HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-6-09Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JUNE 9, 2010
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:00 P.M. – JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD – ROOM 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Discussion: Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Plan Changes.
3. From the Boards: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
4. Adjourn.
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR NIGHT MEETING – LAND AUDITORIUM
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7. Update from Chiefs, Chief Tim Cersley, ACFRAB (deferred from June 2, 2010).
8. Appeal: ARB-2010-02. Singleton (AT&T). Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless
service facility with a steel/metal monopole that would be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the height of the
reference tree), within a 20 x 30 foot lease area. This application is being made in accordance with section 12.2.1. (16) of
the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Tier II personal wireless service facilities by right in the (VR) Village Residential
zoning district. The site is located on 2856 Morgantown Road [State Route 738] approximately 600 feet from the
intersection of Morgantown Road [State Route 738] and Ivy Road [State Route 250]. The property, described as Tax Map
58A1 Parcel 40F1, is 2.089 acres in size, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. SP-2009-00029. Charlottesville Kingdom Hall (Sign #16). PROPOSED: Modify
layout of approved plan (SP2008-057) to include a new building and parking lot location. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-2 residential - 2 units per acre and R-4 Residential - 4 units/acre. SECTION:
Sections 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for Churches. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 5. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 665 Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue
Extended. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/51. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
10. SP-2009-00035. St. Anne's Playing Field (Signs #38,42&45). PROPOSED:
Allow playing field, spectator area, and overflow parking on 13.5 acres. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-1.
SECTION: 13.2.2.5 which allows private schools by Special Use Permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Neighborhood density residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and
schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1600
feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 off ramp from the 250 Bypass. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
Portion of TMP 60-24. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100609/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2020 12:40:39 PM]
Tentative
11. ZMA- 2009-00004. National College Relocation (Sign #4). PROPOSED: Rezone
6.34 acres from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows residential (1 unit/acre) to LI - Light Industrial - industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to allow relocation of business college facilities. PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service-warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Neighborhood Density Residential-
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses, in the Community of Hollymead. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 3926 Seminole Trail,
Charlottesville, VA, approximately 1100 feet south of the intersection with Lewis & Clark Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP
32-22L1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
12. CPA-2005-010 – Places29 Master Plan. PROPOSED: Amend the Land Use Plan section
of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing profiles of Neighborhood 1, Neighborhood 2, the
Community of Hollymead and the Community of Piney Mountain with the Places29 Master Plan, which establishes new
land use policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies for future development within the master plan area,
which may include lands beyond those described in the existing neighborhood and community profiles. The master plan
would establish the following for the master plan area: a vision for the area and guiding principles; land use designations
and place types such as neighborhood service centers, community centers, destination centers, uptown, mixed use areas,
employment areas and residential areas; a plan for the transportation network and its integration with the land uses; a plan
for providing and supporting community facilities and services; design guidelines for the entrance corridors and
boundaries; and a plan for implementing the master plan.
13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes:
6.2 Resolution requesting traffic control on Rio Mills Road.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100609/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2020 12:40:39 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appeal of ARB Decision on Singleton (AT&T) Wireless
Facility
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and
Nelson
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 9, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 2010 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and denied a request (ARB 2010-02) to install a
personal wireless service facility consisting of a steel monopole with a height of 10’ above the reference tree and
related ground equipment. The May 3 action was the second ARB denial of this proposal. The ARB staff report,
Attachment I, outlines the history of the project and provides additional details on the proposal. Attachments II, III and
IV, photo simulations and an aerial view from the applicant’s ARB submittal, illustrate the proposal. The May 3 ARB
denial letter is Attachment V. As a Tier 2 facility, this proposal requires a site plan, but not a special use permit.
Planning Commission (PC) review of the site plan is scheduled for June 22, 2010.
The Board of Supervisors may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part the denial of the certificate of
appropriateness. In so doing, the Board shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the ARB together
with any other information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance Quality of Life for All Citizens. The goal of architectural review in the Entrance Corridors (EC) is to
ensure that new development reflects the traditional architecture of the County and to promote orderly and attractive
development, which contributes significantly to the quality of life of the County’s residents.
DISCUSSION:
The ARB denied the Singleton proposal based on a finding that the monopole would not have an appropriate
appearance from the vantage point on Route 250 descending westward into Ivy and that particular view was not
sufficiently mitigated. Factors contributing to the inappropriate appearance included the lack of a wooded backdrop
(the facility would be sky-lit), the reliance on off-site evergreen trees to mitigate the tower’s appearance, the duration of
the view (the facility would be highly visible for approximately 350’ descending westbound into Ivy and still visible, but
to a lesser degree, for another 300’ along the EC), and the prominence of the view (the monopole would be oriented
directly in line with the view of westbound traffic).
The decision to deny the application was based on the ARB’s review of the proposal according to the Architectural
Review Board’s Design Guidelines (“design guidelines”) and Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy (“wireless
policy”), as they are typically applied to this type of proposal. The Entrance Corridor guidelines for general design and
treatment of structures, accessory structures, equipment, development pattern, grading, compatibility with historic
resources, maintenance of views and vistas, the establishment of orderly and attractive development, and achieving
unity and coherence are typically considered for telecommunications facilities. The guidelines s tate that mechanical
equipment and above-ground utilities should be screened to eliminate visibility from the EC street, but, recognizing a
wireless tower is not a utility as defined by the ordinance, the ARB has never required that this guideline be fully met
for a telecommunications facility. The ARB has reviewed such proposals with the understanding that the County has a
wireless policy that provides for mitigation of negative impacts rather than invisibility as the goal for wireless proposals.
The ARB has reviewed and approved wireless towers with conditions to mitigate negative impacts on the ECs in an
attempt to work within County policy.
The County’s wireless policy and ordinance encourages facilities to have minimized visibility from adjacent parcels and
streets. Generally visibility of facilities is minimized by, among other things, an adequate wooded backdrop (facilities
are not sky-lit). In Avoidance Areas (e.g. ridge areas, AFD’s, historic districts, cluster areas, and within 200 feet of
scenic highways) facilities cannot be sky-lit. However, Entrance Corridors are not deemed to be Avoidance Areas
under the County’s wireless ordinance and this facility is not within 200 feet of Route 250. The purpose of the ARB’s
AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of ARB Decision on Singleton (AT&T) Wireless Facility
June 9, 2010
Page 2
Certificate of Appropriateness is to ensure that development in the ECs reflects the traditional architecture of the area
and that development within the corridors is orderly, attractive, and enhances the community’s quality of life. Because
a wireless tower rising above the treetops is not typically compatible with such purposes, correct siting of wireless
facilities is extremely important. In the Singleton case, a wooded backdrop would likely mitigate the objectionable view,
but the proposed siting does not provide for a wooded backdrop. Instead, staff and the ARB found this structure in this
location provides a prolonged skylighted exposure directly in front of a westbound driver on Route 250.
ARB discussion of the proposal acknowledged that the view descending westbound into Ivy along the Entrance
Corridor was long and prominent. The view is important; entrance into this setting announces arrival in the village.
Concern was expressed for the proposed facility’s impact on the character of the area and on nearby historic
resources. Although Ivy has not been designated a National Register Historic District, there are a number of historic
properties in the area. The county’s Village Survey (“Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages”, 1995)
identified several of those properties and recommended additional survey work to identify other potential historic
structures. These historic resources, the properties along this section of Rt. 250 West, and the general scenic quality
of the area all combine to establish a unique character for Ivy, and a setting that is locally significant.
The applicant’s representative has noted that the visibility of the proposed facility is mitigated by the visual distractions
that already exist in the area. Although utility poles, flag poles, signs, and the like do exist, staff noted their existence
does not void the EC goal of promoting orderly and attractive development.
The Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines do not provide specific direction on how the ARB should evaluate the
visibility of a wireless tower in considering a Certificate of Appropriateness. On the other hand, the Zoning Ordinance’s
Supplemental Regulations call for the Planning Commission’s review of a Tier II wireless facility to consider its visibility
and provides specific guidance on that evaluation (18-5.40.d.2). Given this, staff believes the Board should defer
acting on this appeal until the Planning Commission makes its determination whether this facility has addressed this
visibility criterion. As noted above, this is scheduled for a June 22nd Planning Commission action. If the Planning
Commission decides the facility’s is not acceptable as proposed, staff anticipates the applicant would also appeal that
decision to the Board. Otherwise, a Planning Commission denial would make this appeal a moot issue. This suggests
the Board would be better served to consider both appeals at the same time. Alternatively, should the Board have a
clear opinion on the appropriateness of this tower location, it may decide this appeal and provide the Planning
Commission clear guidance on how to consider the application on June 22nd.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This item has no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Staff recommends the Board defer acting on the appeal until July so the Planning Commission can consider the
Tier II application scheduled for a decision on June 22nd. However, if the Board makes a decision today, staff
recommends that the Board provide direction to the Planning Commission on its consideration of this facility.
2. Recognizing the need for additional clarity with respect to the ARB’s role in evaluating the visibility of a Tier II
wireless tower, staff recommends the Board clarify that it is the role of the Planning Commission to evaluate the
visibility of the tower. The ordinance already allows the ARB to provide a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. This will clarify that the ARB’s consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness is to apply the Design
Guidelines to the wireless facility after the Planning Commission has approved the location of the tower.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Staff Report for Singleton (AT&T) proposal at 5/3/10 ARB meeting
Attachment II: Aerial view drawing of the proposal from applicant’s ARB submittal
Attachment III: Photo simulation of proposal provided by applicant
Attachment IV: Photo simulation of proposal provided by applicant
Attachment V: Action letter from 5/3/10 ARB meeting
Attachment VI: Minutes from the 3/15/10 and 5/3/10 ARB review of the Singleton (AT&T) proposal
Attachment VII: Applicant’s request for appeal
Attachment VIII: Applicant’s additional information for appeal March 29 2010
Attachment IX: Applicant’s additional information for appeal May 7 2010
Return to regular agenda
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
PROJECT HISTORY
Balloon tests for this proposal were conducted on February 10, 2010 and February 23, 2010. The results of
both tests were presented to the ARB at the March 15, 2010 review. The Board, by a vote of 4:0, denied the
request (Attachment A). On March 18, the applicant requested an appeal of the ARB’s decision. An April 5,
2010 letter (Attachment B) submitted by the applicant in support of the appeal referenced another balloon test
(conducted on March 31) which staff had not been invited to view and at which the balloon was flown from a
new location approximately 13.5’ northwest of the proposed monopole location. With this new information it
became evident that the location from which the balloon was flown in February was also not the proposed
monopole location, but was approximately 14’ east of the monopole. In each of these tests, it was overhead
tree branches at the location of the monopole that did not permit a balloon launch directly from the monopole
location. The applicant’s April letter (Attachment B, paragraph 3), states that the launch location for the
March test (Attachment H) more accurately represents the proposed location of the monopole as viewed from
westbound lane of Route 250W while descending into the Village of Ivy. That view was the problematic view
in the ARB’s previous review of the proposal. Staff explained to the applicant that it would not be useful or
efficient to present information to the BOS that the ARB had not yet reviewed, so the applicant agreed to
conduct another balloon test that could be attended by staff, using the March 31 balloon location. That test
was performed on April 16, 2010. The results of that test are addressed in the analysis section of this report.
• 4/8/10: ARB 2010-2, Singleton Property, AT&T, appeal request withdrawn to allow time for an
additional balloon test and review of proposal by the ARB.
• 3/18/10: ARB 2010-2, Singleton Property, AT&T, request received for an appeal of the March 15,
2010 ARB decision to the Board of Supervisors. The appeal was scheduled for the May 5, 2010 Board
Project #: Name
ARB: 2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
Review Type
Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Location
2856 Morgantown Road (SR 738), approximately 600’ from the intersection
of Morgantown Road and Ivy Road (SR 250)
Zoned
Village Residential (VR), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner
Ann P. Singleton/New Cingular Wireless PCS
Applicant AT&T/Williams Mullen, Katherine Carmichael
Magisterial District
Samuel Miller
Proposal
To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10’
above the reference tree.
ARB Meeting Date
May 3, 2010
Staff Contact Brent Nelson
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 2
of Supervisors meeting.
• 3/15/10: ARB 2010-2, Singleton Property, AT&T, request to construct a treetop personal wireless
service facility, with a height 10’ above the reference tree, denied by a vote of 4:0.
• 1/12/10: SDP 2010-3, Singleton Property, AT&T, application received for a Preliminary Site
Development Plan. A date for the Planning Commission review has not been established at this time.
PROJECT DETAILS
The applicant proposes to establish a telecommunications facility consisting of the following items in a 20’ x
30’ (600 sf) lease area:
• Proposed steel monopole, painted SW #6090 Java Brown, 69’ tall, height 10’ above the top of the
Reference Tree (11” caliper Ash).
• One proposed equipment cabinet and one future generator on an 11.5’ x 20’ concrete pad located in
the lease area. Each cabinet is 4’-23” (w) x 3’ (d) x 5’-3” (h).
• One panel board and utility rack light.
• Coaxial cables.
• Three panel antennas painted SW #6090 Java Brown, each measuring 51.6” (h) x 12.1” (w), installed
with pipe mounts permitting down tilting not to exceed a maximum of 12” between face of pole and
face of antenna. Top elevation of each antenna below top elevation of monopole.
Other pertinent information:
• Access to site provided by an existing paved driveway located within a proposed 20’ wide
ingress/egress/utility easement.
• 11” caliper Ash Reference Tree is 57’ tall (652.0’ AMSL).
CONTEXT
The proposed site is located on a parcel adjoining the north side of Morgantown Road (State Route 738),
approximately 600’ southwest of the intersection with Route 250W. The lease area is heavily wooded and
situated approximately 65’ above and 300’ south of the Route 250W right-of-way. This section of the Route
250W EC includes a mix of small commercial businesses making up the Village of Ivy, open agricultural
fields and patches of mixed hardwood/evergreen forest amongst farms and single family homes.
ANALYSIS based on:
Civil Drawings, all with the latest revision date of 3/5/10:
• Sheet T-1 Title Sheet
• Sheet C-1 Survey
• Sheet A-0 Site Plan
• Sheet A-1 Compound Plan and Elevation
• Sheet A-2 Foundation Details
• Sheet A-3 Equipment Specs
• Sheet A-4 Equipment Specs
• Sheet A-5 Tree Heights Diagram
• Sheet A-6 Details
• Sheet A-7 Notes
• Sheet A-8 Notes
• Sheet A-9 Fence
• Sheet A-10 Sight Distance Analysis
• Sheet ES-1 Erosion & Sediment Control
Details
• Sheet L-1 Landscape Details
Additional Information Provided:
• Photo simulations at 10’ above the reference tree including:
o 1 from Route 250W adjacent to the Exxon station
o 1 from the north side of Route 250W just east of the Exxon station
• Letter from applicant dated 4/5/2010
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 3
Issue: Visibility
Comments: ARB staff attended a balloon test on Friday, April 16, 2010. Due to existing overhead branches,
the balloon was launched from a location approximately 13.5’ northwest of the proposed monopole and to the
height of the monopole, 10’ above the reference tree. The balloon was highly visible, sky-lit and oriented
directly in front of the viewer while descending the hill for a distance of approximately 350’, westbound into
the Village of Ivy (Attachments C, D & E). The balloon was visible in the vicinity of three evergreen trees
which appeared to the left and right of the balloon and which did not provide a wooded backdrop for the
balloon. The balloon continued to be visible, but to a lesser degree, for another 300’ westbound on Route
250W. The balloon test did not replicate the balloon location shown in the applicant’s photo renderings from
their March 31st test (Attachments F & G), likely a result of the breezy conditions that day. The balloon
consistently appeared (Attachments D & E) to the right, or north, of the location shown in the applicant’s photo
renderings.
The balloon was not visible from points along Route 250W west of the site, and the balloon’s visibility from
points along Route 250W adjacent to the site was sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area between the site
and the EC. The lease area and associated ground equipment are not expected to be visible from the EC.
Due to the inability to reproduce the March 31st test results, it was suggested that the applicant provide a
drawing demonstrating that the balloon location (and resulting photo rendering) was based upon the launch
location witnessed by staff on April 16th and that it was a more accurate representation of the view of the
proposed monopole from the westbound lane of Route 250W as described above. That drawing was provided
(Attachment H). It shows the launch locations on February 10th/23rd and March 31st/April 16th, the proposed
monopole location, and the location of two of the evergreen trees that appear to the left and right of the balloon
in the field and in the photo renderings. Those trees are located to the east of the proposed monopole and are
off-site. The drawing does appear to verify that the balloon location, shown in the photo renderings
(Attachments F & G), is an accurate representation of the view of the proposed monopole location, as viewed
while traveling westbound into Ivy.
The applicant’s April 5 letter (Attachment B) maintains that visibility of the proposed facility is sufficiently
mitigated due to its proximity to existing evergreen trees (see Attachment F, photo rendering). These trees
appear to be off-site evergreens located on the Sofka property, 2850 Morgantown Road, which is situated to
the east of the proposed site. Whereas the applicant’s photo rendering does demonstrate that the monopole
would rise between two of these trees, helping to reduce the pole’s noticeability, the small number of trees and
their off-site location is an issue. Typically, off-site vegetation is not relied upon for mitigation of a proposed
development in the ECs due to the lack of control over off-site resources. The ARB has given consideration to
off-site screening for wireless proposals when the number of trees was significantly larger, creating larger
masses of tree canopy and, typically, an adequate wooded backdrop. This proposal has no wooded backdrop as
viewed from the Route 250W hill, and the mitigation for this view is provided by only two or three off-site
trees. Although there appears to be no immediate concern for the loss of these trees, the lack of on-site
mitigation is a point of concern.
The EC Guidelines state that:
• Mechanical equipment and above-ground utilities should be screened to eliminate visibility from the
EC street.
• New development should reflect that traditional architecture of the area.
• New development should promote orderly and attractive development within the ECs.
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 4
• New development should establish a pattern of compatible architectural characteristics throughout the
EC to achieve unity and coherence.
• Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the
creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished by . . . limiting the building
mass and height to a scale that does not overpower the natural settings of the site or the Entrance
Corridor.
• The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on and around the site.
The proposal would not eliminate visibility of the monopole from the EC street. A monopole does not reflect
traditional architecture; it is a conspicuously modern-day object. The contrast of the monopole to the
surrounding scenic vista would not promote orderly or attractive development. The monopole would stand out
as an incompatible element in the landscape. It would significantly alter the vista that is viewed traveling west
into Ivy. That vista is an important one. Entrance into this setting announces arrival in the village. The older
buildings in Ivy, the properties along the section of the Rt. 250 West corridor, and the general scenic quality of
the area all combine to establish a unique character for Ivy, and a setting that is locally significant. The
visibility of the monopole would have a negative impact on that character and setting.
