HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JANUARY 11, 2012
6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. SP-2011-00018. Colonial Nissan—Parking Deck (Signs #2&3). PROPOSAL:
Special Use Permit to allow construction of a rooftop parking deck on new building. No dwellings proposed. ZONING: HC
Highway Commercial – commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 24.2.2 (11)
Stand alone parking and parking structures. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/
Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing,
assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1. LOCATION: 200 Seminole Trail. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000094B0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
10. SP-2011-00020. L & B Towing-Snows Business Park (Sign #101).
PROPOSAL: Allow towing company on a portion of 5.78 acres under Section 27.2.2(12) of zoning ordinance.
No dwellings proposed. ZONING: LI – Light Industrial which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses
(no residential use). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing,
light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 4. LOCATION: 1833 Avon Street Ext. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035X0. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Scottsville.
11. SP-2011-00021. Verizon Wireless – Herring Property (Sign #49). PROPOSAL:
Special use permit amendment to allow replacement of existing 53.5-foot treetop monopole with a 97-foot treetop
monopole, with associated ground equipment. 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) which allows for
Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas
in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 8268 Newtown Heights,
approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Green Hill Lane (Route F0174). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05300-00-00-00600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
12. SP-2011-00023. Verizon Wireless/Hudson Property Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign #38). PROPOSAL: Request for extension of an existing steel monopole in order to
support the attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located above
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0111/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 9:14:40 AM]
Tentative
existing antennas. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will be 96.5 feet, an eight foot extension from the
top of the existing antennas, and will be approximately 16 feet above the reference tree. 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) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood 5- residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 1097 Teel Lane. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-021A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
13. SP-2011-00024. Verizon Wireless/Moyer Property Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign #39). PROPOSAL: Request for extension of an existing steel monopole in order to
support the attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located above
existing antennas. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will be 89.5 feet, an 8.5 foot extension from the top
of the existing antennas, and will be approximately six feet above the reference tree. 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) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 1841 Thomas Jefferson Parkway. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09200-00-00-056B3. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville.
14. SP-2011-00028. NTELOS CV646 Commonwealth Ave. Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility (Sign #46). PROPOSAL: Request for a collocation of antennas and
associated ground equipment on an existing tower. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial – retail
sales and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: 22.2.2 (14) which allows for Tier III personal
wireless service facilities in the C-1 Zoning District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: UDA Places 29 –
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of
prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO LOCATION: 345
Greenbrier Drive TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-00700. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
15. SP-2010-040. Keswick Lake (Signs #84&85). PROPOSAL: Placement of fill in the
floodplain to allow the construction of a private street. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots), PRD - Planned Residential
Development - PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses
and FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows
filling of land in the floodway fringe. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 4 -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: This fill is proposed below and adjacent to the dam located
southeast of the Clifton Inn. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07900-00-00-02300, 07900-00-00-023F0 and 07900-00-00-03600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
16. Dedication of Sanitary Sewer Easement to Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority. To consider granting a sanitary sewer easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part
of the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project.
Action Items:
17. Claudius Crozet Park Community Building Improvements.
18. Boards and Commissions Appointments.
19. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
20. Adjourn.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0111/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 9:14:40 AM]
Tentative
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0111/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 9:14:40 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2011
CMA Properties Inc C/O Colonial Auto Center
C/O Borches, Pete
P.O. Box 7823
Charlottesville, Va 22906
RE: SP2011 00018 Colonial Nissan—Parking Deck
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000094B0
Dear Mr. Borches:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 6, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit 2011-018 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck” prepared by Townes Site Engineering and dated
October 17, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. limits of disturbance
b. location of buildings and structures
c. location of parking areas
d. employee parking and inventory storage parking layout
e. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. In areas designated for tree protection, the applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed and
shall mark the dripline in the field with temporary fencing. In areas designated for tree protection, no
tree removal shall occur. No grading or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of trees
located within the tree protection area. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline
shall necessitate submittal of a “Tree Protection Plan” in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a) the
survey has been completed and the fencing has been installed and b) the Planning Director approves
a plan that shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
View staff report
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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
Planning Division
SP 2011-18
PC December 6, 2011
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201100018 Colonial Nissan-
Parking Deck
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 6, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be determined
Owner: CMA Properties Inc c/o Colonial Auto
Center
Applicant: Pete Borches, Colonial Auto
Acreage: 10.83 acres Special Use Permit: Request for parking
structure in accordance with Section 24.2.2
(11) of the Zoning Ordinance.
