14 chambers of commerce) · Wytheville.Wythe.Bland Chamber of Commerce PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS *Central Vu~fia Planning District Commission · Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization · Mount Rogers Planning District Commission · New River Valley Planning District Commission · Piedmont Planning District Commission · Roanoke VaUey Comn s on · Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission · West Piedmont Planning District Commission TRANSPORTATION GROUPS · Blue Ridge Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society · Greater Lynchburg Transit Company · Virginia High Speed Rail Development Committee COL L E GE S/UNIVERS ITIE S · Longwood College · Radford University · Vuginia Tech TRANSDOMINION EXPRESS STEERING COMMITTEE LT. General Sam Wilson, President, Hampden-Sydney College, 804-223-6110, Chairman Mr. Rex Hammond, President, Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce, 804-845-5966, Executive Secretary Mr. David Bowers, Mayor, City of Roanoke, 540-853-2444 Delegate Butch Davies, Culpeper, 540-825-6000 Mr. Roger Hedgepeth, Mayor, Town of Blacksburg, 540-961-1148 Mr. Famham Jarrard, Mayor, City of Bristol, 540-669-1226 Mr. Marshall Guy, Mayor, Town of Marion, 540-783-6626 Dr. Tom Morris, President, Emery and Henry College, 540-944-6107 Ms. Meredith Richards, Vice Mayor, Charlottesville, 804-984-1578 Ms. Sarah Terry, Executive Director, Farmville Area Chamber of Commerce, 804-392-3939 Dr. Charles Warren, President, Lynchburg College, 804-544-8200 SAMPLE LETTER TO LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNOR Dear <Delegate, Senator, Governor> <Last Nzme>: Exp~nding passenger rail service throughout the Commonwealth will benefit Virginians in many ways. On behalf of <your orgsnization>, I am wri~ng to urge your support for the TransDomlnlon Express. The 1998 Bristol Passenger Study, conducted by the Virginia Department of R~il and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creating this TransDominion Express will decrease trzffic congestion on highways and interstates, reduce air trsffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce, and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. Implementing this service will be relatively inexpensive when compared to multi- billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations and to acquire equipment should be no more than $10 million in each year o£the biennium. Your support of the proposed budget amendment would ~llow service to begin by 2003. The Study projects that income from ridership win cover operating costs within just 12 years. More than 70 counties, cities and towns, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting this proposal to expand passenger rail service in the Commonwealth. The Tro_nsDominion Express would also be accessible to more than 20 colleges and universities along the proposed rail corridor. For these reasons, this is the best time to advance the TransDomlnion Express. We strongly urge your support of the proposed budget o_mendment for $10 million in each year of the biennium. Sincerely, <Your Name> <Your Organization> 2000 Virginia Senate (Last Name Order) Mailing Address for Members During Session: Senate of Virginia, PO Box 396, Richmond, VA 23218 **New Member District Name Party Address City Zip Phone (W) 37 Barry, Warren E. R P.O. Box 1146 Fairfax 22030-1146 (703) 321-0900 4 Bolling, Bill R P.O. Box 112 Mechanicsville 23111-0112 (804) 730-4202 34 Byme, Leslie** D 6442 Queen Anne Terrace Falls Church 22044-1417 (703) 534-4988 28 Chichaster, John H. R P.O. Box 904 Fredericksburg 22404-0904 (540) 373-5600 29 Colgan, Charles J. D P.O. Box 1650 Manassas 20108-1650 (703) 368-0300 25 Couric, Emily D P.O. Box 5462 Charlottesville 22905-5462 (804) 296-5491 21 Edwards, John S. D 725 Crestar Plaza, 10 E. Roanoke 24006-1179 (540) 985-8625 Franklin Rd, P. O. Box 1179 14 Forbes, J. Randy R 524 Johnstown Road Chesapeake 23320-5617 (757) 547-1000 24 Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. R P.O. Box 2 Mount Solon 22843-0002 (540) 885-7440 19 Hawkins, Charles R. R P.O. Box 818 Chatham 24531-0818 (804) 432-9672 15 Holland, Richard $. D P. Oi Box 285 Windsor 2348%0285 (757) 242-6111 17 Houck, R. Edward D P.O. Box 7 Spotsylvania 22553-0007 (540) 786-2782 32 Howell, Janet D. D PO Box 2608 Raston 20195-0608 (703) 709-8283 9 Lambert, Benjamin J., III D 904 North First Street Richmond 23219-1002 (804) 643-3534 18 Lucas, L. Louise D 1120 Lakeview Drive Portsmouth 23701-3611 (757) 487-5705 16 Marsh, Henry L, III D 600 East Broad Street, Suite Richmond 23219-I 800 (804) 648-9073 402 11 Martin, Stephen H. R P. O, Box 36147 Richmond 23235-8003 (804) 674-0242 39 Marye, Madison E. D P. O, Box 37 Shawsville 24162-0037 (540) 268-2741 2 Maxwell, W. Henry D 350 Maple Avenue Newport News 23607-4900 (757) 245-2855 26 Miller, Kevin G. R 737 East Market Street, Suite Harrisonburg 22801-4265 (540) 433-6553 A 5 Miller, Yvonee B. D 2816 Gate House Road Norfolk 23504-4021 (757) 627-4212 33 Mims, William C. R P.O. Box 741 Leesburg 20178-1741 (703) 779-1888 23 Newman, Stephen D. R PO Box 2209 Lynchburg 24501-0209 (804) 385-1065 3 ~orment, Thomas K., Jr. R P. O, Box 1697 Williamsburg 23187-1697 (757) 259-7810 27 Potts, H. Russell, Jr. R 14 North Braddock Street Winchester 22601-4120 (540) 665-2092 38 Puckett, Phillip P. D P. O, Box 924 Tazewell 24651-0924 (540) 979-8181 36 Puller, Linde** D PO Box 73 Mount Vernon 22121-0073 (703) 765-1150 13 Quayle, Frederick M. R 3808 Poplar Hill Road, Suite Chesapeake 23321-5524 (800) 742-8255 A 6 Rerras, Nick** R 1821 Hartford Dr Norfolk 23518-5417 (757) 499-3900 x3313 20 Reynolds, Wm. Roscoe D P.O. Box 404 Martinsville 24114-0404 (540) 638-2315 35 Saslaw, Richa}d L. D P.O. Box 1856 Springfield 22151-0856 (703) 978-0200 7 Schrock, Edward L. R P.O. Box 62996 VA Beach 23466-2996 (757) 460-3777 8 Stolle, Kenneth W. R 607 Lynnhaven Parkway, VA Beach 23452-7313 (757) 486-5700 Suite 200 12 Stosch, Walter A. R 4551 Cox Road, Suite 110 Glen Allen 23060-6740 (804) 527-7780 30 Ticer, Patricia S. Room 2007, City Hall, 301 Alexandria 22314-3211 (703) 549-5770 King Street 22 Trumbo, Malfourd W. R P.O. Box 448 Fincastle 24090-0448 (540) 473-2781 40 Wampler, William C.,Jr. R 510 Cumberland Street, Suite Bristol 24201-4387 (540) 669-7515 308 10 Watkins, John R P.O. Box 159 Midlothian 23113-0159 (804) 379-2063 31 Whipple, Mary Margaret D 3556 North Valley Street Arlington 22207-4445 (703) 538-4097 I Williams, Martin E. R P.O. Box 1096 Newport News 23601-1096 (757) 599-8683 2000 Virginia House of Delegates Mailing Address for members during session: House of Delegates, PO Box 406, Richmond, VA 23218 **New members District Name Party Address Work Home 59 ABBITT, WATKINS M., JR. (D) P.O. Box 683, Appomattox 24522 (804) 352-2880 352-4455 42 ALBO, DAVID B. (R) P.O. Box 6412, Springfield 22150 (703) 451-3555 451.5527 47 ALMAND, JAMES F. (D) 3444 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 102, Arlington 22201 (703) 524-9700 533-9223 44 AMUNDSON, KRISTEN J. ** (D) P.O. Box 143, Mount Vernon, VA 22121 (703) 768-1889 768-7520 11 ARMSTRONG, WARD L. (D) P.O. Box 1431, Martinsville 24114-1431 (540) 632-7022 629-5980 64 BARLOW, WILLIAM K. (D) P.O. Box 190, Smithfield 23431 (757) 357-9720 35%2822 71 BASKERVILLE, VIOLA O. (D) 3223 Hawthorne Ave., Richmond 23222 (804) 698-1071 321-2947 60 BENNETT, WILLIAM W. (Ted), JR. (D) P.O. Box 1219, Halifax 24558 (804) 476-4032 476-6943 32 BLACK, RICHARD H. (R) 20978 Flatboat Ct., Sterling 20165 (703) 406-2951 406-7850 78 BLEVINS, HARRY B. (R) P.O. Box 16207, Chesapeake 23328 (757) 4360893 482-2812 100 BLOXOM, ROBERT S. (R) P.O. Box 27, Mappsville 23407 (757) 824-3456 665-4203 43 BOLVIN, THOMAS ** (R) 6159 Old Brantford Ct, AIexandria, VA 22310 (703) 921-3900 922-3972 48 BRINK, ROBERT H. (D) 2670 Marcey Rd., Arlington 22207-5234 (703) 243-5778 524-1275 30 BROMAN, GEORGE E. ** (R) 570 Greens Ct, Culpeper, VA 22701 (540) 825-0833 23 BRYANT, L. PRESTON, JR. (R) P.O. Box 3589, Lynchburg 24503 (804) 528-1097 384-1938 22 BYRON, KATHY J. (R) P.O. Box 4409, Lynchburg 24502-0409 (804) 582-1592 237-1651 34 CALLAHAN, VINCENT F., JR, (R) P.O. Box 1173, McLean 22101 (703) 356-1925 356-6231 73 CANTOR, ERIC I. (R) P.O. Box 28280, Richmond 23228 (804) 261-7500 360-1946 92 CHRISTIAN~ MARY T. (D) P.O. Box 1892, Hampton 23669 (757) 723-6060 723-2673 20 CLEMENT, WHITTINGTON W. (D) P.O. BOx 8200, Danville 24543 (804) 793-8200 799-5755 75 COUNCILL, J. PAUL, JR. (D) P.O. Box 119, Franklin 23851 (757) 562-4283 562-4283 66 COX, M. KIRKLAND (R) 1309 Appomattox Dr., Colonial Heights 23834 (804) 526-5135 520-2797 14 CRANWELL, C. RICHARD (D) P.O. Box 459, Vinton 24179 (540) 344-7111 985-9110 95 CRITTENDEN, FLORA DAVIS (D) P.O. Box 5046, Newport News 23605 (757) 380-0025 244-6698 49 DARNEIL L. KAREN (D) 969 S. Buchanan St., Arlington 22204 (703) 271-5284 271-5284 96 DAVIS, JO ANN S. (R) 1213-E Geo. Washington Mem. Hwy., Yorktown 23693 (757) 591-9587 898-4401 10 DAY, BARNIE K. (D) 604 Braswell Dr., Meadows of Dan 24120 (540) 593-2050 593-2050 63 DeBOER, JAY W~ (D) 212 N, Sycamore St., Ste 602, Petersburg 23803 (804) 861-4310 265-3568 18 DEEDS, R. CREIGH (D) P.O. Box 360, Warm Springs 24484 (540) 839-2473 862-3419 35 DEVOLITES, JEANNEMARIE (R) P.O. Box 936, Vienna 22183 (703) 938-7972 938-6559 94 DIAMONSTEIN, ALAN A. (D) 12350 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News 23602 (757) 873-4600 599-4300 56 DICKINSON, V. EARL (D) 9549 Fredericks Hall Rd., Mineral 23117 (540) 894-8802 894-4470 41 DILLARD, JAMES H., II (R) 4709 Briar Patch Ln., Fairfax 22032 (703) 323-9556 323-7354 87 DRAKE. THELMA (R) 2306 Bay Oaks Pl., Norfolk 23518 (757) 588-8787 588-7251 9 DUDLEY, ALLEN W. (R) 1521 Allice Mill Rd., Rocky Mount 24151 (540) 489-8989 483-1817 97 GRAYSON, GEORGE W. (D) P.O. Box 1969, Williamsburg 23187-1969 (757) 253-0553 253-2400 8 GRIFFITH, H. MORGAN (R) P.O. Box 1250, Salem 24153 (540) 389-4498 387-0184 69 HALL, FRANKLIN P. (D) P.O. Box 3407, Richmond 23235 (804) 698-1069 272-8724 93 HAMILTON, PHILLIP A. (R) P.O. Box 1585, Newport News 23601 (757) 249-2580 877-4280 55 HARGROVE, FRANK D, SR. (R) 10321 Washington Hwy., Glen Allen 23059 (804) 550-4000 227-3300 58 HARRIS, PAUL C. (R) P.O. Box 1276, Charlottesville 22902 (804) 979-5570 293-7923 28 HOWELL, WILLIAM J. (R) P.O. Box 8296. Fredericksburg 22404-8296 (540) 371-1612 373-7402 38 HULL, ROBERT D. (D) P.O. Box 2331, Falls Church 22042 (703) 573-4855 573-4575 62 INGRAM, RILEY E. (R) 3302 Oaldawn Blvd., Hopewel123860 (804) 458-9873 458-2823 6 JACKSON, THOMAS M., JR. (D) P.O. Box 333, Hillsville 24343 (540) 728-9545 236-8979 79 JOANNOU, JOHNNY S. (D) 709 Court Street, Portsmouth 23704 (757) 399-1700 399-8277 4 JOHNSON, JOSEPH P., JR. (D) 164 E. Valley St., Abingdon 24210 (540) 628-1002 628-3954 70 JONES, DWIGHT CLINTON (D) P.O. Box 2347, Richmond 23218-2347 (804) 233-7679 751-5288 89 JONES, JERRAULD C. (D) 125 St. Paul's Blvd., Suite 300, Norfolk 23510 (757) 627-6568 623-3546 76 JONES, S. CHRIS (R) P.O. Box 5059, Suffolk 23435-0059 (757) 483-6242 238-3667 31 KATZEN, JAY (R) P.O. Box 3004, Warrenton 20188-1704 (540) 341-1993 364-1652 District 7 13 33 67 84 74 2000 Virginia House of Delegates Mailing Address for members during session: House of Delegates, PO Box 406, Richmond, VA Name Party Address Work KEISTER, W.B. "BENNY" ** (D) 628 Hudson Drive, Dublin, VA 24084 (540) 674-2000 KILGORE, TERRY G. (R) P.O. Box 669, Gate City 24251 (540) 386-7701 LANDES, R. STEVEN (R) P.O. Box 42, Weyers Cave 24486 (540) 245-5540 LARABEE, P.E. "PHIL" JR.** (R) 5 Crandol C~, Poquoson, VA 23662 (757) 827.0009 LOUDERBACK, ALLEN L.** (R) 1131 Old Farms Rd, Luray, VA 22835 (540) 743.7644 MARSHALL, ROBERT G. (R) P.O. Box 421, Manassas 20108-0421 (703) 866-7177 MAY, JOE T. (R) P.O. Box 4104, L~esburg 20177-8259 (703) 777-1191 McCLURE, ROGER J. (R) P.O. Box 437, Centreville 20122-0437 (703) 968.8348 McDONNELL, ROBERT F. (R) P.O. Box 62244, Virginia Beach 23466-2244 (757) 671-8484 McEACHIN, A. DONALD (D) P.O. Box 1321, Richmond 23218 (804) 775-2374 McQUIGG, MICHI~LE B. (R) 2241-R Tackett's Mill Drive, Woodbridge 22192 (703) 491-9870 23218 Home 674-6248 452-2578 234.9602 715-868-4167 sallie 368-6306 777-9484 968-8348 427-2215 262-7377 491-2294 80 MELVIN, KENNETH R. (D) P.O. Box 69, Portsmouth 23705-0069 (757) 393-2555 46 MORAN, BRIAN J. (D) City Hall, Box 65, 301 King St., Alexandria 22314 (703) 549.8253 488-1416 370-1227 98 MORGAN, HARVEY B. (R) P.O. Box 949, Gloucester 23061 (804) 693-4750 88 MOSS, THOMAS W., JR. (D) Bank of the Commonwealth Bldg., Suite 360 403 Boush (757) 623-6677 27 NIXON, SAMUEL A., JR. 40 O'BRIEN, JAMES K. (Jay), JR. 54 ORROCK, ROBERT D. (Bobby), SR. 50 PARRISH, HARRY J. 2 PHILLIPS, CLARENCE E. (Bud) 36 PLUM, KENNETH R. 99 POLLARD, ALBERT C.