Recommendations: Staff cannot support the proposal because:
• visibility of the facility would not be eliminated,
• the visible monopole does not reflect the traditional architecture of the area, nor orderly or attractive
development,
• the degree of visibility does not establish compatibility, unity or coherence in the Entrance Corridor,
• the degree of visibility of the monopole is not sensitive to the landscape and would alter an important
vista, and
• there is no on-site mitigation for the objectionable view.
Recommendations: Staff cannot support the proposed monopole due to the degree of visibility as the viewer
descends westbound into Ivy and due to the lack of on-site mitigation.
Note: Should this application be approved as currently proposed, the issues/comments that follow in this report
should be addressed.
Issues: Grading/Tree Protection/Tree Conservation Plan & Arborist Report
Comments: Sheet A-1 Compound Plan & Elevation shows proposed AT&T equipment to be located on an
11.5’ x 20’ concrete pad inside of the 20’ x 30’ lease area. Temporary tree protection is shown outside all lease
area boundaries except for the southwest corner. Permanent tree protection is shown just outside of the
southwest corner of the lease area. Sheet A-6 Details contains the drawing Tree Protection Details showing
several types of tree protection; however, this application does not indicate which type is to be temporary and
which is to be permanent. Proposed grading required, if any, is not indicated on the drawing. Possible impacts
on the trees by the proposed pad and monopole are not clear from the information provided with this
application. Verification is needed from a certified arborist that all proposed grading and the construction of
the concrete pad and monopole would not be detrimental to the health of the trees designated as remaining. A
tree conservation plan, with measures limiting impacts on existing trees to remain, will need to be submitted
and approved before the Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued. Sheet A-1 Compound Plan & Elevation
references an arborist’s conservation plan; however, that plan was not included with this submission.
Recommendations: Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary,
which is to be permanent and what grading, if any, is proposed. Provide verification from a certified arborist
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 5
that the location of the proposed concrete equipment pad, monopole and all required grading will not harm the
existing trees currently designated as remaining. Provide a tree conservation plan with measures proposed that
would limit impacts of this proposal on all existing trees designated as remaining.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Anticipated visibility of the monopole and negative impacts from the Entrance Corridor.
2. Impacts, by grading and site design, on the reference tree and other existing trees designated to remain.
Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed telecommunications facility. If the proposed facility is
approved, the following comments would need to be addressed.
1. Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary, which is to be
permanent and what grading, if any, is proposed. Provide verification from a certified arborist that the
location of the proposed concrete equipment pad, monopole and all required grading will not harm the
existing trees currently designated as remaining. Provide a tree conservation plan with measures proposed
that would limit impacts of this proposal on all existing trees designated as remaining.
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 6
Attachment 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
March 19, 2010
W illiams Mullen
c/o Kathryn M. Carmichael, Esq.
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Dear Ms. Carmichael:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above-noted item at its meeting on Monday, March 15, 2010.
The Board, by a vote of 4:0 denied the request to construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10’ above
the reference tree.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P O Box 58
Ivy Va 22945
Gerald Gatobu, Current Development
File
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 7
Attachment B
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 8
Attachment B
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 9
Attachment C
ARB 10-2: AT&T – Singleton
Balloon Test - Location Map
THE BALLOON WAS HIGHLY
VISIBLE BETWEEN THESE
POINTS
(A DISTANCE OF 350 +/-)
Tower Location
Staff Photo
Applicant’s Photo Simulation
Location 1 (approx.)
Staff Photo
Applicant’s Photo Simulation
Location 2 (approx.)
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 10
Attachment D
ARB 2010-2, AT&T-Singleton: Staff Photo (taken April 16, 2010)
Location 1
Balloon at 10’ above Reference Tree
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 11
Attachment E
ARB 2010-2, AT&T-Singleton: Staff Photo (taken April 16, 2010)
Location 2
Balloon at 10’ above Reference Tree
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 12
Attachment F
Photo Simulation at 10’ above Reference Tree – Location 1
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 13
Attachment G
Photo Simulation at 10’ above Reference Tree – Location 2
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT&T), Preliminary - Page 14
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 5, 2010
Kathryn M. Carmichael
c/o W illiams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Dear Ms. Carmichael:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on May 3, 2010, reviewed the above-noted
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. By a vote of 3:1 the Board affirmed the Architectural Review
Board’s March 15, 2010 decision to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2010-02, Singleton
(AT&T) Final Review of a Site Development Plan, noting that there was not a sufficient amount of information
or change in information to warrant a change in decision.
This decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the decision.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832 ext. 3272.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P O Box 58
Ivy Va 22945
File
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Partial Final Minutes from March 15, 2010
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, March 15, 2010, 1:00 p.m., Second
Floor, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Bill
Daggett, Vice Chair; Charles T. Lebo, Paul Wright and Bruce Wardell. Fred Missel, Chairman was
absent. Staff members present were Margaret Maliszewski, Eryn Brennan and Brent Nelson. Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, was present.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T) - Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan – (Tax Map 58A1,
Parcel 40F1)
Proposal: To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10’ above the
reference tree.
Brent Nelson summarized the staff report.
• This is a preliminary review of a telecommunications facility to be located on a parcel adjoining
the north side of Morgantown Road approximately 600 feet southwest of the intersection with US
Route 250. The facility as originally proposed would consist of a 69 foot tall steel monopole with
three antennas all painted Java Brown at a height 10 feet above the 11” caliper Ash reference tree.
One proposed equipment pad and one future generator would be located on the concrete pad
located in the 20’ X 30’ lease area. The lease area is heavily wooded and situated approximately
65’ above and 300’ south of the Route 250 West right-of-way. Access to the site is provided by
an existing paved driveway located within a proposed 20’ wide ingress/egress utility easement.
• Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing the applicant AT&T, is present and has
received the staff report.
• The ARB staff attended a balloon test on February 4, 2010. The balloon was raised from the
location of the proposed monopole and to the height of the monopole 10’ above the reference
tree. The balloon was highly visible and sky-lit from a section of Route 250 East of the railroad
overpass. The balloon was oriented directly in front of the viewer and visible for a distance of
approximately 650’ while descending down the hill westbound into the village of Ivy. Lowering
the balloon from 10’ to 7’ did not result in a material difference in its visibility. The balloon was
not visible from points along Route 250 west of the site. The balloon’s visibility from points
along Route 250 West adjacent to the site was sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area in
between. That location is directly in front of the Duner’s Restaurant. The lease area and the
associated ground equipment are not expected to be visible.
• Due to the balloon’s high degree of visibility at both the 7’ and 10’ elevations the applicant was
asked if reducing the monopole height to 4’ above the reference tree would provide the coverage
needed. The applicant indicated that a 4’ height would be acceptable; however, the 7’ or 10’
elevations would be preferable. A second balloon test was conducted on February 23 with the
balloon raised to a height of 4’ above the reference tree. There was not a material difference in
the balloon’s visibility between the 4’, 7’ or 10’ elevations from the section of Route 250 east of
the overpass where it was previously viewable. The balloon continued to be sky-lit and highly
visible.
• A photo simulation provided by the applicant, known as attachment D in the report, demonstrates
the high degree of visibility and the sky-lit appearance of this proposal at 4’ above the reference
tree.
• The primary issues have to do with:
1. Anticipated visibility of the monopole from the Entrance Corridor; and
2. Impacts, by grading and site design, on the reference tree and other existing trees designated
to remain.
• Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed telecommunications facility at the 4’, 7’ and
10’ elevations above the reference tree. If the proposed facility is approved, the following
comments would need to be addressed as outlined in the staff report.
1. Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary,
which is to be permanent and what grading, if any, is proposed. Provide verification from a
certified arborist that the location of the proposed concrete equipment pad, monopole and all
required grading will not harm the existing trees currently designated as remaining. Provide
a tree conservation plan with measures proposed that would limit impacts of this proposal on
all existing trees designated as remaining.
2. Consider replacing the proposed double staggered row of Leyland Cypress trees with
Virginia Red Cedars, 10’ on center, located in an irregular, natural pattern, as permitted by
the limits of the planting area.
Mr. Daggett invited the applicant to address the ARB.
Applicant Presentation:
Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing AT&T, presented a PowerPoint presentation and
explained the proposal.
• AT&T is proposing to improve wireless telecommunications coverage in Albemarle County
along Route 250, which is a heavily traveled area as well as a business and residential area.
There are currently locations where customers drop their calls or have no coverage at all. So
AT&T is proposing this tower in order to provide better quality and reliable service in the area.
• The application meets all of the standard requirements contained in the County’s ordinance.
Staff’s recommendations would be addressed at the very end of the presentation. Generally,
AT&T carefully chose this location and went through a number of different evaluations to
determine the location. The location is at the corner of Morgantown Road around Route 250.
She reviewed several photographs taken in the summer when they first evaluated this area to
provide a better idea of the location of the lease area.
• The existing driveway will be used for the access route. There will not be any further disturbance
for access. The lease area will be to the right of the driveway. They are proposing, with the
installation of the compound as well as the tower, to remove about seven trees. For the most part
it is a very heavily wooded area and the remainder of the trees is going to stay the same. They
will screen the tower and the compound from both the land owner as well as from the
neighboring land owner. The application in front of the ARB is proposed for 69’, which is 10’
above the reference tree.
• In her PowerPoint presentation Ms. Carmichael reviewed photo simulations from various
locations in both the summer and winter seasons. She explained how the tree coverage in the area
would provide screening to mitigate the visibility of the monopole from Route 250 and several
neighboring properties.
• The Wireless Policy for Albemarle County is a compromise system where they traded 200’
towers, which would be visible from more areas, for smaller, less visible towers. But,
unfortunately the way the wireless communications works they cannot make towers invisible.
The towers have to be able to see each other as well as to provide signals in order to provide
coverage to the areas. This is a unique area because the coverage that they are trying to get on
Route 250 is essentially down a hole. The reason this tower is situated where it is, would be to
cover that hole. They cannot make the tower invisible. There are telephone poles right next to
the road that are not screened by trees. The tower is actually screened. They have done a good
job of mitigating the view of the tower by placing it on a heavily wooded area, which also
provides screening for the ground equipment.
• The fact that they will see it easier perhaps more than other towers that she has recently brought
before the ARB did not mean that it was not worthy of approval. They can’t always make towers
as short or as invisible as they would like to be. During the winter months there are other trees
around the site including pines and deciduous trees.
• As mentioned, they are aware of the concerns of the neighbors to the right of the Singleton’s
property. They met with that neighbor and had discussed planting some landscaping so as to
mitigate their view. There also will be a fence around the compound that will help mitigate the
ground equipment visibility.
• In a display she noted the holes in coverage along Route 250 for building and vehicle coverage
used by consumers, which was the coverage they are trying to provide. In street coverage it
basically means that they will have to be standing outside their vehicle or out of the building on
the street in order to get a signal. In a small area along Route 250 there are three holes that they
are covering. With this tower being built they will gain significant coverage so that Route 250 is
fully covered in buildings and vehicles. They also cover roads that are primarily residential along
Owensville and Morgantown Roads as well as Martha’s Way. Even on Owensville Road and
along the first part of Morgantown Road there is limited to no coverage for AT&T.
• She spoke specifically to how this location was chosen. AT&T always first looks to other
buildings that are already built or other towers in the area. In this particular circumstance there
was nothing that worked to cover the area. They approached St. Paul’s Church with a request to
co-locate as they have an Intelos facility in their steeple. Unfortunately, there was not enough
room for AT&T to locate equipment in the building. Therefore, the church was not willing to let
AT&T go in their church facilities. The next best option was this property. They feel this
property meets all of the requirements, provides their coverage and is a good option. They
certainly looked first at buildings in other areas.
• In addressing staff’s concerns regarding tree protection they will provide an arborist’s report.
There was a suggestion that a Red Cedar could be used instead of the proposed Leyland Cyprus,
which they are amendable to. She suggested that Holly or something similar might work. They
are open to the ARB’s suggestions. She stressed that the technology does not allow for towers to
be invisible and they feel that this site is as mitigated as it possibly could be. She would be happy
to answer questions.
Mr. Lebo asked staff if the base of the tower is far enough back so that it will not be visible from the road.
Mr. Nelson replied that the base or ground equipment would not be visible from the road.
Mr. Daggett invited public comment.
Jim Soffit, resident of 2850 Morgantown Road, noted that he appreciates what Ms. Carmichael said about
trying their best to mitigate the scope of the tower. In order to keep this brief he would speak for a
number of his neighbors who were unanimous in opposition to this project on several grounds. They
have collected a number of signatures from County residents concerned about this since this tower request
is not limited to just the intermediate neighbors. They certainly feel that the proposed monopole would be
a very bad idea and recommended its rejection for the following reasons.
1. The first is what they see before the ARB. They have their own photographs taken during the
balloon test at both the 69’ and 63’ height, which demonstrate that this is going to be a radical
change in the sight lines particularly from the western approach on Route 250, but also from
the neighborhood. He felt that speaks for itself in terms of the impact that this is going to
place along the Scenic Route 250 Corridor.
2. The other issue is in regards to the houses being concentrated very closely along Morgantown
Road. Both Mr. Gibson’s and his property share the driveway with Ms. Singleton at 2856
Morgantown Road. The tower is pretty close in the middle of a residential neighborhood and
not something that is simply removed as one is driving in along Route 250. While the base
itself may not be visible further off, it would certainly be visible in the winter months from
2850, from his upstairs and the Gibson property. During the summer Virginia Power did
some pruning along the road that removed a lot of the vegetation that covered up the
driveway to 2856. That is the area where the main power lines run up to the back of the home
and along Morgantown Road. This created a thinned out look in that area prior to the balloon
tests.
3. Generally from an architectural standpoint this is a historic neighborhood where all of the
immediate houses across Ivy Depot Road and along Morgantown Road, except two, were all
built before 1900. Owners such as himself take enormous pains in compliance with the
County’s recommendation that he received when he purchased the house to keep the property
original and to spend a great deal of care in maintaining the historic nature of the Village of
Ivy. To place this type of tower dead center in not only any residential district, but one of this
age, is something they think is a terrible idea. For those reasons and the sight lines they
oppose the request.
Trevor Gibson, resident of 2852 Morgantown Road, said that he moved in about a month ago and found
this request very surprising. He passed out photographs taken from his house from various rooms. This
is a residential neighborhood and not a commercial area. The lots are one and two acre lots. The tower
location simulation is nice, but they all know that in the spring, winter and fall there is no vegetation on
the trees. There is only vegetation on the trees for about seven months of the year and not nine or ten
months. The proposed tower location is in the middle of the residential neighborhood and would have
negative effects. The tower will be considerably visible from everywhere in his yard and from many
other places along Route 250 including the Duner Restaurant. Ms. Singleton does not live on the
property. He would not talk about diminished property value. The proposed monopole would have a
significant impact on sight lines, visibility and the history of the neighborhood. Bringing the city out to
the Ivy area is very frustrating. AT&T may have some issues along that way, but they do have some
coverage because his father has been out there and does have some coverage. He and most of his
neighbors are on other networks. In conclusion, he opposed this tower.
Amy Viligente, resident of 2930 Morgantown Road, said she had AT&T. She has been monitoring the
coverage and occasionally drops coverage under the railroad track. She has coverage at this point and
only drops coverage occasionally. It is not as bad as the simulation showed.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Daggett closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the ARB.
Board Discussion:
Mr. Wright said that he understood the views from the homes from looking at the pictures. But, legally
he is not allowed to use those in his consideration and can only consider the view on the Entrance
Corridor. The view going west coming into Ivy on Route 250 is a long view and will be seen for quite
some time. Referring to two photographs provided, he noted that long view is what made it unacceptable.
If it were just a brief view for a second or two, he could understand it. He had not seen a cell tower in a
long time that is this prominent visually for such a long period of time. The view coming into Ivy is
prominent for a long period of time. He would be able to see this literally for 30 to 40 seconds, which
makes it unacceptable. The base and how it is seen from the neighbors is not unimportant, but it does not
override that one view. For that one view he could not see the ARB’s approval of the request today.
Mr. Lebo agreed with Mr. Wright. When he first saw this application he thought that the tower would
just be a few feet above the trees and not be visible for a very long period of time. After seeing the
photographs he agreed that this is too large of a project for that area.
Mr. Wardell noted that one speaker referred to Ivy as a historic village. He was unaware of its
designation.
Ms. Maliszewski said that it was not a nationally registered district, but it has historic properties in it. She
did not know if there are any historic properties in the intermediate area that are individually listed on the
National Register list. That also does not mean that they would not be eligible if that work had been
done.
Mr. Wardell noted that this was something that staff might be able to provide. It would be interesting to
see if there was a comprehensive study of that area in terms of what options they have for providing
coverage. He questioned if this just happens to be somebody that is willing to provide a site. He asked to
see a technical study of what other options they have. He had similar kinds of visual concerns, but was
not sure that they could not be overcome. He did not think that view is a significantly offensive view in
terms of the monopole. He would like to see what other options there are. He asked if the applicant has
any information that would help them there.
Ms. Carmichael replied that she could briefly address that. As mentioned this is a small area of coverage
they are trying to get. So the search ring for where they try to find locations for land owners who are
willing is quite small in this area specifically because of the topography of the area. They approached St.
Paul’s Church. They also sent letters to some of the adjacent land owners. She believed Mr. Soffit did
receive one of the letters. Obviously, in this circumstance as soon as they find a property that works with
a willing land owner they stop searching. They were the only ones in the area who were a willing land
owner. Again, because of the topography it is a unique situation where even though there are sites across
the street on the more commercial side, it does not work to cover the area. The higher elevation is what
helps to cover the three areas. Otherwise, they would have multiple poles in the area. As Mr. Nelson
mentioned the visibility was about 650’, which was less than ten seconds where the monopole is seen at
the view he was concerned with. Obviously, the monopole is visible at the bottom at the Exxon Station.
But, it is a short period of time when going the speed limit along that road. She asked that the ARB keep
that in mind.
Mr. Lebo noted that some of the neighbors reported that if they had Verizon or other users that they seem
to have a strong signal. He asked if AT&T might be able to rent a portion of one of the other provider’s
cell tower so they would not need an extra one.
Ms. Carmichael replied that the engineers looked at that at the very beginning. There is no tower in the
area that AT&T could co-locate on that would get the signal strengths to the area that they were looking
at. Just because Verizon coverage gets to Route 250 their signal strength might be able to reach longer
than what AT&T’s signal would. There is nothing in the area to co-locate on in order for AT&T to fill
those three holes. The simulation provided for the propagation maps showed the coverage, although it
had been mentioned that there are certain areas that do drop the call such as specifically underneath the
bridge. Those are definitely holes. The information provided as to where the holes are is actual
information and not simulated information. They are trying to provide reliable coverage where someone
does not drop a call. That is the whole point.
Mr. Wardell said the most offensive components of this are components that they don’t have under their
jurisdiction. The view from 250 he did not find as a terribly offensive view. If it were a historic district
and they had some control in the historic district, he finds the small views in the introduction of this kind
of facility into this neighborhood more problematic than the view of the monopole from the sky line out
on the street. But, the ARB does not have that jurisdiction. The frustrating thing in this is when he sees
their photographs of what it does to the neighborhood he feels that it is really nasty. When he sees the
view from the highway it is only ten seconds of that which he does not find overly offensive.
