Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-10Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E NOVEMBER 10, 2010 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 3:30 p.m., Room 241 1. Call to Order. 2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan. 3. Adjourn. 6:00 p.m. – Lane Auditorium – Regular Night Meeting 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. TJPDC Legislative Program, David Blount, Legislative Liaison. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. PROJECT: SP-2010-00021. Carter’s Mountain Trail - Verizon Tier III PWSF (Sign #10). PROPOSED: Replace two (2) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 112 and 175 feet on an existing 185 foot lattice tower on Carters Mountain ((which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/ DENSITY: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 4. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Tax Map Parcel 91-28: on Carters Mountain Trail approximately 1 mile south of the intersection with Thomas Jefferson Parkway (State Route 53). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000002800. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. 9. PROJECT: SP 2010-00022 Heard's Mountain - Verizon Tier III PWSF (Signs #12,16&17). PROPOSED: Replace three (3) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 74 and 90 feet and replace four whip antennas and six panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to twelve panel antennas on an existing 150 foot tower on Heard's Mountain (which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/ DENSITY: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 3. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: On Heard's Mountain Trail (State Route 633) approximately 2 miles west of the Intersection of Heard's Mountain Trail and Hungrytown Road (State Route 698). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 097000000004F0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101110/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 3:30:10 PM] Tentative 10. PROJECT: ZMA 201000006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 (Signs #40,55&56). PROPOSED: Rezone 77.365 acres from Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and R- 15, Residential which allows 15 units/acre to Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and R-15, Residential which allows 15 units/acre in order to amend the application plan, the code of development, and the proffers. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/ DENSITY: Town Center - Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01- 34 dwelling units per acre); Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Hollymead. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Parcels are west of US 29/ Seminole Trail and accessed from Towncenter Drive and the unnamed street connecting Towncenter Drive to Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) in the Hollymead Development Area. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: 03200-00-00-04500, 03200-00-00-05000, and 03200-00-00-05600. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 11. CPA-2005-010. Places29 Master Plan. 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. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 13. Adjourn to November 11, 2010, 4:00 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School Board. C O N S E N T A G E N D A FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Request for continuance of deferral of ZMA-2006-0008 – Berkmar Business Park from December 8, 2010 to January 12, 2011. 6.2 Cancel December 8, 2010, Regular Night Meeting. Return to Top of Agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101110/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 3:30:10 PM] Tentative Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101110/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 3:30:10 PM] November 3, 2010 TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Executive FROM: David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison RE: TJPD Legislative Program Attached is the draft 2011 TJPD Legislative Program. As I discussed when I met with you in September, I will be presenting the program and seeking your approval of it at your November 10th meeting. The program’s action items, the titles of which are listed below, have been regional priorities for a number of years and are only slightly revised from last year’s program. In addition, prior to your November 10th meeting, you will be forwarded a new legislative priority on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, which is being crafted through a process utilizing local planning staff, elected officials and the TJPD Commission. 1) State/Local Funding and Revenues 2) Public Education Funding 3) Transportation Funding 4) Land Use and Growth Management 5) Comprehensive Services Act As in the past, the legislative program draft also contains sections that highlight ongoing local government positions. New language in these sections under “Areas of Continuing Concern” is underlined, while language proposed for deletion is stricken. I also will be available at your meeting to receive suggested changes or additions to the draft program that you may have. Thank you. Recommended Action: Approve the draft TJPD legislative program, understanding that additional, suggested revisions to the draft may be incorporated into the final version Draft Legislative Program Chesapeake Bay TMDL legislative position Return to regular agenda 2011 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program Representing the Local Governments of: Albemarle County City of Charlottesville Fluvanna County Greene County Louisa County Nelson County October 2010 Carl Schmitt, Chairman Steve Williams, Executive Director David Blount, Legislative Liaison Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to 1) honor their funding obligations to localities; 2) resist shifting costs for state programs to localities; and 3) not further restrict local revenue authority. The state general fund budget for FY11/FY12 contains additional, significant reductions in state to aid localities. Those cuts are on top of roughly a 15% reduction the previous two years. In fact, many o f the spending cuts since FY08 have targeted public education, law enforcement and other important programs. Unfortunately, these reductions have not been accompanied by program changes that could alleviate financial burdens on both the state and localities. Meanwhile, pressure continues to build to fund the likes of health and human services, public safety, debt service requirements and employee pensions. This causes great concern for local governments. We believe reduction or elimination of state funding for state-required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation or suspension of the state requirement or flexibility for the locality to meet the requirement. Local governments are overly dependent on the real estate tax that continues to produce less revenue due to the sluggish housing market. As a result, underfunded/unfunded state requirements and “cost shifting” by the state reduce the ability, especially in our rural localities, to meet local needs to pay for programs and services. In addition, increased demand for services primarily funded at the local level present unique challenges to rural, urban and fast -growing localities alike (all present in our region). Any changes to Virginia’s tax code or in state policy should not reduc e local government revenues or restrict local taxing authority. This includes proposals to alter or eliminate the BPOL and Machinery and Tools taxes, or to divert Communications Sales and Use Tax Fund revenues intended for localities to other uses. Instead, the legislature should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments. The state should refrain from establishing local tax policy at the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the equity of local taxation policy. We also request the following: The governor and legislature should protect the future integrity of the Virginia Retirement System, while exploring the viability and benefits of allowing local governments to offer defined contribution retirement plans to their employees. The General Assembly should ensure the appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes from online transactions. The legislature should defeat efforts to change the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the assessor when a taxpayer appeals a real property assessment. ACTION ITEMS STATE/LOCAL FUNDING and REVENUES Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of the realistic costs of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) without making allocation formula and policy changes that shift additional funding responsibility to localities. The state will spend $5.4 billion/year on public education over FY11/FY12, just under 31% of its general fund budget (a drop of four and half percent from FY09). State funding for K- 12 education for FY11 is expected to be a half billion less than the FY10 amounts. State spending per pupil has dropped from about $5,300 in FY09 to $4,500 over the current biennium. These reductions were accomplished in large part thr ough a number of new, permanent K-12 policy changes that will less en the state’s funding obligations. The state “saved” millions of dollars by shifting costs to localities through making some spending ineligible for state reimbursement or lowering the amount of the payback. Meanwhile, local governments boost education funding by spending $3 billion more per year than required by the state. We urge the state to resist further policy changes that would require localities to fund a greater share of costs. The state should eliminate the cap on state funding for education support personnel first enacted in FY10, and should defeat proposals that would recalculate personnel salaries by recognizing only state (and not also local) costs. State funding should be realistic and recognize actual educational needs, practices and costs; otherwise, more of the education funding burden will fall on local real estate taxes. The state budgeted teacher salary figure (on which it bases its share of teacher costs) trails the st atewide and national averages. Teacher pay comprises the majority of K-12 expenditures, and local market conditions dictate the level of pay required to recruit and retain quality teachers. Accordingly, localities in our region should be included in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” now available only to various localities primarily in Northern Virginia. This would help our localities to reach and maintain competitive compensation. Likewise, to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce, the state also should not eliminate or decrease state funding for benefits for school employees. Concerning the Local Composite Index (LCI), we support 1) establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the calculated LCI to the state ; and 2) changes to redefine the local true values component of the formula to include land use taxation value, rather than fair market assessed value, for properties that have qualified and are being taxed under a land use value program. Regarding schoo l capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs, including funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs. The state should resist its customary seizing of dollars from the Lit erary Fund to pay state costs for teacher retirement. PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and permanent state revenue streams for our transportation infrastructure. We urge the state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved ro ads. Efficient and effective transportation infrastructure is critical to a healthy economy, job creation, a cleaner environment and public safety. Local governments need sustainable, dedicated, non-general funds from the state to support our transport ation network. Absent such an investment, Virginia faces a congestion and mobility crisis that will stifle economic growth and negatively affect the quality of life of our residents. The need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and st ate dollars remain inadequate. Since the spring of 2008, the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s Six-Year Improvement Program has been reduced by more than $4 billion and formula distributions for unpaved roads and primary/urban/secondary construction have been eliminated. We urge the state to fund transportation needs with stable and recurring revenues that are separate from the general fund and that are sufficient to meet Virginia’s well-documented highways, transit and other needs. We believe the state should direct its funding efforts at all transportation modes, both statewide and regional ly, targeting investments to solutions that put money to work on new ideas and in tandem with leveraging private investment. We urge the state to restore formula allo cations for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved roads. We support a state revenue sharing program that gives all counties an equal opportunity to qualify for funding. We believe state funding should account for urban area needs where public transportation is important, the increasing traffic demands placed on fast -growing localities and ongoing improvements necessary on rural, secondary roads. We believe these improvements are vital to our region’s ability to respond to local and regional cong estion and economic development issues. We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning, without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so. We urge VDOT to be mindful o f local comprehensive, land use and bicycle/trail plans, as well as regional transportation plans, when planning transportation systems within a locality. The state also should not shift road maintenance and construction responsibilities to localities. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local governments with additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or circumventing existing authorities. In recent years, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use provisions applicable to local governments to address growth issues. Preemption or circumvention of existing local authority hinders localities in implementing the comprehensive plan or regulating land uses. Moreover, current land use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced, sustainable growth in a manner that protects and improves quality of life. Accordingly, we support efforts to have impact fee and proffer systems that are workable and meaningful for various parties, but we oppose attempts to weaken our current proffer authority. Rather, we support the road impact fee authority, adopted in 2007, being revised to include additional localities and to provid e the following: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth on public facilities; 2) facility costs that include various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries and parks; 3) effective implementation and reasonable administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits on locality impact fee updates. Further, to enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to implement services associated with new developments, we support localities being given authority to enact local ordinances for determining whether public facilities are adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF ordinances). We also take the following positions: 1) We support optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments. 2) Concerning conservation of land, we support a) dedicated funding through both the Virginia Outdoors and Virginia Land Conservation Foundations for acquiring, preserving and maintaining open space; b) full authority to generate local dollars for such efforts; c) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements ; and d) authority for localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. 3) We support amendments to the Code to streamline and simplify the public notice requirements for agricultural and forestal districts. LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District localities urge the state to be partners in containing costs of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better balance CSA responsibilities between state and local government. Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there has been pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs. After four years of steep increa ses (ranging from five to 16 percent) in state and local costs of residential and non-residential mandated services, CSA pool expenditures for state and local governments declined by $15 million (four percent) in 2009. Costs have been difficult to forecast because of factors beyond state and local control (number of mandated children in a community, severity of problems, service rates, and availability of alternative funding). In addition, localities pay the overwhelming majority of costs to administer CSA . The state has increased administrative responsibilities, especially as it relates to data collection, compilation and submission, but has not provided additional administrative funding dollars to localities. We support the following: 1) full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need; 2) a state cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children, costs which often are driven by unanticipated placements in a locality; and 3) increased state funding for CSA administrative costs. We believe that the categories of populations mandated for services should not be expanded unless the state pays all the costs. We also urge the state to be proactive in making residential facilities and service providers available, especially in rural areas. In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor accountability and control costs. We encourage the state to consider penalties for individuals who have had children removed from their care due to abuse or neglect. We also support local and regio nal efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation. COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals of economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources. We also support increased state funding for workforce development programs. We support the state’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and emphasizes regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism development. We support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support increased state funding for the Industrial Site Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that help promote economic development in localities and regions. We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to identify and promote local, regional and state agricultural products and to encourage expansion and opportunities for rural enterprises. We support continued state funding for Virginia Cooper ative Extension and the services that extension agents provide in localities. We appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for expediting deployment and reducing the cost of broadband technology, particularly in underserved areas. The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste management, land conservation, climate change and land use policies. We are committed to protection and enhancement of the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the socio -economic health of our communities within the constraints of available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts. We believe the following: The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other local services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a disturbing precedent whereby the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities. The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways. The state also should explore alternative means of preventing and remediating water pollution. ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state should 1) provide legal, financial and technical support to localities that wish to comply with any of the Act’s p rovisions, 2) allow localities to use other practices to improve water quality, and 3) provide funding for other strategies that address point and non-point source pollution. We support legislative and regulatory action to ensure that alternative on-site sewage systems (AOSS) will be operated and maintained in a manner that protects public health and the environment. The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in regional projects. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve local governments. The state should expand the list of localities that may, by ordinance, require conservat ion of trees during the development process. We support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use Regulation Advisory Committee (BURAC). The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Funding reductions to community agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure funding is available to continue such valua ble preventive services. We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of costs for human services. The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) program, which has produced a nearly 50% drop in cut in half the number of Department of Juvenile Justice commitments since 1998 over the past decade. Further, the state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding. The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs) to meet the challenges of providing a community -based system of care, including maximizing the use of Medicaid funding. We believe children with mental health needs should be treated in the mental health system, where CSBs are the point of entry. We support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We also oppose any s hifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities. We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention centers. We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding. HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match all available federal dollars for the administration of mandated services within the Department of Social Services, and to meet the staffing standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law. We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion and in home services, home delivered meals and transportation. We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including school- based prevention programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This would include the state’s program for at -risk four-year-olds, and the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs. The legislature should provide full funding to assist low -income working and TANF (and former TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We oppose any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We believe the current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain within the social services realm. We also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support services costs. The Planning District ’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low- and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible. We support the following: 1) local flexibility in the operation of affo rdable housing programs, 2) creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) local flexibility in establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to low - or moderate- income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings, and 5) the provision of other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives. We support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for community land trusts that hold land for the purpose of providing affordable homeownership. We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless. We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings. We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using environmentally friendly (green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the long-term health, vitality and sustainability of the region. HOUSING PUBLIC SAFETY The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities carried out locally. We urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding constitutional offices or divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for their operation., as Local governments have continued to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets when state funding is reduced. We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance with Code of Virginia provisions), the drug court program and the Pre-Release and Post- Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. We also support continued st ate endorsement of the role and authority of pretrial services offices. The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and maintain restore the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners to $14 per day. Also, the state should not shift costs to localities by altering the definition of state - responsible prisoner. We support restoration of state funding responsibility for the Line of Duty Act . We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’ Service Award Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain emergency service providers. Further, the state should improve access to and support for training for volunteer and paid providers. We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails; however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails. We support state funding to develop supervised visitation centers to protect children during visitation with non-custodial parents, when ordered by a court. The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities. We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by citizens and to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships. Accordingly, we support a requirement for state agencies to notify localities of p lanned construction projects that may affect the locality’s comprehensive plan. We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees; matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances. We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve 1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the li st of records LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of customized computer records. We support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now permitted for state public bodies, and to simplify how notice of special meetings is provided to local governing body members. We support local requests to the state for enabling legislation the State authorizing localities to increase the income and financial worth limitations fo r real property tax exemption or deferral programs. We encourage clarification of Code provisions that stipulate law enforcement responsibilities when transporting persons for whom a temporary detention order has been issued for emergency medical treatment or evaluation. We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate noise or the discharge of firearms. We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places. The legislature should adopt legislation to clarify that local government entities are not obligated under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act to mark private water, sewer and other lines on private property or lines it does not own or operate. The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the costs associated with compensating jury members. We support increased state funding for regional planning districts. We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance. The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in any centralizing of state computer functions. We support authorization for localities to make donations to nonprofit entities engaged in providing energy efficiency services or promoting energy efficiency. We oppose attempts to reduce sovereign immunity protections for localities. We support enactment of an interest rate cap of 36% on payday loans, fees and other related charges. Return to memo Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District localities support the goal of improved water quality, but it is imperative that we have major and reliable forms of financial and technical assistance from the federal and state governments if comprehensive water quality improvement strategies for local and state waters emptying into the Chesapeake Bay are to be effective. We support fairness in applying requirement s for reductions in nutrient and sediment loading across source sectors, along with accompanying authority and incentives for all sectors to meet such requirements. We believe fairness across sectors will require appropriate regulatory mechanisms at both the state and local government levels. The Planning District localities are in strong agreement that we will oppose actions that impose monitoring, management or similar requirements on localities without providing sufficient resources. As the result of various court settlements concerning the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to enforce water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by imposing a pollution diet (known as Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL) to reduce pollution to acceptable levels. Bay states must submit plans showing how they will achieve 60% of the TMDL goals for reducing nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment flowing into the Bay by 2017, and 100% by 2025. As local governments will be greatly impacted by these initiatives to reduce pollutants into state waters of the Bay watershed, such plans must demonstrate that the authority, funding and other resources are in place to assure success . It also is imperative that the state conduct a cost/benefit analysis of the impacts of TMDL requirements on local governments and their communities as soon as possible. Local governments are particularly concerned about the various effects on their communities. There will be costs to meet reduced pollutant discharge limitations for localities that own/operate treatment plants. Local governments will be required to develop and implement nutrient management programs for certain large, public properties. Costs for stormwater management regulations will fall on both new development and redevelopment. There will be economic impacts due to increased cost for compliance by agriculture and increased fees charged by the permitted dischargers. There also will be costs associated with the preparation of local watershed implementation plans in the first half of 2011. Accordingly, we recommend and request the following: 1. Sufficient state funds for the full cost of implementing TMDL measures that will be required of local governments, including those associated with revised stormwater management regulations. 2. Sufficient federal funds for grants and low-interest loans for capital costs, such as for permitted dischargers to upgrade treatment plants and for any retrofitting of developed areas, while minimizing the economic impact of increased fees. 3. Sufficient state funding for and direction to the Cooperative Extension Service and Soil and Water Conservation Districts to aid farmers with best management practices in their operations. 4. State funding for, and designation for Planning District Commissions to lead in, preparing Phase II Local Watershed Implementation Plans on a regional basis, with the active participation of the region’s local governments and in coordination with soil and water conservation districts and watershed organizations. 5. A state-enforced requirement that all fertilizers sold for self-application be of special formulations that minimize nitrogen and phosphorous content, and thus pollution, entering waterways. Return to memo CHEASPEAKE BAY TMDL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 November 1, 2010 Stephen Waller, AICP 536 Pantop’s Center - PMB #320 Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SP 2010-00021 Carter's Mountain Trail (Sign #10) Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 Dear Mr. Waller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 5, 2010 recommended approval by a vote of 6:0, of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Board of Supervisors approval is required for the installation of additional antennae. 4. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; and 5. Tower shall be located within the lease area shown on Attachment C (on file in SP1994-37.) In addition the following three waivers were granted: 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)- Flush mounting requirements modification. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 10, 2010. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to regular agenda If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Elizabeth Marotta Senior Planner Current Development Division /ch Cc: Crown Orchard Company P O Box 299 Batesville VA 22924 Alltel Communications of Virginia, Inc. DBA Verizon Wireless 1831 Rady Court Richmond, VA 23222 City of Charlottesville PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2010-021 Carter’s Mountain Trail- Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF Staff: Elizabeth Marotta, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 5, 2010 Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD Owners: Crown Orchard Company Applicant: Stephen W aller, AICP for D/B/A Verizon Wireless Parcel Acreage: 234 +/- acres Lease Area: 3000 square feet By-right use: RA, Rural Areas Existing facility permitted by SP1994-37 TMP: Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 Location: Carters Mountain Trail, approximately 2.41 miles from its intersection with Thomas Jefferson Parkway [Route 53]. (Carters Mountain “tower farm”) Special Use Permit pursuant to: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2(48), which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District with a special use permit. Pursuant to Condition #4 of existing SP 1994- 37, changes to the facility must be brought back for review. Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: Yes Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X Proposal: Proposal to modify an existing Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility (PWSF) to replace the two existing microwave dishes with one of the same size and one smaller, at increased heights of 112’ and 175’. Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 4. Character of Property: Ridgeline developed with multiple tower and antennae compounds; fruit orchard surrounding lease area. Use of Surrounding Properties: A number of other lease areas for PWSFs and other types of broadcast equipment; Agricultural beyond. Factors Favorable: 1. In 1994 the Board approved the current SP for the facility, thereby deeming the use and location appropriate. 2. The increased height of the dishes will not have an increased negative impact o n the visibility of the tower, especially since one dish will be more than 50% smaller. Factors Unfavorable: 1. None indentified Recommendation: Staff Recommends APPROVAL with conditions. 2 STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: October 5, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD AGENDA TITLE: SP 2010-21: Carter’s Mountain Trail- Tier III PROPERTY OWNER: Crown Orchard Company APPLICANT: Stephen Waller, AICP for D/B/A Verizon Wireless PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to remove and replace two existing 6’ diameter microwave dishes on an existing PWSF permitted by SP 1994-37. One new dish will be the same size (6’ dia.) and one will be smaller (2.5’ dia.) The existing dishes are currently mounted at 50’ and 106’; the proposed dishes would be mounted at increased heights of 112’ (2.5 dia. dish) and at 175’ (6’ dia. dish). The lease area is 3,000 square feet, within the 234+/- acre property described as Tax Map 91 Parcel 28; it is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed site is located on the ridgeline of Carters Mountain, in an area commonly referred to as “Carters Mountain tower farm”. Specifically, it is located on Carters Mountain Trail, approximately 2.4 miles from its intersection with Thomas Jefferson Parkway [53]. The lease area is surrounded by other PWSF and antennae lease areas, with orchards and agricultural uses beyond. The surrounding parcels are zoned Rural Areas [RA]. The property is not within an Entrance Corridor, but is within the Southern Albemarle National Register Rural Historic District and Mountain Overlay District. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY (this lease area): SP 1994-037 Centel Cellular: Approval was granted for the existing PWSF, which includes two 6’ diameter microwave dishes and an array antenna mounted on a lattice tower (up to 200’) and with associated equipment and security fencing. A condition of approval is that any changes to the facility (additional towers, antennae, etc..) shall not be administratively approved. [Appendix B] 3 ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? The applicant’s proposal is to modify the location of antenna on an existing tower. Due to the size of the antenna, distance from adjoining proper ty and presence of other facilities it is unlikely that the changed location of the antenna will be readily apparent to anyone on adjacent or nearby property. The change in the location of antenna will have little if any impact on adjacent property. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The area is home to a number of towers; in fact, the area is referred to as a “tower farm.” T he replacement of two new dishes at higher heights will not impact the character of the district. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staff has reviewed the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 10.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. The modification of the location of the antenna will al low this facility to provide enhanced services to the County and therefore staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, specifically the provisions of Section 1.4 Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The existing facility has existed without adversely impacting uses permitted in the district. No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the district are a nticipated due to the modification of this facility. This facility will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The purpose of Section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy. This proposal does conform with the County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. Page 3 states that “The most important principle for siting PWSF in Albemarle County is visibility.” The siting of the tower has already been deemed appropriate by SP94 -37; therefore the request to remove and relocate two microwave dishes to higher heights is most similar to a request for co-location. Page 21 of the policy it states that “Co-location which results in adverse visual impact is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County. From a visibility perspective, co-location should be discouraged.” Staff’s opinion is that the Verizon tower, which is only one tower among many in the tower farm, already has a negative visual impact ; replacing and relocating the t wo dishes (one will be over 50% smaller) to a higher location on the tower will not result in additional negative visual impacts. 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 is pr otected through the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. Because the facility is existing, the public is protected by the conditions set forth in SP1994-37. Should this SP request be approved, the conditions from that SP will be updated and carried over. 4 In this case, the proposed relocated dishes will give Verizon the ability to coordinate frequencies and merge the existing Alltel network with Verizon’s network and services. This would result in an integrated, seamless network and increased reliability and range of personal wireless service communications; more and more people rely on their personal wireless devices to dial and contact emergency 911 services. Therefore, to a small degree, approval of this application can be also be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are addressed as follows. Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, an d it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.2.4 special use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics] Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter. The microwave dishes will be installed on an existing Personal Wireless Service Facility. The site is within a lease area held by Alltel Communications of Virginia Inc., trading as Verizon Wireless. The existing facility is in compliance with the conditions set forth in the existing SP. Attached elevations and equipment specifications ha ve been provided to demonstrate that the proposed dish relocation meets all applicable personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) and SP regulations. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and wh ose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be 5 installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation. The existing structure proposed to support the replaced and relocated microwave dishes is a lat tice tower. The tower currently supports two 6’ diameter microwave dishes and an array antenna. The proposed microwave dishes will require the replacement of associated wires. No lighting in addition to what is currently permitted and existing is proposed. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. This request is to replace and relocate two microwave dishes mounted to the existing lattice tower. Due to the size of the dishes and the requirements of the existing SP, an amendment to the existing special use permit is required. One dish is proposed to be relocated to a height of 175’ (from a height of 106’.) This dish is 6’ in diameter; for the purposes of examining visibility, it is practically the same as the existing dishes. The second new dish is proposed to be relocated to a height of 112’ (from a height of 50’.) This dish is only a 2.5’ diameter dish, and will only protrude 19” (a reduction from approximately 60”). All new equipment is proposed to be grey and white, similar to the existing lattice tower and antenna. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel f or the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement in accordance with Section 5.1 (a) since the proposal is for a co-location on an existing tower and no existing trees in the vicinity of the site will be impacted. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any 6 location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement in accordance with Section 5.1 (a) since the proposal is for a co-location on an existing tower and no existing trees in the vicinity of the site will be impacted. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole wil l be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent. Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, Verizon and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report. Verizon Wireless will provide the required annual report accurately accounts for all equipment supporting the proposed facility at this site. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1 . Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The existing facility is located in an area with farm traffic as well as traffic from other towers’ maintenance trips. There is fence surrounding the facility, and it is permitted by the existing SP; 7 staff recommends it continue to be permitted with the approval of this SP. Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. The existing facility is part of a large tower farm. The proposed antenna changes will have limited impact on the visibility of the facility due to its distance from adjoining properties and public streets. Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease area is located within Mountain Overlay District in the Open Space Plan. However, Staff believes that the removal and replacement of the antennas will not have any measureable increase in adverse impacts on the Mountain Overlay District that what already exists. Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet tal ler than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12). The existing SP allows for a tower of up to 200’; the existing lattice tower is 180 ’. The proposed relocated replacement dishes will mount on the existing structure. Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other 8 parcel or a public or private street. The proposed antennas will be white and grey and will generally match color of the existing tower, which has a galvanized steel finish. Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. If this special use permit request is approved it will have to continually comply with the conditions of the special use permit. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Pla n nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the siting and design of wireless facilities. It is staff’s opinion that this proposal is consistent with the County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities policy. The denial of this proposal would not unreasonably discriminate among providers of equivalent services, or prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, as the applicant could conform with the previous special use permit conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing personal wireless service facility, and modifications, ba sed on the analysis provided herein. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the removal and replacement of the two microwave dishes, it will need to reaffirm the existing special use permit conditions, as updated below in “Conditions of Approval”. The specific wording has been revised to reflect changes to the Zoning Ordinance. SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfa vorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this request include: 1. The existing tower represents an opportunity site. 2. The increased height of the proposed dishes will not have an increased negative impact on the visibility of the tower, especially sinc e one dish will be more than 50% smaller. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. None identified 9 In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement. Zoning Ordinance Modifications: 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)- Flush mounting requirements modification. Conditions of approval: The following conditions are recommended (updated from original conditions of SP1994-37): 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Board of Supervisors approval is required for the installation of additional antennae. 4. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; and 5. Tower shall be located within the lease area shown on Attachment C (on file in SP1994 - 37.) ATTACHMENTS: A. Application, which includes: a. Justification letter b. Photos c. Tax map/ location map d. Elevation drawings/ existing and proposed e. Technical data, lease area information f. Product specifications B. SP 1994-37 Conditions; annotated Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 5, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES –Submitted for Approval 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission October 5, 2010 Public Hearing Items SP-2010-00021 Carter’s Mountain PROJECT: SP 2010-00021 Carters Mountain Trail - Verizon Tier III PWSF PROPOSED: Replace two (2) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 112 and 175 feet on an existing 185 foot lattice tower on Carters Mountain ((which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3) ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 4 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Tax Map Parcel 91-28: on Carters Mountain Trail approximately 1 mile south of the intersection with Thomas Jefferson Parkway (State Route 53). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100-00-00-00028 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Elizabeth Marotta) Ms. Marotta presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for SP-2010-00021, Carter’s Mountain Trail Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility. Request: The proposal is to replace two (2) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 112 and 175 feet on an existing 185 foot lattice tower on Carters Mountain (which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3). • This request is to modify an existing tower that is permitted by SP-1994-37, with conditions. • There is an existing 185’ lattice tower and compound. • To replace and relocate 2 microwave dishes to heights of 112’ and 175’. One of the dishes will remain a 6’ diameter and the other will be reduced to a 2.5’ diameter. • There are three waivers associated with this request: • Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. • Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(3)- Flush mounting requirements modification. Factors Favorable: 1. Existing tower permitted by SP-94-27; and the existing tower represents an opportunity site. 2. The increased height of the proposed dishes will not have an increased negative visual impact Factors Unfavorable: none Staff recommends approval of the proposed wireless service facility and waivers with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take two separate actions, as follows: 1. Zoning Ordinance Modifications: 1. Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit 2. Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 5, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES –Submitted for Approval 2 3. Sec. 5.1.40(c)(3)- Flush mounting requirements modification 2. Approval of SP2010-021 Carter’s Mountain Trail Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant invited to address the Commission. Stephen Wall, representative for the application, noted that as Ms. Marotta pointed out this site is very similar to the last site that they just went over. Basically, it another Alltel conversion sit e where Verizon Wireless is integrating its networks with basically combining the two networks. If there are any questions regarding this particular facility, he would be happy to answer them. There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Motion on Three Modifications: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the three Zoning Ordinance modifications for SP-2010-00021, Carter’s Mountain – Verizon Wireless –Tier III based on the staff report, as follows. 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(3)-Mounting standard to allow array antennas. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Zobrist absent) Motion For Recommendation on SP-2010-00021: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00021, Carter’s Mountain – Verizon Wireless Tier III subject to staff’s recommended conditions and based on the staff report. 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Board of Supervisors approval is required for the installation of additional antennae. 4. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; and 5. Tower shall be located within the lease area shown on Attachment C (on file in SP1994-37.) Ms. Porterfield noted that this tower farm is in her di strict. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Zobrist absent) Mr. Loach noted that SP-2010-00021, Carter’s Mountain – Verizon Tier III PWSF will go to the Board with a recommendation for approval on a date to be determined. The modifications do not require action by the Board. 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) 972-4012 November 1, 2010 Stephen Waller, AICP 536 Pantop’s Center - PMB #320 Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SP 2010-00022 Heard's Mountain - Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF (Sign #12) Tax Map 97, Parcel 4F Dear Mr. Waller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 5, 2010 recommended approval by a vote of 6:0, of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet; 2. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant’s request [Attachment B of Staff Report]. 3. The tower shall comply with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance, except for the modifications of Section 5.1.40 (c)(4), Section 5.1.40 (c)(5), and Section 5.1.40 (c)(3). In addition the following three waivers were granted: 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(3)-Mounting standard to allow array antennas. View PC 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 November 10, 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, Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner Current Development Division /ch Cc: Alltel Communications of Virginia, Inc. DBA - Verizon Wireless 1831 Rady Court Richmond, VA 23222 City of Charlottesville PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2010-022 Heard’s Mountain- Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 5, 2010 Board of Supervisors Hearing: November 10, 2010 Owners: Centel Cellular Company Applicant: Alltel Communications of Virginia, Inc Acreage: 0 (Lease Area: 5,682 square feet) Rezone from: Not applicable Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. TMP: Tax Map 97, Parcel 4F Location: On Heard's Mountain Trail (State Route 633) approximately 2 miles west of the intersection of Heard's Mountain Trail and Hungrytown Road (State Route 698). By-right use: RA, Rural Areas Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: Yes Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X Proposal: Replace three (3) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 74 and 90 feet and replace four whip antennas and six panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to twelve panel antennas on an existing 150 foot tower on Heard's Mountain (which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3). Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 3. Character of Property: Wooded and Mountainous terrain with multiple existing Personal Wireless Service Facilities creating a small tower farm at the top of the mountain. Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas- single family residential Factors Favorable: 1. The existing monopole currently represents an opportunity site. 2. The changes to the site will have minimal impact on the adjoining areas. Factors Unfavorable: none Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations: 1. Section 10.2.2 [48] and Section 5.1.4 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III co-location- array antenna, microwave dishes, and whip antenna on existing tower- approval 2 STAFF CONTACT: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: October 5, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: November 10, 2010 AGENDA TITLE: SP 2010-022: Heard’s Mountain- Verizon Wireless Tier III PROPERTY OWNER: Centel Cellular Company APPLICANT: Alltel Communications of Virginia, Inc. PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to replace three (3) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 74 and 90 feet and replace four whip antennas and six panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to twelve panel antennas on an existing 150 foot tower on Heard's Mountain [Attachment s A and C]. The property is 0 acres, described as Tax Map 97, Parcel 4F, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed site is located on Heard's Mountain Trail [State Route 633] approximately 2 miles west of the intersection of Heard's Mountain Trail and Hungrytown Road [State Route 698] [Attachment A]. This site also contains other similar personal wireless service facilities that creates a small tower farm at the top of the mountain.The surrounding parcels are zoned Rural Areas [RA] and the property is located in the Mountain Overlay District . PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: SP 1990-066 Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville Approval granted with conditions for a request for the construction of a 150 foot monopole [Attachment D]. DISCUSSION: The existing monopole has a top height of 150 feet. Verizo n Wireless currently owns and maintains three (3) microwave dishes (mounted at heights of 75 feet, 105 feet, and 112 feet), and sectored array containing four (4) whip antennas with centerline mounts at heights of 128 feet and 155 feet on the tower and two sets of flush mounted panel antennas (6 total) at 139 feet and 144 feet. All of the equipment was acquired by Verizon Wireless from Alltel when the two companies merged. The proposed facility requires approval of a Tier III special use permit, since the applicant is 3 proposing the removal of all three of the existing Alltel microwave dishes and replacing them with two (2) new dishes at heights of 74 feet and 90 feet. The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing four whip antennas that extend above the tower and six flush mounted panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to twelve (12) panel antennas on an existing platform mount at the top of the existing tower. Along with the removal and replacement changes, the applicant is requesting a modification in accordance with Section 5.1 (a) to requirement of Sections 5.1.40 (c)(4) and 5.1.40 (c)(5) which states that a tree conservation plan be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit , and that the installation, operation and maintenance be in accordance with the tree conservation plan. The proposal will also need a modification to Section 5.1.40 (c)(3) to allow array antenna in place of the requirement for flush mounted antenna. The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed personal wireless facility. If the Planning Commission approves the personal wireless facility it will need to act on the modifications listed below: Zoning Ordinance Modifications 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(3)-Mounting standard to allow array antennas. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent p roperty? The tower is existing and currently is not a detriment to the adjacent property. It is Staff’s opinion that the replacement of the microwave antennas and the replacement of the whip antennas and flush mounted antennas with an array of up to 12 panel antennas will not cause the existing tower to be a detriment to the adjacent property. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The addition of another PWSF should not impact the character of the district. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staff has reviewed the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 10.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. The modification of the location of the antenna will allow this facility to provide enhanced services to the County and therefore staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, specifically the provisions of Section 1.4 Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The exist ing facility has existed without adversely impacting uses permitted in the district. No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the district are anticipated due to the modification of this facility. This facility will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. 4 Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The purpose of Section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy. This proposal does confor m with the County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. On pages 48 and 50 of the Policy it states that antenna arrays do not comply with the design guidelines and are highly visible and are discouraged, flush mounted antennas are recommended. Staff’s opinion is that although antenna arrays are discouraged, there are existing array antennas on the existing structure and the proposal does not result in additional visual impact. Section 5.1.12(a) of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the installation of public utility structures such as towers and antennas by stating, in part, that those items shall not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents, and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with all of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines that are intended to protect the public health and safety from high levels of radio frequency emissions and electromagnetic fields that are associated with wireless broadcasting and telecommunications facilities. 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 is protected thr ough the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give Verizon the ability to upgrade the existing equipment and therefore offer a better range of services, and increase the levels of quality and coverage in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of t he Zoning Ordinance The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are addressed as follows. Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.2.4 special use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics] 5 Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter. The proposed antennas for the modifications to this existing Personal Wireless Service Facility will be attached on existing brackets and pipe mounts that can be viewed as part of the monopole. Attached site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be perm itted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completio n of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation. The existing structure proposed to support the antenna co -location is a steel monopole tower. The tower currently supports microwave dishes, sectored array antenna, flush mounted antenna, and whip antenna. The proposed antenna does not require the installation of guy wires. No additional lighting or structures are proposed. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. Since this request proposes an array of antennas that will not be flush-mounted on an existing monopole, the replacement of microwave dishes, and the replacement of whip antennas, a modification of this section is required. The proposal consists of the removal of all three of the existing Alltel microwave dishes and replacement with two (2) new dishes at heights of 74 feet and 90 feet. The proposal also includes a request to replace the existing four whip antennas that extend above the tower and six flush mounted panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to 12 panel antennas on the existing platform mount at the top of the tower [Attachment B]. It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed modification to this section to allow array antennas in place 6 of flush-mounted will not have a measureable increase in adverse visual impacts to open space resources, or adjacent properties than what currently exists. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additio nal trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement in accordance with Section 5.1 (a) since the proposal is for a co-location on an existing monopole and no existing trees in the vicinity of the site will be impacted. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement in accordance with Section 5.1 (a) since the proposal is for a co-location on an existing monopole and no existing trees in the vicinity of the site will be impacted. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations o r conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent. Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, Verizon and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the 7 existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report. After the proposed facility has been installed, Verizon Wireless has stated that they will ensure that the required annual report is submitted to accurately account for all existing and proposed equipment on Personal Wireless Service Facilities at this site . Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1 . Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed modifications will not require any additional fencing aside from what is existing and/or has been previously approved. Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. The proposed modification will not necessitate any increase in the overall height of the tower, and the proposed antennas will be at a lower height than the existing antennas on the monopole. The proposal will not have any additional visual impacts to adjacent properties that what currently exists. Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease area is located within Mountain Overlay District in the Open Space Plan [Attachment E]. However, Staff believes that t he removal and replacement of the antennas will not have any measureable increase in adverse impacts on the Mountain Overlay District that what already exists. Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall 8 not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12). The proposed facility will utilize and existing structure for its antenna mount. Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street. The proposed antennas will be painted to match the color of the existing tower and mounts, which has a galvanized steel finish. The proposed microwave dishes will be colored the same as the existing dishes currently attached to the tower. No additional ground equipment is being proposed. Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. If this special use permit request is approved it will have to continually comply with the conditions of the special use permit. . Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the siting and design 9 of wireless facilities. It is staff’s opinion that this proposal is consistent with the County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities policy. The denial of this proposal would not unreasonably discriminate among providers of equivalent services, or prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, as the applicant could conform with the previous special use permit conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed personal wireless service facility based on the analysis provided herein. If the Planning Commission approves the personal wireless facility it will need to act on the modification request for the requirement of a tree conservation plan. The modifications are outlined below: Zoning Ordinance Modifications 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(3)-Mounting standard to allow array antennas. SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfa vorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this request include: 1. The existing monopole currently represents an opportunity site. 2. The changes to the site will have minimal impact on the adjoining areas. Factors unfavorable to this request include: none In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement. Conditions of approval: 1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet; 2. Administrative approval of site plan to include: a. Staff approval of equipment building(s) and other improvements. (The additional condition that the tower shall comply with Section 5.1.40 will cove r this old condition from SP 1990-066) 3. Existing Forestry tower to be removed prior to construction of new tower; (This tower has already been removed). 4. Staff approval of additional (future) antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even though they may be part of the same network or system as any 10 antennae administratively approved under this petition. (The additional condition that the tower shall comply with Section 5.1.40 will cover this old condition from SP 1990-066) 5. There shall be lighting on the Centel tower unless required by a federal agency. (The additional condition that the tower shall comply with Section 5.1.40 will cover this old condition from SP 1990-066) 6. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant’s request [Attachment B]. 7. The tower shall comply with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance, except for the modifications of Section 5.1.40 (c)(4), S ection 5.1.40 (c)(5), and Section 5.1.40 (c)(3). ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Justification Letter C. Photos of Existing Facility D. SP 1990-066 Conditions E. Open Space Plan Return to PC actions letter eCOUNTYOFALBEMARLEDeptofPlanningCommunityDevelopment401McintireRoadCharlottesvilleVirginia2290145968042965823September131990CentelCellularCompanyofCharlottesvilleAttentionWilliamCraigIe8725HigginsDriveChicagoIllinois60631RESP9066CentelCellularCompanyofCharlottesvilleTaxMap97Parcel40DearMrCraigIeTheAlbemarleCountyBoardofSupervisorsatitsmeetingonSeptember51990unanimouslyapprovedtheabovenotedrequesttoconstructamonopolecommunicationstowerofapproximately150feet10226on885acreszonedRARuralAreasPropertylocatedonthenorthsideofRt633approximatelyonemilewestofRt698Pleasenotethatthisapprovalissubjecttothefollowingconditions1Towerheightnottoexceed150feet2AdministrativeapprovalofsiteplantoincludeaStaffapprovalofequipmentbuildingsandotherimprovements3ExistingForestrytowertoberemovedpriortoconstructionofnewtower4StaffapprovalofadditionalfutureantennaeinstallationNoadministrativeapprovalshallconstituteorimplysupportfororapprovalofthelocationofadditionaltowersantennaeetceventhoughtheymaybepartofthesamenetworkorsystemasanyantennaeadministrativelyapprovedunderthispetition eeCentelCellularCompanyofCharlottesvillePage2September1319905ThereshallbenolightingontheCenteltowerunlessrequiredbyafederalagencyIfyoushouldhaveanyquestionsorcommentsregardingtheabovenotedactionpleasedonothesitatetocontactmeSincerelyrØNcRonaldSKeelerChiefofPlanningRSKjcwccAmeliaPattersonRichardMoringLouiseWFisher ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 5, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES –Submitted for Approval 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission October 5, 2010 Public Hearing Items SP-2010-00022 Heard’s Mountain PROJECT: SP 2010-00022 Heard's Mountain - Verizon Tier III PWSF PROPOSED: Replace three (3) existing microwave dishes with (2) new dishes at heights of 74 and 90 feet and replace four whip antennas and six panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to twelve panel antennas on an existing 150 foot tower on Heard's Mountain (which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 3 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: On Heard's Mountain Trail (State Route 633) approximately 2 miles west of the Intersection of Heard's Mountain Trail and Hungrytown Road (State Route 698). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 097000000004F0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Megan Yaniglos) Ms. Megan Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized staff report. This is a request for SP-2010-00022 Heard’s Mountain Trail Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility. Background and Location: • This tower was permitted by SP 1990-066, with conditions • It is an existing 150 foot monopole and compound located on Heard’s Mountain Trail (State Route 633) approximately two miles west of the intersection of Heard’s Mountain Trail and Hungrytown Road (State Route 698) • The property is wooded and mountainous and contains multiple Personal Wireless Service Facilities that create a small tower farm at the top of the mountain. Proposal: • To replace and relocate three (3) existing microwave dishes with two (2) microwave dishes • To replace four (4) whip antennas and six panel antennas with a single full sectored array of up to twelve panel antennas • Zoning Ordinance Modifications: – Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit – Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan – Sec. 5.1.40(c)(3)- Flush mounting requirements modification Summary and Recommendation: Factors Favorable: 1. The existing monopole currently represents an opportunity site. 2. The changes to the site will have minimal impact on the adjoining areas. Factors Unfavorable: none Staff recommends approval of the proposed wireless service facility with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Two separate actions are needed for the following: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 5, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES –Submitted for Approval 2 1. Zoning Ordinance Modifications: 1. Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit 2. Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan 3. Sec. 5.1.40(c)(3)- Flush mounting requirements modification 2. Approval of SP-2010-022 Heard’s Mountain Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. Mr. Smith asked if there was no change in the height, but just in the configuration on the pole. Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Stephen Waller, Planner and Site Development Consultant to Verizon Wireless, said Maynard Sipe, counsel for Verizon Wireless, was also present. They are here today because Verizon Wireless purchased Alltel Communications and are in the process of integrating their licensed networks with Alltel’s network. In this particular case the tower was built in the early 90’s originally for support of voice networks and paging networks. The whip antennas at the top are coming down because they are obsolete with current technology. Whereas, the flush mounted antenna will also be removed if they are allowed to use the existing mounted platform at the top of the tower, which has been on the tower since constructed. They would be using an existing part of the structure to flush mount their antennas on that and get the antennas that are flush mounted to a lower point directly to the tower removed and then flush mount all of their antennas to the platform at the top of the tower. For the micro waver process what Verizon Wireless is doing they are integrating their micro wave network from the old Alltel system into the Verizon Wireless network, which has switching stations in Richmond and Lynchburg. Basically, prior to the merging of these companies being that they were competing companies that had different markets where they were using some of the same frequencies, Verizon’s network could not shoot into Alltel’s home markets and Alltell could not shoot signals from their micro wave or wireless networks into the Verizon market. Basically what is being done is that everything is being integrated. With this micro waiver back hall system it will basically allow everything that is coming out of the switching stations from Lynchburg and Richmond to be feed through a dedicated network that shares the fiber lines that will allow the increased voice and data and also higher speed of networks to all the shared and back hall for greater reliability of the system. That is where a lot of the heights have to change and new equipment is being put in. The current equipment was put in supporting the back hall network that was really based off of the copper line that was in place at the time. Again, these are newer and upgraded micro wave dishes. The reason they can use smaller dishes is because of the newer technology, but also it is geared more towards the fiber as opposed to what was used for the copper lines. He would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant. There being none, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being no public comment, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Fritz recommended first that the Commission take action on the zoning ordinance modifications because only the Commission needs to take action on those and then make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the special use permit as a separate action. Action on Three Modifications: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approved of the three (3) modifications, presented in the staff report for SP-2010-00022, Heard’s Mountain, to waive certain requirements of the following sections: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 5, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES –Submitted for Approval 3 1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(3)-Mounting standard to allow array antennas. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Zobrist absent) Motion For Recommendation on SP-2010-00022: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00022, Heard’s Mountain – Verizon Wireless Tier III subject to staff’s recommended conditions and based on the staff report. 1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet; 2. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant’s request [Attachment B of Staff Report]. 3. The tower shall comply with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance, except for the modifications of Section 5.1.40 (c)(4), Section 5.1.40 (c)(5), and Section 5.1.40 (c)(3). Ms. Porterfield noted that this is not a tower farm and different from many things that they see. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Zobrist absent) Mr. Loach noted that SP-2010-00022, Heard’s Mountain – Verizon Tier III PWSF will go to the Board on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. The modifications do not require action by the Board. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the original application plan and the code of development STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Wiegand LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: November 10, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2007, the Board approved ZMA 2007-00001, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2, which established the general development plan, code of development, and proffers for Area A-2. This rezoning would amend the code of development to add “Indoor Theater” to the list of permitted uses in Block B2, and would change the alignment of the midblock road and other features on the general development plan, including the locations of some of the buildings shown on the plan. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this zoning map amendment on September 21, 2010. Attachment I contains the action memo of the Commission. Attachment II is the staff report reviewed by the Planning Commission. Attachment III is the general development plan, as revised to reflect the Planning Commission’s action. Attachment IV is the revised page from the chart in the Code of Development showing “Indoor Theater” as a permitted use in Block B2. Attachment V is the amended proffers that were revised to reflect the changes to the general development plan. DISCUSSION: On September 21, 2010, the Planning Commission voted (4:3) to recommend approval of this ZMA, provided the applicant complied with seven conditions before the Board takes action. The following are those conditions, as listed in Attachment I dated October 8, 2010, and staff’s assessment of the status of the applicant’s response: 1. The access points from the primary through street to the parking lot in Area B1 are limited to no more than four access points. Provided by the applicant. 2. The Greenway Trail is shown on the plan on the opposite side of the creek from the dev elopment in Block B2 at roughly the same height as the top of the retaining walls behind the development in Block B2 with provision of a pedestrian access across the stream from the development side near the theater. 3. The parks and public spaces are labeled on the plan and are generally consistent with the size and number shown on the original general development plan. While the number of parks/public spaces and their location is generally consistent with the original plan, the pocket park adjacent to Towncenter Drive is about ½ the size of that shown on the original plan and further stipulated by Proffer 6 approved as part of ZMA 2007- 00001 which says that this pocket park shall be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. If the general development plan proposed by this zoning map amendment is approved with the pocket park as shown, this proffer still is in effect and either the approved final site plan will need to show a 10,000 square foot pocket park in this location or a subsequent application will need to be made to amend the proffer to allow a smaller pocket park. 4. The perpendicular parking on the two through streets is eliminated. Para llel parking is fine. Provided by the applicant. 5. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the primary through street and pedestrian access points are provided crossing the street from the parking lot in Area B1 to the development on the other side of the midblock street. Provided by the applicant. While the revised general development plan shows a parking lot between the proposed theater and the main parking lot instead of a building that was located in the same area on the general development plan reviewed by the Commission, the applicant is showing a system of sidewalks along the through street and adjacent to the parking lots with pedestrian crosswalks connecting the sidewalks across points of vehicular access. This is a less ideal pedestrian environment than sidewalks adjacent to buildings or park areas, but provides pedestrian access points crossing the street from the parking lot in Area B1 to the development on the other side of the midblock street as stipulated by the Commission. 6. The Code of Development is changed to add the indoor theater to the list of the uses allowed in Block B2. Provided by applicant. 7. The Willow Glen connection change is removed from the plan as it can be dealt with under the existing proffers. Provided by applicant. It should be noted that other proffers approved with ZMA 2007-00001 are also applicable to development that would occur under this ZMA 2010-00006 unless they were to be amended. Of particular note is Proffer 11 which lays out a phasing plan for the development of commercial and office gross floor area in conjunction with the development of residential units. Building permits for 100 residential units must be issued before issuance of building permits for any square feet of commercial and office gross floor area. At this point, a final site plan for 31 units of residential has been applied for in Area A-2. Should the applicant want to receive a building permit for the theater or other commercial/ office structure covered by this amended general development plan before building permits for 100 residential units are issued, an amendment to Proffer 11 would be necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-00006, with the understanding that the size of the pocket park on the final approved site plan will need to meet the proffer requirement of approximately 10,000 square feet or the proffer will need to be amended. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT I: Planning Commission Action Memo for September 21, 2010 ATTACHMENT II: Staff Report, dated September 21, 2010 ATTACHMENT III: Application Plan, dated November 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT IV: Revised Page from the Code of Development ATTACHMENT V: Revised Proffers, dated November 4, 2010 View PC minutes Return to regular agenda 1 FINAL ACTIONS Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2010 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION FOLLOW-UP ACTION 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mr. Loach, Chair. Other members present were Mr. Morris, Mr. Franco, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Porterfield, and Mr. Zobrist, Vice Chair. Ms. Monteith was absent. Staff members present were Bill Fritz, Summer Frederick, Judy Wiegand, W ayne Cilimberg, Sharon Taylor, and Greg Kamptner. 2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. None Clerk: No action required 3. Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes July 13, 2010 and July 27, 2010 APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a vote of 7:0. Clerk: Finalize minutes for signature 4. Public Hearing: SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SP-2010- 00019, by a vote of 7:0, with the conditions recommended in the staff report as modified and noted in Attachment 1. Clerk: Action Letter – SP-2010-00019 will go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions recommended in the staff report as modified and noted in Attachment 1. 5, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SP-2010- 00016, by a vote of 7:0, with the conditions recommended in the staff report as amended and noted in Attachment 2. Clerk: Action Letter – SP-2010-00016 will go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions recommended in the staff report as amended and noted in Attachment 2. 6. SP-2008-00056 Unity Church RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SP-2008- 00056, by a vote of 7:0, with the conditions recommended in the staff report as noted in Attachment 3, with the appropriate changes made to Condition #4, as requested by the County Attorney. Clerk: Action Letter – SP-2008-00056 will go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions recommended in the staff report as noted in Attachment 3. 6. ZMA-2010-00006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 Clerk: Action Letter – ZMA-2010-00006 will go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined 2 RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZMA- 2010-00006, by a vote of 4:3, provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code are addressed as noted in Attachment 4. with a recommendation for approval provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code are addressed as noted in Attachment 4. 7. Old Business Discussion held on the Robert’s Rules of Order. Secretary: No action required. 8. New Business Ms. Porterfield noted two issues of concern in her district. 1. Shooting in Glenmore neighborhood; and 2. VDOT open burning at Shadwell interchange. NEXT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 241 with City Planning Commission Staff: As regards open burning, to provide Ms. Porterfield contact information for Fire Marshall. 9. Adjourn to the joint City/County Planning Commission Meeting on June 28, 2010, 6:00 p.m., Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Attachment 1 – SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market – Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 – SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market – Conditions of Approval Attachment 3 – SP-2008-00056 Unity Church - Conditions of Approval Attachment 4 – ZMA-2010-0006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 – Outstanding Conditions 3 Attachment 4 – ZMA-2010-00006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 By a vote of 4:3, (Porterfield, Loach and Lafferty voted nay), the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code are addressed: 1. The access points from the primary through street to the parking lot in Area B1 are limited to no more than four access points. 2. The Greenway Trail is shown on the plan on the opposite side of the creek from the development in Block B2 at roughly the same height as the top of the retaining walls behind the development in Block B2 with provision of a pedestrian access across the stream from the development side near the theater. 3. The parks and public spaces are labeled on the plan and are generally consistent with the size and number shown on the original application plan. 4. The perpendicular parking on the two through streets is eliminated. Parallel parking is fine. 5. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the primary through street and pedestrian access points are provided crossing the street from the parking lot in Area B1 to the development on the other side of the midblock street. 6. The Code of Development is changed to add the indoor theater to the list of the uses allowed in Block B2. 7. The Willow Glen connection change is removed from the plan as it can be dealt with under the existing proffers. 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 October 8, 2010 Scott Collins, Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, Va 22901 RE: ZMA201000006 Hollymead Town Center Area A2 TMP 03200-00-00-04500, 03200-00-00-05000, and 03200-00-00-05600 Dear Mr. Collins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 2010, by a vote of 4:3, 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 access points from the primary through street to the parking lot in Area B1 are limited to no more than four access points. 2. The Greenway Trail is shown on the plan on the opposite side of the creek from the development in Block B2 at roughly the same height as the top of the retaining walls behind the development in Block B2 with provision of a pedestrian access across the stream from the development side near the theater. 3. The parks and public spaces are labeled on the plan and are generally consistent with the size and number shown on the original application plan. 4. The perpendicular parking on the two through streets is eliminated. Parallel parking is fine. 5. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the primary through street and pedestrian access points are provided crossing the street from the parking lot in Area B1 to the development on the other side of the midblock street. 6. The Code of Development is changed to add the indoor theater to the list of the uses allowed in Block B2. 7. The Willow Glen connection change is removed from the plan as it can be dealt with under the existing proffers. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 10, 2010. Return to exec summary 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 5 Senior Planner Planning Division CC: United Land Corporation 2315 Seminole Lane #200 Charlottesville VA 22901 Route 29 LLC P O Box 5548 Charlottesville Va 22905 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 Staff: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 21, 2010 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not scheduled Owner(s): Route 29, LLC and Uptown Village, LLC Applicant: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering, representing the owner Acreage: Portion of 77.365 acres Rezone from: NMD and R-15, to NMD R-15 TMP: TMP 03200000004500, 03200000005000, and 03200000005600. Location: The parcels are located west of US 29 and are accessed from Towncenter Drive. They are between Area A-1 where the Kohl’s is now under construction and the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. By-right use: The Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 NMD allows a mixture of residential and commercial uses; R-15 allows for residential and institutional uses. Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: No new proffers are proposed. Proposal: To amend the Code of Development for HTC A-2 to allow an indoor theater in Block B2, to amend the application plan to shift the boundary between Blocks B-1 and B-2 and change the internal circulation in Blocks B-1 and B-2. (A request to relocate the connection between Towncenter Drive and the Willow Glen development was also made, but is no longer necessary to be processed with this rezoning.) Requested # of Dwelling Units: A maximum of 1222 dwelling units is allowed in HTC A-2. There is no change to the maximum number of units proposed with this rezoning. DA (Development Area): Community of Hollymead Comp. Plan Designation: Town Center, Urban Density Residential, and Parks and Greenways Character of Property: The property has been graded, but is undeveloped. Some steep slopes remain at the edges of the two vacant parcels. The parcel on which the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park is located is to be removed from the rezoning. Use of Surrounding Properties: The Hollymead Town Center development containing the Harris Teeter/Target Shopping Center is located to the northeast. A Kohl’s shopping center is proposed for area A-1 is to the east and will be nonresidential when developed. The Abington Place townhome development is located in Area D to the north across Towncenter Drive. The Forest Springs Mobile Home Park is located to the west (and is not a part of the Hollymead Town Center development). The Powell Creek Greenway is located to the south. Factors Favorable: 1. Adding the indoor theater to the allowed uses in Block B-2 will provide an additional area for the owner to provide an entertainment destination in the northern Development Areas of the County. 2. Changing the alignment of the midblock road provides a better connection aligning with Lockwood Drive between Towncenter Drive and Meeting Street than the alignment shown in the original rezoning. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The design shown for Blocks B-1 and B-2 on the proposed Application Plan contains a midblock road that is actually a parking lot street where local through traffic would be competing with parking lot traffic. It has also lost the sense of spatial enclosure that would have resulted from development under the original rezoning with buildings on both sides of the street. 2. The layout of buildings and parking in the blocks requires 16- and 20-foot high retaining walls along one side of Block B-2, overlooking the greenway. Such walls will detract from the natural, scenic character of the greenway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code of development are addressed. ZMA2010-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Judith Wiegand, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: September 21, 2010 ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 PETITION PROJECT: ZMA 2010 00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A -2 PROPOSAL: Rezone 77.365 acres from Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and R -15, Residential which allows 15 units/acre to Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and R -15, Residential which allows 15 units/acre in order to amend the application plan, the code of development, and the proffers. PROFFERS: Yes X No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center - Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and publ ic spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01 -34 dwelling units per acre); Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Hollymead ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes No X LOCATION: Parcels are west of US 29/Seminole Trail and accessed from Towncenter Drive and the unnamed street connecting Towncenter Drive to Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) in the Hollymead Development Area TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200-00-00-04500, 03200-00-00-05000, and 03200-00-00-05600 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio CHARACTER OF THE AREA The location of the rezoning is shown on Attachment A. Area A-2 is part of the larger Hollymead Town Center development, a mixed use development that, when complete, will include retail, commercial, and residential uses. The area to the northeast that includes the Harris -Teeter and Target stores is built, the Abington Places townhomes have been constructed. Area A -1 to the east will be the site of the new Kohl’s and other nonresidential uses now under construction. The southern edge of the Town Center is formed by the Powell Creek Greenway. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The requested changes are to a portion of the A-2 Application Plan, the specific are is shown in Attachment B. The approved full application plan is shown in Attachment C. There are three parts to this proposed rezoning: 1. An amendment to the Code of Development (COD) to include Indoor Theaters as a Permitted use in Block B-2. 2. An amendment to the application plan to reflect a new road alignment between Blocks B -1 and B-2, in order to accommodate the proposed indoor theater. This amendment a lso involves shifting the proposed locations of some of the other buildings in the two blocks and a redesign of the parking areas. A change in the alignment of the connector road between Towncenter Drive and the Willow Glen residential development in order to move the road out of a proposed stormwater management area. (This third request is not needed as relocation of this connection is permitted under existing proffer #12 which says, in part, “Approval of the County Engineer and the Owner for the location of the connection to Willow Glen may be shifted from the area shown in the General Development Plan to a more suitable location to both the Owner and the County which still provides access from Willow Glen to Town Center Drive.” As of this writing, the owners of the property subject to this rezoning request and the owner of the Willow Glen development are ZMA2010-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 working on a shift in the alignment of the Willow Glen Connection. This change in the location can be dealt with under the terms of the proffer and does not need to be addressed in this rezoning.) Staff recommends that either the new location of the Willow Glen Connection be shown on the application plan or that the connection be dropped from the rezoning application. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant would like to develop an indoor theater in a different location than contemplated when the property was originally rezoned. The changes to the midblock road and to the layout of buildings and parking in Blocks B-1 and B-2 will make the property easier for the owner to develop. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY In 1998, a comprehensive plan amendment for the Hollymead Town Center (HTC) was submitted. In 2001, this Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved with the “Conceptual Master Plan and Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center” (hereafter referred to as “the Guidelines”). Three separate sections of the five-part Hollymead Town Center were approved in 2003 with ZMAs 2001-00019, 2001-00020, and 2002-00002. On September 11, 2007, the Board approved ZMA 2005- 00015, Hollymead Town Center Area A -1, which is adjacent to US 29. The locations of the different areas of the Town Center are shown on Attachment D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan: The proposal was evaluated for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for this area in 2007. With the proposed changes to the Code and Application Plan, the zoning will remain in conformity. Proposed Places 29 Plan: The proposed Places 29 Master Plan retains the key features o f the 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposed changes to the Application Plan and the Code of Development are in conformity with the Places 29 Master Plan. The Neighborhood Model: Four Neighborhood Model principles are relevant to the proposed design changes to Blocks B-1 and B- 2 of the Application Plan: 1. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. Under the original rezoning, the midblock road served as a local street connecting at one end to a street through the Abington Place townhomes and at the other end to Meeting Street. This midblock street was lined with buildings on both sides and would have served as a connector for local traffic. The new street location proposed in this rezoning essentially is a parking lot drive aisle. In order to comply with this NM principle, the midblock street needs to be laid out as a separate travelway so that local traffic is not sharing the road with parking lot traffic. 2. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. The new midblock road alignment is an improvement over the previous one because the connection would align with Lockwood Drive between Town Center Drive and Meeting Street. Lockwood Drive is a local street that connects through to Timberwood Blvd., thereby creating a better network connection. This principle is met. 3. Relegated Parking. The General Development Plan from the original rezoning showed buildings fronting on the midblock street in Block B; since the parking was behind these buildings, it was relegated from the standpoint of a person walkin g or driving on the midblock street. However, the new street alignment runs through a parking lot for most of its length, so the concept of relegated parking has been lost. In order to meet this principle , the relationship between the ZMA2010-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 buildings, the midblock street, and the parking areas needs to be changed. 4. Site Planning That Respects Terrain. The Application Plan shows 16- to 20-foot maximum height retaining walls along the greenway that borders the south side of the proposed theater site. Retaining walls taller than six feet are not recommended unless they are terraced, and use of them indicates that grading does not respect the terrain. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The analysis under this section was provided with the original HTC A -2 rezoning. Changes proposed to the Code and Application Plan do not affect the NMD purpose and intent. Public need and justification for the change: Allowing the indoor theater to be located in Block B-2 will provide a greater flexibility of uses within this portion of the block. By allowing this use in this location, the applicant creates an opportunity for a state-of -the-art entertainment destination for the County. The new alignment of the midblock road in Block B would create a better road network for this section of Hollymead Town Center with stronger links to other parts of the road network. This road location creates logical outparcels for future commercial and residential develop ment. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: Since the indoor theater was permitted in Block B -1 under the original rezoning, there will be no additional impact on environmental, cultural, or historic resources beyond those envisione d at the time of the original rezoning. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: VDOT comments are provided in Attachment E. VDOT staff has indicated that the proposed rezoning may increase traffic from the original rezoning and th at a supplemental traffic analysis will be required. The applicant may be able to address this issue by providing a certification that the original rezoning anticipated the traffic generated by these changes in the block. Schools: There is no change in the number of residential units proposed in the original rezoning, so students will attend the same schools as noted in that rezoning . Fire and Rescue: This site will be served by the Hollymead Fire Station north of Airport Road. Utilities: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has provided comments concerning availability of water and sewer to the site (see Attachment D). Their comments indicate that currently sewer service is not available, but acknowledge that improvements are being made by the Authority that will soon make that service available. Parks and Greenways: The original Application Plan was approved with a greenway and a trail along Powell Creek generally to the south of the area subject to this rezoning . The land area has not yet been dedicated and the trail has not yet been constructed. The proposed retaining walls of 16 to 20 feet shown on the proposed Application Plan will be visible from the greenway and trail and potentially create a canyon-like effect from the tall masonry wall. In order to minimize the height and effect, staff believes that the wall should be terraced with heights no greater than six feet with a ten -foot shelf for plantings. This change could be made to the Code of Development. It is unlikely, however, that the design shown on the proposed Application Plan could be accomplished because of the size and location of the theater building. Staff notes that the proposed Application Plan does not include the pocket park shown on the original Application Plan located on the northern edge of Block B-1 fronting ZMA2010-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 Towncenter Drive. Proposed revisions to the Application Plan should also include this pocket park. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The changes proposed in this rezoning are minor and are expected t o have no impact on nearby and surrounding properties other than those impacts noted during the original rezoning. PROFFERS The applicant has not provided any proffers for the proposed rezoning and no proffer changes are needed. There will need to be a reference to the amended Application Plan in conjunction with the rezoning. Staff is still looking into ways in which this might be accomplished without requiring an amendment to the proffers. OUTSTANDING ISSUES As noted in prior sections of the staff report, staff believes that the Application Plan needs some revision prior to any action for approval of the rezoning. These revisions include a change to the internal design of the block to: 1. Create a through street aligning with Lockwood Drive between Town Center Drive and Meeting Street so that parking lot aisles do not open directly onto the street. Buildings, parking structures and/or parking lot screening walls should face this street to provide a sense of spatial enclosure. 2. Move the theater building further away from the Greenway so that any retaining walls over six feet in height can be terraced. Also, the retaining walls should be laid out to respect users of the greenway and trail. In addition, the Application Plan for Blocks B -1 and B-2 should be simplified to show the key features of the block (i.e. streets, building envelopes, parking envelopes, block boundaries, and the pocket park shown on the original Application Plan in Block B -1) instead of specific buildings, parking structures and parking lots. Also, modifications to the Code of Development are necessary to include a commitment to terrace retaining walls, as well as the addition of indoor theaters to the list of uses allowed in Block B -2. Finally, the Application Plan needs to be revised to remove the relocated connector to Willow Glen and the parcel containing it as the relocation can be handled under the existing proffer . SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. Adding the indoor theater to the allowed uses in Block B-2 will provide an additional area for the owner to provide an entertainment destination in the Northern Development Area of the County. 2. Changing the alignment of the midblock road provides a better connection aligning with Lockwood Drive between Towncenter Drive and Meeting Street than the alignment shown in the original rezoning. Staff has found the following f actors unfavorable to this rezoning: 1. The design shown for Blocks B-1 and B-2 on the proposed Application Plan contains a midblock road that is actually a parking lot street where local through traffic would be competing with parking lot traffic. It has also lost the sense of spatial enclosure that would have resulted from development under the original re zoning with buildings on both sides of the street. The layout of buildings and parking in the blocks requires 16- and 20-foot high retaining walls along one side of Block B-2, overlooking the greenway. Such walls will detract from the natural, scenic character of the greenway. 2. The layout of buildings and parking in the blocks requires 16 - and 20-foot high retaining walls along one side of Block B-2, overlooking the greenway. Such walls will detract from the natural, ZMA2010-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 scenic character of the greenway. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code are addressed: Change the internal design of the block to: 1. Create a through street aligning with Lockwood Drive between Town Center Drive and Meeting Street so that parking lot aisles do not open directly onto the street. Buildings, parking structures and/or parking lot screening walls should face this street to provide a sense of spatial enclosure. 2. Move the theater building further away from the Greenway so that any retaining walls over six feet in height can be terraced. Also, the retaining walls should be laid out to respect users of the greenway and trail. Simplify the Application Plan for Blocks B -1 and B-2 to show the key features of the block (i.e. streets, building envelopes, parking envelopes, block boundaries, and the pocket park shown on the original Application Plan in Block B -1) instead of specific buildings, parking structures and parking lots. Modify the Code of Development to include a commitment to terrace retaining walls, as well as the addition of indoor theaters to the list of uses allowed in Block B -2. Revise the Application Plan to remove the relocated connector to Willow Glen and the parcel containing it as the relocation can be handled under the existing proffer. ATTACHMENT A – Location Map ATTACHMENT B – Application Plan, dated 7/19/2010 ATTACHMENT C – Hollymead Town Center full Application Plan, approved September 12, 2007 ATTACHMENT D – Map showing locations of HTC Areas ATTACHMENT E – VDOT Comment letter, dated August 19, 2010 ATTACHMENT F – RWSA comments, dated 8/18/2010 Return to exec summary SEMINOLE TRLDICKERSON RDAIRPORT RD DEERWOOD DRCONNOR DRHAVEN LN ABINGTON DRTOWNCENTER DR¡606 £¤29 32-56 32-45 32-50 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, September 2010. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 500 1,000250Feet ZMA 2010-6Hollymead Town Center Area A-2 Roads Driveways Buildings Streams Water Body Parcels Parcels of Interest ± DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Gregory A. Whirley COMMISSIONER August 19th, 2010 Mr. Bill Fritz Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals Dear Mr. Fritz: Below are VDOT’s comments for the July 19th, 2010 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications: SP-2010-00017 The Y and Friends Child Care Center-(Scott Clark) • A plat needs to be provided with the existing entrance location to verify that the site either has adequate sight distance or sight easements can provide adequate sight lines. SP-2010-00021 Carter’s Mountain Trail, Verizon Wireless Tier III (Elizabeth Marotta) • No comments SP-2010-00022 Heard’s Moutain, Verizon Wireless Tier III (Megan Yaniglos) • No comments ZMA-2010-00005 Richmond Road Entrance (Judith Wiegand) • The entrance meets the minimum spacing standards for a partial access to a Principal Arterial Road for 35 to 45 mph. • The entrance is located within the functional area of the Route 250 Route 20 intersection and will be restricted to a one way access into the property. • Internal circulation should be shown in the parking lot to ensure that traffic will not queue back into route 250 at the entrance. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ZMA-2010-00006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 (Judith Wiegand) • This proposal may increase the density from the original rezoning and traffic study. The original trip generation table should be shown in comparison with what has been built and what changes are proposed to determine the adequacy of the original traffic study. • A supplemental traffic analysis in accordance with the requirements of 24 VAC 30-155-50 will be required with the proposed change in development. • Commercial entrances to the site need to be lined up with access points across Towncenter Dr. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Land Use Engineer VDOT Culpeper From: Justin Weiler [jweiler@rivanna.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:42 PM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: 'Gary Whelan' Subject: ZMA201000006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Judy, RWSA has started to review the application for ZMA201000006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2. At this time, RWSA would like to request additional information from the applicant so that we can complete our review. It is unclear to RWSA which areas of the Hollymead Town Center are being rezoned in this application. The project name references Area A2, but there is no area A2 on the plan sheet that was provided. RWSA would like an exhibit that clearly shows the extents of this rezoning and an exhibit that shows which roads, buildings and other features are being modified as part of this rezoning. We would also like to see total building areas for the currently approved plan and the proposed plan, both broken out by type of use so that project water and sewer usage can be calculated. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this request. Thanks. Justin Justin Weiler, E.I.T. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434.977.2970 ext. 206 Fax: 434.295.1146 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission September 21, 2010 ZMA-2010-00006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 (Signs 40, 55, 56). PROPOSAL: Rezone 77.365 acres from Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and R-15, Residential which allows 15 units/acre to Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and R-15, Residential which allows 15 units/acre in order to amend the application plan, the code of development, and the proffers. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center - Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre); Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Hollymead ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Parcels are west of US 29/Seminole Trail and accessed from Towncenter Drive and the unnamed street connecting Towncenter Drive to Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) in the Hollymead Development Area. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200-00-00-04500, 03200-00-00-05000, and 03200-00-00-05600. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Judy Wiegand) Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for special use permit. This request is for changes to the previously adopted zoning in Hollymead Town Center Area A2. The purpose of this rezoning is to amend the Code of Development to allow an i ndoor theater in Block B-2, to amend the application plan to shift the boundary between Blocks B-1 and B-2, and change the internal circulation in Blocks B-1 and B-2. This application originally included a request to relocate the connection between Towncen ter Drive and the Willow Glen development, but it is no longer necessary to process that with the rezoning. The full Hollymead Town Center—all five areas—had already been rezoned prior to this application. Area A-2, the subject of this application, was rezoned in 2007. The area being discussed is just south of the Abbington Townhome Development. Included in this zoning map amendment in the Northern Development Areas are three parcels as outlined in red on the display. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Town Center with a little bit of Parks and Greenway and a small amount in Urban Density- Residential. The Hollymead Town Center development was the subject of a CPA that was approved in 2001. The proposed Places29 Master Plan shows the HTC area as a series of Centers and Commercial Mixed Use areas. The addition of an indoor theater would be compatible with both the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Places29 Master Plan. The zoning on the parcel in the primary area they are talking about is Neighborhood Model District. Hollymead Towncenter Area A-2 was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District under ZMA-2007-00001 and approved on September 12, 2007. The proposed rezoning would make only minor changes to that previous rezoning. The Forest Springs Mobile Home Park parcel was included in this rezoning because of the connection from Willow Glen to Towncenter Drive. That part has been dropped as part of the rezoning. OUTSTANDING ISSUES In the staff report staff indicated there were two outstanding issues with the Application Plan. These issues are related to the internal design of the block. The first one concerns the midblock road. Staff believes that the Application Plan needs some revision prior to any action for approval of the rezoning. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 2 These revisions include a change to the internal design of the block to: 1. Create a through street aligning with Lockwood Drive between Town Center Drive and Meeting Street so that parking lot aisles do not open directly onto the street. Buildings, parki ng structures and/or parking lot screening walls should face this street to provide a sense of spatial enclosure. 2. Move the theater building further away from the Greenway so that any retaining walls over six feet in height can be terraced. Also, the retaining walls should be laid out to respect users of the greenway and trail. In addition, the Application Plan for Blocks B-1 and B-2 should be simplified to show the key features of the block (i.e. streets, building envelopes, parking envelopes, block bound aries, and the pocket park shown on the original Application Plan in Block B-1) instead of specific buildings, parking structures and parking lots. Also, modifications to the Code of Development are necessary to include a commitment to terrace retaining walls, as well as the addition of indoor theaters to the list of uses allowed in Block B -2. Finally, the Application Plan needs to be revised to remove the relocated connector to Willow Glen and the parcel containing it as the relocation can be handled under the existing proffer. Outstanding Issue #1 The approved Application Plan is from the 2007 rezoning. The midblock street is clearly intended to function as a local street connecting Meeting Street with Abington Drive across Towncenter Drive. Two things have changed with this - the alignment of the road and the function of the road. Staff supports the new location because the alignment connects not only to Meeting Street, which is a public road through the center of development, but also to Lockwood Drive that is a public road that continues all the way through to Timberwood Boulevard. Staff thinks is it a better connection than the previous one up to Abbington Drive. However, the second major change in this was the change in the design of the s treet. Staff does not support this. What was clearly a local street in the 2007 is being proposed to be a travel way, which is basically part of a parking lot with a lot of parking lot aisles that empty into it. The functionality of the street as the parking lot reduces its ability to be used as a local street significantly. Both the County Engineer and the Chief of Current Development have reviewed this change and indicated that the 2007 Plan street functions as a street and this one basically does not . Staff believes that the two public streets also function as a public street. Outstanding Issue #2 The second outstanding issue concerns the retaining walls that are shown on the application plan. Staff was asking that they move the theater building further from the Greenway so that retaining walls over six (6) feet in height (these range between 16’ and 20’) could be terraced. Also, the retaining walls should be laid out to respect users of the greenway and trail. The plan should also show the trail. The trail was included in the 2007 plan and it is not on this one. In a meeting with the applicant’s representatives yesterday they indicated that there were retaining walls in the 2007 application plan and it was approved with them. Staff went back and checked the copy of the approved plan in the file and found several darker lines, but they are not labeled as retaining walls and no measurements are given. It was not clear at the time that plan was adopted that these lines were intended to represent retaining walls. As soon as staff saw something that was clearly labeled retaining wall they said no this is not what they like to recommend because the retaining walls are too tall . If they need that much of a retaining wall, they would need to terrace them. Factors Favorable 1. Adding the indoor theater to the allowed uses in Block B-2 will provide an additional area for the owner to provide an entertainment destination in the northern Development Areas of the County. 2. Changing the alignment of the midblock road provides a better connection aligning with Lockwood Drive between Towncenter Drive and Meeting Street than the alignment shown in the original rezoning. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 3 Factors Unfavorable 1. The design shown for Blocks B-1 and B-2 on the proposed Application Plan contains a midblock road that is actually a parking lot street where local through traffic would be competing with parking lot traffic. It has also lost the sense of spatial enclosure that would have resulted from the development under the original rezoning with buildings on both sides of the street. 2. The layout of buildings and parking in the blocks requires 16 - and 20-foot high retaining walls along one side of Block B-2, overlooking the greenway. Such walls will detract from the natural, scenic character of the greenway. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code are addressed: • Change the internal design of the block to: – Create a through street aligning with Lockwood Drive between Town Center Drive and Meeting Street so that parking lot aisles do not open directly onto the street. Buildings, parking structures and/or parking lot screening walls should face this street to provide a sense of spatial enclosure. – Move the theater building further away from the Greenway so that any retaining walls over six feet in height can be terraced. Also, the retaining walls should be laid out to respect users of the greenway and trail. The trail should be shown on the revised Application Plan. • Simplify the Application Plan for Blocks B-1 and B-2 to show the key features of the block (i.e. streets, building envelopes, parking envelopes, block boundaries, and the pocket park shown on the original Application Plan in Block B-1) instead of specific buildings, parking structures and parking lots. This would give the applicant more flexibility as they come in at different times with site plans for different portions of the area. • Modify the Code of Development to include a commitment to terrace retaining walls, as well as the addition of indoor theaters to the list of uses allowed in Block B-2. • Revise the Application Plan to remove the relocated connector to Willow Glen and the parcel containing it as the relocation can be handle d under the existing proffer. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Scott Collins, representative for the applicant Route 29 LLC, presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the proposed zoning map amendment plan. The plan is actually for the development of the Great Es cape Theater. This is a great high class, family owned operation/organization that is interested in coming to Charlottesville. The company is very excited about this project and coming to the Hollymead Town Center area. What is unique about the Great Escape Theater? It is a theater company that actually goes out and buys the land to develop their own building. So they have a buy into the community. Because of that they are here to stay. They become part of the community and give back to the local organizations to support the community. That is a lot different from some of the other theaters with bigger chains that go in and rent a space. This company is part of the community and buys into the whole aspect. They will create a stadium seat theater that focuses on bringing the movie experience to a small and mid-size community. Most of the other theaters focus on the high populated markets such as Richmond and Northern Virginia. This theater company goes into smaller communities to provide this experience. As the staff report points out they are looking at making two changes to the amendment as proposed. The first is the allowance of the indoor theater in Block B2. The whole section was divided into B-1 and B-2. The B-2 section did not allow a theater. That is what they are looking to change to add that to the matrix. The second part is the location of the change in the road, which staff is supporting. It is the classification of how that road is laid out that they are going to be talking about a little more. The proposed plan for the most part is very similar to the approved rezoning from 2007. It maintains a lot of the same characteristics such as buildings along Meeting Street and Town ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4 Center Drive with relegated parking within. It has a residential part next to the greenway area. The new layout also improves the road network as described given more of a connection from Lockwood Drive over through the block and better access as they talked about with the slight shift in boundaries in the new layout. It provides the best spot for the movie theater. They looked at about five or six different locations for this theater. They worked hard with the theater company to develop the plan as it shows more buildings around the side to help relegate the parking. What they have is a plan that emphasizes the streetscape along Meeting Street and Town Center Drive. What they also get when they emphasize streetscapes along the Main Co rridor is more of a utilitarian road that gives more access to the parking and utilities which makes the block functional. Staff recommends approval of their plan, but has found two unfavorable factors with the plan. The first is the local road versus access to the parking lot. The second is the retaining walls. As far as the overall plan from 2007 that calls this a local road , the intent from what he has been told is that they would have development coming down Town Center Drive or in this area that would access shopping. There are some fatal flaws with this layout that staff has locked into that they like. One of the first fatal flaws is that there is inadequate space for the stacking of cars. Having a parking lot of this size with only two access points off of a local street inside this block creates a serious issue for cars stacking or trying to make this turn. It creates a congestion point with only the ability to stack four cars before the fifth car is stuck out in Town Center Drive before crea ting an intersection failure. It is the same kind of situation they would have in the other area. The second issue with this is they have created basically two choke points. There are over 300 spaces within this area all trying to access this local road out of two spots. With that they would be creating traffic congestion in several areas when trying to enter or leave. Another thing is speed control. If this is a local road and does not have any access other than these two points the tendency for drivers to use this as a cut through and the speed of these cars is going to be increased dramatically. When looking at the interior block to try to make it pedestrian oriented it is tough to do when they have set it up where cars have free reign to go faster speeds because there is nothing there slowing them down. One of the other aspects of it is creating a through street through the middle of the block would seriously impact the amount of parking spaces they can do within that block. It is driving more and more spaces into a parking deck versus having a half and half type of situation where they have surface parking and parking decks on this plan. The improvements to the proposed street they are proposing still focuses the main corridor street on Town Center Drive and Meeting Street and uses this for more of a utilitarian for access to their parking area. What they have is a road that has access to many isles so that it does not create a choke point at any location. It gives access all up and down the road to the parking around into the parking decks. Also, they actually have another entrance onto Town Center Drive that gives a third point of exit and entrance into this block, which also helps with traffic access management to this block. The new design helps the whole parking lot flow better. In addition it would slow down traffic if there are more points of ingress and egress. It would keep traffic flow down and prevent this from being too much of a cut through. The second thing is about the retaining walls, which the staff report did not go into much detail about until he pointed it out to staff yesterday. This is the approved plan from 2007. He asked that they look at the grading and analysis to see what the grading would actually look like. They did an analysis on what the dark lines that staff could not tell if it was walls or not. If they look at the grading plan and what was approved, those are most definitely walls. Those walls are anywhere between 6’ – 10’ to 20’ – 26’ high. That is what is approved right now. They could go out and build this right now because with approval of the rezoning someone can get an early grading plan if that grading plan matches what has been approved. They are not talking about taking any more or decreasing the development area. They are talking about the same exact design and wall systems. Another solution about the greenway path is that there is a trail that is planned to go in the greenway trail. A solution for that is possibly to take this trail and put it on the other side of the creek, still within the greenway area, and give access to the future development area on this side of the creek. It is about 50 acres of already zoned land that is for future development as opposed to running a trail way behind this development next to the walls where there is already a crossing across this block. The future area is shown of already zoned land and could give all of this area access to the commercial area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 5 In summary, they hope that the Commission finds in favor of the staff with recommendations for approval of the rezoning amendment. They also hope that they allow the retaining walls to be designed and built as originally contemplated in the rezoning approval of 2007. They hope the Commission finds in favor of the mid-block road that creates a better connection and access within this block. As a condition of approval they are willing to establish a condition of approval where the applicant will work with staff to decide the best route for the trail through the gr eenway. He offered to answer any questions that they might have. Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Morris asked Mr. Collins to go back to the proposed plan. As they are going down the proposed road to the top, which he would assume would be to the west, he thought that it seemed to require a person to back out right into the road. He asked what can be done about that. He could understand the larger flow of the parking, but that one really seems dangerous. Mr. Collins replied that they were agreeable to work out those that work out to the road. Ms. Porterfield noted that she had trouble with the design of the roads. As a consumer using the roads, she agreed that the roads currently don’t work. She noticed that there was a pocket park that has disappeared from this area on the plan. There is a lot of residential, but not much green space. Mr. Collins noted that the pocket parks and recreational space has been reoriented on the plan. Some of the recreational space is labeled pool and clubhouse and sports court. Other areas are not labeled and show benches. Ms. Porterfield noted concern with the high retaining walls and the dangerous safety aspects. She questioned if there was anything that could be done. Mr. Collins said that the retaining walls would have all of the proper hand rail and shielding from any type of incidents such as that. The main retaining wall is behind the theater, which includes the emergency access out of the theater that has a sidewalk and handrail. There is a handrail on the retaining wall that is further away. That divides two level of access to keep people off that. They could put a fence and do other things like that to keep pedestrians away from those walls. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was any way the theater could be moved to have some step down of the retaining walls. Mr. Collins replied that the biggest problem is if they moved the theater up to create any type of terracing they lose the third connection. At that point it is not aligned with the roadway across the street nor do they have the adequate 300’ separation. That is driving a lot of that aspect with that. The more the development is moved away to terrace the wall they were also impacting the available parking. Ms. Porterfield asked if they are at the edge of providing the required number of parking spaces and if they lose any that they drop below it. She questioned if they could eliminate the parking in front of the theater. Mr. Collins replied yes. He noted that some of the spa ces next to the theater could be turned into parallel parking spaces. It would be a more acceptable form of parking along the local streets per the county ordinance. Some of the spaces could be incorporated into the underground parking area. He did not see any lose of those spaces. So that change could be made. He felt that the parking spaces were needed in front of the theater for drop off and pick up. Mr. Lafferty agreed with Ms. Porterfield that the wall was objectionable. Even if they moved the t rail over across the creek it still was going to be a 20’ wall with a 2- to 3-story building. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 6 Mr. Collins noted that it is protected right now by the greenway area behind so that the wall can’t be seen. It is not like other situations where these walls are visible to driving corridors or to homes backing up to the area. This is completely hidden with this greenway. Mr. Lafferty noted that the concept of a greenway is that it is suppose to be something used by people in relaxing. He was not sure if walking next to a wall that is four times one’s height is very relaxing. Mr. Collins noted that he was not sure anyone can walk through this greenway area. Right now it is so overgrown with thorns and wooded area. Mr. Lafferty asked if they show a trail on that. Mr. Collins replied that there is a trail. The reason the trail was put there is that there is a sewer easement. The sewer was installed ten years ago and the area was already grown up, which why it provides the flexibility of possibly putting the trail on the other side that might do some good. Mr. Zobrist said that it makes sense to put the trail on the other side so people can walk on it. He was not bothered by that because there are walls that high in the area already. That is a difficult piece of dirt. All they have to do is walk in behind any of those stores and there are big stairways going up. It is something they have to deal with to develop the property. There is no road behind the stores. The owner has their own liability issues to worry about with kids falling off there or attracting nuisances. He did not think it was going to hurt the view shed. He did not like tall walls, but if the walls were not visible and they move the path over he had no problem. Ms. Porterfield asked if the people on the shopping side would be to access the path on the other side or would there be access only for the residential area. She asked if somebody was going to build a bridge. Mr. Collins noted that they would build a bridge. Right now there is an above ground sewer crossing over across the creek. They would build a bridge across the sewer line right above it. They would be providing that crossing. Ms. Porterfield asked if that is in the current proffers. Mr. Collins said that is what they are willing to make as a condition this evening. Regarding the grading there is about a 70 to 80 feet difference between the traffic circle and the back of the site, which also leads to the necessity of the walls. Mr. Franco asked if there was any reason why the building could not go into the ground. Mr. Collins replied that the biggest reason had to do with safety and parking in a structure below the ground. That was the other major issue that was problematic with theaters dealing with safety an d their clientele. Mr. Franco noted that it could be day lighted on three of the sides and reduce the size of the wall by doing that. Mr. Collins said that they looked at all of those options, but those were all deal breakers. Ms. Porterfield asked if the movie theater does not want it if one of the levels of the parking is going down into the ground. Mr. Collins replied that is correct and is one of the theater’s requirements. Ultimately what happens is the second level and there on up is all park ing for the residential anyway. So it does not have anything to do with the theater parking. There is one level of parking for the theater. Mr. Lafferty asked if the footprint of the theater could not be any different. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 7 Mr. Collins replied that they pla yed around with many different designs. The problem with changing the theater is very expensive costs. They did change the theater from 16,000 down to 12,000 square feet to make everything work. Mr. Zobrist said that at the end of the day they were getting down to the demands of the purchasers. To make a deal work it has to work this way because they won’t buy the building if it is not there. Mr. Collins agreed that it was to the point that it would be tough for them economically. Mr. Loach agreed with staff’s point about the number of entrances. He asked if they can re configure the parking lot so that there were some ways out where they could put some stop signs to slow traffic both ways coming across. Mr. Collins replied that when they start reconfiguring the parking to cut down the additional points here and there they would lose parking space. At this point that is a premium. It also adds more accessibility than just limiting it to two or three spots. Mr. Loach said that he did not want to decrease safety for more increased parking spaces. He asked staff to readdress this issue. Ms. Wiegand said that staff discussed this with the applicant yesterday and heard their proposal. Staff simply did not agree with their arguments. Staff feels that is too many points of intersection and they will have a conflict between the through traffic and the parking lot traffic. Staff sees all of the other spaces where people are backing out in to the road that is not appropriate. Staff believes the parking can be rearranged to avoid the choke points without having basically the travel way through there that is going to be in compatible with the street. She did not believe the safety arguments that they heard. She thought that these were going to be slow enough and curved enough that people are not going to race through them. Mr. Morris said when he looked at this at least in the B1 area it just reminded him of the road in front of Target, which leads into the parking lots. The other side of the road is right in front of Target and goes on. He has not seen many problems with that particular road and it appears to flow smoothly. Mr. Porterfield pointed out that there are continuous stop signs in front of Harris Teeter. There is a stop sign on the throughway, which is the piece parallel to Harris Teeter. It means that all of the traffic is stopping and going. They are doing it a little like that in front of Target because they have a number of stop signs there. The difference is the majority of Target is Target. The other one is affecting all of the other shops farther down. In order to get into the parking lot at the cemetery everyone gets in the right hand lane, which means there is a huge cue. If they want it to be a through street or want to at least be able to connect they need to get rid of all of those stop signs. She could visualize a stop sign at every one of these lanes of parking. Mr. Cilimberg noted one thing they also have to keep in mind is that people that park in that B1 area, which at least initially will be for the theater, will be walking across the through road at every one of those aisles. That is another conflict point. It really comes down to the functionality of that through road. If they feel that it just needs to serve parking, then the design goes in that direction. If it was to function as a through road for people from Lockwood over to Meeting Street they don’t want to have that many friction points. People are not going to use roads where there are a lot of friction points with a lot of people and traffic coming from aisles as a through road. That is the difference in what they see in front of Harris Teeter and for people coming into the Target area from the traffic circle where there is just parallel parking on that street. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Hollymead Town Center original plan had it as a through road and not with parking and the through travel way. This plan does not have the sidewalks along the road and the people would have to walk through the parking area. Mr. Zobrist said that everything is a compromise and asked where the tradeoff is here. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 8 Mr. Collins pointed out that there is a slip lane on the roundabout. Any traffic coming down Town Center Drive basically takes the slip ramp around to Meeting Street. He thought that it really cuts down on the necessity of having a through street through this block. In addition, is someone is coming down Lockwood Drive they have to make two points of conflicts to make the turn or go straight across. If th ey make the one turn onto Town Center Drive then they have basically the right -of-way and it cuts down on the number of points of conflict as a through street. Ms. Porterfield said that she did not know how much they need the through street since the appl icant has said that they need the street up close to the theater for varieties of reasons including the pick -up and drop off of children. She suggested that they redesign this and come back with some new plans. Mr. Loach noted that the staff and the Commission have offered constructive criticism . He was not sure if they were going to be able to solve this now. Mr. Loach agreed with staff. He asked if there was a motion. Mr. Franco said that he had listed to the comments. If people drive with courtesy there is no issue. He did not have a big problem with the change in the design that is down the B -1 side. He did not like the parking that backs out onto it. He heard the applicant say they are willing to redesign that. He would prefer not to see 20’ retaining walls. He would like to explore other opportunities or other ways to reduce the size of those by stepping a portion of the parking deck down into the ground. They should be able to reduce that wall from 20’ or 16’ by 4’ so that a portion of i t is still day lighted. At least some of it would be up above the ground. Theaters traditionally have been very tall buildings. He asked if there was a way to put part of the theater ramping it down through the lobby. He believe they could pick up 2’ t o 3’ up to 5’ in the lobby area by having a transition there that would not ruin the architecture of the building and be able to reduce the wall behind it. Personally he thought that getting the parking that backs out onto the travel way, providing a little bit pedestrian connection between the perimeter roads and trying to lower the heights of the walls would make this something he could support. Mr. Smith suggested consideration of a portion of the front street to be one way for drop off and pick up for safety reasons. Mr. Collins replied that it was 30’ and there was not a problem, but that was a possibility. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Justin Morgan said that he was a bit concerned about this plan with the proposed road that aligns up with Abington Drive through the Abington Place Subdivision. He was not quite sure that road is that wide going through Abington Place. He was concerned that it could be a cut through to Deerwood. Abington Drive through the subdivision is barely two lanes because there was parallel parking on each side and then the road through. He pointed out that in the original 2007 plan this was all residential. He was a bit concerned that this has gone from something to be mostly residential to mostly commercial. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Zobrist noted that he spoke with Scott Collins during break and he would like to clarify the visual impact along the greenway. Apparently it is a stream and there will be nobody looking across it at the back of the theater. Scott Collins asked to talk more about the trail way. If they move the trail way on the other side of the greenway the trail way would be level basically with the top of the wall. So they would not be in the trail way looking up at a 15’ to 20’ high wall. They would be looking level across at the development. The trail way would be 15’ to 20’ higher than a lot of the tree areas along that creek and the greenway. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 9 Mr. Zobrist said as he understands it during the original rezoning the applicant did not own that side of the creek. Now the applicant has acquired the property and is able to make that proffer. Mr. Collins replied that is correct. The original applicant in 2007 did not own any of that land. Since it has gone back to Route 29 LLC both sides of the creek are owned by the applicant. Therefore, they are able to make a change to the greenway/trail way that adds benefit to the overall development and to the plan, which is why they are proposing it. Mr. Zobrist said that the greenway is made to go up either side because it is an intermittent stream. Mr. Collins said that is correct. It keeps development off of that intermittent stream and protects that greenway area and any grading in that area. Mr. Loach asked that the Commission get a consensus of where they are. Right now the issues with the parking as outlined by staff are still of enough concern that he was not sure he could support it. Mr. Franco said that he would like to see the plan come back with the parking that backs on to the travel ways whether that is the one in front of the theater or the one that separates B-1 and B-2 not backing onto it but as a parallel parking situation. The number of entrances he was less concerned about those, but he would like to see some kind of pedestrian accommodations along that street. He sees it on one side. He wanted to see what it looks like with the parking changes. Maybe he could live with it on one side versus both. Ms. Porterfield agreed about the backing out of parking. They need to do something about that. She was concerned about the number of openings from the parking lots and parking garages on to these limited streets. She thought that the idea could possibly have merit about making it one way if they are looking to drop off and pick up so that they are going the direction so always to be on the side to put kids into the car. She was concerned about the height of the retaining walls. If the applicant want them that high and can move the trail to other side and are willing to build the bridge that is going to be adequate for people to get over there from these parking lots, she wanted to see that preliminary thought and where it was going to go. She was concerned that the pocket parks are not shown on the diagram. There is a lot of residential and they need to make sure that there is a reason for people to want to live there. It would be a nice idea to have the different types of pocket parks with different amenities. Mr. Smith supported the one way road section and to see fewer entrances. There are eight entrances shown on the plan and fewer would help. Mr. Zobrist suggested that the applicant allow this to be used as a work session. It has been very constructive and he would like to see it written up. Mr. Lafferty said that he went along with what everybody else has said. He found that the plan is hard to follow. He would like to see more specificity in the plans when it comes back. Mr. Morris agreed with what has been said. It would be nice if the retaining walls were lower, but the walls have to be the height they have to be. As long as the retaining walls do not go beyond what was in the 2007 plan he suggested that they go with it. Mr. Loach invited the applicant to come back up. The consensus is there is more work that needs to be done. There is an opportunity to defer and rework and then come back to the Planning Commission. He asked the applicant if they wanted to defer. Mr. Collins said that he appreciates the comments tonight. The one tricky thing about this is the timing. Timing always seems to drive a project. The theater’s season is Thanksgiving and Christmas. That is what works for them. If they start there and work their way back they have to finish construction by October. It means they have to start construction in February, which means the site plan needs to be under review fairly quickly. That is the whole driving thing. They have talked to staff about the possibilities and maybe running parallel paths with the site plan and the ultimate Planning Commission ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 10 and Board of Supervisors approval. That is a risk which they are willing to take if that is still an option. That would give them a little bit more flexibility to iron out other aspects of this. There are many things he heard tonight that can easily be addressed and taken care of, particularly backing out the parking onto the street, incorporating the ideas about the pocket parks, and showing their concep t of the greenway which seems to be a favorable one. He thought that they were almost there. He asked for some direction from staff or the Commission about if there is any way to go back, defer tonight and get back in front of everybody to make this work. Mr. Morris asked staff if there could be a conditional approval so the applicant can stay on schedule. Ms. Cilimberg noted that staff identified conditions that need to be addressed in order to be approved. He was not sure if the Commission could craft a motion to allow an action and send it on to the Board of Supervisors in that way. Each Commissioner was making different comments. He was hearing that the Commission wanted this to come back before it goes to the Board. If that is what the Commission is looking for, then really what staff has recommended is not going to work in terms of moving this on. It is not scheduled to go before the Board yet because staff does not schedule until they know they have in hand for the Board meeting all of the things the Planning Commission had included in its recommendation that those had been addressed so that when it is advertised it is available for the public. The earliest would be November for the Board. For the request to come back to the Commission in October it would delay it another month to go to the Board. The applicant can make an application for a site plan. They will kind of be guessing what will work for the Commission and the Board ultimately. He thought that Mr. Collins understands that. That is the risk he was talking about. If that is something they want to do to get that ball rolling it can be done. Staff does not advise it because they never know how the Planning Commission and the Board are ultimately going to act on the rezoning. But it certainly can be done. It may have to be adjusted based on things the Commission and Board ultimately decides. E ssentially because of the need to make sure they have in hand all those things necessary for the Board to have its public hearing advertised and it has to reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation anything that goes into October is not going to allow us to do that for November. That is why it would end up being December for the Board. Ms. Porterfield said that it sounds like they could run a parallel deal with the site plan with going to the Board in December. Mr. Morris said that it boils down to the primary concerns being the parking and access on that street. Mr. Loach noted that there were a lot of issues that made this problematic, but he questioned whether the Commission has gotten enough feedback to deal with this. Mr. Zobrist noted that he could craft a motion with all the conditions so they could approve it conditioned upon moving the greenway on the other side of the cre ek and the bridge. Ms. Porterfield appreciated the fact that they wanted to move it on, but if they could have done four connections they could have done four connections for tonight. Staff provided some ideas to the applicant and they could have come back even though it was only a week ago. The idea of giving them the ability to go out and make the changes and then come back to a work session so the Commission can go ahead and enact it at that point and it moves with all the pieces together to the Board in December she supported. She wanted to remind everybody that the Martha Jefferson Hospital is in front of schedule. So someone can build things right now and get them done. But if they are a Planning Commission and they don’t do a total of their own job they might as well dissolve and let the Board of Supervisors act as a committee as a whole and they can do this stuff. Mr. Franco noted that it was the level of detail that was the Commission’s job. The real question comes do they have to know exactly how high a retaining wall is during rezoning. He did not know that he has to. He expressed a desire to have the walls lowered as much as possible. But he did not know in this stage of the approval process that he needs to know if they are 16’ or 16.5 ’. It is really a question in the level of detail that each Commissioner is comfortable with to move a plan forward. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 11 Mr. Loach said that the Commission has problems and concerns that were brought to them by staff, which was what they were responding to. That is the difference he sees between them. He agreed with Ms. Porterfield that it was the Commission’s job and position and if there was enough concern for staff to come to the Commission with this that they should resolve it before sending it to the Board. Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant can get by with four connections and that is okay with the Commission. If the applicant agrees to put the greenway on the other side of the creek and keep it at roughly the same level as the retaining walls; if they agree to put in a bridge; if they agree to give pedestrian accommodations on the road and internalize those outlets; if they make the feeder road portion down to the parking area one way so they can have on street parking; if they add the pocket parks and other public features; then the Commission will see a plan that looks like that and will rubber stamp it and move on. Mr. Loach noted that he did not know. Mr. Zobrist said that the Commission has vetted this very thoroughly. They know the problems and have come up with solutions for them Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Lafferty noted there a tremendous amount of loose ends that they just don’t know. Mr. Loach asked for a motion since he did not think they would resolve it any more with discussion. Mr. Franco noted that in summary, they have the four connections; the path to the other side keeping it roughly at the same height and providing a bridge; and designating the parks and having that being generally consistent with the number and size on the original application plan. With respect to the through street it includes eliminating the parking that backs out on to it. He asked if that was all the concerns. That would be eliminating the entrances Ms. Porterfield noted that they were going to internali ze the parking, and Mr. Franco replied that would happen since they were eliminating entrances. Mr. Zobrist pointed out that there were four corrections. They were going to eliminate language that says that is going to be a through street. It is going to be a parking access and however people want to use it. They are going to give pedestrian accommodation in the parking area. Mr. Cilimberg noted that would be along that street and in the parking area. Mr. Zobrist asked if they want to add a condition making the street in front of the theater one-way. Mr. Franco noted that he would prefer leaving that up to the applicant to figure out how to get rid of the backing. He thought that was a great solution or recommendation and was okay with that, but he d id not want to make that a condition at this point. Ms. Porterfield asked about not having backing out of the parking spaces. Mr. Cilimberg said that all of the perpendicular parking on both the through and theater street would be removed and can be parallel. Mr. Franco agreed that the parking could be parallel. Mr. Franco made a motion to recommend approval of ZMA-2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 with the following conditions: 1. The access to the parking lot in Area B1 be limited to four connections. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 12 2. The Greenway Trail to be accommodated on the other side of the creek roughly the same height as the top of the retaining walls with a pedestrian access across the greenway to it from this side. 3. The Parks to be better designated on the plan and be generally consistent with the size and number shown on the original application plan. 4. The parking on the two main through fares and the parking that backed into those be eliminated. Parallel parking is fine. There shall be no condition of backing into those. 5. They improve the pedestrian access along the primary through fare that is there. Mr. Cilimberg said that one of the things pointed out in the Code of Development was the need to add the indoor theater to the list of the uses allowed in Blocks B2. Mr. Franco asked that to be included as well. Mr. Cilimberg said the Willow Glen piece, because that can be dealt with under the proffers that already exist, does not need to be a part of this. Mr. Franco agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said if all of that is included then they have covered everything. Mr. Lafferty asked if they want to give some indication as to where the bridge should be. Mr. Franco replied that as long as there is a bridge he was comfortable with that. He asked if they have a recommendation. Ms. Porterfield said that the bridge needed to have parking in case somebody wants to go use it. She asked if the parking needs to be handicapped accessibility. Mr. Lafferty said he would guess that somewhere near the recreation area next to the th eater they would put the bridge. Mr. Franco noted that there was a road right there to the other side. Mr. Lafferty said if they want to have a road, then they don’t need a bridge. Mr. Collins pointed out that they were proposing the bridge to go over t op of the sewer line that already crosses over the creek. This location may provide a little bit of a shield since it is more behind the bio filter than it is behind the theater. It is further down. Mr. Franco noted that he was comfortable with that loc ation. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4:3. (Porterfield, Lafferty and Loach vote nay) Mr. Loach noted that ZMA-2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center Area A2 will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with the following recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:3, recommended approval of ZMA-2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A2 provided that the outstanding issues regarding the application plan and code are addressed: 1. The access points from the primary through street to the parking lot in Area B1 are limited to no more than four access points. 2. The Greenway Trail is shown on the plan on the opposite side of the creek from the development in Block B2 at roughly the same height as the top of the retaining walls behind the development in ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 13 Block B2 with provision of a pedestrian access across the stream from the development side near the theater. 3. The parks and public spaces are labeled on the plan and are generally consistent with th e size and number shown on the original application plan. 4. The perpendicular parking on the two through streets is eliminated. Parallel parking is fine. 5. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the primary through street and pedestrian access points are provided crossing the street from the parking lot in Area B1 to the development on the other side of the midblock street. 6. The Code of Development is changed to add the indoor theater to the list of the uses allowed in Block B2. 7. The Willow Glen connection change is removed from the plan as it can be dealt with under the existing proffers. Mr. Smith asked how they would handle the handicap parking if they were going to use parallel parking. Mr. Collins replied that they would look at more spaces right across the street for the handicap and some of those parallel spaces can be handicap accessible as well. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the city does a lot of parallel handicap spaces. Mr. Franco said the other thing he would like to ask that would help is what kind of parking lot grades have they had and if they were finding that the county standard or the purchaser ’s standards are regulated out more. In other words, they have five (5) percent criteria and if they are going to relax that to 6 percent or something like that it would help the retaining wall. Mr. Collins replied that would help. Anytime they increase it any bit over that length of run it would pick up probably another five (5) feet. Mr. Franco said this is something that he has talked to this public body about before. He thought that the five (5) percent standard was probably excessive and it could be steeper and not be a problem. Mr. Loach asked that he hold on to that thought and bring the matter up under old business. Mr. Franco pointed out that he just wanted to take advantage of the applicant. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing for the Place29 Master Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Benish, Echols, Wiegand LEGAL REVIEW: AGENDA DATE: November 11, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has held four work sessions (January 13, 2010, May 5, 2010, September 1, 2010 and October 6, 2010) and one public hearing (June 9, 2010) on the Places29 Master Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The Board’s review of the proposed Plan has focused primarily on the recommended transportation improvements, and particularly on the recommended intersection and grade separation improvements on US 29, as well as the potential expansion areas to the Hollymead and Pine y Mountain development areas. DISCUSSION: Based on direction by the Board, the Master Plan has been revised to reflect changes to the recommended transportation network. These changes include: A revised schedule for some of the improvements to reflect delays due to a lack of funding. Changes to what the five essential transportation improvements will encompass to reflect the Board’s preferred priorities for the next five years of Plan implementation (Hillsdale Drive extended and widening of US 29 south of Hydraulic in the City; widening of US 29 from Polo Grounds Road to the Hollymead Town Center; Berkmar Drive Extended, and transit Improvements). Language that more clearly states that, although all of the transportation improvements that were recommended, including potential grade separated intersections, are ultimately necessary improvements based on current transportation modeling for a 20-year period, those transportation improvement will be re-evaluated with each five year update of the Master Plan. Additional information and direction about the Small Area Planning process to address business and community concerns. Deletion of a number of conceptual locations for road interconnections on the Future Land Use Map . Alternative Future Land Use Maps and associated additional text language have also been provided for potential expansions to the Development Areas in Piney Mountain (Area #1) and Hollymead (Area #2), should the Board choose to add these areas to the Master Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends adoption of the Places29 Master Plan. Should the Board choose to include one or both expansion areas into the Master Plan, the Board’s action should include reference to modification to the Future Land Use Map to include the expansion area(s). If the Hollymead expansion (Area #2) is to be included, the action should also reflect the inclusion of the associated text into Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network, in the “Key Subareas of the Future Land Use Plan” section that begins on page 4-14. ATTACHMENTS: A—Places29 Master Plan CPA 2005-00010 BOS November 10, 2010 Executive Summary Page 2 Return to regular agenda