** 82 PURKEY, HARRY R. (Bob) 19 PUTNEY, LACEY E. 72 REID, JOHN S. (Jack) 68 RHODES, ANNE G. (Parmy) 90 ROBINSON, WILLIAM P., JR. 52 ROLLISON, JOHN A. (Jack), III St,, Norfolk 23510 P.O. Box 34908, Richraond 23234 7903 Clifton Hunt Ct., Clifton 20124 10805 Crestwood Dr., Spotsylvania 22553 8898 Bond Ct., Manassas 20110-4327 P.O. Box 36, Castlewood 24224 2073 Cobblestone Ln., Reston 20191 P.O, Box 1256, White Stone, VA 22578 2352 L~eward Shore Dr., Virginia Beach 23451 P.O. Box 127, Bedford 24523 P.O. Box 29566, Richmond 23242 P.O. Box 14569, Richmond 23221 256 W. Freemason St., Norfolk 23510 13514 Minnieville Rd., Suite 202, Woodbridge 22192 693-4750 623-4900 (R) (804) 745-4335 743-7773 (R) (703) 750-9801 968-9322 (R) (540) 891-1322 786-9615 (R) (703) 367-0505 368-3539 (D) (540) 762.9758 395-5915 (D) (703) 758-9733 391-2978 (D) (804) 436-9117 438-5714 (R) (757) 481-1493 481-0724 (I) (540) 586-0080 586-9300 (R) (804) 717-6017 740,2951 (R) (804) 285-27t8 285-4460 (D) (757) 622-4770 588-4322 (R) (7O3) 690-4368 730-3430 61 RUFF, FRANK M. (R) P.O. Box 332, Clarksville 23927 (804) 374-5129 37 RUST, JOHN H., JR. (R) P.O. Box 460, Fairfax 22030 (703) 385-8000 53 SCOTr, JAMES M. (D) P.O. Box 359, Merdfield 22116-0359 (703) 560-8338 29 SHERWOOD, BEVERLY J. (R) P.O. Box 2014, Winchester 22604 (540) 667-8947 12 SHULER, JAMES M. (D) 1480 S. Main St., Blacksburg 24060 (540) 953-I 103 77 SPRUILL, LIONELL, SR. (D) P.O. Box 5403, Chesapeake 23324-0403 (757) 545-2573 3 STUMP, JACKIE T. (D) P.O. Box 429, Oakwood 24631 (540) 498-7207 81 SUIT, TERRIE L. ** (R) 3304 Ives Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23457 (757) 421-4531 85 TATA, ROBERT (R) 4536 Gleneagle Dr., Virginia Beach 23462 (757) 499.2490 5 TATE, JOHN H., JR. (D) P.O. Box 26, Marion 24354 (540) 783-7238 17 THOMAS, A. VICTOR (D) 1301 Orange Ave., N.E., Roanoke 24012 (540) 345-4120 45 VAN LANDINGHAM, MARIAN (D) 301 King St., Alexandria 22314 (703) 549-2511 57 VAN YAHRES, MITCHELL (D) 223 W. Main St., Charlottesville 22902 (804) 977-7863 21 WAGNER, FRANK W. (R) P.O. Box 68003, Virginia Beach 23471 (757) 671-2250 83 WARDRUP, LEO C., JR. (R) P.O. Box 5266, Virginia Beach 23471 (757) 490-8383 65 WARE, R. LEE, JR. (R) P.O. Box 535, Powhatan 23139 (804) 598-6696 39 WATTS, VIVIAN E. (D) 8717 Mary Lee Ln., Annandale 22003 (703) 978-2989 26 WEATHERHOLTZ, GLENN M. (R) 2 S. Main St., Suite 606, Harrisonburg 22801 (540) 574-3225 24 Mr. Speaker, S. VANCE WILKINS, JR. (R) P.O. Box 469, Amherst 24521 (804) 946-7599 86 WILLIAMS, DONALD L. (D) 809 W. Ocean View Ave., Norfolk 23503 (757) 451-1111 16 WOODRUM, CLIFTON A. (Chip) (D) P.O. Box 990, Roanoke 24005 (540) 982-5547 374-209I 280-5195 560-2834 667-8840 951-8742 545-6718 859-0200 499-2490 783-8475 342-4308 548-4318 293-6483 671-8392 363-2963 598-4539 978-2989 434-4636 946-2528 587-5035 343-8784 HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR LEGISLATOR You may contact your legislator by phone, letter, fax or email. If you do not know who your legislator is, you may call 800-889-0229 or find it on the World Wide Web at _ht~p:#legis.s'tate.va.'us. Click on "State Le~,~slature and then on "Who's My Legislator" and follow the instructions. Phone Individual phone numbers and addresses for each legislator are enclosed in this packet. You may use these numbers to contact your legislator directly. · During the General Assembly session, you may want to leave a message for a legislator or group of legislators regarding the TransDominion Express. You may do so by calling the Constituent Viewpoint Hotline: 800-889-0229. · If you are unable to contact your legislator, you may call: · House of Delegates Legislative Information Office: 804-698-1500 · Senate Legislative Information Office: 804-698-7410 Letter Your purpose for writing should be stated in the first paragraph of the letter. Be specific that you are writing in support of the TransDominion Express and would like the General Assembly to make it a funding priority. · Be courteous, to the point, and include key information and examples to support your position (see enclosed talking points). If possible, keep your letter to one page. · Addressing your letter: To a Senator: The Honorable (full name) Address Dear Senator (last Name): To a Delegate: The Honorable (full name) Address Dear Delegate (last Name): Fax · During the session you may fax your legislator at 804-786-4640 (this is for both Delegates and Senators). You may contact your legislators' office for individual fax numbers. Email To obtain a legislator's email address, either call her/his office or find it on the World Wide Web at ih_t.,t_p?/___l.e_~,~s, stateva.us. Click on "State Legislature" and then on "Who's My Legislator" and follow the instructions. Subject: Funding for lobbying effort Card for Meredith M. Richards Dear Bob, The Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express (of which I'm a member) has mounted a lobbying effort to promote funding for the proposed passenger rail service that would connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington DC and Richmond via Lynchburg. The Governor's budget does not contain funding for the service. We are asking the General Assembly to amend the budget to provide for $10 million in each year of the biennium to pay the capital costs of improving existing tracks & stations and buying equipment. The service could begin by 2003 with this funding. We think we have a good shot at getting this amendment passed. The service received 75 letters and resolutions of endorsement from local governments, chambers of commerce, planning districts, etc. In our locale, it was endorsed by the city, Albemarle Co., Nelson Co., Chamber of Commerce, TJ Partnership for Economic Development, TJPDC and the MPO. To support this lobbying effort, the committee ~s requesting that cities and towns with stations served by the proposed line each contribute $2000. Charlottesville (Union Station) is one of those cities. I might suggest that the City and County each contribute $1,000 for a combined local contribution of $2000, I would like to put a supplemental appropriation on the next Counci agenda for $1000, and to approach the BOS for a matching contribution. I will also solicit $500 from the Chamber of Commerce. I would appreciate your help in approaching the Board of Supervisors. assuming you believe this ~s a worthwhile request. It is imperative that we act soon because the $$ has been committed to get this lobbying effort on a "fast track." (sorry) Thanks for your help and advice, Meredith Richards Meredith Richards City Council City of Charlottesville <mmrich(-C_cstone.net> Fax: 984-1578 Home: 295-6234 Work: 984-1578 David R Bowerman Rio I_indsay G. Dorder, dr. Charlotte Y. Humphds Jack Jouet~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 MclnQre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thoma~ Samuel blille~ February 3, 2000 The Honorable Paul C. Harris Delegate P O Box 406 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Delegate Harris: Expanding passenger rail service throughout the Commonwealth will benefit Virginians in many ways. On behalf of the County of Albemarle, ! am writing to urge your support for the TransDominion Express. The 1998 Bristol Passenger Study, conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creating this TransDominion Express will decrease traffic congestion on highways and interstates, reduce air traffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce, and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. Implementing this service will be relatively inexpensive when compared to multi-billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations, and to acquire equipment should be no more than $10 million in each year of the biennium. Your support of the proposed budget amendment would allow service to begin by Year 2003. The Study projects that income from ridership will cover operating costs within just 12 years. More than 70 counties, cities and towns, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting this proposal to expand passenger rail service in the Commonwealth. The TransDominion Express would also be accessible to more than 20 colleges and universities along the proposed rail corridor. For these reasons, this is the best time to advance the TransDominion Express. We strongly urge your support of the proposed budget amendment for $10 million in each year of the biennium. Sincerely, Charles Martin, Chairman CC: Dave Blount Meredith Richards Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier. Jr. ,~ottsvi~e Charlotte Y. Humph~ Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Super, dsors 401 Mcln~ke Road Chadottesv/lle, Virflinia 22902-4596 {804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 295-5800 Chades S. Martin Waiter E Perkins White ~ Sally H. Thomas February 3, 2000 The Honorable Emily Couric Senator P O Box 396 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Senator Couric: Expanding passenger rail service throughout the Commonwealth will benefit Virginians in many ways. On behalf of the County of Albemarle, I am writing to urge your support for the TransDominion Express. The 1998 Bristol Passenger Study, conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creating this TransDominion Express will decrease traffic congestion on highways and interstates, reduce air traffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce, and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. Implementing this service will be relatively inexpensive when compared to multi-billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations, and to acquire equipment should be no more than $i0 million in each year of the biennium. Your support of the proposed budget amendment would 'allow service to begin by Year 2003. The Study projects that income from ridership will cover operating costs within just 12 years. More than 70 counties, dties and towns, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting this proposal to expand passenger rail service in the Commonwealth. The TransDominion Express would also be accessible to more than 20 colleges and universities along the proposed rail corridor. For these reasons, this is the best time to advance the TransDominion Express. We strongly urge your support of the proposed budget amendment for $10 million in each year of the biennium. Sincerely, Charles Martin, Chairman CC: Dave Blount Meredith Richards Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay (3. Dottier, ,Ir. Scottsville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack &inert COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supemi$ors 401 Mclntim Road Chadoffesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-$843 FAX (8041 296-$800 Chades S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller February 3, 2000 The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres Delegate P O Box 406 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Delegate VanYahres: Expanding passenger rail service throughout the Commonwealth will benefit Virginians in many ways. On behalf of the County of Albemarle, I am writing to urge your support for the TransDominion Express. The 1998 Bristol Passenger Study, conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creating this TransDominion Express' will decrease traffic congestion on highways and interstates, reduce air traffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce, and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. Implementing this service will be relatively inexpensive when compared to multi-billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations, and to acquire equipment should be no more than $i0 million in each year of the biennium. Your support of the proposed budget amendment would allow service to begin by Year 2003. The Study projects that income from ridership will cover operating costs within just 12 years. More than 70 counties, dties and towns, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting this proposal to expand passenger rail service in the Commonwealth. The TransDominion Express would also be accessible to more than 20 colleges and universities along the proposed rail corridor. For these reasons, this is the best time to advance the TransDominion Express. We strongly urge your support of the proposed budget amendment for $10 million in each year of the biennium. cc: Dave Blount Meredith Richards Sincerely, Charles Martin, Chairman Printed on recycled paper Date: 1/21/2000 ZMA # Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # PROFFER FORM 99-14 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 61-36 & 61-36A1 1,23., Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to R-10 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) If the property is not used for professional offices as authorized by a special use permit pursuant to section 17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, then the uses of the property shall be limited to those identified in section 15.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the property shall also be subject to the requirements of sections 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, and 15.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The referenced provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be those in effect on February 9, 2000, copies of which are attached hereto. SiaW'atures of AILOwners Leonard Mailloux Printed Names of All Owners Grace Mailloux OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact RECEIVED JAN 2 ? 2000 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~v~cct c'UU~TY CODE 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; 'unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference $.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nurse~ facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar ~nstitution (reference 5.1.13). 10. H6spitals. 1 I. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 12. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 13. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-8I) 14. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86) 15.3 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS (Amended 3-18-81) AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS ST~.NDARD LEVEL BONUS LEVEL CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENI' DEVELOPMENT Gross density 4 du/acre 4 du/acre 6 dtvacre 6 du/acre Minimum Lot Size (added 7-17-85) 10.890 sq ~ N/A 7,260 sq fL N/A Minimum frontage: public, private 130 feet 110 feet [ 10 feet 90 feet Yards, minimum: Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 ~et 25 feet Side'*~ 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Rem- 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet (a) Minimum side yards shall be reduced to not less than ten ([0) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3 (Amended £-1-83) Maximum Structure height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 15.4 BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4) 15.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STAaNDARDS For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent m nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5) percent shall be granted: twenty (20) percent or greater of the site. a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted. tn order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 shall be required. (Amended 8-t4-85; 9-9-92) 18-15-3 Zoning Supplement #3, 24-99 15.4.