Unfortunately, the most distress that this installation would create is something that the ARB does not
have a jurisdiction over.
Mr. Wright felt that the view for ten seconds is wildly optimistic traveling at regular speeds on the road.
He felt that it was a much longer view than that. This tower would be significantly higher above the trees
than anything the ARB has approved in a number of years. It seems to make a mockery of the ten foot
rule. It is ten foot on one side, but it is not ten foot on the side that matters. With the view from the
Entrance Corridor being his purview, he felt that it was going to be very hard to tell the next person yes
that they just did it in this case. He also thinks that a lot of time they never hear if they dropped this down
to a level at which it would conform to what they look at in terms of tree tops. He asked if it would be 80
percent, 60 percent or 50 percent of what they are looking for. It is not his job to make sure that they
have 100 percent of the signal that they are looking for. It is his job to protect the view first and foremost.
He has approved a number of these towers. In fact, they automated this project so they would not have to
do this. But, this request was kicked out of that process for excellent reasons that are substantiated by
photos and by staff.
Mr. Wardell noted that he has only been on the board for a short period of time. He asked if this is in fact
significantly a worse condition than others that have come through before.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that there are very few if any that staff has brought to the ARB and not
recommended approval of or approval with conditions. Therefore, she would say yes.
Mr. Nelson noted that there is one thing that makes this a little bit different, which is the orientation of the
view. One does not have to look to the left or right, which has been the case a number of times before.
Mr. Daggett pointed out that during his time on the board it has been the case where it has not been in the
major sight line of the road, or if it is it was trapped in the visual clutter of the trees. He agreed with Mr.
Wright that because of the way one enters Ivy and the prominence of this view the fact that it is dead
center and sticks out from the trees as far as it is that even at 4’ there was no material difference. He
agreed this particular location is not one that this County needs to encourage for its Entrance Corridors.
There will be other locations as they have to look for if this does not pass. But the idea is to place these in
a location where it is not visually disturbing along the Entrance Corridor. It might be measured at ten
seconds, but if one gets the slightest stop in traffic they could be sitting there looking at it for quite some
time. Given what he has seen and the experience that they have had in tower locations normally being off
to the side so that one almost has to strain to find them, he opposed the request.
Motion: Mr. Wright moved for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2010-02, Singleton
(AT&T) Final Review of a Site Development Plan.
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Missel absent)
Mr. Gatobu pointed out that he was the planner for this project and just wanted to let the neighbors know
that the request will be going to the Planning Commission on April 6th.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Partial Draft Minutes from May 3, 2010
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, May 3, 2010, 1:00 p.m.,
Room # 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Bill Daggett, Vice Chair; Charles T. Lebo, Bruce Wardell and Fred Missel,
Chairman. Paul Wright was absent. Mr. Wardell arrived at 1:03 p.m. Staff members present
were Margaret Maliszewski and Brent Nelson.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Missel called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Missel invited public comment. There being no public comment, the meeting moved to the
next item.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T) - Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan – (Tax
Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1)
Proposal: To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10’ above the
reference tree.
Brent Nelson summarized the staff report.
• The applicant proposes to establish a telecommunications facility consisting of a
proposed steel monopole painted java brown 69’ tall, with a height 10’ above the top of
the 11” caliper Ash reference tree in a 20’ x 30’ lease area located on a parcel adjoining
the north side of Morgantown Road approximately 600’ southwest of the intersection
with Route 250 West. The lease area is heavily wooded and situated approximately 65’
above and 300’ south of the Route 250 right-of-way.
• Balloon tests for this proposal were conducted on February 10, 2010 and February 23.
The results of both tests were presented to the ARB at the March 15, 2010 review. The
Board, by a vote of 4:0, denied the request. On March 18, the applicant requested an
appeal of the ARB’s decision. An April 5, 2010 letter submitted by the applicant in
support of the appeal referenced another balloon test (conducted on March 31) which
staff had not been invited to view and at which the balloon was flown from a new
location approximately 13.5’ northwest of the proposed monopole location.
• With that new information it became evident that the location from which the balloon
was flown in February was also not the proposed monopole location, but approximately
14’ east of the monopole. In each of these tests, it was overhead tree branches at the
location of the monopole that did not permit a balloon launch directly from the monopole
location. The applicant’s April letter states that the launch location for the March test
more accurately represents the proposed location of the monopole as viewed from the
westbound lane of Route 250 while descending into the Village of Ivy. That view was the
problematic view in the ARB’s previous review of the proposal.
• Staff explained to the applicant that it would not be useful or efficient to present
information to the Board of Supervisors that the ARB had not yet reviewed, so the
applicant agreed to conduct another balloon test that could be attended by staff, using the
March 31 balloon location. That test was performed on April 16 and was attended by
staff. Due to existing overhead branches the balloon was launched from a location
approximately 13.5’ northwest of the monopole location and to the height of the
monopole 10’ above the reference tree. The balloon was highly visible, sky lit and
oriented directly in front of the viewer while descending the hill for a distance of
approximately 350’ westbound into Ivy. The balloon was visible in the vicinity of three
evergreen trees, which appear to the left and right of the balloon and which did not
provide a wooded backdrop for the balloon. The balloon continued to be visible but to a
lesser degree for another 300’ while westbound on Route 250.
• The balloon test did not replicate the balloon location shown in the applicant’s photo
renderings from their March 31 test due to the breezy conditions that day with the balloon
consistently appearing to the right, or north, of the location in the photo renderings. The
balloon was not visible from points along 250 west of the site and the balloon’s visibility
from points along 250 adjacent to this site were sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area
between the site and the Entrance Corridor just as in the February balloon test. The lease
area and the ground equipment are not expected to be visible from the Corridor.
• Due to the inability to reproduce the March 31st test results it was suggested that the
applicant provide a drawing demonstrating that the balloon location and the resulting
photo rendering was based upon the launch location witnessed by staff on April 16th and
that it was a more accurate representation of the view of the monopole from the
westbound lane of Route 250, the view that was problematic for the ARB’s previous
review. That drawing was provided; it shows the launch locations used for the February,
March and April tests, the proposed monopole location and two evergreen trees that
appear to the left and right of the balloon in the field and in the photo renderings. Those
trees are located to the east of the proposed monopole and are off-site. The drawing does
appear to verify that the balloon location shown in the photo renderings is an accurate
representation of the view of the proposed monopole location viewed while traveling
westbound into Ivy.
• The applicant maintains that visibility of the proposed facility is sufficiently mitigated
due to its proximity to existing evergreen trees that appear to be off-site evergreen trees
located on the Sofka property, 2850 Morgantown Road, east of the proposed site.
Whereas, the applicant’s photo rendering does demonstrate that the monopole would rise
between two of these trees, helping to reduce the pole’s noticeability, the small number of
trees and their off-site location is an issue. Typically, off-site vegetation is not relied
upon for mitigation of a proposed development in an Entrance Corridor due to the lack of
control over off-site resources. However, the ARB has given consideration to off-site
screening for wireless proposals when the number of trees was significantly larger,
creating larger masses of tree canopy and typically an adequate wooded backdrop. This
proposal has no wooded backdrop as viewed from the Route 250 West hill and the
mitigation for this view is provided by only two or three off-site trees. The Entrance
Corridor guidelines specific to this review and how they are addressed in the proposal are
listed in your report.
• Staff cannot support the proposed monopole due to the degree of visibility as the viewer
descends westbound into Ivy and due to the lack of on-site mitigation. Should this
application be approved as currently proposed the issues relating to grading and tree
protection listed in your report should be addressed.
• Staff reviewed the materials on display, which included drawings, photographs and photo
simulations of the various balloon tests.
Mr. Missel invited questions from the ARB. He asked for clarification regarding the
photographs and photo simulations that corresponded to the March 31st balloon test and which
photographs represented the most accurate view from the westbound lane leading into Ivy.
Mr. Nelson provided clarification regarding the photographs and photo simulations and indicated
that the photographs and photo simulations from the March 31st test appear to represent the most
accurate view.
Mr. Missel asked if the reason this view was chosen is due to this being the most significant view
of the monopole.
Mr. Nelson replied that is correct. The monopole is not visible west of the site on Route 250 and
is sufficiently mitigated from the section of Route 250 adjacent to the site, as demonstrated by
the photo taken from Duner’s Restaurant.
Mr. Lebo stated that he viewed the balloon test and asked who else did. Mr. Daggett indicated
that he also viewed the balloon test.
Mr. Missel invited the applicant to address the ARB.
Applicant Presentation:
Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing AT&T, presented a Power-Point
presentation. She noted that her colleague, Valerie Long, was present. She thanked the ARB for
reviewing the application in light of the additional information they have provided.
• She started out with a big picture overview with a note on why these facilities are treated
within Albemarle County not as utilities, but treated separately as a wireless facility
subject to the Wireless Policy and the Wireless Ordinance in the County Code. The
standard applied in the staff report by the ARB is incorrect in that they applied the
standards to review a utility and not the standards of the Wireless Policy.
• The County Board of Supervisors, when they adopted the Wireless Policy, it was based
on the fact that wireless facilities could not be made invisible, which is why the Wireless
Policy speaks of mitigating the view, limiting the visibility and not making facilities
invisible. The way you mitigate the visibility is through design and siting.
• Referencing a photo, she stated that Albemarle County made a policy decision that they
wanted towers to be painted brown, flush mounted, treetop facilities, narrow at the top,
and be no taller than 10’ above the reference tree so as to avoid things like this. In
numerous locations in the Wireless Policy it references minimizing visibility for facilities
where limited visibility is encouraged and that the County would approve those
applications that comply with the adopted plan’s policies and ordinance and deny those
that don’t. The ARB’s role is to confirm that the application before them meets the
design criteria, which this application does.
• Numerous balloon tests were conducted on this site. The first two balloon tests were in
March. Those photo simulations were provided at the first hearing. During the last
hearing there was one viewpoint that was the most discussed because that is the one view
where you can see the very top of the tower. In the rest of the views from the Entrance
Corridor, you actually cannot see the tower. As a result of this one view that the ARB
decided to focus on, AT&T met and reevaluated the coverage objective area. During that
time they noted that the balloon location because of the tree coverage over the proposed
tower area, they had to fly the balloon off to the side. It was noted that off to the side
view, which was 14’ off, could have had an impact on the actual perspective from the
photo simulations that they provided. As a result, for their own purposes to see if it had
any impact at all, on March 31 they flew the balloon at the more accurate location to
provide a more accurate perspective from the Entrance Corridor. To their surprise even a
small shift in the location provided a change in the simulation, with the tower getting
closer to the adjacent pine trees.
• At Brent’s recommendation they provided an exhibit that showed camera location #1,
which is the furthest to the right, about 1,500’ away from the actual tower location.
Camera location #1 is from the first balloon test done in March. Camera location #2 is
basically where the second photo simulation is from, which is about 1,200’ away from
the site. They think the trees that you are seeing, the pine trees that are located near the
top of the tower, are the ones on the Sofka property. They did not go on the Sofka
property to confirm that those are the trees, but they believe those are the pine trees that
are of question. It is a heavily wooded area. There are significant other trees in the area
as well as on the applicant’s property.
• The previous simulated view from 250 is, again, from about 1,500’ away from the tower.
The next view is when they moved for a more accurate perspective. The very top of the
tower is the only part that is visible, and it is visible for a very short period of time. She
took a video of the location with the last balloon test to show that the balloon was only
visible for about nine seconds. Unfortunately, they had some technical difficulties and
she was not able to show the video. She emphasized that it was a very short period of
time, less than nine seconds, and that only the very top of the tower is visible. There was
more than 50’ of the tower mitigated by significant tree cover that is located both on and
off of the applicant’s property.
• To address the staff report issues - first the wireless facility is not a utility. The
applicants are tasked with minimizing and mitigating the impact, which they have done
through careful design, siting, and location. This is not new development and they are
not required to comply with historic architecture. This application complies with the
design guidelines that are listed in the Wireless Policy and the Wireless Ordinance. The
proposed development is sensitive to the existing landscape in that it is a tree top facility
no higher than 10’ above the reference tree. It is painted brown, has flush-mounted
antenna and only 18” diameter at the very top of the pole. Again, it is only the very top
of the pole that is even visible from that one vantage point. Applying the standards in the
staff report, no wireless facility would ever be approved. The monopole does not
significantly alter the vista of this area.
• She reminded the ARB again what the Wireless Policy indicates as visually intrusive –
guy towers, shiny metal poles, and facilities as shown at the beginning of the presentation
that would be visually intrusive and substantially alter the vista. A flush mounted tree top
brown facility is not visually intrusive.
• Another point made by staff is that the applicant is relying on two or three pine trees
located off the site for mitigation. This point is actually inaccurate in that there are over
30 trees on the property in the surrounding 200’ of the site that were surveyed and in the
plan provided. Again, it is only the very top part of the pole that is near the pine trees.
The rest of the entire pole is mitigated through trees that are located on site.
• To summarize, as was recognized by the County early on, wireless facilities cannot
remain invisible. Antennas must be visible at the top of the pole and extend above the
height of the trees in order for the signal to be effective. The way wireless works is that
the signal has to bounce off of the other antennas in the area. So in order for the facility
to work they have to be able to communicate with the adjacent facilities. Failure to have
a tower have its antennas visible renders it entirely useless and prevents the federal right
of wireless carriers to provide coverage. They can’t make them all invisible and cannot
always make them as well hidden as they have with other AT&T sites. It is a matter of
relative visibility.
• The application is entirely compatible with the Entrance Corridor and is sensitive to the
landscape in that it is a brown pole with limited diameter, flush mounted antenna and
within a forest of trees. Compared to all the other telephone poles, signage and the
railroad bridge right next to the road, which are not screened at all by trees, and the
relative short distance that this monopole is visible along 250, which is nine seconds
while driving the speed limit, the limited visibility is mitigated by its design. The
vantage point that they are focusing on here is the very top of the facility that is visible.
Again, that has to be visible in order for this tower to work. The ARB Design Guidelines
do not contain any provisions which prohibit a wireless facility from being visible from
straight on or for any period of time from the Entrance Corridor. She offered to answer
any questions and expressed appreciation for the ARB’s consideration of this application.
Mr. Missel invited questions.
Mr. Daggett noted that in March the question was asked if there were other sites that had been
considered. He recalled that the answer was that once they found a willing property owner their
search stopped. He asked if there was still a potential there that there are other sites available
other than this site.
Ms. Carmichael replied that the answer back then was they did look at other sites. They always
look at co-location on other buildings. They looked at a church and although there was an
antenna in the church they were not able to fit within that steeple. So they ended up at this
location. When they went back to reevaluate to look at this balloon test and decided to do one in
another location, they did look at other possibilities in the area. This is the site that provides the
best coverage as the most minimized visibility that will provide the reliable coverage that is
required along 250.
Mr. Daggett noted that he felt that was important for Mr. Missel to hear that answer.
Mr. Wardell reiterated that she said it provides the best performance and it is the least visible of
the other sites that they considered. He asked if that was what she said.
Ms. Long clarified that there are a number of other locations where it might work and where
there is probably adequate tree screening, but the land owners were not willing to enter into a
lease agreement. It is a challenge to find a site that meets all of the necessary criteria and works
to provide the coverage they need or to have the necessary tree screening and an existing access
road that does not require cutting down trees. The way the process works is that AT&T has a
site acquisition specialist similar to a real estate agent who goes out and looks at maps to try to
identify areas where it might work. The site acquisition specialist identifies the area on aerial
photographs. Then letters are sent, phone calls made and personal visits to land owners to make
proposals. Often they might go to 15 or 20 land owners and only 2 or 3 will be interested.
Therefore, they work with those 2 or 3 to figure out which is the best location that provide the
best options from a zoning perspective, engineering perspective, screening and so forth. Of
those willing land owners they were able to work with this is the one that provided the best out
of all of those. The church would have been a wonderful opportunity if there was room in their
steeple which there wasn’t. We even approached them about having a treetop facility like this in
the woods behind the church which might have provided better screening. We don’t know
because they would not even let us come out and do a quick simulation.
Noting that they’d seen the shifting of the balloon 10’ one direction or the other, Mr. Missel
asked if there might be a location either within the lease area or somewhere on the parcel that
might be 10’ to the right or left that would be hidden by the evergreen tree and therefore less
visible.
Ms. Carmichael replied that they have to stay within the confined restriction area from that
reference tree. Based on their analysis there are no other likely locations that would be any
better. They have to make sure it stays near the reference tree.
Ms. Long noted that they went through a reanalysis after the March ARB meeting and denial,
pulled out the plans and revisited the site to see if there was anywhere they could move this.
Could they move it a few feet so that it would be behind the pine tree? If it was behind the Pine
tree it probably will not work. If the antennas can’t been seen from 250 it is not going to reach a
car or person that is driving along 250. That is a critical element. It has to be visible and have a
line of sight. She noted that they were restricted by the power lines, critical slopes in the back of
the site and setbacks from adjacent properties. They cannot cross the power lines with the cranes
and other equipment required to construct this proposal. They also tried to stay away from the
residences and meet the setbacks.
Mr. Wardell asked if locations other than St. Paul’s Church had been explored.
Ms. Long indicated they had looked at a number of other locations but none of them had willing
land owners. It is a challenge.
This is a difficult hole in coverage to fill. Because the monopole is only visible from this one
location for such a short period of time in one direction they felt they could mitigate the visibility
as long as the pole is brown and met all of the design requirements of the Wireless Policy. They
felt it was a site worth pursuing even though it did not have a wooded backdrop. It could be seen
for 9 seconds while westbound into Ivy. It could be seen from Duner’s only in the winter
months. They feel that in totality it is a site worth pursuing. They feel very strongly that the site
meets the design criteria of the Wireless Ordinance. As Ms. Carmichael said, if all sites have to
be invisible no site would ever be approved because they can’t function that way. It is a standard
that is not realistic for this type of technology. It is not the standard that the Wireless Policy
contemplates being a part of.
Mr. Missel asked staff to answer a question. It was mentioned about a utility rather than a
wireless policy and also confusion about mitigation rather than visibility. He asked staff to speak
a little about that in terms of how they communicated that in the staff report and how they should
focus on those issues.
Mr. Nelson replied that the Wireless Policy speaks about mitigating the appearance of the
facility. Staff believes that adequate wooded backdrop is one of the primary reasons that you get
mitigation in a facility. They lack any backdrop in this view under discussion here today. It is
not sufficiently mitigated, in staff’s view, in appearance.
Mr. Missel reiterated from staff’s standpoint it is not an issue of being invisible, but it is an issue
of judging mitigation.
Mr. Nelson replied yes, for that portion of the facility.
Mr. Wardell asked if staff has access to the language of the ordinance that covers the
telecommunication facilities. That is important because of the reference cited in the staff report.
