Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800027 Action Letter Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-08-01 , 8/1/2b1t8 Albemarle County-File#: ' 14 Skive *111•111 gn n C* I , ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA � ,„roc Search t Mend • !(hi\ a +.rias © ©''ID Share ',D RSS''. Alerts Details Repo, File#: 18-414 Version: 1 Name: Type: Report Status: Action Items File created: 7/13/2018 In control: Board of Supervisors On agenda: 8/1/2018 Final action: Title: Appeal of SDP201800027-Verizon-Frys Spring Tier II(5th Street Station) Attachments: 1.Aft.A-Dissapproval Letter,2.Att.B-Applicant's Appeal Letter,3.Aft.C-Relevant County Code Section,4.Att.D-Site Plan,5.Att.E- Resolution ;. Executive Summary AGENDA DATE: 8/1/2018 TITLE:Appeal of SDP201800027-Verizon-Frys Spring Tier II(5th Street Station) SUBJECT/PROPOSAIJREQUEST: Appeal of agent's disapproval of a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility. ITEM TYPE: Regular Action Item STAFF CONTACT(S): Richardson,Walker,Kamptner,Graham,Fritz,Knuppel PRESENTER(S): Andrew Knuppel LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY:Jeffrey B.Richardson BACKGROUND: Staff disapproved the application for a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility on Tax Map Parcel 076M1-00-00-00027(SDP201800027- Verizon-Frys Spring Tier II)on June 21,2018(Attachment A),providing notice to the applicant in writing and identifying which requirements were not satisfied.The applicant has appealed this action(Attachment D),challenging the staff's finding that County Code§18-5.1.40(b)(6)could not be satisfied under the current proposal. STRATEGIC PLAN:Thriving Development Areas:Attract quality employment,commercial,and high density residential uses into development areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of neighborhoods. DISCUSSION: County Code§18-5.1.40(b)(6)states in part:"The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets,regardless of their distance from the facility.The facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district...regardless of whether the site is adjacent to the district...". Administrative practice is to maintain a narrow interpretation of the County Code unless further guidance from the Board is provided.While staff found from the balloon test that the facility would be sited to minimize visibility from adjacent parcels and streets,staff was unable to make the finding that the site provides adequate opportunities for screening.No trees that are being used for screening,including the reference tree,are located on the parcel seeking to receive approval:all trees being used for screening are located within the Interstate 64/VDOT right-of-way. The County will consider tree conservation easements on abutting parcels as a method to secure screening,but this is predicated on the fact that the applicant would be able to ensure compliance and prevent the clearing of screening trees by other parties.As staff cannot find that the VDOT right-of-way is included in the site,and VDOT has stated that it will not grant the applicant an easement,staff is unable to make the finding required by County Code§18- 5.1.40(b)(6)that adequate opportunities for screening are provided by the site. BUDGET IMPACT:There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution(Attachment E)denying the appeal and affirming the Agent's June 21,2018 determination that adequate opportunities for screening will not be provided as required by County Code§18-5.1.40(b)(6). ATTACHMENTS: A.Disapproval Letter B.Relevant County Code Section C.Site Plan D.Applicant's Appeal E.Resolution https://abemarle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3583896&GU ID=D32C131 C-6A76-41 C3-9AD7-AFAEDEE5E39D&FullText=1 1/1 rd `�dr ,OFA►� A1iy`•` 2177-40 !NW NNW x� 11,1111101 ` : Vade COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 June 21', 2018 Stephen Waller,AICP 8159 Cancun Court Gainesville,VA 20155 RE: SDP201800027—Verizon—Frys Spring Tier II(5th Street Station) Dear Mr. Waller: The development proposal referenced above cannot be approved as currently proposed. Pursuant to Albemarle County Code §18-5.1.40 (the"Wireless Ordinance"), if the agent disapproves an application, he shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. This letter serves to identify these requirements and the steps needed to resolve them. One requirement that cannot be satisfied under the current proposal is contained in §5.1.40(b)(6) of the Wireless Ordinance.This requirement states in part that"the site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening". It is understood that the"site" in this context is the lot seeking to receive zoning approval of a personal wireless service facility, TMP 076M1-00-00-00200.The County