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law, density may be increased as follows: The acreage of the land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by twice the gross density- standard level, and the resulting number of dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density increase shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. The dedication shall be accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval. For.provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area. The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. (Amended 8-14= 85) 15.4.3 LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING For provision of Iow or moderate cost housing units as follows, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted: a. At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or moderate cost units; and The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and' Urban Development Section 8; and If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the Iow or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes flu'st; and [f sale units, the developer shall provide the director of planning and community development with confhmaation of the initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to the issuance of building permits for the bonus umts; (Amended 8-14-85) Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as Iow or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mbbile home owners for a period of five (5) years; (Added 3- 5-86) 15.4.4 Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other Iow or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. (Added 3-5-86) The cumulative effect of density factors above may not exceed fifty (50) percent (Amended 8-14-85) 18-15-4 Zoning Supplement #3, 2-6-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 15.5 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULATIONS At the option of the owner, regulations under cluster development provisions in section 15.3 may be used for cluster development of the land to be subdivided and developed. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health requirements and the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle. (Amended 8-14-85) 15.6 BUILDING SEPARATION 'in any case in which there is more than one main structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wall. (Added [-1-83) (Amended 8-14-85) 15.7 RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. (Amended 3-5-86) 18-15-5 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference -5.1.13). 10. Hospkals. 11. Professional offices. 12. Retail stores and shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential characteristics of the district, with a gross floor area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet. 13. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 14. Churches. (Added9-2-81) 15. Cemeteries. (Added9-2-81) 16. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added l 1-7-84) 17. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86) 17.3 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS STANDARD LEVEL ~ONUS LEVEL CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Gmssdensi~ I0d~ [0d~ [Sd~re [Sd~acm Minimum Lot Size (Added 7-17-85) 4,356 sq fi N/A 2.904 sq ft. N/A Yara, minimum: Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Side'~ 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet (a) Minimum side yards shall be reduced to not less than (10) feet in accordance with section 4. t. 1.3. Maximum Structur~ height 65 feet 65 feet 65 feet 65 feet 17.4 BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4) (Amended 8-1445) 17.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (l 0) percent to nineteen (l 9) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5) percent shall be granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a density inceease often (10) percent shall be granted. 18-17-3 Zoning Supplement #3.2-26-99 Hydraulic Dental Center Comparison of Areas, based on attached map. Will Rieley 02/08 Area "A" s.f. acres % of total area Land Building Footprint Parking Building and Parking 53,580 1.23 100% 9,230 0.21 17% 21,100 0.48 39% 30,330 0.70 57% Area "B" s.f. acres % of total area Land Building Footprint Parking Building and Parking 87,070 2.00 100% 7,120 0.16 8% 26,350 0.60 30% 33,470 0.77 38% Area "C" acres % of total area Land Building Footprint Parking Building and Parking 273,218 6.27 100% 35,430 0.81 13% 72,270 1.66 26% 107,700 2.47 39% Building and Parking Difference "A' to "C" 144% Building Difference "A' to "B" 211% Parking Difference "A" to "C" 149% Note: Area "C" also includes area "B" ,) .1~ 0 0 -... ".- Z l '"~L, .' : : ~ · ":-.~ h ' ·., ':;-.. ., :~. .-." '" .... ~>"..>--.~'"1 .,,,%. I~IATTHEWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC real estate development · consulting · project management January 6, 2000 Ms. Susan Fowler 2760 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville VA 22901 Re: ZMA 99-14 & SP 99-67 Hydraulic Dental Center Dear Susan, I want to thank you and the residents of Old Oak Court for meeting with me last night to discuss Dr. Knierim's and Dr. Kangur's proposed dental offices next to Old Oak. It is very important to us as neighbors that we do the best job we can in keeping you involved, hearing your concerns, and hopefully developing a plan that Old Oak views as a good one. I also appreciate your willingness to serve as the key contact person. Several points were made in the meeting that were of concern to Old Oak. I want to make sure that I understood you clearlY, and I want to convey in writing our commitment to stand behind what I represented to you. Please let me know if I have missed or misrepresented anything that was discussed. Access: Old Oak was very interested in assuring that our permanent site access would be through the adjacent dental office project. That is our intent. The County will surely require a binding legal document to that effect prior to approving the site plan. Signage: Old Oak has a problem now with patients pulling into your driveway when they intend to go to the dental offices. With the new offices, you are concerned that the problem might become worse, especially given the visibility of the new offices. I have no immediate bright idea t° solve this, other than to say that better signage on both your property and the dental offices might reduce the problem. Trees: Given the realities of a long, narrow, steep site, practically any viable development will require the removal of most trees on what is a nicely wooded site. Understandably, Old Oak would rather not see the trees removed. What we can do is: 1) We released our surveyor several weeks ago to perform a boundary and topographic survey with specific instructions to indicate all significant trees on the survey sheet. Rather than clearcut the site and then plan our buildings, we always intended to determine if any trees are in areas where a little planning might save them. For trees that we feel can be saved, we will make every effort to facilitate their survival during construction, including putting up so called "tree protection", which is usually orange construction fencing in a ring around as much of the drip line as possible to reduce "builder shock." 804 972 7764 phone 804 295 3203 mLkeraematthewsdevelop.corn One Boar's Head Pointe Charlottesville, Virgin/a 22903 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 TO: FROM: REF: DATE: Albemarle County Board of Supervis.~s ~.\\\N .]uandiego R. Wade, Senior Planne~ ZMA 99-04, SP 99-067 Hydraulic Hedical Center February 6, 2000 Please find attached a large print and color copy of the conceptual design for the proposed Hydraulic Medical Center. ]:f you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. ~× '/ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 2%-5823 - February 3, 2000 Drs. T. Kangur & S. Knierim C/o Scott Knierim 2778 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 ZMA-99-14 Hydraulic Dental Center SP-99-67 Hydraulic Dental Center Tax map 61, Parcels 36 and 36A1 Dear Dr. Kangur & Knierim: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 1, 2000, took the following actions regarding the above-noted petitions: ZMA-99-14 Hydraulic Dental Center- Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, subject to the proffer as specified by the applicant. SP-99-67 Hydraulic Dental Center - Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-2, subject to the following conditions: All new structures and parking shall conform to Sections 21.7.1, 21.7.2 and 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant shall provide a sight distance of 425', as required by VDOT, at the existing entrance to the profe, ssional offices on Hydraulic Road (Route 743). In addition to Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets. SP 78-09 for a day care center on this property is hereby revoked. Setbacks for new structures shall be as described in Section 21.7, except a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the 20' setback adjacent to the parking/travelways on the south side of the site (adjacent to Old Oak Court) may be requested for the purpose of construction of the travelways and parking. Screening shall exceed that required by Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance according to the discretion of the Design Planner and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements shall be supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Planner to provide good screening for the adjacent residential district and along 10. 11. 12. Hydraulic Road. No portion of the permanent parking or travelways shall encroach on the 20' setback. If the existing house on site is removed and replaced with a new structure, the new structure shall be governed by setbacks per Section 21.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Total buildings on site shall not exceed 9,000 square feet of floor area. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as Hydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 by Muncaster Engineering dated 12/20/99. Locations of buildings, parking, and travelways are approximate and may change, but indicate the general intent for site use and density. A wooden fence shall be built between the subject property and the adjoining residential properties of at least six (6) feet in height. Screening vegetation shall be planted on the residential side of the fence. The site shall be developed in a manner so as to preserve as many existing trees throughout th& site as is reasonably possible consistent with the development of the property according to the conditions set forth herein. A conservation plan for the existing trees shall be submitted at the time of preliminary site plan submittal. Particular attention shall be paid to tree preservation and screening along Hydraulic Road. Massing materials and building configuration shall be in harmony with the existing office complex on the site adjacent to the north, and shall be subject to the review of the Design Planner. Parking shall be no closer to Hydraulic Road than the parking lot at the existing office complex on the site adjacent to the north. Hydraulic Dental Center - Waiver Request - Request for waiver was withdrawn by the applicant Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 9, 2000. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Juandiego Wade Transportation Planner Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEGO WADE JAUNUARY 25, 2000 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 ZMA 99-014 Hydraulic Dental Center SP 99-067 Hydraulic Dental Center Applicant's Proposal: Request to rezone 1.23 acres fi:om R-4, Residential to R-10, Residential, with proffers and to grant a special use permit to allow professional offices. The applicant is also requesting a waiver to be processed concurrently with ZMA 99-014 and SP 99-67, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 21.7.3 to permit grading and clearing in the twenty foot buffer area. The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 12,500 square feet of professional offices. The applicant is requesting R-10 Zoning because the R-4 zoning category does not permit professional offices. A commercial zoning category (CO, commercial office) is not being requesting because the proximity of the existing house to the property line would not meet the setback requirements of the commercial district. The applicant would like the option to retain the house with the development of the site. Staff had not received the proffers from the applicant before the printing of this staff report, but it will be available for the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Staffhas reviewed a preliminary version with the applicant and the proffer will state that, should the property not develop according to SP 99-67, then the rights to develop the property shall revert to those permitted in the current zone, R-4. Petition: Request to rezone 1.23 acres from R-4, Residential to R-10, Residential, which permits professional offices by special use permit (Attachment A) and a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the twenty foot buffer area. The applicant is also requesting a special uge permit (SP 99-067) in accordance with Section 17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for professional offices in R-10 zoned areas (Attachment B). The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 36 and 36A1, contains 1.23 acres, and is located inthe Rio Magisterial District on Hydraulic Road . [Route 743] across fi:om Albemarle High School (Attachments C & D). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for urban density residential use in Development Area 1. Character of the Area: The site is located in an urban setting. There are existing medical offices to the north, Albemarle High School to the west, and townhomes and single family detached homes to the south and east of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 99-014) with the proposed proffers and the Special Use Permit (SP 99-067) with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: Tax Map 61 Parcel 36 received a special use permit in 1978 for a day care center and three rezonings were attempted. SP-78-09 (1978) The Board of Supervisors approved a day care center. Although the day care center is no longer in use, the special use permit is still valid. Staffwill make it a condition of approval to revoke the day care center special use permit. Rezoning-221 (1972) Request to rezone 16 acres fi:om R-2 to R-3. This was request was withdrawn by the applicant. Rezoning-324 (1975) Request to rezone 1.22 acres from R-2 to B-1. The Board of Supervisors denied this request. Rezoning-326 (1975) Request to rezone 13.95 acres from R-2 to R-3. The Board of Supervisors accepted the applicant request for withdrawal without prejudice. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential (6-34 du/ac) in Development Area 1. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Residential (6-34 du/ac) in Development Area 1. Under the current zoning a total of four (4) dwellings could be located on site. Under the Comprehensive Plan Land use designation, 6 to 34 units could be theoretically allowed. However, site constraints would likely limit development to the lower end of the recommended level of development. The property is currently zoned R-4. The applicant proposes to locate professional offices on the site..This site is adjacent to an area designated for (and developed with) Neighborhood Service uses (office/service/limited retail). As proposed, this site would be integrated with the adjacent office site. Office use is considered an appropriate transitional use adjacent to residential areas. ZMA 99-014: This request is for a zoning map amendment to R-10 with the proposed proffers. The purpose of the rezoning is to be able to utilize the professional office use, which is provided for by special permit in the R- 10 district. The applicant is seeking to rezone to R-10, and then a special use permit, in lieu of CO (commercial/office) due to the commercial setback requirements of CO. A small comer of the existing house, which will be incorporated into an office building, would not meet the 50 feet commercial setback. Staff will require appropriate screening during the site plan process to insure this use would not be a detriment to adjacent residential properties. The applicant has offered a proffer with this rezoning, which will limit the development potential of the property to the existing R-4 zoning with the exception of the uses permitted by special use permit in the R-10 district. Therefore, the impacts of this development proposal can be reviewed with the special use permit. SP 99-067 STAFF COMMENT: Regarding the office special use permit, staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight.to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_. Staff does not anticipate any substantial detriment to adjacent properties from office use, if conditioned to generally meet commercial setbacks. Staff recommends the applicant be required to preserve a 50' building setback for all new construction and 20' parking/circulation setback (both from Olde Oak Court Condo's and Oak Forest). The plan, as proposed, will incorporate an existing house into the new dental office by constructing a 4,000 square feet addition to the existing house. A second building of 5,000 square feet, which would be 2,500 square feet on each level, will be built closer to Hydraulic Road, roughly in line with the existing structure. A site plan will be required. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The ckaracter of the district should not change in any manner. This is an urbanizing area with a mix of office and institutional uses adjacent to the site. Office uses are considered acceptable transitional use adjacent to residential uses, if level of activity is appropriately controlled. The applican.t has met with the residents of adjacent residential areas to address their concerns. The applicant has received three letters of support for this project. These letters can be found on Attachment E. The main concerns dealt with drainage from a separate property and activity in an illegal parking area. Planning and Engineering staff will work with the appropriate landowner to address the drainage issue. The Zoning Department will inspect will illegal parking area and will take appropriate actions if it is not authorized. Staffhas reviewed the drainage issue with the Engineering Department. According to the topography, the mn-off from the existing medical offices flow towards Hydraulic Road. There is a hill behind the existing medical offices that may cause excessive mn-offduring heavy rain, but that condition has alWays been in place. The Engineering Department will wOrk With the residents to address any of their concerns. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. Staff finds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. (Attachment F) with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use will not restrict permitted uses on any adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, These regulations do not apply to this request. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff finds no aspect of this request that would negatively impact the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. VDOT's comments can be found on Attachment G. VDOT's concerns can be addressed during the site plan process. The property is served with public sewer and water. This property has limited sight distance along Hydraulic Road. The adjacent owner to the south along Hydraulic Road has not been cooperative in providing easement for sight distance. As a result, this proposal would provide for alternative access through the existing adjacent office complex. The applicant will also improve the site distance at the existing Hydraulic Road entrance to the existing office complex. Waiver Request: The applicant is requesting a waiver to be processed concurrently with ZMA 99-014 and SP 99-67, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 21.7.3 to permit grading and clearing in the twenty foot buffer area adjacent to Old Oak Court. The waiver would permit only grading and clearing in the buffer area as needed for the construction of the travelways and parking area (Attachment H). The' applicant has indicated that they will inStall better screening for adjacent residential areas if a waiver is granted. If a waiver is not granted, the applicant will have to install a reta!ning wall. Staff opinion is that while a waiver might be wan'anted in this case due to the size of the property and other on site constraints, it would be more appropriate to evaluate the waiver request at the time of site plan submittal, when more detailed information can be provided. SUMMARY: Staff supports the applicant's request for the Zoning Map Amendment with the proposed proffers, and the Special Use Permit with recommended conditions. Staff recommends a condition to require the applicant to meet all of the set back specifications required by Section 21.7, Commercial Districts Generally (Attachment I). Tax Map 61 Parcel 36 received a special use permit in 1978 for a day care center. Staffwill request that the Board of Supervisors revoke this special use permit (SP 78-09). REcoMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 99-014) with proffers. Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit (SP 99-067) with the following conditions. All new structure and parking shall conform to Sections 21.7.1, 21.7.2 and 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance .(Attachment G). The applicant shall provide a sight distance of 425', as required by VDOT, at the existing entrance to the professional offices on Hydraulic Road (Route 743). In addition to Section 4.17, all outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets. SP-78-09 for a day care center is hereby revoked. Setbacks for new structures shall be as described in 21.7, except a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the 20'setback adjacent to the parking/travelways on the south side of the site (adjacent to Old Oak Court) is permitted for the purpose of construction of the travelways and parking. Screening shall be provided according to section 32.7.9.8 and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements will be supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Planner to provide good screening for the adjacent residential district. No portion of the permanent parking or travelways will encroach on the 20' setback. If the existing house on site is removed and replaced with a new structure, the new structure shall be governed by setbacks per 21.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Total buildings on site shall not exceed 14,000 square feet of floor area. o The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as Hydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 by Muncaster Engineering dated 12/20/99, (Attachment J). Locations of buildings, parking, and travelways are approximate and may change but indicate the general intent for site use and density. ATTACHMENTS: A -Zoning Map Amendment Application B -Special Use Permit Application C-Tax Map D -Location Map E? Letters of Support F-Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of Zoning Ordinance G- VDOT Comments H - Waiver Request I - Section 21.7 of the Zoning Ordinance (Commercial Districts Generally) J- Conceptual Site Plan (condition #8) ,.. _Uounty or n, toema ';' Department ot 15Ulltli! Code and 0~TICE USr_ONLY ATTACHMENT A Staff ~ Date tproject Name (how shotad,,e r,ter ~ m~, ,pplicatlon?) Hydraulic DentaX Center · Existing zoning R-4 Proposed Zoning R-10 w/ S:U.P, · staff will assist you with this item) Number of acres to be rezoned (ii, portion it nmst be delineated on platl ].. 23 IS this an amendment to an existing Planned District? a Yes ~.No I~ this an amendment to existing proffers? c~ Yes ~.No i Are you submitting a preliminary site development plan with this application? Q Yes ~No Are you submitting a preliminary subdivision plat with this application? ~ Yes ~No Are you proffering a plan with this application? cl Yes ~t No Contact Person (who should we call/write concerning this project?): Mi r~h~a~'l_ Address ~e ~'s Head Po~e City C'ville Dayfim~ Phone ( 804 ) 972-7764 ,F~ 295-3203 E-m~i Owner of land (,, Address 1 Farmin~ton Heights Daytime Phone ( ~04 . ) 979-0174 Leonard or Grace ~ 11 omc City C'ville F~x # 296-1614 Seato VA Zip 22901 ~ddres$ 2~ H~irauiic Road Civ~ C' vil].e & Dr. Scott Knierim State VA Zip 22901 Daytime Phone ( 8o4 ) 973-12~-2 Fax # 973-2255 E-mail ITax map and parcel 61-36 and 61-36A1 Physical Address(if assigned) 2473 Hydraulic Road · Locatiou of property (landmarks. hamm¢ctions, or other) I' Doe~ the owner o~ this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property*. map and parcel numbers ,, Across frcm Albemarle High School If yes. plemsc list those tax Or{<. 5 0 lc. ~o'_t~:z/-' OFFICE USE ON~f5'Fee amount $ ~ Date Paid // ~J~.Check,/~)/'ff, . R~e.~ipt, ~j~.~By: ~ History: (Under 50 Acres = $815 50 acres ormo~e = S1.255 Concuxent review of Site Development Plan? Minor amendment to p~vjous _reguest = S I C:l ZM^s and Pro,ers: '~'5'- 5',7/,; 96'- 5'~?,, ~'2- f~:~er of Authorization Yes 0 No a01 Mctntire Road ':' Charlottesville. VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296'5832 -:- Fax: 972-4126 Section 15.1-490 of the Code of Virginia states that, "Zoning ordinances and districts shall be drawn and applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of the property, comprehens!ve plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community. the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation .of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricul .mya.l and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land'throughout the county or municipality." These are the items which will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please provide any additional information you feel is necessary to assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Urban density residential What public need or benefit does this rezoning serve? See attached, Sheet public water, sewer, and roads available to serve this site?Will there be any impact on thes~.facilkies? Yes. See attached shee~ ~v'hat impact will there be on the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources? OPTIONAL: Do you have plans to develop the property if the rezoning is approved? If s6, please describe: Yes - See attached If you would like to proffer any restrictions on the development of the property, please list these proffers on ih,: following optional aclachment entitled. "PROFFER FORM". Proffers are ~ offers to use proper~y in a rnor~ r~strictiv, than the overall zoning district classification would allow. By State Code, proffea's must have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning and are not mandatory. The rezonmg must give rise to the need for the proffers; the proffers must be related to the physical development or physical operauon of the property; and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Describe your request in detail including why you are requesting this particul= zonifg dismct? See attached ATTACI'IMENTS REQUIRED - Provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the proper%7 requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you axe requesting a rezoning fc~r a portion of the propertT, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or ~ganization including, but not limited to, the name ora corporation, partnership or association. or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person sig'ning below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the exastence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: CI 3. Gl 4. CI 5. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Proffer Form signed by the owner(s). Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this ~so;rtify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of mY knowledge'.