The Entrance Corridor Guidelines state that mechanical equipment and above ground utilities
should be screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor. He asked what the
ordinance says that covers telecommunications.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that the Wireless Policy talks about the degree of visibility. The
Entrance Corridor Guidelines do say eliminate visibility, but the ARB has never applied that and
that is not what is being suggested here. There are dozens of wireless applications that the ARB
has considered and they never said that it has to be invisible. The ARB has always taken into
consideration the fact that the policy is trying to go for monopoles rather than the really tall ones,
ones that are treetop sites. As Brent Nelson suggested, the wooded backdrop often helps with
that mitigation. What they are saying here is the degree of visibility is not sufficiently mitigated
in this case at the top of that hill going down into Ivy.
Mr. Wardell asked for reference if it would be possible to pull up the language of the Wireless
Ordinance that talks about visibility.
Ms. Long replied that in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy that was adopted by the
Board of Supervisors in 2000 there are numerous references throughout in terms of mitigation.
On page 60, it says a personal wireless service facility that scores high in the visibility scale need
not be rejected if the visual impact can be mitigated in one of the following ways.
• The first is camouflage, which requires minimal changes to the host structure that is often
described in the context of what they call co-location. That would be attaching it inside a
church steeple or to a water tank, for instance, or changes to the host structure or the
wireless facility site setting to accommodate the wireless service facility. Treetop towers
are a form of camouflage. It talks about other methods as well. It talks about concealment
within the side of a structure, like a church steeple or disguise to change the appearance.
Treetop towers are a form of camouflaging a facility so even if it is visible it is not
excessively visible. It is not like some of the earlier slides of a giant 200’ tower 50’ to
100’ above the tops of the trees and helps it blend in. It is all about the design.
Throughout this policy it discusses the fact that they can’t be invisible in all cases. So
you have to mitigate the visibility in some fashion. Treetop towers are one way. It talks a
lot about the design standards, such as to make sure it is a brown pole with the cables
inside with flush mounted antennas being no taller than 10’ above the reference tree. So
they meet all of those criteria.
• The Wireless Ordinance itself is in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. That makes
these wireless facilities essentially a by-right proposal in every zoning district as long as
they meet the design criteria, the things she’s mentioned, plus some others. One is to
make sure that the trees appropriately screen the facility. Another is to make sure to
meet setbacks. Those are the critical ones. They have been working hard to make sure
they meet all of those criteria. There is no question that they meet those criteria. It is just
a matter that in their opinion about what the scope of review is here today.
• They contend that the scope is: does this facility meet the design criteria in terms of
visibility. It is about relative visibility. They think that they have mitigated the visibility
primarily through the design of the structure, but also through its careful siting and
location. They put it near the reference tree. When viewed from this one location they
can see it for only a brief period of time. It is really in between a little gap between lots
of evergreen trees. Those trees appear to be off-site, but there are a number of other trees
on site that also provide screening and mitigation.
Mr. Wardell asked if this is the key passage in the ordinance about visibility.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that is the Wireless Policy. It is not the ordinance.
Ms. Long pointed out that the ordinance does not really speak to visibility. It says for a Tier II
facility this is what the plans have to show: what the standards are and the procedure for
submitting for review.
Mr. Wardell said that the language in the ordinance is important as opposed to language in the
introduction of a policy because the ARB is bound by the things actually in the ordinance.
Mr. Gatobu pointed out that he was the planner in charge of this project. They had asked about
the ordinance. After the request comes to the ARB it has to go to the Planning Commission.
The question was what the zoning ordinance information is to that document, which is more like
the policy that guides this document. He has to do an analysis from Section 5.1.40 based on that.
Most of what Ms. Long said is correct. He has to look at the visibility in terms of mitigating it.
If the Planning Commission chooses to deny the request, they have to tell the applicant how they
can actually fix it. They can’t just say it is denied. In cases where they don’t have anything he
as the planner can only say 7’ above the reference tree. The Planning Commission listens to the
applicant for the additional 3’ to make it 10’. So under his purview he can only say yes he is
recommending denial based on these criteria for approval at either 7’ or 10’ and then the
Planning Commission works on that. But, yes there are issues about mitigation in terms of the
color, the wires have to be run inside the pole, it has to be 30” at the base and 18” and flush-
mounted at least 12” in terms of the distance from the pole itself. He looks at all of that and
whether the base equipment is visible from anywhere else. That is how his review goes. But he
has to tell the Planning Commission that the ARB either denied or approved the request.
Mr. Lebo asked if the base equipment would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor, and Ms.
Maliszewski replied that it would not.
Ms. Long clarified that this is called a policy, but it is technically a component or piece of the
Comprehensive Plan. From their perspective it is their “Bible” or guiding document of what
they plan and use. The ordinance in Section 5.1.40 is basically implementing this
Comprehensive Plan component. She hoped that would help explain the relationship between
the two.
Ms. Maliszewski noted for further clarification that they don’t disagree about that at all. What is
at issue is that staff thinks for that portion of the view coming down the Corridor from the top of
the hill they don’t feel that it is sufficiently mitigated and the applicant does. That is basically
what it comes down to.
Mr. Missel invited public comment.
Jim Sofka resident of 2850 Morgantown Road, passed out two photographs taken from the
February test. He was speaking for himself and a number of his friends and neighbors in that
they were sort of surprised to have this go forward again because it does not appear that much
has changed. He made several points, which he would reiterate for the record:
1. This is very high in the sky line and visible on the Entrance Corridor (Route 250) in their
view.
2. It is very close to adjacent houses in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
3. Most of the houses that surround it, except two, were built in the late 19th century. It is a
very historic district in terms of its character, but not formerly an historic district under
state law.
4. From his understanding the ARB has full jurisdiction over this because of the Entrance
Corridor issues.
Mr. Sofka noted that the front of his house is surrounded by four evergreen trees. In the
photograph distributed he circled the two Hemlocks which are referred to in the staff report.
Those two trees are the highest on the skyline and suffer from a blight that has been killing the
trees on the eastern seaboard. At a significant cost he gets the trees pruned and sprayed annually.
The problem is that it is not 100 percent effective. He would hate to lose the trees. The trees are
within 15’ of the house. If the sprays are ineffective the trees will have to come down
immediately due to the safety issue given the proximity to the structure. If the Board wishes they
have an open invitation to come and visit the property to view the trees. He would be happy to
provide a statement from his arborist along with receipts for the treatment of those trees
certifying that they are in fact diseased. If those trees are no longer there, that is going to make
that pole stand out even more along the skyline. Again, he has no intention of removing them.
Remember this is a 25 year lease and it is very possible that those trees will be gone by the time
that lease expires. He asked that his comments from March 15th be entered into the record.
Mr. Missel asked if he saw the recent photos. He said he saw the April 16 photos.
Trevor Gibson, resident of 2852 Morgantown Road, said that his concern was that there has not
been an actual balloon float from the actual location. The reason there has not been a balloon
float from the actual location is because there is too much tree branch coverage, which is part of
the 30 trees, with six trees being above the 12’ to 15’ in that intermediate area. In order to
conduct a proper balloon test from this location it is his opinion that the tallest tree will have to
be removed. When they looked over the original balloon test it was noted that it would not be
easy to cut that tree back. The trees in that area are being choked by ivy. The trees are not
healthy in that area. Many of the trees are losing branches and dying. As Mr. Sofka mentioned
most of the trees in that area are over 100 years old and, unfortunately, many of these trees are
starting to die. He reiterated that they have not seen an accurate balloon test. From the balloon
test we were invited to, you can see that it will be very visible from the Entrance Corridor. He
was concerned with the precedent this may set. The windy conditions at the last balloon test
made the results very inaccurate. He felt that the balloon was visible for more than nine seconds.
He opposed the request due to its visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Phil Beaurline, resident of 2962 Morgantown Road, submitted photographs. He noted that he
was unaware of the last balloon test and was unable to take a picture of it. He pointed out a very
accurate overlay of the current vegetation on top of his original photographs #1 so they could see
the effect of some of the vegetation. He noted that was in the 4’ above the reference tree and not
the 10’. The balloon diameter is about 3’, which he had based all of his scale representations on.
In drawing #2, he noted that the north arrows were not the same as the sketch and the aerial
photograph. He had to rotate the sketch to match the north arrow of the aerial photograph, then
superimposed the line of sight onto the drawing so they could see how the line of sight relates to
the two different balloon test locations. It goes basically right in between them. At the scale as
shown on that drawing, it is less than a balloon width difference as far as the viewer’s point of
view. The balloon shifted 18” or less given that there was no wind during the photograph. He
pointed out that the second balloon test really was immaterially different in his opinion. From
the problem location, the Entrance Corridor, it is the same. The two balloon tests really are not
different. Regarding the point of accuracy, looking at the 3/31 photo, the balloon test location is
slightly south, or to the left, of the point of view line and the older balloon test is slightly to the
north. On the inset drawing it is the opposite. So somebody screwed up when they transferred
the information. The two balloon drawings do not agree. Mr. Missel asked if he was pro or con.
He said he opposed the request; it is a bad idea.
Amy Vigilante, resident of 2930 Morgantown Road, said she was surprised they were here again
since it was denied last time. They were not invited to the last balloon test, but there appears to
not be much of a difference. In the past balloon test they had it at 69’, which looks like what
they are proposing. When they lowered it to 64’ you could see no difference from the Corridor.
It was based on the evergreen trees, which appear to be on the Sofka property. She felt that the
location could also be seen from other places such as Owensville Road as well as 250, and from
her neighborhood. It was very close to her neighborhood. She had never received any letters
and felt they could find another spot with more research.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Missel closed the public comment to bring the
matter before the ARB for discussion.
Mr. Lebo stated that he didn’t attend the first balloon test but he did attend the second balloon
test and felt that someone would really have to be looking for the monopole to see it. While
driving on Route 250 he felt that one would really have a difficult time looking for the monopole
because of the traffic and other clutter in the area. There are two gas stations, utility poles with
wires, VDOT signs and train tracks. There are so many other things going on that you would
really have to be looking for the monopole. The question is whether monopoles are really that
ugly or inappropriate. He felt that was in the eye of the beholder. They are not as obtrusive as
the larger poles demonstrated on some of the slides. The monopole was pretty well hidden
except for the 8, 9 or 10’ of it. At this time he did not have any problem with the monopole
based on the fact that there is so much clutter going on in Ivy to begin with that you would have
to be looking for the monopole to find it.
Mr. Missel asked how long he was able to see the balloon, and Mr. Lebo replied that it was
visible for nine seconds while he was driving in his car.
Mr. Daggett said that he attended the balloon test. He timed its visibility for a little longer at
around 14 seconds, which was from the time he first caught the balloon in his eye until he almost
got down to the bridge when it disappeared in the treetops. The issue is the visibility. While
there is a lot to look at, if someone looked up at this balloon test it was purely sky-lit. How that is
going to look when it is a monopole he did not know. But it was clear that the balloon was sky-
lit and it is pretty much right in the center of the view. Coming down the hill the balloon was
almost level when he first saw it. He had to look up more and more as he drove further down the
hill but it was visible for a period of time. He thought this was what the ARB focused on last
time. The applicant acknowledged that the ARB focused on this view. Of course, the ARB
focused on this view because it is sky-lit.
He reiterated, as the ARB did in their first discussion, that the issue was what they can judge
from the Entrance Corridor. While they appreciate the neighbor’s concerns over some of the
other circumstances involved with this, they have to look at it from the Entrance Corridor only.
He found it to be very sky-lit. In his experience on this board everywhere else that they have
approved monopoles, and most have been approved pretty easily, they are usually off to the side
of the road and not dead center in the view for any length of time at all. When the monopoles
were off to the side of the road they are generally in amongst trees to the extent that as one looks
up at them there is tree coverage behind them. He thought that this was what struck him about
this.
Seeing the balloon test in reality in three dimensions and seeing it in photographs are two
different things. Seeing the balloon test in reality is much clearer. Given the language the ARB
has to deal with the question is if it is mitigated. The fact that it is fully sky-lit makes it so that it
can’t be mitigated. Most, if not all, of the towers the ARB has approved during his tenure have
had foliage and trees behind them. The monopoles were not seen sticking up and sky-lit. The
ones that were sky-lit, staff always asked that the monopole be brought down so it could be in
that camouflage of trees surrounding, and this is not. He felt this was inconsistent with what they
have previously approved as mitigated visibility.
Mr. Wardell said during the presentation he looked at this almost ignoring the pine trees. When
looking at the site plan he felt that the pine trees had to be ignored because of their distance from
the site and how little control they have over that. Once the pine trees are gone what they
basically have almost a relatively consistent top of the tree line. This photograph shows the pine
trees on either side of the telephone pole. If the pine trees are gone they have a relatively
consistent top of the tree line coming across. That is the thing that disturbs him the most. Not
knowing much about the engineering of wireless, this little hole in coverage is probably the
toughest nut to crack around our region. He understands the difficulty they are having in finding
a site that actually covers that area. But he was not sure he would feel right depending on the
pine trees and visualizing that treescape without the pine trees. Without those pine trees he
thought that it does have a visual interruption of that landscape that he finds exceeds what would
be acceptable. Being relatively new he did not know what other scenarios they have or have not
approved. He was basing it on that observation.
Mr. Missel said that he could basically understand everything that had been said. He thanked the
public for showing up and speaking to this. It is all very helpful. He confessed that he did
expect a few members of the public to stand up and say they do business in this area and
absolutely need to have coverage and are tired of calls being dropped. They did not hear any of
that. That is interesting.
He looked at this from the subjective and objective sides, as they do everything else. From the
objective side he felt that there are still a lot of gaps or questions that are kind of loose. One
would be the balloon location. They see what difference it means to move the balloon 10’ to the
right or the left. They still do not have a location that is actually right where the pole is going to
be. So he did not know how much difference it was going to make when the balloon is actually
floating in that area.
The second issue deals with the conflict on whether other sites have really been looked at. He
believed the applicant that they have looked for other sites. He heard at one point that if this one
does not work there are going to have to be two or three other sites. On other sites they have run
into that with other pole options as well. They have said that two or three other purely mitigated
sites are better than one that is sky-lit and very unmitigated.
Another thought he had that sort of falls under the objective is have the changes that have been
represented today been significant enough to really reverse a decision that occurred back in
March. He was not at the meeting and did not have the benefit of that discussion, but what he
has read about in the staff report and heard today it seems that the answer to that is no. There
really is not anything substantially different than what they saw before. One of the things that
strengthened that is the angle of the view.
Next, the time span of 9 to 14 seconds in a day is not a whole lot of time, but if it is a very
important location and the people are very interested in their viewshed and take it very seriously.
He sees the point that there are existing unsightly other facilities there, such as signs, everything
else, utility poles, etc., but they have to look at today and what they are seeing and whether that
will contribute to the unsightliness.
Lastly, he agreed with the concept of this being a uniform line and that having those evergreens
was very much unknown. If the height of the tower was somehow lower than the evergreens and
they were not relying so heavily on those, then they have a reasonable way to say that this is
either not as backlit as it appears to be and it is mitigated better. The subjective is a shorter list,
but he thought that it should be. In this sense he thought that the objective outweighs the
subjective in the fact that it is not being mitigated to the level that it should be.
Mr. Wardell asked, ignoring the pine trees, how much higher would the tower be than the
hardwoods immediately adjacent to the tower.
Mr. Nelson replied that the tower would be 10’ above the reference tree, which is the one 25’
from it.
Mr. Wardell asked if the reference tree is typical of the height of the top of those trees. In the
tree diagram it had 662’ with the reference tree being at 595’.
Mr. Missel noted that was the ground elevation.
Mr. Wardell asked what the top of that was, and Mr. Missel replied 652’.
Mr. Nelson pointed out the crown elevations of the surrounding trees.
Mr. Wardell noted that it was 10’ above that. That tree is a participant in the horizon of the top
of the trees.
Ms. Long clarified that even during this time the hardwoods were not leafed out. Mr. Sofka’s
photograph is actually quite helpful. If you look carefully behind the balloon and behind the
evergreen trees the limbs of the hardwood trees can be seen and the fact that they are not leafed
out. She thought that it demonstrates probably the one that is to the right of the balloons, slightly
lower, may well be the reference tree. It is hard to know for sure. There are trees back there
other than the evergreen trees. She thought that the evergreen trees may very well block the
deciduous trees. In the summer months when these trees are leafed out it would probably be a
backdrop. It may not be a perfect full wooded backdrop, but it would have some trees. There
are trees back there, which can be seen by the limbs of the trees. She clarified the point that it
was not entirely sky-lit. During the winter months when the trees are not leafed out the trees
would not be seen as much.
Mr. Daggett noted that about the top ten feet was sky-lit. The reference tree is ten feet below the
top of the pole.
Ms. Long noted that even in this photograph one can see that essentially right between the two
circles another deciduous tree is visible by its branches.
Mr. Wardell said if that is the reference tree and the balloon is 10’ above that, then the generic
tree line is 15’ to 20’ below the balloon.
Ms. Long pointed out that brings us back to the Wireless Policy, which is the governing rule,
The Wireless Policy permits monopoles to be 7’ to 10’ above the tops of the trees for that very
reason. The monopoles have to be above the trees in order to function.
Mr. Daggett noted that he understood that.
Ms. Long said that there were a few comments made during the public comment period that they
would like an opportunity to respond to if the board would allow. There were a few things stated
that were not quite true that they wanted to correct for the record.
Mr. Daggett noted or that they would like to take objection to.
Ms. Long noted that there were a few things that were not quite true that they wanted to clarify
for the record.
Mr. Missel said since the public hearing was closed that they would hold off on that.
Ms. Long noted that they could possibly submit a letter.
Mr. Missel noted that they have the right to appeal.
Motion: Mr. Daggett moved to affirm the vote of the ARB at the March 15, 2010 meeting to
deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2010-02, Singleton (AT&T) Final Review of a
Site Development Plan, noting that there was not a sufficient amount of information or change in
information to warrant a change in the decision.
Mr. Missel noted that before the vote was taken he wanted to make sure that staff would provide
the additional documents submitted today to the applicant.
Mr. Wardell seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3:1. (Mr. Lebo voted no. Mr. Wright was absent.)