TMP: Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B
Location: 200 Seminole Trail (Route 29 North)
Existing Zoning and By-right use: HC Highway
Commercial – commercial and service;
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: Special Use Permit to allow construction
of a rooftop parking deck on new building.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial,
professional office; research and development,
design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing,
assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
Character of Property: Existing car dealership
with display parking.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Commercial,
retail, and mobile home park
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposed parking structure
will support an existing motor
vehicle sales and service use in
the HC zoning district, furthering
the purposes of said district.
2. Adjacent properties will not be
adversely affected by the
development of the proposed
parking structure.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
SP 2011-018
PC December 6, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2011-018 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 2011 00018 Colonial Nissan —Parking Deck
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit to allow construction of a rooftop parking deck on new building.
No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial – commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15
units/ acre)
SECTION: 24.2.2 (11) Stand alone parking and parking structures.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office;
research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in
Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: 200 Seminole Trail
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000094B0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Site and Surrounding Area:
The area is highly developed on the Route 29 North corridor. The surrounding parcels are retail,
commercial, and there is a mobile home park that is adjacent to the rear of the property. The
property contains existing auto dealerships and display pa rking.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is requesting approval of a stand along parking structure. The parking structure will be
for employee parking and excess car inventory for the dealership, and will be located in the back of
the proposed new building. The new building will also contain an indoor display area and office
space.
Planning and Zoning History:
SDP1999-049- Approved Major Amendment to the existing site plan to add a building on the
property.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Places 29 Master Plan has designated this property as Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial which is
described as commercial, professional offices; research and development, design, testing of prototypes;
manufacturing, assembly, packaging. Auto Commercial Sales and Service is listed in the master plan as
a use permitted in the Master Plan. The parking structure would directly contribute to the uses outlined
in the Places 29 Master Plan by providing on-site, accessible parking as supportive use for an existing
Auto Commercial Sales and Service use .
Principles of the Neighborhood Model – Staff has assessed the proposal for conformity with the
Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Although a sidewalk exists on Route 29 and public transportation is
SP 2011-018
PC December 6, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
Orientation available along this corridor, it does not provide a convenient or safe path
for pedestrians. The building will be located in the same area as the
existing building which is not near the sidewalk. This principle is not met.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
This property is located on a very urban corridor that contains mainly
commercial and retail uses. The existing nature of Route 29 does not
provide for friendly streets and paths This principle is not met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Route 29 provides a number of connections to adjacent neighborhoods,
commercial, and retail uses. No new roads are being proposed. This
principle is met.
Parks and
Open Space
This principle is not applicable- this is infill development on an existing site.
Neighborhood
Centers
This principle is not applicable- this is infill development on an existing site.
Buildings and
Spaces of
Human Scale
The proposed parking structure and sales center with office space will be
placed in the same location as the existing building. The location and size
of the building for this use does not meet this principle.
Relegated
Parking
The proposed parking structure is located behind the sales center and
office building and is located in the rear of the lot. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is not met; however, this area of Albemarle County has a
variety of different uses nearby.
Mixture of
Housing Types
and
Affordability
This principle is not met since it is an infill development and the existing
dealership will remain. There is a variety of unit types and densities located
in the area.
Redevelopment The proposed parking structure and sales center with office space will be
located in the same area as the existing building. This principle is met.
Site Planning
that Respects
Terrain
The proposed parking structure and building will be located in the same
area as the existing building. Additional grading will be necessary for
access to the parking structure. This is an infill development, and any
grading will be done to slopes that have been created with the original
development of the site. This principle is met.
Clear
Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
This principle is not applicable.