~ / ~///~ Signature. Date / Leonard Mailloux 979-0174 Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory Description and Justification of ReqUest Project: Hydraulic Dental Center Zoning Map Amendment Request October 8, 1999 Request This request is to rezone two contiguous parcels, Tax Map 61-36 and 61-36A1, a total of 1.23 acres immediately adjacent to a successful dental office park, from R-4 to R-10 with a Special Use Permit for Professional Offices valid for a period of three years. Background The dentists of the Hydraulic Professional Building, located on the east side of Hydraulic Road across from Albemarle High School, have provided top quality dental services to the community for over ten years. The center is accessed via existing commercial entrances at both Hydraulic Road and Whitewood Road. The subject 1.23 acre property is comprised of two parcels, the frontage portion being an undeveloped lightly wooded parcel of .59 acres and the rear portion containing a single family dwelling, with a residential driveway exiting on Hydraulic Road. The property immediately adjacent to the south is the Old Oak apartments, separated from the subject parcel by its access drive to Hydraulic Road. We understand that a key issue in previous attempts to develop the subject property was its access at Hydraulic Road. VDOT has indicated its opposition to an entrance on Hydraulic Road, rendering the only options for access through either the adjacent apartment complex or the adjacent professional offices. The sale of the subject property is pending through a contingent purchase contract to two dentists Who currently maintain very successful practices in the adjacent dental park. The growth of their practices has necessitated a relocation, and it is their desire to remain in Albemarle County, in the same general location if possible. To solve access issues, the contract purchasers have commitments in principle from the owners of the adjacent professional park for access to the subject property through that park and then out to either Hydraulic or Whitewood Road. Justification we believe the proposed zoning map amendment is conSistent with good land use planning and is a benefit to the community for the following reasons: 1) The application represents the expansion of very successful and much needed healthcare services, immediately adjacent to where those services are currently provided, within the designated Growth Area; 2) The application solves a long-standing access problem for this site in a safe, effi'cient manner by physically joining with the adjacent professional office park for access to two major streets, Hydraulic and Whitewood, and eliminates an existing residential driveway on Hydraulic Road; 3) 4) The spaces being vacated by the applicants (who plan to occupy the new offices) are planned to be filled by Other dentists already practicing in those buildings, who also need to eXpand. The rezoning solves both expansion needs at once; The small size and geometry of the parcel is well suited to development of professional offices and represents a good use for this site. Thank you for your consideration of this request. india] & date ,. , -_~. ,., i // O~VNER$ APPROVAl. " STATE ~/~ / ~7~' ~o' ~o~ , /~ ~ ~,~ , . · r PARCEL "A" ' HQTE: PARCEL A SHALL HOT ~ T' ~ ~ UNLESS ~BLIC WATER la UTILIZEO VICINITY SKETCH ~X~-w PARCEL "B" ' , I~,~ Iron Ir~ SUBDIVISION PLAT OF PARCELS A & B A PORTION OF PARCEL ~6, TAX MAP 61 NEAR CH~LOTTESVILLE ALBE~R~ COUNTY. VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"~50' AUGUST 15, 19T4 .~~ ~?~.--~,.,~, ~o. ~5,''~ _ _ " ~ ~ c¢~. ~o. WILLIAM $. ROUDAEU~i~, J;~. ~ ASSOCIATES ~. ' .~ , ..<: 4175 OWNERS ApprOVAl VICINITY SKETCH SERVICE CORP. PARCEL "a" 25,539 S.F. ~, 5"~ ~:, NOTE: PARCEL A SHALL NOT UNLESS ~JSLI¢ WATER |$ UTILIZE~ d. ¥. HINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT OF PARCELS A & B A PORTION OF PARCEL 36, TAX HAP 61 NEAR CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBENARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: i"=50' AUGUST 15. i974 WILLIAM S. RC, UDAgUSH, J~.. & ASSOCIATES C~TIFIGD LAND SU~,.VEYOec County of Albema. OFFICE USE~Y Department of BuildL Code am --' ATTACHMENT B Application for Special Use Permit Project Name<~.~u,a.~r=,o~u.o.,maa.:) Hydraulic Dental Center (With ZMA 99-14) *Existing Use Residential & Vacant P_roposed,Use~ Professional Office *Zoning District R-4 to b~ R-10 (.~n(~g Ordinance Section number requested (*staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit i~t a ~,.~o~ a ~t ~ ~tineat-.~ an plao Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? late you submitting a site development plan wifl~ this application? 1.23 CI Yes~ No O Yes~ No IC0ntact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): Michael Matthews Addres.s One B~'.~ Head Pointe City C ' ville Daytime Phone ( 804 . ) 2972-7764 Fax ~ 804-295-3203 State VA Zip 22903 E-mail mike~tthewsdev · o. 1 c~p _ cern Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): Leonard or Grace Mailloux Address' 1 Farmington Heights City C'Ville Daytime Phone ( 804 ) 979-0174 Fax # 296-1614 E-mail StateVA Zip 22901 Applicant(Whoisthecontactpersonrepresenting?Whoisrequestingthcspecialusc?): Drs. T. Kan~ur & S. Address c/o Scott Knierim, 2778 Hydraulic Rd. City C'ville State Daytime Phone ( 80~ ) 973-1222 Fax # 973-2255 E-mail Knierlm VA Zip 22901 Tax. map and parcel 61-36 and 61-36A1 Physical Address.(ifassigned) 2764 HTl~lraulic Location of property (landm~ks, intersections, or other) Across frcrn Albemarle High School Does ' the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers NO aa Fee amount $ · History: Iii/Special Use Permits: Variances: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? 401 McIntire Road ':' Charlotteqvill- Va '~'~on'~ .-. xr,,;~o. ,~o~ roe,, ... = .......... ,,-- Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the .staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the COunty in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Urban Density Residential (borders) How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? No major, ~pact vs. residential. Soo attached "Description and Justifiation of Request" dated 10/8/99 How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? It. is consistent with the use imuediately adjacent, which is also professional office use. HowistheuseinharmonywiththepurposeandintentoftheZoningOrdinance? See attack~d. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? See attached, and ZMA 99-14,. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How wile this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? See Attached. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: see attacqed, Note that this application is concurrent with and a part of ZMA 99-14. ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there~ is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including? but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the' person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to'the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable tO the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application: I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~i~'nature Date Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory Description and Justification of Request Project: Hydraulic Dental Center Zoning Map Amendment Request October 8, 1999 Request This request is to rezone two contiguous parcels, Tax Map 61-36 and 61-36A1, a total of 1.23 acres immediately adjacent to a successful dental office park, from R4 to R-10 with a Special Use Permit for Professional Offices valid for a period of three years. Ba~und The dentists of the Hydraulic Professional Building, located on the east side of Hydraulic Road across from Albemarle High School, have provided top quality dental, services to the community for over ten years. The center is accessed via existing commercial entrances at both Hydraulic Road and Whitewood Road. The subject 1.23 acre property is comprised of two parcels, the frontage portion being an undeveloped lightly wooded parcel of .59 acres and the rear portion containing a single family dwelling with a residential driveway exiting on Hydraulic Road. The property immediately adjacent to the south is the Old Oak apartments, separated from the subject parcel by its access drive to Hydraulic Road. We understand that a key issue in previous attempts to develop the subject property was its access at Hydraulic Road. VDOT has indicated its opposition to an entrance on Hydraulic Road, rendering the only options for access through either the adjacent aparhnent complex or the adjacent professional offices. The sale of the subject property is pending through a c0nt~ngent purchase contract to two dentists who currently maintain very successful practices in the adjacent dental park. The growth of their practices has necessitated a relocation, and it is their desire to remain in Albemarle County, in the same general location if possible. To solve access issues, the contract purchasers have comrrdtments in principle from the owners of the adjacent professional park for access to the subject property through that park and then out to either Hydraulic or Whitewood Road. Justification We believe the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with good land use planning and is a benefit to the commurdty for the following reasons: 1) The application represents the expansion of very successful and much needed healthcare services, immediately adjacent to where those services are currently provided, within the designated Growth Area; 2) The application solves a long-standing access problem for this site in a safe, efficient manner by physically joining with the adjacent professional office park for access to two major streets, Hydraulic and Whitewood, and eliminates an existing residential driveway on Hydraulic Road; 3) The spaces being vacated by the applicants (who plan to occupy the new offices) are planned to be filled by other dentists already practicing in those buildings, who also need to expand. The rezoning solves both expansion needs at once; 4) The small size and geometry of the parcel is well suited to development of professional offices and represents a good use for this site. Thank you for your consideration of this request. OWNI:R$ APPROVAl. set T--2".. Iig . d, W. NlNOR VICINITY SKETCH PARCEL "A" 2S,53~ S.F. HQTE: PARCEL A SHALL HOT SE USE~ AS A SUILDI#G SITE U~ ~BLIC ~&TE~ IS UTILIZED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF PARCELS A & B A PORTIONOF PARCEL $6, TAX HAP 61 NEAR CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEHARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"=50' AUGUST 15, 1974 WILLIAM S. P. CUDAEU~H, J~.. & ASSOCIATES 10/22/99 TO: ~Tan Sprinkle - fax 97Z-4126 FROM: Len Mailloux RE: Application for special use permit for Hydraulic Road SP 99-6? 1: authorize Mike Matthews to act as my representative in all matters relating to the application for the above special use permit. Thank you for your consideration. LEONARD S. MAILLOUX SP 99 67.F/ydraulic Dental Center ?'7 JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND RI 0 DISTRICTS SE~ON 6~ I I ! ! '~'- SP 99 67 Hydraulic Dental Center ! ATTACHMENT~ ! I I -/ / · / ATTACHMENTE Juandiego Wade From: mikem@matthewsdevelop.com Sent: Tuesday, January 11,2000 4:18 PM To: Juandiego Wade Subject: ZMA 99-14, SP 99-67 .~uan, I just spoke to the Maillouxs, Dr. Kangur, and Dr. Knierim, and we will be deferring the applications to the .lanuary 25th meeting. We understand this will not affect the Board of Supervisors date. ! also left a phone message with Susan Fowler of Old Oak, who I believe is the new president of their association, and also with Dennis Harbin, who I believe to be the outgoing president of the association (he is moving). Thank you for contacting Dennis Rooker and Rodney Thomas with the same message. ! will attend the meeting tonight to confirm the deferral. Thanks, Hike Matthews Matthews Development Company Thursday, December 30, 1999 Fwd: ZMA 99-1,~, HYDRAULIC DENTAL CENTER ATTACHMENT Subject: Fwd: ZMA 99-14, HYDRAULIC Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:44:40 EST From: Danihon ~aol.com To: $orinkle ~ exch.co.albemarle.va,us CC: mikem @ matthewsdeveloo.com DENTAL CENTER Subject:' ZMA 99-14, HYDRAULIC DENTAL CENTER Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:27:53 EST From: Danihon @ aol.com To: DSRQOKER@SPRINTMAIL.COM. ~hvlPress@aol.com, SRINKLE@EXCH.CO.ALBEMARLE.VA.COM CC: MIKEM @ MATHEWSDEVELOP.COM MR. DENNIS ROOKER, MR. RODNEY THOMAS MS. JAN SPRINKLE I am a resident of Oak Forest and in fact live directiy behind the property in question. My wife and I have no objections to the zoning change. I don't see a Dentist's office as creating any additional traffic or strain on local resources. Besides there is already an office complex in the immediate vicinity one additional small complex would not be unwelcome. I have spoken with Mike Mathews on a few occasions and feel I have a very good idea of the intended development. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Dan J. Honeycutt Charlotte R. Honeycutt 80 Oak Forest Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 978-1381 ROB~T E. G~OV£R, D.D.S. IPRACTI¢~' LIMI?ED TO ~NDODONTICS 2774 HYD~ULIC ROAD. SUITE 103 CHARLO~ESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 ATTACHMENT E October 12, 1999 Dear Sirs; We are writing to support the request for rezoning of parcels 61-36 and 61-36A1 (across from Albemarle High School - Hydraulic Road) from R-4 to R-10 with a special use'permit for professional~ offices. We are familiar with the dental practices of Drs. Kangur and Kni~rim, who have had successful practices in this location for over twenty years. Both Dr. Kangur and Dr. Knierim would like- to continue practicing in the location across from Albemarle High School, but they need larger Office space. Dr. Kangur's office would move from 2774 Hydraulic Road to this adjacent property requested for re-zoning. Dr. Knierim's office would move f~om 2778 Hydraulic Road. Both Dr. Kangur and Dr. Knierim are currently using the common entrances off Hyraulic Road and Whitewood Road and would continue to use these entrances with this new office location. We believe that extending dental professional offices into parcel's 61-36 and 61-36A1 would be the best utilization of this land and would allow for the continued practices of Drs. Kangur and Knierim across from Albemarle High School. Extending dental offices into parcels 61-36, 61-36A1 would fit in well with the current offices located at 2774, 2776, 2778 and 2780 Hydraulic Road. Hydraulic Professional Robert Grover, DDS James Stone, DDS Douglas Starns, DDS John Lyon, DDS John Wolfe, DDS T. Thomas Kangur, DMD TELEPHONE (804| 973-1221 · FAX (804) 975'2603 ATTACHMENt' Albemarle Professional Court 2778 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-973-2520 October 12, 1999 Dear Sirs; We are writing to support the request fo~ rezoning of parcels 61-36 and 61-36A1 (across from Albemarle High School - Hydraulic~ Road) from R-4 to R-10 with a special use permit for professional offices. We are familiar with the dental practices of Drs. Kangur and Knierim, who have had successful practices in this location for over twenty years. Both Dr. Kangur and Dr. Knierim would like to continue practicing in the location across from Albemarle. High School, but they need larger office space. Dr. Kangur's office would move from 2774 Hydraulic Road to this adjacent property requested for re-zoning. Dr .... Knierim's office would move from 2778 Hydraulic Road. Both Dr. 