will consider tree preservation easements on abutting properties as a method to secure screening. This is predicated on the fact that the applicant would have the ability to ensure compliance with Wireless Ordinance § 5.1.40(b)(6)and prevent the clearing of screening trees by other parties. As the VDOT right-of-way is not included in the lots and VDOT will not grant your client easement(per e-mail dated June 13, 2018), the agent is unable to make a positive finding to satisfy the requirement that adequate opportunities for screening are being provided by the site. Additionally,the following Wireless Ordinance requirements have not been satisfied at this time: 1. [5.1.40(b)(2)(c),5.1.40(a)(12)]Projection. A special exception was requested to modify Section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c)of the Zoning Ordinance. This request has not yet been processed. 2. [5.1.40(b)(2)(c)]Projection. Please fix Note 4 on Sheet C-3 from "26 inches"to"18 inches"to reflect the Zoning Ordinance and the other diagrams shown on this sheet. 3. 15.1.40(c)(6)] Site Plan. Add silt fence on Sheet C-4 to protect the asphalt path(on southern side of asphalt path). 4. [5.1.40(c)(6)] Site Plan. Show existing ACSA utilities and ACSA easements. The procedures to appeal disapproval of an application are outlined in Wireless Ordinance § 5.1.40(e)(6) and are described below: The applicant may appeal the disapproval of an application to the board of supervisors. An appeal shall be in writing and be received in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10)calendar days after the date of the disapproval by the agent. In considering an appeal,the board may affirm,reverse,or modify in whole or in part,the decision of the agent,and its decision shall be based upon the applicable requirements of this section. Should you choose to appeal,I would recommend scheduling a meeting with staff to identify the potential dates and process for the appeal's consideration and discuss the outstanding issues. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Oc ' 4LL Andrew Knuppel, AICP Candidate Planner-Albemarle County Community Development aknuppel(a albemarle.org I (434)296-5832 ext. 3313 1.13 LECLAIR-RYAN Received June 29, 2018 JUN 2 9 2018 Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road County of Aibe Board of Su mane 2nd Floor pervi$oriS Q f f Charlottesville, VA 22902 ce RE: SDP201800027—Verizon—Frys Spring Tier II (5th Street Station) Dear Supervisors: This letter notices an appeal of the agent's disapproval of the Application for a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility proposed for 100-120 Wegman's Way north of 1-64 westbound. The agent's denial is based on the conclusion that Section 5.1.40(b)(6) of the Wireless Ordinance cannot be met. Section 5.1.40(b)(6) provides that "(t)he site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. The facility shall also be sited to minimize its visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district..." Based on a balloon test conducted on May 10, 2018 with county staff, Supervisor Randolph, and Commissioner Riley present, the proposed PWSF would not be visible from any location on the Entrance Corridor. The agent's conclusion is based on the possibility of changed circumstances in the future -- that trees providing screening from the Entrance Corridor, which are located in VDOT right-of-way, could be removed. The Architectural Review Board recommended, by vote of 5-0, that the facility will be sited to minimize its visibility if the following assurances are given: 1. That VDOT will not cut the trees in the right-of-way along the full frontage of the property; 2. That VDOT will allow the applicant to replant individual trees that die, and that the applicant will do so, and 3. That the monopole will be removed if the loss of trees results in visibility of the facility that is not minimized. E-mail: Lori.Schweller@leclairryan.com 123 East Main Street, Suite 800 Direct Phone: (434) 245-3448 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Direct Fax: (434) 296-0905 Phone: 434.245,3444 1 Fax: 434.296,0905 CALIFORNIA l COLORADO 1 CONNECTICUT 1 GEORGIA 1 MARYLAND 1 MASSACHUSETTS 1 MICHIGAN 1 NEW JERSEY 1 NEW YORK 1 PENNSYLVANIA 1 TEXAS 1 VIRGINIA 1 WASHINGTON,D.C. Al TONNLYS Al LAW 1 WWW.LECLAIHRVAN.COM Board of Supervisors June 28, 2018 Page 2 of 2 As outlined in the email exchange with Adam Moore, Assistant Resident Engineer — Land Use, VDOT, Charlottesville Residency, VDOT cannot provide assurances that the trees in the right- of-way will never be cut. Trees that die are removed, and, if a construction project were commenced, trees would likely be removed. However, widening of the I-64 corridor is not in the Six-Year Plan, so any proposed widening project