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning
Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 14, 2010
William S. Moore - Balzer & Associates
1561 Commerce Rd, Suite 401
Verona, Va 24482
RE: SP200900029 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
Tax Map 76, Parcel 51
Dear Mr. Moore:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 4, 2010, recommended approval of
the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled Kingdom Hall of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses prepared by Hardee Johnston, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect , Page T.1
dated January 9, 2006, Revised 12-08-08 and page C. 2 dated January 2, 2006, Revised 1-1-09
Balzer and Associates, Inc., Sheet No. 1 of 1 dated 11-16-2009 (hereinafter, the "Concept Plan"). In
addition, the following elements shall be in strict accord with [or “conform to”] the Concept Plan: the
relationship of parking areas to building areas, building areas to the street, location of the area for
sidewalk dedication and reservation of area for the extension of the Southern Parkway;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) one (1) auditoriums with one hundred
seventy-five (175) ninety (190) seats in each;
3. The final site plan shall show an area to be graded across the front of the site to allow the future
installation of a sidewalk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final site plan shall include a note
reserving the proposed sidewalk easement and a five (5) foot right-of-way area for future
dedication. The area for dedication shall allow for a minimum width of a five (5) foot s idewalk and
which shall meet all applicable VDOT and County standards per Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The sidewalk area shall be graded in conjunction with the installation of other
improvements on the site required by the site plan. The sidewalk area shall be graded in compliance
with the grading standards imposed by the agent. Upon request by the County, the sidewalk area
shall be dedicated for public use. The owner shall grant all necessary temporary construction
easements to allow the sidewalk to be installed;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use
permit; and
5. Construction of the development plan referenced in Condition 1. above shall commence by March 11,
2013 [insert date 4 years after date of BOS approval] or this special use permit shall expire.
Waiver
The Planning Commission approved the critical slopes waiver request for SP-2009-029 Charlottesville
Kingdom Hall. [THIS IS NOT A MATTER THAT REQUIRES BOARD APPROVAL.]
View staff report and attachment
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 9, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: East Congregation Of Jehovah's Witnesses; Morgan Davis Etal Trs
1421 Reynovia Dr
Charlottesville Va 22902
File
Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PC Public Hearing 5/4/10
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Proposal: SP 2009 -029 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 4, 2010 Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: East Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Morgan Davis, et al Trustees
Applicant: East Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Morgan Davis, et al Trustees
Acreage: Approximately 3.583 acres Special Use Permit for: Church by special use
permit in R-2 and R-4, Residential districts.
TMP: TM: 76 P: 51
Location: 665 Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), at
the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset
Avenue Extended. (Attachments A & B)
By-right use: Approximately 8 – 12 dwellings. The
existing special use permit allows for a church use.
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Proposal: Modify layout of approved plan (SP2008-
057) to include a new building and parking lot location.
The special use permit request allows for a Church in
the residential districts.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 5 Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density
Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and
schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.
Character of Property: The property is primarily hilly
and wooded with an existing church and related
parking located on it.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Primarily single
family residences. Berean Baptist Church is located
across the street and Southwood Mobile Home Park
is located adjacent to the site.
Factors Favorable:
1. The special use permit provides an institutional
use, which is supported by the Comprehensive
Plan on Neighborhood Density Residential.
2. Accommodation is made for a possible future
road, which could connect to the adjacent property
(Southwood Mobile Home Park).
3. The factors supporting approval of the original
special use permit have not changed.
4. No ordinance changes have taken place which
would affect development of the site.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The parking area is not relegated on the site.
2. Circulation shown on the plan does not meet
County standards; however, it can be corrected
at the site plan stage.
3. The church does not propose to connect to
public sewer at this time; however, it will connect
when sewer lines are brought closer to the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2009-029 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall with
revisions to the originally approved conditions. Staff recommends approval of critical slopes waiver.
Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PC Public Hearing 5/4/10
2
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 4, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SP2009-029: CHARLOTTESVILLE KINGDOM HALL
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900029/Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PROPOSED: Modify layout of approved plan (SP2008-057) to include a new building and parking lot
location. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-2 residential - 2 units per acre and R-4 Residential - 4
units/acre.
SECTION: Sections 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for Churches.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small -scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 5.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 665 Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset
Avenue Extended.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/51
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area and Adjoining properties:
The subject property lies at 665 Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg
Road and Sunset Avenue Extended. See Attachment A for the Zoning Map and Attachment B for the
Location Map. The surrounding area consists of residential units, the Berean Baptist Church, located across
the street, and Southwood Mobile Home Park, located adjacent to the site.
Specifics of Proposal:
The applicant’s request to allow a church in a residential district is unchanged from the approved special
use permit (SP2008-057).
● The approved special use permit included an 8,500+ square foot, one story building with a basement
and two auditoriums, each seating 175 people. (See Attachment D)
● The applicant has requested to change to a 5,000 square foot, single–story building, which seats 190
people. (See Attachment C)
This request includes the following changes: a smaller building and a parking lot in a different location. The
proposed changes will allow a less costly new church building.
The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan, which has been reviewed by staff. Due to the physical
constraints of the site, such as the hilly terrain and steep drop off at the rear of the site, this is a challenging
site to develop. Staff notes two issues in the paragraph below. It is believed that these issues are not so
large as to preclude approval of the permit.
The two issues relate to circulation and lack of connection to public sewer. Circulation of vehicles near the
drop off area of the building appears to be tight. Staff anticipates some minor redesign of the drop off area
during the site plan stage and believes it can be addressed at the site plan phase , probably without an
amendment to the special use permit. As discussed with previous requests, this site is not currently served
with public sewer. The difficult situation regarding location of the closest existing public sewer and the
logistics of connecting under Old Lynchburg Road continue to make this issue difficult to resolve. The
closest sewer connection is 400’ away but across Old Lynchburg Road, which would be difficult and cost ly
to bore through. There is an older connection in the adjacent Southwood Development; however, that
location is 2,000’ away. It is expected that the church will connect to public sewer when it is extended closer
to the site. The timing for such an extension is unknown.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request:
The approved location of the building included a basement that the applicant has since realized is cost
prohibitive for the church to build. As a result, the applicant decided to eliminate building the proposed
basement and relocate the building on a portion of the site where it is easier to develop a building at grade.
Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PC Public Hearing 5/4/10
3
The applicant believes this will help the project be more cost effective and easier for them to build. A
smaller building is proposed with fewer seats due to a lower growth rate than what was originally
anticipated.
Planning and Zoning History:
The church was built on the site in 1981, and SP 2004-002 was approved on May 4, 2005 to allow an
expansion of the church facility. SDP2006-002 was suspended on September 29, 2008 because the
approved Special Use Permit had expired. SP2008-057 was approved on March 11, 2009 with conditions to
extend the expired Special Use Permit.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood Five (5).
The Comprehensive Plan supports institutional uses, such as churches in Neighborhood Density
Residential. The site will not be used for residential purposes.
A full Neighborhood Model Analysis was completed with the approved SP2004-002. However, the following
Neighborhood Model principle is relevant to this request:
Pedestrian Access – Proposed condition number 3 describes an area across the front of the site to allow
the future installation of a sidewalk. This issue is discussed later in the report.
The following Neighborhood Model principle is not met:
Relegated Parking – Existing parking is not relegated and the applicant would like to retain this parking lot.
Proposed parking is an extension of the existing parking area and will be located in front of the proposed
building. With the relocation of the proposed building to the southern portion of the site, the parking area is
the first thing you see as you enter the site; however, visibility from Old Lynchburg Road is limited. Parking
was not relegated on the previously approved plan.
Waivers:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
attached critical slopes waiver request and analysis from the applicant and comments by staff address the
provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). See Attachment G for the applicant’s critical slopes waiver request and
analysis. See Attachment H for staff comment regarding review of and recommendation for approval. Staff
has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5.3 below:
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; It does not appear possible to develop this property
without this waiver, and the critical slopes are not a significant resource.
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section
4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; Disturbing the critical slopes to the extent necessary at the existing
entrance to the property, near the perimeter of the exi sting parking areas will facilitate entrance
construction. The impact of critical slopes disturbed is minimal and most of the areas being disturbed
are man-made from previous development.
C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding
the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes
would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or The property is somewhat long with very hilly
terrain. The property has critical slopes primarily at the front and rear of the site. Because of the steep
areas located on this site, the applicant was challenged in terms of locating a building on the property.
By using the existing parking area, and locating the proposed building at the southern end of the site,
the applicant is minimizing the amount of disturbance to critical slopes on the property.
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. Granting this waiver will
permit construction of a church that will serve the surrounding community. The amount of disturbance is
fairly minimal and much of the slopes are man-made from previous development.
Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PC Public Hearing 5/4/10
4
Staff Recommendation:
Staff review has identified the request for a Critical Slopes Waiver and has identified the following favorable
factors:
Favorable factors:
1. This waiver will allow site improvements and improvements to the church building, which will serve the
surrounding community.
2. By disturbing the critical slopes to the extent necessary to construct the building and parking lot , the
applicant will leave a significant portion of the critical slopes at the rear and front of the site –
undeveloped and undisturbed.
Staff review has identified no unfavorable factors that would result from granting this waiver.
After considering these factors, staff recomm ends approval of this waiver.
Staff Comment:
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
No detriment to adjoining properties is anticipated from change in building location for the church currently
exists on the property.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the zoning district is not proposed to change with the change in location of the proposed
building.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The R-2 and R-4 zoning district are intended for residential uses but allows for churches by special use
permit if sited appropriately. The church is viewed as a use supportive to Albemarle County residents in all
residential zones.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
By-right uses in the R-2 district are single family and cluster development, electric, gas, oil and
communication facilities, accessory uses and buildings including home occupations and storage buildings,
temporary construction uses, public uses and buildings, tourist lodgings, homes for developmentally
disabled persons, stormwater management facilities and Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service
facilities. By-right uses in the R-4 district are the same as previously mentioned for R-2 including, duplex
housing, townhouses, attached houses and quadruplexes. When sited appropriately, churches are viewed
as “in harmony” with the permitted uses of this district. Staff believes the church use is sited appropriately.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
There are no additional regulations relating to churches.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use
permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in the location requested. There is no
safety concern with the proposed church use. VDOT comments are attached and all items can be resolved
at the site plan stage. (See Attachment I) Regarding future pedestrian access, the approved plan showed a
sidewalk area to be graded in conjunction with the installation of other improvements on the site ; however,
with revisions to the plan, the level of grading and installation of other improvements on the site where
originally intended will no longer be necessary. The area at the front of the site that is most appropriate for a
sidewalk is adjacent to Old Lynchburg Road. There is a guard rail in this area and then the land slopes
steeply down a hill making it difficult to install a sidewalk with street trees. The need for pedestrian access is
still appropriate. As noted throughout this staff report, this site has some difficult terrain. As shown on the
plan, the applicant will reserve an area across the front of the site to allow the future installation of a
sidewalk as well as dedicate any necessary right of way and easements.
Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PC Public Hearing 5/4/10
5
Summary:
The purpose of this request is to change the layout of the approved SP2008-057 plan to include a new,
relocated building and parking lot. The primary change to this request is that the applicant relocated the
church building in order to build the building at grade instead of on fill. This was done as a cost savings
measure for this project.
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The special use permit provides an institutional use, which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan on
Neighborhood Density Residential.
2. Accommodation is made for a possible future road, which could connect to the adjacent property
(Southwood Mobile Home Park).
3. The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed.
4. No ordinance changes have taken place which would affect development of the site.
Staff finds the following factor unfavorable to this request:
1. The parking area is not relegated on the site.
2. Circulation shown on the plan does not meet County standards; however, it can be corrected at the site
plan stage.
3. The church does not propose to connect to public sewer at this time; however, it will connect when
sewer lines are brought closer to the site.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of SP 2009-029, Charlottesville Kingdom Hall with the following revisions to the
originally approved conditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled Kingdom Hall of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses prepared by Hardee Johnston, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect , Page T.1 dated
January 9, 2006, Revised 12-08-08 and page C. 2 dated January 2, 2006, Revised 1-1-09 Balzer and
Associates, Inc., Sheet No. 1 of 1 dated 11-16-2009 (hereinafter, the "Concept Plan"). In addition, the
following elements shall be in strict accord with [or “conform to”] the Concept Plan: the relationship of
parking areas to building areas, building areas to the street, location of the area for sidewalk dedication
and reservation of area for the extension of the Southern Parkway;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) one (1) auditoriums with one hundred
seventy-five (175) ninety (190) seats in each;
3. The final site plan shall show an area to be graded across the front of the site to allow the future
installation of a sidewalk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final site plan shall include a note
reserving the proposed sidewalk easement and a five (5) foot right-of-way area for future
dedication. The area for dedication shall allow for a minimum width of a five (5) foot sidewalk and which
shall meet all applicable VDOT and County standards per Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The sidewalk area shall be graded in conjunction with the installation of other improvements on the site
required by the site plan. The sidewalk area shall be graded in compliance with the grading standards
imposed by the agent. Upon request by the County, the sidewalk area shall be dedicated for public
use. The owner shall grant all necessary temporary construction easements to allow the sidewalk to
be installed;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special us e
permit; and
5. Construction of the development plan referenced in Condition 1. above shall commence by March 11,
2013 [insert date 4 years after date of BOS approval] or this special use permit shall expire.
Waiver
Staff recommends: Approval of the critical slopes waiver request.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Zoning Map
Attachment B – Vicinity Map
Attachment C – Concept Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, dated November 16, 2009
Attachment D – Approved Development Plan, C.2, dated January 2, 2006, revised, January 1, 2009
Attachment E – Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 3, 2009
Attachment F – Board of Supervisors’ Action letter to Hardee Johnston, dated March 27, 2009
Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PC Public Hearing 5/4/10
6
Attachment G – Critical Slopes Waiver Request letter to Claudette Grant, dated March 12, 2010
Attachment H – Critical Slope Waiver Comment from Glenn Brooks, dated March 19, 2010
Attachment I – Electronic mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated April 23, 2010
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 4, 2010
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2009-00029 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PROPOSED: Modify layout of approved plan (SP2008-057) to include a new building and parking lot
location. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-2 residential - 2 units per acre and R-4 Residential - 4
units/acre.
SECTION: Sections 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for Churches.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small -scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 5.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 665 Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset
Avenue Extended.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/51
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
The applicant is requesting to modify the layout of the approved plan (SP-2008-057) to include a new
building and parking lot location. The special use permit request allows for a Church in the residential
districts.
The applicant’s request to allow a church in a residential district is unchanged from the approved special
use permit (SP2008-057).
● The approved special use permit included an 8,500+ square foot, one story building with a basement
and two auditoriums, each seating 175 people.
● The applicant has requested to change to a 5,000 square foot, single–story building, which seats 190
people.
This request includes the following changes: a smaller building and a parking lot in a different location.
The proposed changes will allow a less costly new church building.
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The special use permit provides an institutional use, which is supported by the Comprehensive
Plan on Neighborhood Density Residential.
2. Accommodation is made for a possible future road, which could connect to the adjacent property
(Southwood Mobile Home Park ).
3. The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed.
4. No ordinance changes have taken place which would affect development of the site.
Staff finds the following factor unfavorable to this request:
1. The parking area is not relegated on the site.
2. Circulation shown on the plan does not meet County standards; however, it can be corrected at
the site plan stage.
3. The church does not propose to connect to public sewer at this time; however, it will connect
when sewer lines are brought closer to the site.
The two issues relate to circulation and lack of connection to public sewer. Circulation of vehicles near the
drop off area of the building appears to be tight. There may need to be some redesign of this area during
the site plan stage. Staff believes this issue can be addressed at the site plan stage. As discussed with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
previous requests, this site is not currently served with public sewer. The difficult situation regarding
location of the closest existing public sewer and the logistics of connecting under Old Lynchburg Road
continue to make this issue difficult to resolve. The closest sewer connection is 400’ away but across Old
Lynchburg Road, which would be difficult and costly to bore through. There is an older conn ection in the
adjacent Southwood Development; however, that location is 2,000’ away. It is expected that the church
will connect to public sewer when it is extended closer to the site. The timing for such an extension is
unknown.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2009-029, Charlottesville Kingdom Hall with the revisions to the
originally approved conditions as noted in the staff report. Staff recommends: Approval of the critical
slopes waiver request.
The primary changes to the conditions are minor revisions and corrections that relate to the revised plan.
The proposed sidewalk area shown on the approved plan was to be graded in conjunction with the
installation of other improvements on the site. This has been revised because some of the original
grading and installation of other improvements on the site will no longer be necessary. The area that is
most appropriate for a sidewalk is at the front of the site adjacent to Old Lynchburg Road. A guardrail is
located here and the land slopes steeply down the hill at the end of the guardrail making installation of a
sidewalk with street trees difficult. The applicant has agreed to reserve an area across the front of the
site to allow the future installation of a sidewalk.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Kamptner noted that every time this request has come before the board there has been a comment
about connection to the public sewer. In the past there was never a condition that provided for the timing
for their connection. It was always tied into other developments and when the sewer line was in close
proximity to them when the Authority regulations may require connection. He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Grant replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Bill Moore, Civil Site Design Engineer with Balzer and Associates, said that others present were Mr. Lupo,
the architect for the project, and Mr. Sansell, representing the congregation. He thought that all of the
issues in the staff report have been worked out with staff. Regarding the unfavorable conditions
regarding the drop off area they don’t have any problem working with staff to make that a little more
amenable.
Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the 2,000’ connection to the sewer line at Southwood was a gravity flow.
Mr. Moore replied that it would go by gravity down the Old Lynchburg Road.
Mr. Lafferty noted they were proposing a lift station on the property.
Mr. Moore replied as he understands at one point there was a proposal to do an on-site pump and go
across existing Old Lynchburg Road to a man hole on the other side. He thought that there was property,
but no easements to make that connection.
Mr. Franco asked how this entrance will work if the Southern Parkway is ever built because of the
reservation on the property. He asked if there is any preplanning they should be doing for that. It
appears that the entrance will be in the radius of the proposed new road. He was trying to figure out how
that would be accommodated in the future.
Ms. Grant replied that is something they talked about. At whatever point that road would be installed or
built then they would have to relook at the entrance. It would have to be redone.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
Mr. Franco suggested that it looks like they ought to pay attention to that as part of the site development
so that they are not redoing lots of parking and other things if and when that ever occurs.
Ms. Grant agreed.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter brought before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action.
Ms. Porterfield asked how to add Mr. Franco’s comment into the conditions.
Mr. Franco said that it does not need to be a condition, but just something that everybody is aware of.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there has already been some discussion about it. The problem is that they
are talking about a road that has no projected date. To actually make them change the plan at a great
expense to try to accommodate that connection before they have a road that they can even predict when
it will be built would really be somewhat unfair. They know that there would have to be a way to realign
that entrance to actually come off of the connector road rather than off of 5 th Street. Staff has talked to
engineering staff and it can be done, but it is just something that would have to be done as part of that
connector road project.
Mr. Franco said if he was the applicant he would at least want to make sure that his parking spaces were
impacted to the least amount possible because he would want to maintain his use during the construction
period of that parkway. He wanted to put everybody on notice that they should be paying attention to
that. It does not need to be a condition.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2009-00029, Charlottesville
Kingdom Hall, with revisions to the originally approved conditions as recommended by staff.