'Kangur and Dr. Knierim are currently using the common entrances off Hyraulic Road and Whitewood Road and would continue to use these entrances with this new office location. We believe that extending dental professional offices into parcel's 61-36 and 61-36A~1 would be the best utilization of this land and would allow for the continued practices of Drs. Kangur and Knierim across from Albemarle High School. Extending dental offices into parcels 61-36, 61-36A1 would fit in well with the current offices located at 2774, 2776, 2778 and 2780 Hydraulic Road. Wallace Forloines, DDS John Wolfe, DDS Mark Friedlander, DDS Albemarle Professional Court Partnership.: ATTACHMENT F ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 1 AUTHORITY, ESTABLISHMENT, PURPOSE AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Sections: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 AUTHORITY AND ENACTMENT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES PURPOSE AND INTENT RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CERTIFIED COPY, FILING APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT; PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT TAXES 1.1 AUTHORITY AND ENACTMENT This ordinance, to be cited as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, is hereby ordained, enacted and published by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 7, Code of Virginia, 1950, and amendments thereto. 1.2 AMENDMENT TO ADOPT An ordinance to reenact and readopt the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the Albemarle County Zoning Map. Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia: That the following ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, together with the Zoning Map attached thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacted effective immediately upon adoption of this ordinance. 1.3 EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be effective at and after 5:15 P.M., the 10th day of Decembet:, 1980 and at the same time the Albemarle County "Zoning Ordinance" adopted December 22, 1969, as amended, is hereby repealed. 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive. Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 3, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 7. As set forth in section 15.2-2200 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and PAGE 1 18-1-1 Zoning Supplement #5, 6-16-99 ALB£MARL£ COUNTY CODE recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from f:re, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streetS; 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fu'e protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fa'e, flood, panic or other dangers; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 90-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added I l-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater del'reed in section 62.144.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11- 1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the wends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resoumes; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 1 I-1-89) r 18-1-2 PAGE 2 Zoning Supplemmat #5.6-16-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive PIan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended I I-I-89) 1.7 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP The unincorporated areas of Albemarle County, Virginia, are hereby divided into districts, as indicated on a set of map sheets entitled "Zoning Map of Albemarle County, Virginia" which, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be identified by the signature or the attested signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, together with the date of adoption of this ordinance. The zoning administrator shall be responsible for maintaining the Zoning Map, which shall be located in his offices, together with the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings and other structures in the county. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to interpret the current zoning stares of land and water areas, buildings and other structures in the county. No changes of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map or any matter shown thereon except in conformity with the procedures and requirements of this ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person to make unauthorized changes on the official Zoning Map. Violations of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 37.0. 1.8 CERTIFIED COPY, FILING A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be filed in the office of the zoning administrator and in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. 1.9 APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT; PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT TAXES Prior to initiation of the review of an application for a zoning map amendment, special use permit, variance or other land use permit, the zoning administrator shall require the applicant to produce satisfactory evidence that all delinquent real estate taxes owed to the County which have been properly assessed against the subject property have been paid. The applicable time periods for the review, recommendation and decision on an application for a land use permit shall be tolled until such evidence is received by the zoning administrator. 18-1-3 Zoning Supplement #5, 6-1699 PAGE 3 COMMISSIONER -' ATTACHMENT RECEIVED DEC 0 2 PLANNING AND COMMONWEALTH of VIR QIN uu. w DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VOOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 .&. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEE~ November 30, 1999 December Public Hearing Submittals Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning & Community Development 40t McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: Please find our comments for the November public hearings listed below: SP-99-59 Young America, Route 631 See comments below for ZMA-99-013. SP-99-61 Pinneil Custom Leather. Route 810 The site entrance must be built to minimum commercial entrance standards and have adequate sight distance (450') along Route 810. [t appears that adequate sight, distance is only available on the north side of the existing building. An adequate sight easement across the parcel to the north (TMP 40-12M) is required: the existing recorded sight easement across this parcel was for residential driveway (250') and appears to be inadequate. A sight easement may also be required across a small portion of the next parcel as well near the end of the fence. We recommend that access to the site tn front of and south of the building be physically restricted. SP-99-62 CFW CV 160, Route 683 If access is occurring via the private road from Route 683 (Shelt0n Mill Rd.): we have no comment at this time. SP-99-63 CFW CV 306 Meade Park, Route 1115 No comment at this time. SP-99-64 Crozet Baptist Church, Route 1202 No comment at this time. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTU;::'Y PAGE 1 Page 2 November 30, 1999 Mr. David Benish December Public Hearing Submittals SP-99-65 Pegasus Motorcar, Route 250E The Department recommends a dedication of right of way, or at least a reservation of right of way, for'a future right turn lane along Route 250. An additional 12' will be necessary for the construction of this' right turn lane. SP-99-66 Monticello High ,School~ Route 1150 No comment at this time. -~. FIvdraul. ie Center, 743 SP-99-67 Dental Route See comments below for ZMA-99-014. Zg4_A.-99-12 Airport Road Office Com plex~ Route 649 The Airport Road widening project wit1 impact this site. [t is recommended that the applicant coordinate with the Airport Authority and VDOT to insure the site plan is compatible with roadway plans and site access is incorporated into the roadway plans. Road construction is currently scheduled to begin near the end of 2001. Site access must occur along Deerwood Drive (Route 1501) aligning with the existing entrance into the office building across the street. The applicant is required to pay their share of traffic signal costs (including warrant study, plans. materials and installation) at the Deerwood Drive / Airport Road intersection in the event a traffic signal is warranted at some potnt in the future. ZMA-99-13 Young America, Route 631 All development must utilize the existing entrance; two outbound lanes may be required to accommodate site traffic. The applicant is required to install or pay the full cost of traffic signal (including warrant study. plans, materials and installation) at their entrance along 5"~ Street Extended (Route 63 I) in the event a traffic signal is warranted at some point in the future. We recommend the applicant pay their share of future traffic signal costs at [-64 ramp mtersecttons along Route 631. The existing RT lane (150' x 100') must be extended to 300' x 100', and full frontage right turn lane between existing entrance and Moores Creek along Route 631 is required. The existing LT lane (I00' x 100') must be extended to 200' x 200'. which may encroach into the Ci~ of Charlottesville. We recommend access to sites along the main entrance occur as tar away from 5t'' Street as possible. PAGE 2 Page 3 November 30, 1999 Mr. David Benish December Public Hearing Submittals ~-..ZMA-99-14 F/ydraulie Dental Center~ Route 743 The exist!ng driveway along Hydraulic Road (Route 743) currently serving this parcel, which is proposed to be closed with this rezoning, does not have adequate sight distance. Sight easement and possibly grading would is required to utilize this entrance. The Hydraulic Road entrance serving the Professional Office center does not have adequate sight distance to the south. There is currently about 250' sight distance, and 425' is required. A sight easement, the removal of one or two rows of shrubbery, and possible some grading is required. ZMA-99-15 Value America, Route 649 The Airport Road widening project will impact this site. It is recommended that the applicant coordinate with the Airport Authority and VDOT to insure the site plan is compatible with roadway plans and site access is incorporated into the roadway plans. Road construction is currently scheduled to begin near the end of 2001. The Value America entrance must be located just west of the western church property line across Airport Road, At this time, we recommend the entrance centerline be located at station 12+00 on the Airport Road widening plans. This would provide about 300 meters distance'to UREF entrance and 240 meters to Deerwood Drive intersection. We are requiring the cost of full frontage improvements along AirpOrt Road, the cost of left tuna lane / center median for 200' x 200' left turn lane into the site, and the cost for 200' x 200' right turn lane into the site. We are requiring a temporary 100' x I00' right turn lane into the site if the site opens prior to the completion of the Airport Road improvements adjacent to the site. We are requiring the applicant to install or pa.,,' the tull cost (including warrant study, plans, materials and installation) of a traffic signal if a signal is warranted at some point in the future due to Value America site traffic only. We are requiring the applicant to pay his sliare (based on side street traffic volumes) of the full cost of a traffic signal if a signal is warranted at some poiht in the future with other side street traffic also utilizing this intersection. We recommend that the applicant dedicate ROW for Airport Road project alon~ frontage of this piece being rezone& ZMA-99-16 Gienmore Associates Limited Partnership. Route 250E We will provide comments in the near future under separate letter. pAGF ~ 01/10/00 13:28 FA,T, 8042953203 A~fVEST CORP ATTACHMENT H MATTHEWS DEVELOPMENT' COMPANY, LLC real estate development - consulting · project management January 7, 2000 Albemarle County Planning Comm½s~,on 401. McIntire Road Chorlottesville VA 22902 ZMA 99-14 & SP 99-67 Hydraulic Dental Center Dear Commissioners, This ler~er is our request for a waiver, to be processed concurrently with ZMA 99-I4 and SP 99-67, pursuant ~o Zoning Ordinance se~on 21.7.3 to permit grading and clearing in the ~wenty foot buffer area adjacent to Old Oak Court. This walvex would permit only grading and clearing in the buffer area as needed for the construction of the travelways and parking as depicted on the proffered site plan '~Iydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Si~e Plan, Sheet I of 1' dated 12120199. We believe the waiver is justi~ed due to several factors: 1) 2) The site is very narrow and has approximately thirty feet of elevation change from front ~o back. Such topography necessitates grading in the buffer area to permit installation of parking and travelways. Given the topography and the nature of this speci~c site, such a waiver will ~esul~ in a better site plan and better screening than would be provided with axtificial retaining walls and existing vegetation facing the residential district. We agree to provide screening according :o section 32.7,9.8, and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements will be supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Pl~n~r to provide good[ screening for the adjacent residential district. We have discussed this with Old Oak. We worked for weeks with Planning Staff to devise a proffer statement for ZMA 99-14. That statement included language similar to this waiver request, until it was removed on procedural grounds late on January 6th by the County aitornefs office, ~t is due to that action that we are now seeking :he w~dver instead o£ including it as a parc of the ZMA/SP process as originally planned. Since the waiver is an essential element of our proffered site plan, we ask tha~ it be reviewed by the Pl~'~ng CommisSion at this time. With best regards, IVIAT1/-IEWS DEVELOPMEi~'T COMPANY, LLC ' . t~hews~ One Boar's Head Pointe Cha~lotta.~ile, V~r~nia 22903 804 972 776~ 804 295 3203 mikem6~atthcwsdev~top, corn ALBEMARLECOUNTYCODE ATTACHMEI~ 21,5 SIGN REGULATIONS Sign regulations shall be as prescribed in section 4.15. 