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The proposed parking structure is to be located well within the existing Colonial Auto Site, in an
area over an existing travelway/parking area. The proposed use will support the existing use on -
site, will not alter the overall site design, or use. Therefore, the proposed parking st ructure will not
be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
Because the parking structure will support the current use on -site, the character of the district will
SP 2011-018
PC December 6, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
not be changed. Also, the Architectural Review Board has reviewed this proposal and provided
comments (Attachment D). The ARB review and approval process will ensure that the character of
the district will not change.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and i ntent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set for th in Section 1.4
and of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose and intent of Highway Commercial zoning is to permit
development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway
locations rather than to central business concentrations. Providing for a parking structure within an
existing auto dealership allows for additional commercial inventory while minimizing actual development
area.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed parking structure will support the existing motor vehicle sales and service use, a
primary by-right use within the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.41 requires a site plan to be submitted and approved for each parking structure. An
amendment to the existing site plan has been submitted. If the special use permit application is
approved, the applicant will revise the amendment for review and County approval.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety and general welfare will be protected through the site plan review process.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed parking structure will support an existing motor vehicle sales and service use
in the HC zoning district, furthering the purposes of said district.
2. Adjacent properties will not be adversely affected b y the development of the proposed
parking structure.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors to this application.
Recommended Action and Conditions:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP2011-18
Colonial Auto – Parking Deck with the conditions listed below.
CONDITIONS:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit 2011-018 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck” prepared by Townes Site Engineering and dated
October 17, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. limits of disturbance
b. location of buildings and structures
c. location of parking areas
d. employee parking and inventory storage parking layout
SP 2011-018
PC December 6, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees. The
applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed and shall mark the dripline in the field with
temporary fencing. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall
necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. No grading or disturbanc e within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until
a) the survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan
which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
Recommended Motion:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2011-18 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck with the
reasons and conditions stated in the staff report.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2011-18 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
Attachments
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Special Use Permit Application
Attachment C – Concept Plan
Attachment D – Architectural Review Board Conditions of Approval Letter
Return to PC actions letter
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP2011-018 Colonial Nissan
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 28, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
300 ft
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 24, 2011
Pete Borches
100 Myers Drive
Charlottesville, Va 22901
RE: ARB-2011-95: Colonial Nissan
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B
Dear Mr. Borches:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
October 17, 2011. The Board, by a vote 3:0 approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the
following conditions:
1. Provide for review names, numbers and samples for all proposed materials/colors. Ensure that the
samples accurately reflect the level of reflectivity at the entrance element. Materials presented at the
10/17/11 meeting are appropriate.
2. Indicate on the drawings the type of glass proposed and provide specifications showing that
reflectance off the outside pane is below 7%. Indicate if the glass is to be tinted. If it is, provide a
sample. Note that only minimal tints have been approved in the past.
3. Confirm in writing that no new equipment and no changes to existing equipment are proposed, either
on the ground or on the building. Or, revise the drawings to show the equipment in appropriate
locations, adequately screened.
4. Add this note to the architectural and site plans: “Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the
Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
5. Indicate that no new or revised building or site lighting is proposed, or provide complete information
on all new lighting proposed for the walls of the building, the rooftop parking deck, and the site. Show
locations on the site plan and/or building elevations. Include catalog cut sheets on the site plan.
Provide a luminaire schedule. Provide complete information on the light fixtures indicating that they
meet ordinance requirements.
6. Identify on the plan the size and species of the existing trees to be removed and replaced.
7. Provide complete information on the proposed wall signs for review.
8. Identify on the drawings the material and color of the element on which the “Nissan” and “Colonial”
signs are to be installed. Provide a detail illustrating how it is attached to the building.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
the changes in the drawing with “clouding” or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached “Revised Application Submittal” form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
Cc: CMA Properties Inc
C/O Colonial Auto Center
P O Box 7823
Charlottesville Va 22906
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff
has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit
additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be
collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: ___________________
PROJECT NAME: ARB-2011-95: Colonial Nissan
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates Submittal Code County Project Number # Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E&S)
Mitigation Plan (MP)
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private/public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request – Development Area (PRR-DA)
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP-CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R-CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D-GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F-GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB) ARB2011-95
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To:
ARB 2 Margaret
Maliszewski
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 6, 2011
SP-2011-00018 Colonial Nissan—Parking Deck
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit to allow construction of a rooftop parking deck on new building. No
dwellings proposed.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial – commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/
acre)
SECTION: 24.2.2 (11) Stand alone parking and parking structures.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research
and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: 200 Seminole Trail
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000094B0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Megan Yaniglos)
Ms. Yaniglos summarized the staff report in a PowerPoint presentation.