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled Kingdom
Hall of the Jehovah’s Witnesses prepared by Hardee Johnston, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect ,
Page T.1 dated January 9, 2006, Revised 12-08-08 and page C. 2 dated January 2, 2006,
Revised 1-1-09 Balzer and Associates, Inc., Sheet No. 1 of 1 dated 11-16-2009 (hereinafter, the
"Concept Plan"). In addition, the following elements shall be in strict accord with [or “conform to ”]
the Concept Plan: the relationship of parking areas to building areas, building areas to the street,
location of the area for sidewalk dedication and reservation of area for the extension of the
Southern Parkway;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) one (1) auditoriums with one
hundred seventy-five (175) ninety (190) seats in each;
3. The final site plan shall show an area to be graded across the front of the site to allow the future
installation of a sidewalk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final site plan shall include a note
reserving the proposed sidewalk easement and a five (5) foot right-of-way area for future
dedication. The area for dedication shall allow for a minimum width of a five (5) foot sidewalk and
which shall m eet all applicable VDOT and County standards per Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The sidewalk area shall be graded in conjunction with the installation of other
improvements on the site required by the site plan. The sidewalk area shall be graded in
compliance with the grading standards imposed by the agent. Upon request by the County, the
sidewalk area shall be dedicated for public use. The owner shall grant all necessary temporary
construction easements to allow the sidewalk to be installed;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit; and
5. Construction of the development plan referenced in Condition 1. above shall commence by March
11, 2013 [insert date 4 years after date of BOS approval] or this special use permit shall expire.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00029 will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined
with a recommendation for approval.
Action on Waiver:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the critical slopes waiver of
Section 4.2 as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Loach noted that the critical slopes waiver was approved. This is not a matter that required Board
approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 14, 2010
Richard E. Carter
414 Park Street
Charlottesville, Va 22904
RE: SP200900035 St. Anne's Playing Field
Tax Map Parcel 0600000000240
Dear Mr. Carter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 4, 2010, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use on TMP 60-24 shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled
“UVAF Property/Plan (Leased) Athletic Field/Gravel Parking Area,” Revision 1, prepared by Gloeckner
Engineering/Surveying, Inc., and dated February 10, 2010 (hereinafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development:
The location of the playing field and overflow parking
as shown on the Conceptual Plan, except that the landscaping and fencing may be modified to meet
the requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the location of the crosswalks on
Faulconer Drive may be changed to meet the requirements of the Virginia Dept. of Transportation
(VDOT). Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan, which do not conflict with the elements above,
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The playing field shall not be lit.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 9, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Judith Wiegand
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Michael E. Waylett
2132 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, Va 22903
University Of Virginia Foundation
P O Box 400218
Charlottesville Va 22904
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2009-00035, St. Anne’s Playing
Field
Staff: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 4, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owners: University of Virginia Foundation. Applicant: St. Anne’s-Belfield, represented by
Richard E. Carter, Zunka, Milnor, Carter & Inigo, Ltd..
Acreage: 13.5 acres of a 265-acre tract.. Special Use Permit: Section 13.2.2.5, Private
Schools. This special use permit is related to SP
2007-00053, St. Anne’s Belfield-New Academic
Buildings.
TMP: TMP 60-24 (Portion)
Location: 1600 feet from the intersection of Faulconer
Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 offramp from the 250
Bypass on property adjacent to the existing school. (See
Attachment A).
Existing Zoning and By-right use: R-1 Residential,
which allows private schools by special use permit.
Entrance Corridor Overlay District (US Route 29/250
Bypass (Monacan Trail/ Richmond Road)
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: Yes
Proposal: To construct a new playing field, spectator
area, and overflow parking. This playing field was
originally proposed to be located on the main school
campus under SP 2007-00053. The school proposes to
move the field across Faulconer Drive and to construct a
spectator area and overflow parking with the new field.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Neighborhood
Density Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and
schools and other small-scale non-residential uses, in
Neighborhood 7.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 7
Character of Property: The portion of TMP 60-24
between Faulconer Drive and the 250 Bypass is an
undeveloped, grassy area.
Use of Surrounding Properties: St. Anne’s main
campus is north across Faulconer Drive from the
proposed field location. The property on the west side
of Faulconer Drive is largely undeveloped, except for
a few, scattered homes and outbuildings. The 250
Bypass forms the eastern and southern boundaries of
the property. The main campus of the University of
Virginia is located east across the 250 Bypass from
the subject property.
Factors Favorable:
Staff has identified the following factors that are
favorable to this application:
1. There will be less environmental impact on St.
Anne’s campus because the new location requires
less grading and no trees will need to be removed.
2. Moving the playing field to the proposed location will
result in preservation of more of the buffering
vegetation along the 250 Bypass (the original
location).
3. The new field location will be easier for attendees at
events to locate.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to
this application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: JUDITH C. WIEGAND, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 4, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not scheduled
SP 2009-035, St. Anne’s Playing Field
PETITION
PROJECT: SP2009-00035, St. Anne's Playing Field
PROPOSED: Allow playing field, spectator area, and overflow parking on 13.5 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-1, Residential
SECTION: 13.2.2.5 which allows private schools by Special Use Permit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood density residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale
non-residential uses in Neighborhood 7.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X No____
LOCATION: 1600 feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 off
ramp from the 250 Bypass
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portion of TMP 60-24
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA
The portion of TMP 60-24 between Faulconer Drive and the 250 Bypass is an undeveloped
grassy area. This area is south across Faulconer Drive from St. Anne’s-Belfield Lower School
campus. The area to the west across Faulconer Drive is undeveloped, except for a few residences
and outbuildings.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
On April 13, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit (SP2007-00053) for
changes to St. Anne’s-Belfield Lower School campus (See Attachment D, Action Letter). One of
the facilities included in that special use permit was a new playing field. This application
(SP2009-00035) relates to SP2007-00035, but is on a separate parcel. It is proposed to allow
construction of the new playing field, along with a spectator area and unpaved parking, in a new
location across Faulconer Drive from the main school campus. Most of those attending sports
events at the new field will park in a lot on the main campus. The parking to be constructed
along with the proposed field is for overflow or “as needed” parking. Locating the playing field
in the new location will result in less environmental disturbance because the new location is a
grassy field that is used occasionally for overflow parking now. The former location would place
the field very close to the edge of school property, would require removal of mature trees, would
involve more grading on the site, and would be closer to the 250 Bypass. Proximity to the 250
Bypass Entrance Corridor would make screening to fulfill Entrance Corridor requirements more
difficult.
The applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum design requirements for parking lots in
order to allow the lot to be surfaced with pervious materials. The County Engineer has reviewed
the waiver request and has indicated that the waiver can be approved. Details will be processed
with the site plan.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has asked for this special use permit in order to make construction simpler and to
avoid disturbing the buffer along the eastern edge of the campus between the school and the 250
Bypass. The location proposed in this special use permit application is also closer to Faulconer
Drive; those coming to sporting events at the field will not have to drive as far into the campus in
order to reach the new field.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
St. Anne’s-Belfield is currently operating under SP2007-00053, St. Anne’s Belfield-New
Academic Buildings, which was approved on August 13, 2008.
The property on which the proposed playing field is to be built, a portion of TMP 60-24, is
owned by the University of Virginia Foundation and is zoned R-1, Residential. This portion has
been zoned R-1 since the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980.
BACKGROUND
On April 29, 2008, the Planning Commission approved SP2007-00053, to permit construction of
new academic buildings and related facilities on St. Anne’s existing lower school campus. One
of the fields proposed to be constructed was to be located to the east of the existing football field
in an area where a building was to be demolished. Since that special use permit was approved,
the school has reached an agreement with the University of Virginia Foundation to lease a
portion of TMP 60-24 and to locate the field and overflow parking facilities in that area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Neighborhood Density Residential,
which includes schools, universities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities and
utilities. The requested Special Use Permit is consistent with this designation.
The Comprehensive Plan also recommends to:
Maintain or establish a buffer [along] the Route 250 bypass to protect the visual quality
and character of the area as seen from the roadway. (page 76)
This buffer is also shown on the Open Space Plan map.
The Neighborhood Model: This special use permit application amendment would allow
construction of a playing field with spectator area and an overflow parking lot. A Neighborhood
Model analysis was conducted as part of the approval process for SP 2007-00053, St. Anne’s-
Belfield New Academic Buildings, which allowed construction of new buildings and other
facilities on the main school campus. Staff has determined that this new application would only
change the location of one athletic field, so a complete Neighborhood Model analysis is not
necessary for this amendment. The only principle that is relevant to the changes in the
amendment is Pedestrian Orientation. The applicant has shown pedestrian paths and crosswalk
locations on the concept plan, so this principle is met.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1: 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,
The proposed location for the playing field, spectator area, and parking lot is in an
undeveloped area adjacent to the existing lower school campus. Other than the school,
the nearest structures are far enough away that potential noise from games being played
will not affect residents. Further, the 250 Bypass separates the field from the main
campus of the University of Virginia. Traffic issues were addressed during approval of
SP 2007-00053 and have not changed with the new field location. Locating the playing
field and other facilities in this area will not be a detriment to adjacent properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The school is compatible with the R-1, Residential zoning district, so the proposed
playing field, spectator area, and parking lot are not expected to change the character of
the district. Since there is almost no surrounding development, no change in character
should result from construction of these facilities.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The intent of the R1-Residential District is to recognize the existence of previously
established low density residential districts, to provide incentives for clustering of
development along with various types of amenities, and to provide for low density
residential development in the urban area. Private schools are allowed in Residential
districts by special use permit approved by the Board of Supervisors. Granting this
request for the playing field and related facilities will support continuing programs at St.
Anne’s-Belfield. Providing schools in residential areas can be a service to the area and an
amenity for the surrounding neighborhoods.
The school also adjoins the 250 Bypass, one of the County’s Entrance Corridors. So, the
proposed development must meet the requirements of the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. The intent of that district is to protect the county’s natural, scenic and historic,
architectural and cultural resources. The County’s design planner has indicated that the
proposed playing field and overflow parking can be treated in a way that will produce an
appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor. The landscaping and fencing shown on
the concept plan may require revisions to achieve this appearance. The conditions of
approval have been written to allow modifications to the concept plan to meet the
requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The applicant will have to obtain
ARB approval prior to site plan approval.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The primary use in an R-1 district is single-family homes. Schools are permitted in
residential neighborhoods, although St. Anne’s-Belfield has its own campus, rather than
being part of a surrounding neighborhood. Schools contribute to the moral fabric of the
community and are expected in residential districts.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0,
There are no supplemental regulations in Section 5.0 that address private schools.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic and other potential impacts of the school were analyzed during the approval
process for SP2007-00053. Since the amendment to that special use permit would allow
only a small shift in location of facilities, no additional or increased impacts are expected
(See VDOT comments in Attachment C). So, in conjunction with the original special use
permit, this amendment supports the public health, safety and general welfare of the
community.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. There will be less environmental impact on St. Anne’s campus because the new location
requires less grading and no trees will need to be removed.
2. Moving the playing field to the proposed location will result in preservation of more of
the buffering vegetation along the 250 Bypass (the original location).
3. The new field location will be easier for attendees at events to locate.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use
Permit 2009-00035, St. Anne’s Playing Field, with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use on TMP 60-24 shall be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan entitled “UVAF Property/Plan (Leased) Athletic Field/Gravel Parking Area,”
Revision 1, prepared by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc., and dated February 10,
2010 (hereinafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
The location of the playing field and overflow parking
as shown on the Conceptual Plan, except that the landscaping and fencing may be
modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the
location of the crosswalks on Faulconer Drive may be changed to meet the requirements
of the Virginia Dept. of Transportation (VDOT). Minor modifications to the Conceptual
Plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The playing field shall not be lit.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Concept Plan, “UVAF Property/Plan (Leased) 200’x350’ Athletic Field/Gravel
Parking Area, No. 1),” prepared by Gloeckner engineering/Surveying Inc., and
dated February 10, 2010.
Attachment C – Comments from VDOT, dated April 8, 2010
Attachment D – Action Letter for SP2007-00053, St. Anne’s-Belfield New Academic Buildings
Return to PC actions letter
Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2009-035 St. Anne’sPlaying Field Staff Report, May 4, 2010 7
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2009-035 St. Anne’sPlaying Field Staff Report, May 4, 2010 8
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:31 AM
To: Judith Wiegand
Subject: FW: SP-2009-00035 St. Anne's Playing Field
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Judy,
My comments are in the below e-mail.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
_____________________________________________
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:49 AM
To: 'Judith Wiegand'
Subject: SP-2009-00035 St. Anne's Playing Field
SP-2009-00035 St. Anne's Playing Field
Judy,
I have reviewed this application and my only comment is that the applicant will need to get a Land Use
Permit or revise the existing permit for the addition of the marked crosswalks on the State Maintained
Road.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2009-035 St. Anne’sPlaying Field Staff Report, May 4, 2010 9
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2009-035 St. Anne’sPlaying Field Staff Report, May 4, 2010 10
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 4, 2010
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2009-00035 St. Anne’s Playing Field
PROPOSED: Allow playing field, spectator area, and overflow parking on 13.5 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-1
SECTION: 13.2.2.5 which allows private schools by Special Use Permit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood density residential (3 -6 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in
Neighborhood 7.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 1600 feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 off ramp from
the 250 Bypass
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portion of TMP 60-24
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(See staff report from the July 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting)
(Judith Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for special use
permit, SP-2009-00035 St. Anne’s Playing Field.
The applicant requests a special use permit to allow the r elocation of a playing field proposed for
the main campus to a new parcel across Faulconer Drive, and to include a spectator area and an
“as needed” parking lot.
This playing field was part of special use permit 2007-00053, approved by the Board of
Supervisors on August 13, 2008. It was a part of a number of new facilities and an increase in the
student population on this campus of St. Anne’s.
The school is now requesting a special use permit to move the field, a spectator area, and an as -
needed parking lot across Faulconer Drive to a 13.5-acre portion of TMP 60-24 that the school is
leasing from the University of Virginia Foundation.
Both the main campus of St. Anne’s and the portion of TMP 60-24 where the field would be
located are zoned R-1, Residential
Favorable Factors:
1. There will be less environmental impact on St. Anne’s campus because the new location requires
less grading and no trees will need to be removed.
2. Moving the playing field to the proposed location will result in preservation of more of t he
buffering vegetation along the 250 Bypass (the original location).
3. The new field location will be easier for attendees at events to locate.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this application.
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions recommended in the staff
report.
The first conditions relates to the fact that what is built will be in general accord with the
conceptual plan as presented. There are two exceptions in it. One is to accept that the
landscaping and the fencing may be modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural
Review Board. The other is to allow a possible variation in the location of those cross walks as
noted because cross walks must meet the requirements of the Virginia Dep artment of
Transportation. That will be reviewed at the time of the site plan.
The second condition is that the playing field shall not be lit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant
invited to come forward.
Richard Carter, representative for request, said that four of the team m embers present were David Lowry,
and Mike Waylett, officials with St. Anne’s; Kirk Gloeckner, engineer ; and Tom Parquet, with the
construction company building the current project. They are in the midst of a project right now that will
move the middle school to what is now the lower school site. The expanded site will contain both the
lower school and the middle school. They agree with the staff report and accept the conditions. The
previously approved site provides a new playing field and parking. They want to move this location to a
better site, which is a grassy almost level field, that will require very little land disturbance. The previously
approved site is very close to the edge of the school property and will require more grading with the
removal of mature trees in order to put in the playing field. It is also closer to the 250 By Pass making
screening more difficult. This special use permit will cause no more traffic. There will be better parking for
the overflow parking. This request is just moving the playing field from point A to point B.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the
public hearing was closed and the matter brought before the Planning Commission for further discussion
and action.
Ms. Monteith noted that there are other advantages for the occupants of the playing field because it will
be a lot quieter and the air quality will be better. .
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2009-00035, St. Anne’s
Playing Field with the conditions recommended by staff.
1. Development of the use on TMP 60-24 shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Pl an
entitled “UVAF Property/Plan (Leased) Athletic Field/Gravel Parking Area,” Revision 1, prepared
by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc., and dated February 10, 2010 (hereinafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
The location of the playing field and overflow parking
as shown on the Conceptual Plan, except that the landscaping and fencing may be modified to
meet the requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the location of the
crosswalks on Faulconer Drive may be changed to meet the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT). Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan, which do not
conflict with the elements above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The playing field shall not be lit.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00035, St. Anne’s Playing Field will go before the Board of Supervisors on
a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 14, 2010
Larry Hatfield
555 Gest Street
Cincinnati, Oh 45203
RE: ZMA200900004 National College Relocation
Tax Map Parcel 032000000022L1
Dear Mr. Hatfield:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 4, 2010, recommended approval of
the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
- Remove on the south side of the Rezoning Plan the reference to a connector road and replace with a
reference to a future pedestrian connection. This will allow the location to be held as a reservation so that it
is not a requirement of the rezoning.
Note: Staff will confirm that the radius to make a right hand turn from US 29 southbound into the
National College entrance is sufficient to permit a semi-trailer truck to turn into the Townsend
property. If the radius is not sufficient, an adjustment will be made to the proffered plan before
this matter goes to the Board.
Waivers
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission approved waivers to the minimum yard requirements (Section
26.10.c) and critical slopes (Section 4.2) based upon the findings in the staff report. [THIS IS NOT A MATTER
THAT REQUIRES BOARD APPROVAL.]
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 9, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Judith Wiegand
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Patrick Kennard W/ National College
1313 East Main Street
Salem, Va 24153
Freeman, Madeline S
3040 John Wayland Highway
Dayton Va 22821
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2009-00004, National
College Relocation
Staff: Judith Wiegand, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 4, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be scheduled.
Owner(s): Corolla Management Corporation Applicant: Larry Hatfield, K4Places,
representing National College
Acreage: 6.34 acres Rezone from: R-1, Residential to LI, Light
Industrial, with proffers
TMP: TM 32, Parcel 22L1
Location: 3926 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville,
VA, approximately 1100 feet south of the
intersection with Lewis & Clark Drive (See
Attachment A. Location Map)
By-right use: Residential, one unit per acre.
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Construct a new facility and
relocate the school from present location in
Charlottesville in order to allow for school
growth.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
DA (Development Area): Community of
Hollymead
Comp. Plan Designation: Industrial Service,
industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no
residential use)
Character of Property: Undeveloped except
for a vacant, abandoned house and driveway at
the eastern end of the property. Property has
rolling terrain, a spring, a creek, and a wetland
area. Approximately one-third of the property at
the western end is wooded. There are several
informal paths running through the property.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The property
to the east is a retail use, Fabrics Unlimited. The
property to the south is the Cedar Hill Mobile
Home Park. The property to the north is
Townsend Landscaping, and the property to the
west is part of the University of Virginia Research
Park.
Factors Favorable:
1. Rezoning this parcel will enable
construction of a scientific and technical
educational facility that will serve the entire
region.
2. The proposed changes to the entrance to
this site will improve the flow of traffic into
and out of both the proposed college facility
and the retail store.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this
application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning, with proffers.
Staff also recommends approval of the buffer disturbance and critical slopes waivers.