21.6 MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA See section 32.7.9 for landscaping and screening requirements. (Amended 7-10-g5; 9-9-92) 21.7 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS 21.7.1 AdJacent to public streets: No portion of any structure, except signs, shall be erectect closer than thirty (30) feet to any l~ublic street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of- way. (Amended 7-10-85; 7-8-92) 21.7.2 AdjacenCto residential and rural areas districts: No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be [oc.a~d closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural ar~as district No off-stre~ parking or loading space shall be located closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or mini are. as district. (Amended 7-10-85; %8-92) " 21.7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur.closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9-9-92) Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular case where it has been demomm'ated that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that:. a. Minimum screening requirements are met; and b. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7- i0-85) 21.8 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS All utility lines ar, to be placed underground where practical. 21.9 BUILDING SEPARATION Whether or not located on the same parcel, main structures shall be consm~ct~ and separated in accordance with Table 40 ! Fire Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic Building Code, 194 Edition or its equivalent in the current edition of the BOCA Basic Building Code. (Amended 10-15-6) ! 8-21-2 ' -. ATTACHMENT J COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program Public Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing on the FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Foley, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2000 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: At the January 5, 2000 work session, the Board reviewed the Technical Committee's recommended FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements program. The recommended CIP totaled $84,155,394, and consisted of: $34,136,139 in general government projects, $636,520 in Tourism Fund capital projects, $822,977 in stormwater improvements, and $48,559,758 in school projects. Since that time, the School Division CIP has been revised to defer completion of the Northern Elementary School project from FY01 to FY02, at the direction of the School Board. DISCUSSION: The impact of deferring the Northern Elementary project to FY02 is shown on the attached spreadsheets. Recommended FY 01 school projects are reduced by $11.773 million and increased by a corresponding amount in FY02. Similarly, $11.773 million in VPSA bond revenues budgeted to fund the project have been deferred as well. Since this change represents a shift of expenses and revenues from one fiscal year to the next, the total amount of projects recommended for funding over the five-year period does not change. However, deferring $11.773 million in VPSA bonds to FY 02 would postpone approximately $1,000,000 in debt service expense to FY03. Also included for your rev'lew is a handout for the public that lists all of the general government and school division projects, their costs and the years of completion. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the public hearing and does not require any action at this time. The Board will have the opportunity to discuss the CIP funding recommendations during one of the budget work sessions in March. One issue with an immediate financial impact on the FY 2000/01 budget is the expanded funding proposed for stormwater control and the related additional operating costs requested to establish a County-funded stormwater program. Another issue is the additional capital funding requested by Region Ten, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) and the Paramount Theater. Finally, $14.9 million in unfunded school capital projects are being requested, which include $4.9 million in additional costs related to capacity changes and differentiated staffing, $3.1 million in growth-related renovations and expansions, and $6.8 million in additional maintenance and other requests. Final approval of the FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program and adoption of the FY 2000/01 CIP Budget is scheduled for April 12, 2000. 00.020 0 0 ~ 00 0~ oo o 0 0oo o ~~ ~°° ~0° ~0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 ~o~0 ~°0 ~° 0o~° ooooooooo o oooooooo, o o 0 o o E o ~c {:2> CD 0 0 0 zrv'zn'oon' ZOz n"n,' ~ ~Z Z(D(D E 0 >- ~ ~°°°°°~°°°°~I 0 0 0 0 ~0~ ~0 00 0 ~0~0 ~ ~0 0 ~dd~ ~ ~ d~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0000000~0000000000~ ~ E 0 o o o o o FY 00101-04105 Recommended CIP Projects/Revenues FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 Total 01-05 Summary of Total Available Revenues by Type of Revenue - All Funds: Reauested Proiects: General Government Projects 2,483,893 4,647,029 3,871,844 14,370,387 8,782,986 34,136,139 Tourism Fund Projects 25,000 467,500 25,000 59,000 60,020 636,520 Stormwater Projects 422,977 100,000 '100,000 100,000 100,000 822,977 School Projects 4,214,540 21,495,695 10,599,830 13,145,593 13,978,900 63,434,658 Total Projects 7,146,5t0 26,710,224 14,596,674 27,674,980 22,90t,906 99,030,294 Available Revenues: General Fund Transfer to ClP 2,721,370 2,822,101 3,192,124 3,503,447 4,023,081 16,262,123 CIP Fund Balance 180,000 123,128 100,000 100,000 100,000 603,128 Tourism Fund Revenues 25,000 467,500 25,000 59,000 60,020 635,520 Interest Earned 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 City Reimbursements 14,500 8,000 9,200 - 31,700 Courthouse Maintenance Funds 41,000 43,800 46,600 49,400 52,365 233,165 State Construction Funding 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000 Borrowed Funds - Gen. Govt. - 1,800,000 673,920 10,867,540 4,737,540 18,079,000 VPSA Bonds - Schools 174,640 20,555,695 7,793,830 9,535,593 7,500,000 45,559,758 Total Revenues 3,706,510 26,370,224 12,390,674 24,664,980 17,023,006 84,155,394 Excess Revenuel(Shortfall) (3,440,000) 1340,000) (2,206,000) (3,010,000) (5,878,900) (14,874,900 Cumulative Shortfall (3,440,000) (3,780,000) (5,986,000) (8,996,000) (14,874,900) CIP Fund Detail: Revenue Summary - General Govt. Capital Improvement Fund Available Resources: Borrowed Funds - Courthouse 0 0 673,920 4,737,540 4,737,540 10,149,000 Borrowed Funds - Pub Saf Facility - 4,600,000 , 4,600,000 Borrowed Funds - Urban Gym - 1,530,000 1,530,000 Borrowed Funds ~ Fire/Rescue Station - 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 3,ourthouse Maintenance Funds 41,000 43,800 46,600 49,400 52,365 233,165 City Reimbursements 14,500 8,000 9,200 - 31,700 interest 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 CIP Fund Balance 80,000 23,128 - 103,128 General Fund Txfr to CIP - ECC Projects 324,370 334,101 344,124 354,447 365,081 1,722,123 Seneral Fund Transfer to CIP 1.974.023 2.388.000 2.748.000 3.049.000 3.558.000 13,717,023 Subtotal Revenues 2,483,893 4,647,029 3,871,844 14,370,387 8,762,986 34,136,139 Recommended Projects: 2,483,893 4,647,029 3,871,844 14,370,387 8,762,986 34,136,139 Excess Revenue/(Shortfall) - - ~ Cumulative Shortfall - -. Revenue Summary - Tourism Fund Capital Projects Available Resources: Tourism Fund Revenues 25.000 467.500 25.000 59.000 60.020 636.520 Subtotal Revenues 25,000 467,500 25,000 59,000 60,020 636,520 Recommended Projects: 25,000 467,500 25,000 59,000 60,020 636,520 Excess Re. venue/(Shortfall) Cumulative Shortfall 2/2/0012:37 PM revised final tech committee recomm fy01-05 CIP.xlsRevenues FY 00/01-04/05 Recommended CIP Projects/Revenues FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 04105 Total 01-05 Revenue Summary - School Division Capital Improvement Fund Available Resources: VPSA Bonds 174,640 20,555,695 7,793,630 9,535,593 7,500,000 45,559,758 Interest Earned 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 CIP Fund Balance 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 State Construction Funding 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000 General Fund Transfer to CIP Subtotal Revenues 774,640 21,155,695 8,393,830 10,135,593 8,100,000 48,5591758 Requested Projects: 4,214,640 21,495,695 10,599,830 13,145,593 13,978,900 63,434,658 Excess Revenue/(Shortfall) (3,440,000) (340,000) (2,206,000) (3,010,000) (5,87e,900) (14,874,900 Cumulative Shortfall (3,440,000) (3,780,000) (5,986,000) (8,996,000) (14,874,900) Revenue Summary - Stormwater Fund Capital Improvement Projects Available Resources: General Fund Transfer to CIP 422.977 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 822.977 Subtotal Revenues 422,977 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 822,977 Recommended Projects: 422,977 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 822,977 Excess Revenue/(Shortfall) Cumulative Shortfall 2/2/0012:37 PM revised final tech committee recomm fy01-05 CIP.xlsRevenues Albemarle County, Virginia FY 2000/01 -FY 2004/05 Recommended Capital Improvement Program FY 2000/01- 2004/05 ALL CIP FUNDS ~ General Government $34.1 Million ! G.O. Debt Other School Division Tourism Fund Stormwater Fund Total CIP $16.3 Million $17.9 Milli°n $48.6 Million $0.6 Million $0.8 Million $84.2 Million Unfunded Projects $25.5 Million General Government CIP Fund Overview Requested vs. Funded Projects FY00/01 FY01/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 Requested $4.8 $5.4 $7.3 $16.6 $8,7 Funded $2.5 $4.6 $3.9 $14.4 $8.8 Unfunded $2.3 $0.8 $3.4 $2.2 -$0.1 TL 01-05 $42.8 $34.1 $8.7 General Government- Administration/Court Projects County Computer Upgrade County Maintenance/Repair Court Square Maint./Repair ] & D Court Maint/Replace. Court Facilities Expansion/ Renov. (Phase I) · Total Funded $1.055 01-05 $2.685 01-05 $0.410 01-05 $0.075 01-0S ~10.299 01-05 $14.524 Assumes G,O. Bond, Contingent Upon Voter Approval 2 General Government- Administration/Court Projects Unfunded ~! County Maintenance/Repair ;i Court Square Maint./Repair Total Unfunded $0.250 $0.105 $0.355 Public Safety Projects /Ve~/.' ECC/E-911 Capital Proj. Z. rpa/Tded,' Fire/Rescue Building & Equip. Fund Reduced; Police Firing Range/Training Facility Police LAN u~rade Public Safe~ Facility· · e~' Fire/Res. Training Ctr. $1.722 01-05 $3.568 01-05 $0.400 02-04 $0.165 03 $4.600 04 $0.550 05 *Assumes G.O. Bond, Contingent Upon Voter Approval Public Safety Projects Rev/sed: Mobile Command Center Transport Vehicle Total Funded $0.150 $o.o4o $11.195 04-05 02 Public Safety Projects Unfunded Fire/Rescue Buildings & Equip, - N & W Stations /Vew: Police Patrol Vehicle Technology Upgrade New/Police Patrol Vehicle Video Cameras Total Unfunded $3.986 $1.440 $0.257 $5.683 01-04 03-04 01-03 4 Hwy./Transportation Projects Airport Rd. Sidewalk $0.127 01 Georgetown Rd. Sidewalk $0.068 02 Expanded; Neighborhood Imp. $0.444 05 Revenue Sharing Road Projects $2.00001-05 Traffic Calming Projects $0.300 03-05 E, rpa/Tded; Sidewalk Program $0.220 04-05 /Ve~,,' Streetlamp Program $0.050 05 Total Funded $3.208 Hwy./Transportation Projects Unfunded Neighborhood Improvements Traffic Calming Sidewalk Construction Streetlamp Program Total Unfunded $1.705 01-04 $0.200 01-02 $0.59 01-03 $0.163 01-04 $2.658 Library Projects New: New Library Facilities Computer Upgrade IVlaintenance/Repair Total Funded $0.020 $0.048 $0.162 $0.230 O1 O1 01-04 Parks/Recreation Projects Cashier Booth Improvements Reduced: Athletic Field Dev. Crozet Park Field Development Ivy Landfill Rec. Access Urban Area Gymnasium * PVCC Softball Field Lighting PVCC Facility Renovation Athletic Field Irrigation $0.069 $0.965 $0.371 $0.3oo $i,s8o $0.166 $0.019 $o.154 *Assumes G.O. Bond, Contingent Upon Voter Approval 03-04 02-05 01-03 02 02,04 02-03 01 02-03 6 Parks/Recreation Projects Expanded: Scottsville C.C. Imp. $0.174 01-02,05 So. Albemarle Park Dev. $0.375 01-05 Towe Field Irrigation $0.020 02 Walnut Creek Park Imp. $0.027 01 Maintenance/Repair $0.380 01-05 Total Funded $4.599 Utility Improvement Projects ~ Keene Landfill Closure $0.380 01-04 Unfunded Keene Landfill Closure $0.020 O1 General Government Revenue Summary General Fund Transfer $15.439 Borrowed Funds: Lease Purchase $ 1.800 Borrowed Funds: General Obligation* $16.279 Courthouse Maintenance Funds $ 0.233 :Interest $ 0.250 Carry-Over $ 0.103 City Reimbursements $ 0.032 Total Revenue * Requires Voter Approval in a Referendum $34.136 Tourism Fund Projects :Ivy Road Bike Lanes /l/e~/.- :ivy Road Landscaping Rivanna Greenway River Access :imp. Total Funded $0.232 $0.211 $0.125 $0.069 $0.637 02 02 01-05 04-05 Stormwater Projects Expanded; StormwaterControl $0.823 01-05 Unfunded Stormwater Control $1.927 O1 School ProjeCts Requested Projects $63.435 Funded projects * $48.560 Shortfall ($14.875) *Based on approved VPSA bond amounts from FY 00.04 CIP School Fund Summary FYO0/O1 FYO1/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 TL 01-05 Request * $4.2 $21.5 $10.6 $13.1 $14.0 $63.4 Funded $0.8 $21,2 $8.4 $10.1 $8.1 $48.6 Unfunded ($3.4) ($0.3) ($2.2) ($3.0) ($5.9) ($14,9) * Reflects deferral of $11.773 million N. Elementary project from FYO1 to FY02. Breakout of Increase Breakout of Requested Increase: $4.94 Million: $3.14 Million' $6.76 Million: Capacity Change & Diff. Staffing Enrollment Growth Other (Maintenance, etc.) $14.9 Million Total 10 Unfunded School Projects Differentiated Staffinq Brownsville Addition +$0.74 02-03 4 Classrooms Henley Addition +$0.15 04-05 1 Classroom ,louett Addition +$0.15 04-05 I Classroom Southern Elem. +$3.67 0:L-04 12 Classrooms Northern Elem. +$0.23 02 2 Classrooms Total $4.94 Million Unfunded SchoOl Projects Growth Related New; School Site Land Acq. +$0.08 05 Begins Process Brownsville Addition +$0.67 02-03 Enlarge to 440 Henley Addition +$0.69 04-05 Enlarge to 750 ,louett Addition +$0.70 02-03 Enlarge to 750 Southern Elem. +$1.00 01-04 Enlarge to 600 Total $3.14 Million 1] Unfunded School Projects Other Murray High Renovations +$0.18 02 Fix Low Ceiling Northern Elem. +$1.50 02 Land, Site, Utility Scottsville Library Addition +$0.42 04-05 Computer Space Administrative Technology +$0.07 01-05 Computers Instructional Technology +$0.45 01-05 Computers Maintenance/Repair +$4.14 01-05 HVAC- Various Total $6.76 Million Next Steps Work Sessions on Long Range Capital Needs: .January 5, February 2, March :[ Public Hearing on CTP February 9 School Board Defer/Eliminate Unfunded Requested Projects Adopt FY 00/01 CTP & Approve 00/01 - 04/05 C]:P April ~2 ]2 Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on FY 2000/01 to FY 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program. These report have been scanned as a separate document under "Finandal Reports" nsville 664 Davis 'ersons 3re 663 664 LLS RM 603 Wil 663 NT 665 LAUREL ALLA C NORT FRAYS EST. I' V MILL! Earlys~ CHILE LOTTESVt AIR 7¢$ Ad ~ e ~o 6 6;9 IL Mi Is 3 E~o~ 606 NOR Watt Riv( 676 sons Store /024 601 NGTON 150, 654 1019 1018 '025 Proffil 645 FA ham ;I ioLo'l l I I0'.0'j Family Care Infants & Children Elderly Women% Health Hospital Care Injuries & Accidents Preventive Medicine m COunseling Industrial Medicine Health Maintenance & PromOtion Earlysville Family Health Center An Affiliate of the University of Virsinia Health Sciences Center D. Andrew Macfarlan, M.D. ~ Deborah Campbell, M.D. Timothy Short, M.D. ~ ~ ~'~~ Jane Shaw, M.D. Jr Sara Graney $chroeder I][T]~ HASBROUCK 11113 ~~ ESTATE ICom ia[ nd Y~fuItifami[y ff~vpe~y S~fanagcment, Brok~m. ge, a~ Dev~nt REALTOR~ Office Mobile Email 295-4663 981-1284 hasbrouckrealty@rlc.net Above Information Deemed Reliable but not Guaranteedl ' P. O. BOx 197 · Route 743 Earlysville, Virginia 22936 804-978-2126 P~TITIOII FO~ LI_~Y PBT~TTON FOR L.TBRAR¥ ~ EhItZ,¥SVZT;T-.