Proposal:
The request is for approval of a standalone parking structure.
Structure to house employee parking and excess car inventory.
Located in the rear of the proposed new building where there is currently lot parking.
The new building that will be located on the site will also contain an indoor display area and office
space.
Favorable Factors:
1. The proposed parking structure will support an existing motor vehicle sales and service use in the
HC zoning district, furthering the purposes of said district.
2. Adjacent properties will not be adversely affected by the development of the proposed parking
structure.
Unfavorable Factors: None Identified
Staff recommends approval of SP2011-018 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck with the two recommended
conditions.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. There being no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened
and the applicant invited to address the Planning Commission.
Pete Borches, with CMA Properties for Colonial Auto Center, said he was present to answer any
questions. He thanked staff for all their hard work on this and for getting him to this point.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked if there was a net gain or loss of parking spaces.
Mr. Borches replied that they were expecting to break even. However, it will probably be a loss unless
they count the roof deck that would be inventory storage. They are hoping to sell more cars. There is
some language in the second condition that says no tr ee removal take place. When he went through the
ARB he found there are a couple of trees perimeter to the building that will need to be removed and
replaced as part of the construction. The ARB did make note of that. He thought that might need to be
clarified in the second condition. The ARB condition #6 was identified and to note the species of the
trees to be removed and replaced.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
Mr. Zobrist asked staff to clarify the condition.
Mr. Benish said staff could remove the reference to no tree removal so that there is no grading. It
looks like it might be a typo.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public
hearing was closed and the matter was before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Franco asked how they could take away the reference to no tree removal.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the second sentence of the proposed condition was consistent with the
ARB condition.
Mr. Benish suggested that they delete tree removal. The standard language for #2 is no grading
or disturbance shall take place within the drip line. The tree removal is what is incorrect. For the
trees to be retained there is no work underneath those trees. It is to protect the trees to be left.
Staff can review that condition.
Mr. Zobrist said they understand the intent that they are going to remove a couple of trees as
referenced in the ARB report and replace them.
Mr. Borches asked for clarity that they reference the trees as referenced on the plan. That way
they would be clear that they have the right to remove them and replace them.
Mr. Zobrist said they would get that into the motion.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of SP -2011-00018 Colonial Nissan –
Parking Deck for the reasons stated in the staff report with the recommended conditions set forth in the
staff report with amendment to condition 2 to allow removal and replacement of trees as indicated in the
concept plan or site plan that is attached.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit 2011-018 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck” prepared by Townes Site Engineering and dated
October 17, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. limits of disturbance
b. location of buildings and structures
c. location of parking areas
d. employee parking and inventory storage parking layout
e. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. In areas designated for tree protection, the applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed
and shall mark the dripline in the field with temporary fencing. In areas designated for tree
protection, no tree removal shall occur. No grading or disturbance shall take place within the
driplines of trees located within the tree protection area. Any grading or disturbance within ten
(10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a “Tree Protection Plan” in accord with
section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any
dripline shall be permitted until a) the survey has been completed and the fencing has been
installed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan that shows the grading or disturbance and
the surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00018 Colonial Nissan – Parking Deck would be forwarded to the Board
on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2011
Brian Tate
134 James River Road
Scottsville, Va 24590
RE: SP201100020/L & B Towing-Snows Business Park
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035X0
Dear Mr. Tate:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 6, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled L&B Towing
for SP201100020, prepared by Brian Tate and dated November 17, 2011, (hereinafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following major elements
essential to the design of the development:
• location of the area for towed vehicles
• location of additional parking
• location of existing landscaping area
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Landscaping shown in the concept plan shall be maintained in its current condition, unless
authorized to change by the Zoning Administrator;
3. Vehicles may be stored on-site for a period of time not to exceed 60 days, unless directed by
a law enforcement or state government agency to keep them longer than 60 days.
Also, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Waiver, by a vote of 7:0 of Zoning Ordinance
Section 5.1.32(b).