would likely commence no earlier than 10-15 years from the time of the installation of the PWSF. If trees died, VDOT would permit the applicant to apply for a license to plant trees in the right-of-way, and Mr. Moore sees no obstacle to the granting of such a license. The Board approved amendments to the Wireless Ordinance to cause applications for Tier II PWSF's to be approved administratively, thus encouraging wireless providers to file Tier II applications. If the site were moved to provide room for tree planting by the applicant, it would be more than twenty-five feet (25') from a reference tree and so would become a Tier III application requiring a special use permit. The applicant appeals on the basis that the screening requirements as described above are unreasonable because not based on existing conditions and because based on potentialities outside the applicant's control. Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2.A provides that, "(i)n its receiving, considering, and processing of a complete application submitted under subsection A of § 15.2- 2316.4:1 or for any zoning approval required for a standard process project, a locality shall not (i)mpose any unreasonable requirements or obligations regarding the presentation or appearance of a project, including unreasonable requirements relating to ... the arranging, screening, or landscaping of wireless facilities or wireless structures." It is unreasonable to deny an application for a project would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor on the basis that VDOT may one day widen I-64. An interstate widening would make more visible any number of existing structures, but their approval did not hinge on such potentiality or require a condition of removal should trees be removed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (::*°;r1A:jferrLilL. Lori H. Schweller Attorney for Verizon Wireless Enclosures: Application Agent Denial Letter ARB Action Letter cc: Stefanie Lewis, Principal Engineer, Verizon Wireless Marc Cornell, Project Manager,NB&C Stephen Waller, AICP, GDNsites County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(6) Screening and siting to minimize visibility. The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets,regardless of their distance from the facility. The facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district, state scenic river,national park or national forest,regardless of whether the site is adjacent to the district,river,park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement,the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. A' , ,Vt'l A fljy� ill tea 0 �= CL Z ` O " CV Z Nx d Q o U al Q 1 iii " ,om wNz. 5 a Y >m ' r Q m n V n&`: ft 101 I3�L�l O� I�I h ���Q�G� LS W moa o w .� OF. . � x v cr o ¢^ - O=• ¢ w Tdz 0 O�� Zvi a z w wCD Um N m S Z O w U O 3 Vo d!: = Nza Mo S 3 5' 88 Z O Z N 1 U 3 r; O ZZ�- /�W 4 3O Q.UZ VJ O O V M N 1� RO'I- (,) ,,t,,,,2 W 3 U W N 0 Vn N m J Z O O a w m J W O d j J K K O J O wR, m 0 �� poi I6gg WV) (./pc `-' a c� z o �' ; o o mak-+ _. p?> �= o V 3 o z~W P-2a inw� �'O O O Y o V o z Y w rCcc 4 ZZ W 0 2'O V1 W y V) W ,w.. Ca t''I Z 0 > U U aq N K UyZ W N U ,o, O K d Z 0.. Z U Z 3 J Z W Y N d d O Z O 4 r-6(_j d'w cr O N r U W 0 0 S 0W Vf OU ca Ow �L CV.3 ZOZmcc W m�p tJ'rmw w0, Lat., u z O m ZO 7f V9 W o D U a U Z~PC 0 m' 0< S N 3 0 Z¢ m K m~� N Z Z OU H O V, N ¢W' Q +�Y l U U u ~ >,%, O �N O J "?ZNW N VOA Zv' O =�� aw L. 0 2 0 LL LL.,3 ac J - x c] W ¢ C w w I.�S O w �cOv Z OU WSN W OOo U w0> a 'l aJO Ow U O K O N O N z d Z Z N N 3 ua J !1: iI z o,nw ZL)0 x o z wac'f w,�w ca c U _ a a v - �" t LU z z p r o rn N �.f o°4'p wedz oV W r W Ww cr o czm _. ,n ,n ut ui VI ✓, v'� cnH 0 Q V C. m O W 0 N N 3 0 Y W< U N N N v) ,n vA w (n N a� 0 'A ,n V) VI N Vt U /1 . C''6 1--%, O m .- m V-" W W W W W J O WWf N O NWt,,� fn l(l�n� VWWl z lJ m- - 0�� cc cr C? �Nm 4'Z -_ CC W W W W W W 0 W W J J J W J J Y Nm J ¢2Z ,VUOQ0 z OZw 00 3 0 ¢ �_ m Z sr- o0 zin m'� z1-in Er, J Waa Cao UZN in �� f-- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3z 3W ; 3 3 3� o as U0 dH tZ0¢O Om Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z W W N= Z ! Pd O O U N �uU =E J 00 Z O O O O O O O O O NE Hh N H d" Wic) V .ricc2gz (f) 041 2 2� !I1- a Wo ZZ.uJ LJ� ! oz0 3i.! w� /0, imZ ;>pp S S ��- > i > ;i e;; W > �z d <x H Cc m 2 H 2 Z.-W JNO2U¢ Q Q m �OOU 6 4 ¢Q �> U ;Q Za2S 25 U 2 z Z J W J W La W O O W¢ ;2 00 O a�-�,-OQD�D ¢?w z Z 2 Z = ZW Z,- mu, z0 wW ZN ,,iY t(] 4,/ P. t>0 I'�I - tV h Y vi t0 n- m tT O O N < 0 .08l 1 I I I �L r I n, CO -..\ 0 i7Zs** 10111111111111111.111..:3 ••-'' L\'' - lt)A N ,_ . I AI1... ,Oy � 11 1 .. • 4.0' ------ , ------ •• • m,�' Os t W I Ei • ,h. ,6i • v \''' n - /_; o ____-- ---- s� /\ 55 cr c "•-•,...