STAFF PERSON: JUDITH C. WIEGAND, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 4, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To Be Scheduled
ZMA 2009-00004, National College Relocation
Buffer Disturbance Waiver
Critical Slopes Waiver
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2009-00004, National College Relocation
PROPOSAL: Rezone 6.34 acres from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows residential (1
unit/acre) to LI – Light Industrial – industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to
allow relocation of business college facilities.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service—warehousing,
light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and Neighborhood Density Residential—residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such
as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses, in the Community of
Hollymead.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 3926 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville, VA, approximately 1100 feet south of the
intersection with Lewis & Clark Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 32-22L1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
A vacant, abandoned house and driveway are located at the eastern end of the property. The rest of the
parcel is undeveloped rolling terrain, with a spring, creek, and wetland area. Approximately one-third of
the property at the western end is wooded. There are several informal paths running through the
property.
The property is surrounded by a landscaping company to the north (Townsend), the University of
Virginia Research Park to the west, the Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park to the south, and Fabrics
Unlimited to the east. Access to the proposed National College site is via a narrow strip of property that
connects the site to US 29.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
National College proposes to construct a 20,000 square foot, two-story building and associated parking.
The number of parking spaces exceeds the maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, but has been
approved by the Zoning Administrator. The number is based on the number needed at several other
National College facilities. Approximately one-third of the property at the western end of the parcel,
which is now wooded, is not proposed for development at this time. A pedestrian connection to the
parcel to the south is included, as is a vehicular interconnection to the north.
A future expansion of both the building (8,000 square feet) and of the parking area is shown on the
rezoning plan and would be approved as part of this rezoning.
The proposed educational facility will provide support in the form of trained employees for the
surrounding and nearby uses, including the University of Virginia Research Park and the Rivanna
Station military base. Graduates of the school would also be eligible for employment at many other
businesses in the region.
National College has designed the Rezoning Plan (See Attachment B) to minimize any impacts on the
adjacent mobile home park. A resident standing on the mobile home park property looking toward the
school would see the top floor of the building, so the scale is similar to what residents would see if the
property developed into residences. The only interconnection proposed between the two parcels is a
pedestrian path, which could be used by residents to walk to the school; no vehicular connection that
might result in additional school traffic through the mobile home park is proposed. While the applicant
is requesting a waiver to enable them to remove some of the trees in the screening buffer between the
college and the residential property, the buffer area will be revegetated (see waiver section below) so
that it screens the view of the site from the mobile home park.
National College has worked with Fabrics Unlimited to redesign and share an entrance off of US 29 and
to revegetate the portion of the hillside to the west of the fabric store that is shared by both properties.
The redesigned entrance consolidates several access points, allowing access for both the store and the
proposed college from the current ―driveway‖ and includes a right-out only exit for the fabric store at
the southern end of their property. The Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the new
entrance and the right-out exit contingent on the County’s approval of the site plan.
Revegetating the hillside will improve the appearance of the hillside from the Entrance Corridor. The
existing vegetation is a stand of Virginia pines. Some of these will be removed for grading and
construction and, when stands of these pines are disturbed, the remaining trees are known to fall within a
few years. So, to be safe and more attractive, the applicant has agreed to remove the trees and revegetate
the hillside.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
National College currently operates a scientific and technical college on US 29 in the City of
Charlottesville. The college would like to expand and has selected the proposed location because it
offers space for a larger building and sufficient parking, as well as additional space for a possible
expansion.
The applicant has chosen to request that the property be rezoned from R-1, Residential to Light
Industrial rather than request a special use permit to operate a private school in a residential zone. Under
the terms of a special use permit, future use of the building would be limited to another private school.
However, rezoning the parcel to Light Industrial would mean that, should the school decide to sell the
facility in the future, the building would be more marketable. The proposed building will be similar to
an office building. Scientific or technical education facilities are a by-right use in Light Industrial
districts (Section 27.2.1.7).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The property has been zoned R-1, Residential since the current Zoning Ordinance and Map were
adopted in 1980.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan – County’s Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Industrial
Service, which allows warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and
conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre), in the Hollymead Community. The
requested zoning map amendment is consistent with these designations.
The draft Places29 Master Plan, which has not yet been adopted, designates this parcel as Office/
Research & Development (R&D)/Flex/Light Industrial, which would allow a range of employment-
generating uses, including office, research, research and development, testing, manufacturing,
warehousing, and distribution. The proposed use as a scientific and technical school would also be in
compliance with this designation.
Open Space Plan/Green Infrastructure Map:
The Open Space Plan does not show any environmental features on this parcel that would require
preservation. The Places29 Parks and Green Systems Map does not show any trails, greenways, or
natural features on this parcel.
The Neighborhood Model: The zoning map amendment is for construction of a college building,
which will be similar to an office building, and associated parking. The following comments indicate
how the proposed project complies with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian
Orientation
Sidewalks are shown on the rezoning plan connecting the building to US 29 and
connecting the building to the side of the parking lot where the handicapped
spaces are located. The connection with US 29 will enable future transit users
to walk from a transit stop on US 29 to the college building. There is also a
pedestrian connection to the parcel to the south, which would allow residents of
the mobile home park to have easier access to the college. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
This is a single use development with no internal streets, however, the applicant
will provide pedestrian connections to the adjacent parcels and pedestrian paths
around the facility. This principle is met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
A vehicular and pedestrian interconnection is shown on the north side of the
subject property to TMP 32-22B, which would be useful at the time the
northern property redevelops. For topographical reasons, no vehicular
interconnection is proposed to the south, however, the applicant has provided a
pedestrian connection that would enable residents of the mobile home park to
walk to the campus. No interconnection is shown to the west because there is
no development proposed there that would be served by an interconnection and
constructing an interconnection would preclude preservation of the existing
wooded area. This principle is met.
Parks and Open
Space
The rezoning plan shows a significant amount of open space at the western end
of the parcel where the natural vegetation is expected to remain. The nearest
parks/open spaces are on the University of Virginia Research Park campus to
the west of this parcel. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
Centers
There is no neighborhood center in the vicinity of the proposed school. There is
a fabric store to the east, a landscaping business to the north, a mobile home
park to the south, and the Research Park to the west. The closest Center
proposed in the draft Places29 Master Plan is the Uptown on Airport Road.
However, no direct road connections are proposed to this center because the
area will not have a grid of streets. So, students and faculty of the school will
need to drive to the Uptown.
Buildings and
Spaces of
Human Scale
The campus is designed as a two-story building (approximately 20,000 square
feet) with a large surface parking lot. The applicant has worked to minimize the
distance from the parking lot to the building. The Architectural Review Board
will be reviewing this proposal and their comments on the elevations and
landscaping will contribute to the development’s human scale. This principle is
met.
Relegated
Parking
Most of the parking is behind the proposed building. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
This is a single institutional use. No residential uses are planned, however, with
the pedestrian interconnection to the south, the college is within walking
distance of the adjacent mobile home park. Since the college will add a
complementary use to a mixed-use area, this principle is met.
Mixture of
Housing Types
and
Affordability
There will be no homes on this site, so this principle does not apply.
Redevelopment The existing house on the property is vacant and has been vandalized. It will be
demolished to make room for the college building. This principle is met.
Site Planning
that Respects
Terrain
The site is a difficult one to develop due to its topography. The site contains
several areas of critical slopes, a spring/creek/wetland area in the center of the
site, and a wooded area at the western edge of the site. Most types of
development would require a critical slopes waiver because of the distribution
of critical slopes around the site. The rezoning plan reflects the applicant’s
efforts to locate the building and parking to minimize the impact on these
slopes (see the waiver section below), as well as to preserve both the
spring/creek/wetland area and the wooded area. During the review of this
application, the applicant worked with different site designs to minimize
impacts on the property while keeping the cost of the project within budget.
This principle is met.
Clear
Boundaries with
the Rural Areas
This project is not near a boundary with the Rural Areas, so this principle does
not apply.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
The following sections, shown in italic type, are excerpts from Section 27, Light Industrial, of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff comments below each quotation are given in regular type:
LI districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning
map to permit industries, offices and limited commercial uses which are compatible with and do
not detract from surrounding districts.
The proposed light industrial use, a scientific and technical college, is a by-right use in Light
Industrial districts. Because the proposed building will be similar to an office building, the
proposed facility will also work well with adjacent uses, the mobile home park, fabric store,
landscaping business, and research park.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that a screening buffer be provided where an industrial district
abuts a residential district. The Rezoning Plan shows a vegetated buffer between the National
College property and the Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. The applicant has applied for a waiver
to disturb this buffer in order to remove five trees that might be damaged during construction of
the school facility (see section on Waivers below). The applicant has indicated that areas where
trees are removed will be revegetated.
It is intended that LI districts may be established in areas having all of the following
characteristics:
- Areas served by water and sewer facilities or if such facilities are reasonably available;
The subject parcel is in an area that is not currently served by public water and sewer. It is,
however, in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. On the rezoning plan, the applicant
shows two possible alternatives for sewer connections and staff has verified with the ACSA staff
that these two alternatives are valid (See Attachment E).
- Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary road improved to standards
approved by the county; and
The subject parcel has access from US 29. This entrance has been approved by VDOT subject to
County approval of the site plan (See Attachment D). The college will share this entrance with
the fabric store, an improvement that supports VDOT’s access management regulations. The
access proposal approved by VDOT also includes a right-in, right-out only exit at the southern
end of the fabric store property.
In the future, if transit service is provided in the general area, the college’s access from US 29
will make it a prime candidate for transit service.
- Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses with regard to physical
characteristics and relationship to surrounding development.
This proposed Light Industrial district is suitable for the intended use because it is an appropriate
size, it is industrial in nature, and it is compatible with surrounding uses. This portion of the
Hollymead Development Area is intended for industrial uses because of its proximity to other
industrial uses, the airport, and the University of Virginia Research Park. The property to the
north is already zoned Light industrial.
As mentioned previously, the proposed use does not require Light Industrial zoning, but rezoning
the parcel would make the college facility more marketable should the school decide to market
the property in the future.
Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the Light Industrial district.
Public need and justification for the change:
The county has identified a need for additional Light Industrially zoned property. The property to the
north is currently zoned Light Industrial as is the front portion (along US 29) of the parcel to the south.
The western portion of the property to the south is now zoned R-4, Residential and is the location of the
Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. The applicant has provided a buffer between the college building and the
southern edge of the property, as required by the County’s Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is
requesting a waiver of certain parts of the buffer requirement, as described more fully below in the
section on waivers.
Rezoning the subject parcel to Light Industrial will help address the County’s need for more industrially
zoned property and will do so in a way that is compatible with surrounding uses.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources –
The site contains a spring and wetlands area that the applicant has preserved. There are no cultural or
historic resources on the site or in close proximity to the site that will be disturbed by this rezoning or
subsequent construction of the educational facilities. The applicant has requested a waiver in order to
disturb some of the critical slopes on the site, as described more fully below in the section on waivers.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: VDOT has determined that the proposed educational facility does not require a traffic study and
that the number of student/faculty trips can be accommodated within the existing and planned road
improvements (See Attachment D).
Schools – This rezoning does not involve any residential uses, so County schools will not be affected.
Fire and Rescue – The closest station is Station #12, located at 3575 Innovation Drive.
Utilities – water is available to this site. Sewer is not yet available at the site. As discussed above, the
applicant has identified two alternative means of connecting to sewer and will select one at the time the
site plan is prepared (ACSA Comments are included in Attachment E).
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
The new entrance to the fabric store and revegetated hillside will be improvements over current
conditions. The impact on the mobile home park is expected to be minimal because the buffer between
the two properties will screen the mobile home park from the college facility. Since the college facility
will resemble an office building, future uses (should the college move elsewhere) would be office-type
uses that are likely to be compatible with residential uses.
PROFFERS
Attachment C contains the current proffer, which is intended to ensure that the project developed on the
site is essentially the same as the one reviewed as part of this rezoning. The wording has been worked
out by staff and the applicant, in consultation with the County Attorney. The two exceptions referenced
in the first paragraph are provided to ensure that the applicant may expand the building and parking lot
in the future as shown on the rezoning plan and that changes needed to meet requirements of the
Architectural Review Board can be made.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Rezoning this parcel will enable construction of a scientific and technical educational facility
that will serve the entire region.
2. The proposed changes to the entrance to this site will improve the flow of traffic into and out of
both the proposed college facility and the retail store.
Staff has found no factors that are unfavorable to this rezoning:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Zoning Map Amendment 2009-00004, National College Relocation, with
the attached proffer.
WAIVERS
The applicant has requested waivers from two zoning ordinance requirements. [Section 26.10(c)
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS and Section 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES]
1. Waiver from 26.10(c) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
The minimum yard requirements in the industrial districts are as follows:
c. Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including
grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural
areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9-9-92)
1. Waiver by the commission. The commission may waive the prohibition of construction
activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a particular case where the
developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in
an improved site design, provided that: (i) minimum screening requirements are met; and (ii)
existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7-
10-85)
Applicant’s Justification
Even though no construction activity is proposed inside the buffer, construction activity on the site
(outside the buffer) may result in the death of some of the trees in the buffer. The applicant is
requesting permission to remove five trees within the buffer in order to provide an adequate location
to place the building and associated parking lot. The buffer will be landscaped where the vegetation
is removed.
Staff Analysis
The 30-foot buffer is intended to be an undisturbed area between the industrial use and the industrial
district/residential district boundary. The purpose of the buffer is to screen the industrial use from the
adjacent residential property.
Any activity that occurs outside the buffer and disturbs trees within the buffer requires a waiver. In
order for the applicant to construct the building and parking lot around the existing environmental
features and to work with the topography of the site, it will be necessary for the applicant to
construct a retaining wall close to the buffer. Staff is concerned that construction of the retaining
wall and other activities near the buffer might result in the death of trees within the buffer. At staff’s
request, the applicant surveyed the trees within the 30-foot buffer to see which ones might be
disturbed by construction activity. There are 12 trees within the buffer and the applicant has
requested permission to remove five (5) of the trees. The applicant has indicated that areas where
trees are removed would be revegetated.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the minimum buffer yard requirements.
2. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
Staff Comment
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has
submitted a request and justification for the waiver (See Attachment F). Staff has analyzed this
request and believes that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the
disturbance of critical slopes.
The critical slopes areas proposed to be disturbed are not delineated as a significant resource on the
Open Space and Critical Resources Plan.
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon
finding that:
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
It does not appear possible to develop this property without this waiver, and the critical slopes
are not a significant resource.
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
By disturbing the critical slopes to the extent necessary to construct the building and parking lot
on the eastern portion of the site, the applicant will be able to leave a significant portion of the
site—the western end—undeveloped, thereby preserving a resource with greater potential than
the critical slopes.
C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of
critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or
would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
The property is a long, narrow parcel that has critical slopes in several areas, including slopes
around the spring/creek/wetland area near the center of the site. The applicant has worked to
preserve this environmentally sensitive area, which requires that critical slopes in other parts of
the site be disturbed in order to create a building pad and parking area of sufficient size.
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would
be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Granting this waiver will permit construction of an educational facility that will serve the entire
region. Further, allowing critical slopes to be disturbed in other areas of the site will allow
preservation of the spring/creek/wetland area as a amenity.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff review has identified the request for a Critical Slopes Waiver and has identified the following
favorable factors:
Favorable factors:
1. This waiver will enable development of a site that does not appear to be developable without this
waiver, and the critical slopes are not a significant resource.
2. This waiver will allow construction of an educational facility to serve the entire region.
3. By disturbing the critical slopes to the extent necessary to construct the building and parking lot
on the eastern portion of the site, the applicant will be able to leave a significant portion of the
site—the western end—undeveloped, thereby preserving a resource with greater potential than
the critical slopes.
Staff review has identified no unfavorable factors that would result from granting this waiver.
After considering these factors, staff recommends approval of this waiver.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Rezoning Plan
ATTACHMENT C: Current Proffer
ATTACHMENT D: VDOT Comments, November 16, 2009
ATTACHMENT E: ACSA Comments, November 6, 2009
ATTACHMENT F: Applicant’s request for Critical Slopes Waiver, dated March 14, 2010
ATTACHMENT G: Letter from owner of Fabrics Unlimited, dated March 9, 2010
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 4, 2010
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2009-00004 National College Relocation
PROPOSAL: Rezone 6.34 acres from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows residential (1
unit/acre) to LI - Light Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to
allow relocation of business college facilities.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service-warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre)
and Neighborhood Density Residential-residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses, in the Community of Hollymead.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 3926 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville, VA, approximately 1100 feet south of the intersection
with Lewis & Clark Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 32-22L1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Judith Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for ZMA -2009-00004,
National College Relocation.
The applicant requests a rezoning to construct a new facility and relocate the school from its present
location in Charlottesville to allow for school growth. Staff‟s concern with this proposal was to make sure
the buffer between the new proposed industrial zoning and the residential zoning was handled, and it has
been taken care of. National College currently operates a scientific and technical college on US 29 in the
City of Charlottesville. The college would like to expand and has selected the proposed location because
it offers space for a larger building and sufficient parking, as well as additional space for a possible
expansion.
The applicant has chosen to request the property be rezoned from R-1, Residential to Light Industrial
rather than request a special use permit to operate a private school in a residential zone. Under the
terms of a special use permit, future use of the building would be limited to another private school.
However, rezoning the parcel to Light Industrial would mean the building would be more marketable
should the school decide to sell the facility in the future. The proposed building will be similar to an office
building. Scientific or technical education facilities are a by-right use in Light Industrial districts (Section
27.2.1.7).
Staff pointed out the location of the possible inter-parcel interconnection and proposed pedestrian
connection to the mobile home park property. The applicant is preserving the area in the back as a large
wooded area. The applicant has agreed to a proffer, which provides the facility constructed will be in
general accord with the plan in front of the Commission. Staff has asked that all of these things be
considered.
Proffer:
Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Rezoning Plan entitled ”National College,”
prepared by Timmons Group, and dated “February 2, 2010,” (hereinafter, the “Rezoning Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator, except that the landscaping and
fencing may be modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and except
that the owner may expand the building up to 4,000 square feet on each of two floors in the area shown
on the Rezoning Plan and the parking area may be expanded as shown on the Rezoning Plan. To be i n
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
general accord with the Plan, development shall reflect the following central features within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• building orientation;
• building mass, shape, and height;
• location of buildings and structures;
• location of parking areas;
• relation of buildings and parking to the street; and
• environmental features, including the spring, unnamed creek, and existing vegetated
area on the west side of the site
shown on the rezoning plan. Minor modifications of the Plan that do not conflict with the features above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Factors Favorable:
1. Rezoning this parcel will enable construction of a scientific and technical educational facility that
will serve the entire region.
2. The proposed changes to the entrance to this site will improve the flow of traffic into and out of
both the proposed college facility and the retail store.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this rezoning application.
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning, with proffers.
Waiver Buffer:
From 26.10(c) Minimum Yard Requirements
c. Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or
clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9.