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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,
J.T. Newberry
Planner
Zoning Division
Cc: Cynthia Viejo (Montague Miller & Company Realtors)
500 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Snow's Business Park LLC
3802 Snow Hill Ln
Troy Va 22974
SP201100020
PC December 6, 2011
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201100020 L&B Towing Staff: J.T. Newberry
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 6, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owners: Snow’s Business Park LLC Applicant: Brian Tate represented by Cynthia
Viejo
Acreage: 5.78 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for Towing
and Temporary Storage of Motor Vehicles in
accordance with Section 27.2.2 (12) of the
Zoning Ordinance
TMP: 09000-00-00-035X0
Location: 1833 Avon Street Extended on the
backside of Snow’s Business Park between Waste
Management and Snow’s Garden Center
Conditions: Yes
Existing Zoning: Light Industry (LI) – industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no residential);
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District – overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development
along routes of tourist access
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Comprehensive Plan Designation Industrial
Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale
research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and
conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre) in Neighborhood 4.
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Factors Favorable:
1. There is a demonstrable need for this
service, especially within the southern end of
the County.
2. The use will preserve the industrial character
of the area and reuse a vacant industrial
building.
Factors Unfavorable:
None identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to conditions.
SP201100020
PC December 6, 2011
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2011
SP201100020 L&B Towing
Applicant's Proposal: Use of approximately 0.5 acre of the 5.78 acres subject parcel to operate
a towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles business (See Attachment A, Aerial Map). No
body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassembling, salvage or crushing of
the towed vehicles is proposed. A vacant 1,800 sq. ft. industrial building on the site is proposed to
be used for an office with a 0.3 acre gravel parking lot behind it. The gravel lot is secured by an 8’
high chain link fence with locks on the entrance gates (See Attachment B, Proposed Concept
Plan).
Petition:
PROJECT: SP201100020/L & B Towing-Snows Business Park
PROPOSAL: Allow towing company on a portion of 5.78 acres under Section 27.2.2(12) of zoning
ordinance. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: LI – Light Industrial which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no
residential use)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 4.
LOCATION: 1833 Avon Street Ext.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035X0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Site and Surrounding Area: The subject parcel was approved as Snow’s
Business Park in 1998 and exists in the middle of an established industrial area of Avon Street
Extended. Four 1,800 sq. ft. steel buildings are located along front the property with each building
having its own parking and storage area located behind it. Further back on the property is a larger
building and storage area that is shared by Martin Roofing and Sheet Metal and Waste
Management. The subject property is abutted by industrial users, such as Snow’s Nursery and
BFI Waste Services, except for an approximately 200 ft. long section that borders a residential lot
along the back edge. The western side of Avon Street Ext. contains residences from the Mill
Creek subdivision.
Background: The area of the site under review was last occupied by an unauthorized wrecker
and auto repair service called Lethal Wrecker in 2006. Staff issued a Notice of Violation after
being notified this business was operating without a business license and without zoning approval.
The occupants subsequently submitted a special use permit (SP200600040) and minor
amendment (SDP200600120), but later deferred the applications indefinitely and vacated the site.
SP201100020
PC December 6, 2011
Page 3
This application is a different request by a different applicant and contains no request to conduct
auto repair.
STAFF COMMENT:
31.6.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The largest impact of the proposed use will be additional traffic. The site has an approved
commercial entrance and neither VDOT nor the County Engineer provided concerns about the
traffic impact of the proposed use. Access to this area of the site will be shared with vehicles from
Martin Roofing and Waste Management. Staff finds that this use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The subject parcel is abutted by parcels zoned Light Indust ry, except for one parcel to the
southeast that is zoned R-1 Residential and Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended). The entrance to the
site is across from a section of the Mill Creek subdivision, but the area of the parcel under review
will not be visible from any existing residences or from the Entrance Corridor. The character of
the area reflects the intended mix of industrial and limited commercial uses. Staff finds that this
use will not change the character of the district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Towing and Temporary Storage of Motor Vehicles is permitted by special use permit to ensure the
use fulfills the purpose and intent of the Light Industry district. This district “permit industries,
offices, and limited commercial uses which are compatible with and do not detract from
surrounding districts.” Staff finds that this use would complement the existing character of the
area and would not diminish the surrounding areas. In addition, the proposed use furthers the
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by establishing a legal use on the vacant section of the parcel.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
By-right uses in the Light Industry district include various types of manufacturing, printing,
research and development, assembly and fabrication, warehousing and similar uses. These uses
would not be adversely affected by the proposed use.