~ We, the undersigned c~t~zens o1~ tgJ3emLr:le ~oun~y, do hereby request, t~e est~ablislment o~ & I~ranoh o£ the Je£~er~on- Mnd.J. so~ Rog:Lomil L:LI~e~'~ t.n Bs.~lytsv:J. llo. PET~TXOH FOR LI[BRAR¥ ~JJ EARLYS~T-Y-m Me, the undersigned citizens o£ Albemarle hereby request the est~bl~slmen~ of e branch o£ Madison Regional L~bFRFy ~n F~rlysv~lle. County, do Je££e~rson- PETITION FOR LIBRARY IN EARLYSVILLE We, the undersigned citizens of Albemarle County, do hereby request the establishment of a branch of the Jefferson-Madison library in the Earlysville area. One possible location is at the former Murray Plant on Reas Ford Road. NAME ADDRESS . DATE r~~¢~Be,~ ~j~.'; .................... : ............................................ ,...,..- ..................... ~5~.,.~ c~,,:,~ ~ .~ ........ ~l~/q~. ~ ~oc~ ~.._m~ ~ .......... ~ .............. ~'/~ l~.~ PETITION FOR LIBRARY IN EARLYSVlLLE p.2 We, the. undersigned, would 'Use a branch library in Earlysv~lle. Name and addressl From: Subject:: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors ~ Ella Washington Carey, CMC, C~ Reading L/st for February 9, 2000 February 3, 2000 April 2, ~997 (A) October 6, ~999 November 3, 1999 November I O, 1999 (A) November 1 O, 1999 (N) December 8, 1999 Ms. Thomas Mr. Perldns ~ pages 1-25 (item #1 I) Ms. Thomas - pages 25 (Item # I I) - end Mr. Martin Mr. PerkJns Mr. Bowerman Mr. Bowerman /ewc RAIL WA TCHL=R Vol. ~, No. I .Januanj ~.~, ~000 From the Executive Director Did you know that there were forty major U.S. railroads in 1980, compared to only four today? Did you know that rail traffic has increased by 40% since 1990, re- suking in more trains crowded onto fewer tracks, in a system operated by fewer employees? Did you know that during the 1997 merger of Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads, three collisions in two months resulted in the deaths of seven people? Now the BNSF Railroad (which was created by the 1995 merger of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Pacific Railroads) wants to be- come the largest railroad in North America by merging with the Ca- nadian National Railway (see story at right). RailWateh will be keeping a close eye on this planned merger. Given the railroads' poor track record in previous mergers, we will insist that safety does not suffer at the hands of the railroads' profit moti- vations. On a different note, we want to thank all our supporters who stopped by the RailWatch booth at the National League of Cities meet- ing in Los Angeles last December. RailWatch finished out the year by meeting with supporters in Los An- geles and recruiting new support- ers at the November meeting of the Texas Municipal League. Thanks for your continued support o fRailWatch in 2000! RailWatch concerned about safety BNSF/Canadian National to merge Two railroad giants are planning to become even larger, as CanadianNational Railway Co. and Burlington Northern SantaFe Corp. have announced plans to merge in a $6.2 billion deal that would create the largest railroad in North America. The combined company would have about 50,000 miles of track extending from Los Angeles to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the coast of British Columbia. Shippers immediately protested the deal, citing system-wide problems that snarled rail lines and interrupted the delivery of goods during previous mergers. RailWatch Executive Director Sherry Kiesling Fox, meanwhile, cited safety concerns. Fox noted that the 1997 merger between Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads and the more recent Norfolk Southern and CSX takeover of Conrail lines were disastrous from a safety perspective. "Past history indicates that the railroads are more profit-conscious than they are safety-conscious when it comes to mergers," Fox said. Local officials and area residents had plenty to gripe about when Ohio state senators convened an informal hearing recently to hear about railroad problems that persist throughout the state in the wake ofthe CSX and Norfolk Southern takeover of Conrail routes. Since the takeover was implemented in June, rail traffic has tripled in some parts of the state, resulting in parked trains blocking streets and idling trains con- tributing to noise and air pollution~ Mayors, police and fire chiefs are complaining about crossings blocked by trains for hours, preventing police vehicles, ambu- lances and fire engines from reaching emergencies. Some residents even re- ported that children were forced to crawl under stopped rail cars to get to school. Mayor Jim Davis, of Vermilion, Ohio testified that the increased train traffic has not only hurt the quality of life in his town, but has become a safety problem as well. "It's a matter of life and death in our community," said Davis. Three bills have been introduced in the Ohio state legislature that address rail- road safety issues. Meanwhile, RailWatch continues to press for federal hearings into the railroads' horrific safety record. Write your Representatives and Senators today! Tell them that safety must be the number one concern in any railroad merger. Profits, at the expense of safety and saving lives, makes no sense. March 1 oral arguments set High Court to Examine Rail Crossing Safety The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a Tennessee case that will clarify when railroads can be sued over allegedly inadequate warnings. The case in question, Norfolk South- em Railway vs. Shanklin, w:dl be argued before the nation's highest court on Wednesday, March 1. There were no lights or gates at the crossing where Eddie Shanklin was killed in 1993 -- nothing to warn mo- torists of an approaching train. The crossing was only marked by a reflect o rized "cro ssbuck." Shanklin's widow sued Norfolk Southem in state court, saying the rail- road fa/led to install adequate warning devices at the crossing. The railroad argued that it is not li- able in state court since the crossing was installed using federal money. But the Court of Appeals said the ex- penditure of federal money is not suf- ficient byitselfto immunize the railroads fi.om blame. Unless the Department of Trans- portation specifically determines that automatic gates are not needed to make the crossing safe, the court ruled, the railroad can be hem re- sponsible for failing to install such devices. There are 260,000 railroad crossings nationwide, so this case will have far- reaching knplications. You can read more about the Shanklin case on the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism's website at www. medill.nwu.edu/docket/ cases, srch. Scan down to case #99- 0312 Norfolk Southern Railway vs. Shanklin. New Century/Old Safety Problems While year-end accident statistics are not yet available for 1999, it appears that the railroads are offto a deadly start in 2000. Here are just a few of the accidents that have occurred so far in the new year: Calhoun, GA -- Three members of a Georgia family were killed and their 5-year old son was injured when a CSX train slammed into their car at an unmarked railroad crossing. The lo- cal police chief said the accident could have been prevented il'flashing lights or gates had been installed at the crossing. Belleville, MO -- A Union Pacific train derailed, spilling an avalanche of coal onto a nearby house and knock- ing the house offits foundation. Fortu- nately, the sleeping family was able to get out ofthe house unharmed. Kiel, WI -- Several hundred resi- dents were evacuated fi'om their homes after a tanker filled with methanol de- railed and began leaking. Palm Beach, FL -- Two people were injured when their car collided with a high speed commuter train, af- ter the cross/ng gates at the intersec- tion failed to activate. It's the second time in six months that a CSX crossing has malfunctioned there, resulting in in- juries to motorists who were hit by the Welcome New RailWatch Supporters! · V'fllage of Tontogany, OH · City of Fallon, Nevada · Mayor Hal Baldwin, Schertz, TX · City Counciimember Irene Favila Plainview, TX · Wichita Falls Fire Department Wichita Falls, TX · Amelia County, VA · Albemarle County, VA · Washington County, PA · Ricardo Ind. School District Kingsville, TX · Joel Taylor, Little Rock, AR · Durwood Beach, Kilgore, TX · Dorine McKenzie, Alberton, MT · Ella Scott, North Canton, OH · Shannon L.C. Bundrick, Manassas, VA · William J. Gignac, Schertz, TX · Arthur L. Simmons, Port Clinton, OH <head~title>The Washington Post</title~</head><center>NewsBank InfoWeb The Washington PostWcenter> <table width=99% cellpadding--10 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><TR>~D>February 26, 1999 Column: THE FEDERAL PAGE Rail Safety Group's Support Questioned ~ ~ [/- ~t/~c ~'~' ~ By Bill McAllister; Washington Post Staff Writer Section: A Section Edition: FINAL Page: A25 Estimated Printed Pages: 3 Index Terms: News National Article Text: Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow and a number of other local officials across the country got a surprise this week. They discovered they were being touted as "supporters" of RailWatch, a nonprofit organization that is demanding that Congressinvestigate the rail industry's "alarming safety record." The new group, which is "dedicated to educating the public about railroad safety," named Krasnow and 300 other local officials as its supporters at a news conference held in Washington Monday. "I didn't know I belonged," Krasnow said when asked why she had agreed to endorse a group that would not disclose its financial backers nor register to lobby. Like many of the listed RailWatch supporters, all Krasnow could remember was stopping by a booth about rail safety at a National League of Cities meeting in Kansas City, Mo., in December. There she said she was worried about the safety of railroad crossings and gave the people in the booth her name and title. "It wasn't an official action by Roclcville," she said. What Krasnow and many others who stopped at the RailWatch booth did not know was that the group was funded largely by United Parcel Service, which has fought with railroads over the use of so-called triple-trailer tracks. The rail industry wants to restrict the use of triple-trailer trucks, which UPS operates. RailWatch was formed by Woodward & McDowell, a California public relations firm that has backed tracking causes.-When told that tracking interests could be behind RailWatch, Krasnow said, "That could be an issue of concern." A UPS official expressed concern yesterday over the way the names of local officials apparently had been gathered, worrying that RailWatch might be considered a case of what Washington lobbyists call "Astroturf lobbying," the creation ofabogus "grass-roots" support group. UPS spokesman Tad Segal said the company never tried to mask its financial support of RailWateh, but he would not say how much money UPS gave the organization. He referred questions to RailWatch and the California PR firm. RaflWateh Executive Director Sherry Kiesling Fox and Nick DeLuca, a Woodward & McDowell representative, declined to answer questions about the group's financial backers. Fox said the officials had signed forms at the booth agreeing to lend their names to the effort. But many officials apparently lef~ business cards that were stapled to the forms. The Houston Chronicle and Traffic World, a Washington-based transportation newsletter, have reported that many of the listed local officials said they had noidea their names were being used to attack railroads. "This is not the sort of tactics that should be used," Segal said yesterday. "I want to make it clear that UPS does not condone this." Fox, who used to work in the Farm Bureau Federation's Washington office, said the group didn't have to file a lobby registration despite its advocacy of congressional action against the railroads. "I'm not a lobbyist," said Fox. Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento lawyer who serves on the group's board, said that RailWatch's secrecy is legal because it is not directly contacting members of Congress about its claim that railroads are dangerous, only urging the public toeontact Congress. Fox did reveal that the group's five-member board also includes Ken Churchill, Washington vice president for UPS; Nels Ackerson, a Washington lawyer who has sued railroads; Robert Bartlett, the mayor of Monrovia, Calif.; and Barbara Simpson, aCalifomia "consumer reporter." Segal of UPS was upset that the rail safety issue has been obscured by the controversy over the group. He said, "It does not have to be Astroturflobbying." Caption: Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow didn't know she was listed as a supporter. B&W PHOTO DAYNA SMITH Copyright 1999 The Washington Post FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 14, 2000 Contact: Lee Catlin, Albemarle County, 296-5841 Maurice Jones, City of Charlottesville, 970-3116 PRESS CONFERENCE TO OUTLINE CITY/COUNTY COOPERATION Charlottesville Mayor Virginia Daugherty and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chairman Charles Martin will hold a joint press conference on Monday, February. 14, at noon on the front steps of the Albemarle County Office Building (inside in the second floor lobby in case of rain). Daugherty and Martin will announce several joint initiatives involving the city and county in the areas of regional planning and cooperation.