The applicant, at staff‟s request, did a tree survey and identified five trees that might be affected. The
applicant would like to take the five trees down, which would require disturbing the buffer to take them out
so they won‟t fall down at some point. The applicant has agreed to revegetate areas where they go into
the buffer. Basically, the only buffer disturbance would be along the side.
Critical Slopes Waiver:
The proposed development will require disturbance of critical slopes. Staff has identified the following
favorable factors:
1. This waiver will enable development of a site that does not appear to be developable without t his
waiver, and the critical slopes are not a significant resource.
2. This waiver will allow construction of an educational facility to serve the entire region.
3. By disturbing the critical slopes to the extent necessary to construct the building and parking l ot
on the eastern portion of the site, the applicant will be able to leave a significant portion of the site
-western end- undeveloped, thereby preserving a resource with greater potential than the critical
slopes.
Staff review has identified no unfavorable factors that would result from granting this waiver.
Staff recommends approval of the buffer disturbance and critical slopes waivers.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked if the owner of the mobile home park has been involved in what is being proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
Ms. Wiegand replied that the owners of the mobile home park have been in several times to review the
plan and talked to staff.
Mr. Loach asked the size of the undeveloped area in the back, and Ms. Wiegand replied that it was about
two acres.
Mr. Loach asked if that land would be available in the future for an additional industrial use.
Ms. Wiegand replied that if the entire parcel was zoned LI the applicant could come back in the future
with another plan for the undeveloped area in the back. There is nothing shown on the current plan.
Mr. Lafferty asked if there would be a problem with the stream setback.
Ms. Wiegand replied this is not a stream designated to have an official buffer on the map because it is in
the development area. The applicant has chosen to stay out of the stream and have it as a nice amenity
for the campus.
Mr. Lafferty noted that the staff report mentioned the future market value in several places. He asked if
there is any way to find out if they are going to stay there very long or just build a building and sell it.
Ms. Wiegand replied that her understanding is the applicants want to build a building and stay there. But,
just as they have found it necessary to move out of the facility in Charlottesville to get more space it could
happen that they want to do that here. The applicant is present tonight and would be happy to answer
that question.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the
Commission.
Larry Hatfield, with K-4Places Architecture and K-4 Construction, represented National College for this
project. He introduced Kimberly Moore, Campus Director, who could answer questions. Members of the
Design Team present include Jeff Dorman, Architect with K4Places; Sam Saunders and John Hash, with
Timmons Engineering. He noted that Ms. Wiegand did a great job of introducing the project. He has been
working with National College for several years on other projects and they have always been very
cooperative. Obviously National College wants to be a positive part of the community.
Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the applicant indicated they will preserve the trees on the western portion of the
property. She questioned if the applicant was willing to proffer that.
Mr. Hatfield replied they plan to build only what they are showing as an expansion area for parking. But,
the western area could be impacted if the facility were to grow. Their plan would be to leave everything
else intact.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it could be added to the proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was already proffered since the plan has been proffered.
Ms. Porterfield questioned with the Light Industrial zoning if the applicant could come back and just mow
the trees down.
Mr. Kamptner replied the proffer would have to be amended if they rezone the property.
Ms. Porterfield said that the plan would have to be amended because it was not in the proffers.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the tree area Ms. Porterfield was asking about is already in the proffer
statement in the last bullet in the second paragraph. It was one of the identified essential simple features
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
of the plan that says, “environmental features, including the spring, unnamed creek, and existing
vegetated area on the west side of the site”.
Ms. Wiegand said that if someone in the future wanted to build something in the vegetated area on the
west side of the site they would have to come back with a new plan and amend the pro ffer to do it. It
would require a rezoning and the Commission would see it again.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the vegetated area means the vegetated area outside of the section that could be
the parking expansion.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes, that is what is intended.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff could just put that in because it was not clear they were talking about that
whole section, which is why she asked the question. It was very clear in the report that they were willing
to do it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that was a detail that staff could modify if necessary.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to confirm that the verbiage/plan reference to the wooded area on the western
portion of the property is clear to ensure that this portion of the property will remain undisturbed by the
applicant or any future owner of the property. That would make it clearer for whoever is sitting on the
Commission next time if the request comes in.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Zoning Administrator would have reviewed this and already d etermined that
would be the case. If the Commission wants clarifying language, staff could certainly put that in there.
Ms. Porterfield noted she was just throwing that out. She asked if staff has any idea how many parking
places would go into the expansion area since it says there will be 160 parking spaces to start with.
Mr. Hatfield replied that his guess would be approximately 30 to 50 additional spaces based on that area.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out the report says it is a pedestrian path to the south going into the boundary of
the mobile home park, but it was indicated as a connection road. She felt they were talking about two
different things. If it really is a pedestrian path maybe that is what should be shown.
Ms. Wiegand said that the vehicle connection is to the parcel to the north and the pedestrian path is the
connection to the south.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it reads “future connector road” on the site plan on sheet C-2.
Ms. Wiegand replied that it was her understanding that it should say connector road.
Mr. Hatfield agreed and noted that was something that they had discussed a while back. The intent was
to provide potential future access to the other properties should they ever be developed, which he thought
was another issue. It would not be National College‟s intent to encourage pedestrian traffic from the
trailer park to their campus, but it is something that they could talk about.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the staff report indicates that it is a pedestrian path, but it is not a road. If staff
is looking for a pedestrian path, then it should show a pedestrian path on the plan and get rid of the
connector road.
Mr. Hatfield agreed.
Ms. Wiegand agreed that it was confusing and staff will work it out with the applicant.
Mr. Hatfield said that the whole idea is to minimize traffic on 29 to some degree. Providing access via the
site on the back side may someday be a means of helping to alleviate some of that traffic, which was his
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
5
understanding of that intent. National College would not want to encourage pedestrian traffic from the
trailer park. There is some concern that there are ATV‟s and other vehicles that use that surrounding
area. They would really like to limit the noise, traffic and danger that are encouraged by that. So they
would really like to limit that access if possible.
Ms. Wiegand said one of the other related issues was the owners of the mobile home park have an
approved special use permit to expand their facilities closer to the boundary they share with National
College. The proposal shows sites all the way up to the line. Therefore, there is not a place to get a road
connection in that area unless they change their plan. Part of what they were talking about at one point
was to have a pedestrian path so they could get to the facility. She had not looked carefully enough at
the plan to see that it still showed the road. The road could be brought up to the line, but on the other side
they would not be able to put in a road based on the approved plans f or the mobile home park.
Ms. Porterfield noted that if there should be a path there, then that is what it should say on the plan. But, if
they don‟t want a path there and it would not be useful, then they should just take it off the plan.
Ms. Wiegand noted that it was suggested that National College could put a gate there if they want it.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the College wants a pedestrian path there.
Mr. Hatfield replied that National College does not want to encourage a pedestrian path. If it is required
by this body, then they would be happy to provide a sidewalk.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that if it was not providing an essential connection the Planning Commission could
always ask it to be removed.
Ms. Porterfield suggested if they don‟t want it, then it should be taken off the plan.
Mr. Lafferty said it seems they should encourage pedestrian activities among neighborhoods. It states
there will be no vehicular connection. He suggested they should encourage at least a bicycle path, which
is a vehicular path. Therefore, he would suggest they consider keeping it in there.
Mr. Loach noted that he did not see it as a neighborhood, but more a business. He agreed with Ms.
Porterfield that it should be defined for what it is. The question is should there be a pedestrian path.
Mr. Lafferty asked if National College intents to put in a fence.
Mr. Hatfield replied that they plan to put a fence on the north side of the site adjacent to Mr. Townsend‟s
property since he had some concerns about his business and protecting the landscaping on the site.
They have no intention of putting a fence on the south side of the property. They could do that, but there
is a grade change and he did not know how useful that would be. It is something they would be happy to
entertain if it is the case. But, once again that is totally contrary to the pedestrian connection and so
would ask what the issue is.
Ms. Wiegand suggested that a pedestrian pathway might enable people in the mobile home park to
attend classes without having to drive all the way out and around.
Mr. Lafferty noted that not only would they have to go out and around, but they would have to go south on
29 and then turn around and go north on 29 to get back in to the site. He thought that it was a good idea
that staff recommended a pedestrian path.
Mr. Hatfield said they would be happy to do that if it was a condition of approval.
Ms. Porterfield said in the staff report it talked about a right-in right-out entrance for the fabric store at the
southern end of their property. She thought that staff just means right -out since the plan shows only a
right-out. One would not be able to get through going north on 29 at that point anyhow.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
6
Ms. Wiegand noted that it was staff‟s mistake and should say right-out only.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if there is a required size for replacement of the trees removed to the south.
She was also concerned with the tall retaining wall of 18.5„. She suggested that either they need to buffer
the retaining wall or step it up like they have done in the past so it is not just a gigantic wall.
Ms. Wiegand noted that only a portion of the wall will be that high. The retaining wall will be going down
so they will be looking over and not at the retaining wall from the mob ile home park. They will be working
with the Architectural Review Board on some of the trees towards the front of the parcel that will be
between the fabric store and the college facility. They are taking out some of the trees and then will
revegetate it.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if taking out the five trees will open the area up for view from the residential
area and if they need to put something reasonably large in to take their place.
Ms. Wiegand replied actually where the buffer area is it is pretty flat going back towards the mobile home
park area. They could screen the area. It is not going to take a 60‟ tree to screen it. Taking out some of
the big trees will leave a few gaps, but if it is reveg etated with some decent sized shrubs it will catch up
within a few years. She did not think it was a serious problem.
Ms. Porterfield voiced concern that it would have been nice to have gotten ARB comments before voting
on the request. If the ARB was going to make major changes to what they were dis cussing it would have
been helpful to know at this stage before voting on the request.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out that ARB staff has reviewed this plan and do not think there will be any
problems with the minor adjustments to the site for the screening of the building in this area.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they had some disagreements last year and she was trying to figure out what
the priority is. She would feel better having the ARB comments first so their comments could be
incorporated into the Commission‟s action.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they were moving towards more administrative review with the ARB, which
was actually before the Board of Supervisors tomorrow. They were trying to do this review for rezoning at
staff level, which reduces the review time. Through staff level review they feel it can be addressed. If it is
a touchy situation, then staff will take it to the ARB. Staff will make sure the review goes as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Franco noted in response to what Ms. Porterfield was saying that he liked this process because
rezoning deals with land use and he would rather see the Commission deal with the land use issue first
and then let the ARB deal with their issues after the land use has been decided. Therefore, he liked the
process they were in.
Mr. Smith invited Mr. Townsend to come forward and address the tree issue. They had requested a 2”
Northern Red Oak and he asked how long it would take for the tree to reach an appreciable height.
Jay Townsend, property owner to the north, replied that a 2” Red Oak is one of the slower growing Oaks.
It is a full landscaped tree in terms of being a 60‟ to 70‟ tree at maturity. It would easily take 20 to 30
years for a 60‟ growth.
Mr. Smith pointed out the reason for asking the ques tion was that the flag pole was so close to the tree
and they would not be able to fly the flag at half mast when the tree grows.
Mr. Hatfield noted that the flag pole would be to the left when looking at the front door.
Mr. Loach invited public comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
7
Jay Townsend said that he has worked with Mr. Hatfield through this process and supports what National
College is trying to do, but had one concern. Should they ever decide to develop their property in a
different way, which was on the north side, National College has put in a road opportunity. It is important
because their landscaping business has tractor trailers come and go on a frequent basis delivering trees,
mulch and a number of things. Should VDOT in their redevelopment close his entrance they would be
using that access. As a point of record it is important that a tractor trailer be able to make that U turn into
their property as they have their own vehicles exiting the property. He thought that has been taken care
of, but he has not confirmed it.
Mr. Hatfield noted that it has been taken care of.
Mr. Townsend noted security concerns about his landscaping inventory along his property line on the
south side with regards to the pedestrian access. His property line is currently wooded and would be
exposed to this development. By creating a pedestrian access all the way through it places even more
importance and value upon the fence that National College has promised to build between the properties.
That will be the only barrier after development to protect his inventory, which is significant at times and
easily carried away.
Ray Beard, owner of Cedars Hill Mobile Home Estates to the south of the property, said he does take
exception with Mr. Townsend‟s suggesting that their residents might walk off with his plants with a
walkway. He was in favor of the proposed rezoning and wholeheartedly accepts their rezoning abilities.
He was not 100 percent in favor of the walkway, but would accept it. He doubts very seriously that his
tenants will attend National College. There was another question asked about whether his tenants had
any input into this and they have not. They are just not interested. At one point there was a possibility of
a connector road running through his property to the industrial park to the south. He did not know where
that is going. There is the possibility if North Pointe is every developed that they will put a traffic light at
North Side Drive. If they do that, then they will close his cross over. Then they have to put in a frontage
road for him to get to the north, which supposedly will be 300‟ off Route 29.
Mr. Loach noted that staff had suggested putting up a gate. He asked if that would solve his problems.
Mr. Beard said that he did not have a large problem with putting up a gate since he thought it would solve
the problem for Mr. Townsend. They have not offered to put a fence on the south property line. If they
just put up a gate it will have to be very large if they don‟t want someone to be able to cross over.
Ms. Porterfield said that it seems that the pedestrian connection is not needed by either side at this point.
Therefore, she could not see the point for pushing it.
Mr. Franco said that the solution is to show it as a potential connection so if it is needed in the future they
don‟t have to amend the rezoning to provide it. He suggested they not make the pedestrian connection a
requirement of the plan as submitted.
Mr. Morris agreed.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for action.
Ms. Porterfield noted her question to staff was if the main entrance is going to be wide enough that they
have an obvious right turn in and if they have the ability to get people right out if they have a semi coming
in.
Ms. Wiegand replied that both VDOT and the County Engineer have looked at it and are comfortable with
it.
Ms. Porterfield asked if their review included the idea about these semi-trailer trucks coming in.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
8
Ms. Wiegand said that the semi-trailer trucks were not discussed with her. Therefore, she could not
answer whether VDOT did because that issue has come up since the staff report was done.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff could take care of that at site review to make sure that the entrance is wide
enough so that they were not backing up traffic on Route 29 while a semi-trailer truck is waiting to come
out. She assumed that when classes let out there could be a significant amount of traffic going out. The
cars could be stacked waiting to go out and the semi-trailer truck could be sitting on Route 29.
Mr. Smith asked staff if there was a dividing island at that entrance location.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he was talking about on Route 29 or into the site.
Mr. Smith replied into the site.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this entrance does not have a median.
Ms. Porterfield said the question was whether it was big enough for a semi -truck to do their swing in with
cars sitting there.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was an actual test that can be done on the radius for different types of vehicles
to make sure that right hand turn into the Mr. Townsend‟s property could be made. Staff will confirm that
radius is available, and if it is not they will have to make an adjustment before it goes to the Board.
Ms. Porterfield moved for approval of ZMA-2009-00004 with the proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if she wanted to note that the connection between this property and the property to
the south will be shown as a future connection not to be deve loped at this time.
Ms. Porterfield agreed, but noted that it was a future walkway and not a road.
Ms. Wiegand suggested for future pedestrian connection, and Ms. Wiegand agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that it might be a good idea to keep it open as a possibility for either. He
thought what Mr. Franco suggested leaves the possibility in case that interconnection might be needed
with future development. It could be done 10 or 20 years down the road between that property to the
south and this property if it were just left as a reserved area for connection.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the elevation was such that putting in a road would be very difficult.
Ms. Wiegand said that it was not impossible. There is some difference in elevation in that area, which was
part of the reason staff wanted the pedestrian rather than the vehicular connection. There is also an
issue that the currently approved site plan for the expansion of the mobile home park shows a solid waste
water treatment facility in the back as well as proposed lots. Therefore, it would be difficult to get a road
connection in there. The connection that Mr. Beard was talking about between North Side and Cyprus as
part of the North Pointe proffers that staff had looked at the possibility of continuing that road and making
it parallel to 29. Basically, it would have been very difficult to go through the rest of the mobile home park
and tie into the college site at any point that would work with the grade s, the proposed buildings and
location of the parking lot. One could leave it so it could be either vehicular or pedestrian, but this staff
thinks it would be very difficult to get a vehicular connection. Staff did look at that.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he stands corrected.
Ms. Porterfield said that if they need a connection in the future based on what happens on both sides of
that lot line they can figure it out when they need it. To put a vehicular connection in a place it can‟t be
built does not make any sense for the Commission to do. She took her motion off the table.
Mr. Morris asked if the waivers could be wrapped into the major motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MAY 4, 2010 – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
9
Mr. Kamptner replied that a separate action should be taken because the waivers are within the
Commission‟s jurisdiction. The two waivers can be taken together in one motion. If the Commission was
inclined to approve the waiver they obviously will be conditioned upon the Board ultimately rezoning the
property.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the two requested waivers for
ZMA-2009-00004, National College Relocation from Section 26.10(c) Minimum Yard Requirements and
Section 4.2 Critical Slopes.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Loach noted that the two waivers were approved. This is not a matter that requires Board approval.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved for approval of ZMA-2009-00004, National College Relocation, with the
proffers and changes to the Rezoning Plan to remove on the South side of the Concept Plan the
reference to a connector road or a path.
Mr. Franco requested an amendment to say “to allow for a future pedestrian connection in the future at
that location to be held as a reservation” so that it is not a requirement of the rezoning, but allows for it to
be done in the future if it makes sense at some point for a pedestrian connection only.
Ms. Porterfield accepted the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Franco seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00004, National College Relocation, will go before the Board of
Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval, as follows:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2009-00004, National College Relocation,
with the proffers and change to the rezoning plan as noted.
- Remove on the south side of the Rezoning Plan the reference to a connector road and replace with a
reference to a future pedestrian connection. This will allow the location to be held as a reservation so
that it is not a requirement of the rezoning.
Note: Staff will confirm that the radius to make a right hand turn from US 29 southbound into
the National College entrance is sufficient to permit a semi-trailer truck to turn into the
Townsend property. If the radius is not sufficient, an adjustm ent will be made to the proffered
plan before this matter goes to the Board.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Places29: A Master Plan
for the Northern Development Areas
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Conduct First Public Hearing on the Master
Plan.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Echols, Wiegand, Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW:
NO
AGENDA DATE:
June 9, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 13, 2010 and on May 5, 2010, the Board held work sessions on the Places29 Master
Plan recommended by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. This public hearing will be the
Board’s first opportunity to obtain input from the public on the Master Plan. No action is anticipated
after this public hearing.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Direction 2: Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources.
Strategic Direction 3: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens
DISCUSSION:
After public comment has been received on the Plan, staff req uests direction from the Board on
components of the plan which will need further information and discussion. To date the Board
requested addition information on the potential expansion areas and on the implementation of the
recommended transportation improvements. Work sessions on these, and any other items
identified by the Board, will be scheduled for the summer.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests direction from the Board about scheduling work sessions on Places29 during the
summer to address any issues raised by the Board or the public during this public hearing.
Return to regular agenda