„...... \z 3t, ".............. N � o. o © w I J X W Z \ Z OZ ?N !KK 4 \-....00 LCO_W O , I • 7u04207.ag4A wd9Gl-8102+W1 CC*P1 b l-J\0\stawS\Qy0\BN-SAS sk1-MZA-2(5-tc95\n1clad\YSW MZA-Si85\0( ".- *kare Nod RESOLUTION TO DENY APPEAL OF SDP201800027—VERIZON—FRYS SPRING TIER II(5TH STREET STATION) WHEREAS,the Owner of Tax Map Parcel 076M1-00-00-00200 filed an application for a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility, and the application is identified as Site Development Plan 201800027 (SDP 18-27);and WHEREAS,on June 21,2018, staff denied the application/SDP 18-27 and notified the applicant in writing,identifying the County Code requirements that were not satisfied,and the applicant appealed staff's decision in writing to the Board on June 29,2018; and WHEREAS,on August 1,2018,the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors considered the applicant's appeal of staff's decision. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that,upon consideration of the foregoing,the staff report prepared for the appeal of SDP 18-27 and all of its attachments,the information presented at the Board meeting,and the factors relevant to the use in Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(6),the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby denies SDP 18-27, and affirms staff's determination that adequate opportunities for screening will not be provided(as depicted in the applicant's application)as required by County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(6). I, Claudette K. Borgersen,do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,Virginia,by a vote of to ,as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk,Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Dill Mr. Gallaway Ms. Mallek Ms.McKeel Ms.Palmer Mr. Randolph 1:1R LECLAIR—iYAN Received June 29, 2018 JUN 292018 Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road County of Albemarle 2nd Floor Board of Supervisor's offi Ce Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201800027—Verizon—Frys Spring Tier II (5th Street Station) Dear Supervisors: This letter notices an appeal of the agent's disapproval of the Application for a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility proposed for 100-120 Wegman's Way north of 1-64 westbound. The agent's denial is based on the conclusion that Section 5.1.40(b)(6) of the Wireless Ordinance cannot be met. Section 5.1.40(b)(6) provides that "(t)he site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. The facility shall also be sited to minimize its visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district..." Based on a balloon test conducted on May 10, 2018 with county staff, Supervisor Randolph, and Commissioner Riley present, the proposed PWSF would not be visible from any location on the Entrance Corridor. The agent's conclusion is based on the possibility of changed circumstances in the future -- that trees providing screening from the Entrance Corridor, which are located in VDOT right-of-way, could be removed. The Architectural Review Board recommended, by vote of 5-0, that the facility will be sited to minimize its visibility if the following assurances are given: 1. That VDOT will not cut the trees in the right-of-way along the full frontage of the property; 2. That VDOT will allow the applicant to replant individual trees that die, and that the applicant will do so, and 3. That the monopole will be removed if the loss of trees results in visibility of the facility that is not minimized. E-mail: Lori,Schweller@leclairryan.com 123 East Main Street, Suite 800 Direct Phone: (434) 245-3448 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Direct Fax: (434) 296-0905 Phone: 434,245.3444 1 Fax: 434.296.0905 CALIFORNIA l COLORADO 1 CONNECTICUT I GEORGIA 1 MARYLAND 1 MASSACHUSETTS I MICHIGAN 1 NEW JERSEY 1 NEW YORK I PENNSYLVANIA I TEXAS I VIRGINIA I WASHINGTON.D.C. Al1LKNEYs Al LAW \ V'VVVV LECLAIHHYAN.COM Board of Supervisors June 28, 2018 Page 2 of 2 As outlined in the email exchange with Adam Moore, Assistant Resident Engineer— Land Use, VDOT, Charlottesville Residency, VDOT cannot provide assurances that the trees in the right- of-way will never be cut. Trees that die are removed, and, if a construction project were commenced, trees would likely be removed. However, widening of the I-64 corridor is not in the Six-Year Plan, so any proposed widening project would likely commence no earlier than 10-15 years from the time of the installation of the PWSF. If trees died, VDOT would permit the applicant to apply for a license to plant trees in the right-of-way, and Mr. Moore sees no obstacle to the granting of such a license. The Board approved amendments to the Wireless Ordinance to cause applications for Tier II PWSF's to be approved administratively, thus encouraging wireless providers to file Tier II applications. If the site were moved to provide room for tree planting by the applicant, it would be more than twenty-five feet (25') from a reference tree and so would become a Tier III application requiring a special use permit. The applicant appeals on the basis that the screening requirements as described above are unreasonable because not based on existing conditions and because based on potentialities outside the applicant's control. Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2.A provides that, "(i)n its receiving, considering, and processing of a complete application submitted under subsection A of § 15.2- 2316.4:1 or for any zoning approval required for a standard process project, a locality shall not (i)mpose any unreasonable requirements or obligations regarding the presentation or appearance of a project, including unreasonable requirements relating to ... the arranging, screening, or landscaping of wireless facilities or wireless structures." It is unreasonable to deny an application for a project would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor on the basis that VDOT may one day widen I-64. An interstate widening would make more visible any number of existing structures, but their approval did not hinge on such potentiality or require a condition of removal should trees be removed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �o-v. Lori H. Schweller Attorney for Verizon Wireless Enclosures: Application Agent Denial Letter ARB Action Letter cc: Stefanie Lewis, Principal Engineer, Verizon Wireless Marc Cornell, Project Manager,NB&C Stephen Waller, AICP, GDNsites I r e Sta OF A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 June 21st, 2018 Stephen Waller,AICP 8159 Cancun Court Gainesville, VA 20155 RE: SDP201800027—Verizon—Frys Spring Tier II(5`h Street Station) Dear Mr. Waller: The development proposal referenced above cannot be approved as currently proposed. Pursuant to Albemarle County Code §18-5.1.40 (the"Wireless Ordinance"), if the agent disapproves an application, he shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. This letter serves to identify these requirements and the steps needed to resolve them. One requirement that cannot be satisfied under the current proposal is contained in §5.1.40(b)(6) of the Wireless Ordinance.This requirement states in part that"the site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening". It is understood that the"site"in this context is the lot seeking to receive zoning approval of a personal wireless service facility, TMP 076M1-00-00-00200. The County will consider tree preservation easements on abutting properties as a method to secure screening. This is predicated on the fact that the applicant would have the ability to ensure compliance with Wireless Ordinance § 5.1.40(b)(6)and prevent the clearing of screening trees by other parties.As the VDOT right-of-way is not included in the lots and VDOT will not grant your client easement(per e-mail dated June 13,2018), the agent is unable to make a positive finding to satisfy the requirement that adequate opportunities for screening are being provided by the site. Additionally,the following Wireless Ordinance requirements have not been satisfied at this time: 1. [5.1.40(b)(2)(c),5.1.40(a)(12)]Projection. A special exception was requested to modify Section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c)of the Zoning Ordinance. This request has not yet been processed. 2. [5.1.40(b)(2)(c)] Projection. Please fix Note 4 on Sheet C-3 from"26 inches"to"18 inches"to reflect the Zoning Ordinance and the other diagrams shown on this sheet. 3. [5.1.40(c)(6)] Site Plan.Add silt fence on Sheet C-4 to protect the asphalt path(on southern side of asphalt path). 4. 15.1.40(c)(6)] Site Plan. Show existing ACSA utilities and ACSA easements. The procedures to appeal disapproval of an application are outlined in Wireless Ordinance § 5.1.40(e)(6) and are described below: The applicant may appeal the disapproval of an application to the board of supervisors. An appeal shall be in writing and be received in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10)calendar days after the date of the disapproval by the agent. In considering an appeal,the board may affirm,reverse, or modify in whole or in part,the decision of the agent,and its decision shall be based upon the applicable requirements of this section. Should you choose to appeal, I would recommend scheduling a meeting with staff to identify the potential dates and process for the appeal's consideration and discuss the outstanding issues. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Oc4LL Andrew Knuppel,AICP Candidate Planner-Albemarle County Community Development aknuppel@albemarle.org I(434)296-5832 ext. 3313 2