with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The following supplementary regulations in § 5.1.32 apply to the proposed use:
a. This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and/or temporary storage of
collision/disabled vehicles. No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing,
disassembling, salvage or crushing of vehicles shall be permitted; except that the
commission may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles in a particular
case;
SP201100020
PC December 6, 2011
Page 4
b. No vehicle shall be located on any portion of such property so as to be visible from any
public road or any residential property and shall be limited to locations designated on the
approved site plan. (Added 6-6-90)
The application of these supplemental regulations is fairly unique in that the County does not have
another approved stand-alone use that only provides towing and temporary storage services.
Instead, the County’s existing towing services are permitted as accessory to approved auto repair
uses, such as a body shop or public garage. The applicant fully complies with subsection (a) as
no additional work is proposed for towed vehicles.
However, subsection (b) reads in part that “No vehicle shall be…visible from any… residential
property.” Staff obtained permission from the owner and occupants of the residential property to
the southeast of the subject parcel (Tax Map 90, Parcel 35N, currently zoned R-1 Residential) to
check on compliance with this supplemental regulation. Pictures from the back property line
revealed that an approximate 15 ft. section of chain link fence is visible at this time (Attachment C
and D). Therefore, the current site technically does not fully comply with subsection (b).
Nevertheless, staff notes the purpose and intent of this ordinance is substantially met through the
existing conditions. The existing residence on TMP 90-35N is approximately 365 feet from the
back property line and approximately 250 feet of this distan ce contain mature woods that fully
screen from view both the Waste Management section of the subject parcel and the section under
review.
Section 5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance enables the Planning Commission to “modify or waive any
such requirement upon a finding that such requirement would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety, and welfare…” The applicant has limited the
area where vehicles will be securely stored as shown on the Concept Plan and they will not be
visible from any public road. Existing conditions make it very unlikely that any vehicles would be
visible from any residential property. As a result, staff finds that enforcing this regulation would
not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends this supplemental regulation
be waived.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff believes that the proposed towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles use will provide a
much needed service for the County. The proposed use would legally occupy a vacant section of
an industrial area that is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and will further the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (See Attachment E).
The proposal has been reviewed by Zoning, Building, VDOT, the County Engineer, the Albemarle
County Service Authority, and Fire/Rescue to find no objection and recommend no additional
improvements to address health and safety considerations.
SP201100020
PC December 6, 2011
Page 5
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. There is a demonstrable need for this service, especially within the southern end of the
County.
2. The use will preserve the industrial character of the area and reuse a vacant industrial
building.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of SP201100020, L&B Towing, as follows:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled L&B
Towing for SP201100020, prepared by Brian Tate and dated November 17, 2011,
(hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following major elements
essential to the design of the development:
• location of the area for towed vehicles
• location of additional parking
• location of existing landscaping area
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Landscaping shown in the concept plan shall be maintained in its current condition,
unless authorized to change by the Zoning Administrator;
3. Vehicles may be stored on-site for a period of time not to exceed 60 days, unless
directed by a law enforcement or state government agency to keep them longer than 60
days.
The County Attorney’s office has not yet had a chance to review the proposed wording of
conditions, so minor editing may be necessary between the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors’ meeting.
WAIVERS
Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a waiver for section 5.1.32 (b) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
SP201100020
PC December 6, 2011
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit with
waivers:
Move to recommend approval of SP201100020, L&B Towing with waivers based on the
recommendation of staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit with
waivers;
Move to recommend denial of SP201100020, L&B Towing with waivers.
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Aerial Map highlighting the Application Boundary
Attachment B: Proposed Concept Plan signed by Brian Tate and dated November 17, 2011
Attachment C Photos of Fence from Tax Map 90, Parcel 35N
Attachment D: Location Map showing Zoning Districts
Attachment E: Location Map showing Comprehensive Plan Designations
Return to PC actions letter
VIOLAAVON STREETR O Y A L O A K
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, November 2011.
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 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010
µ0 100 20050Feet
The photograph below was
taken from approximately
this area.
The photograph shows an
approximately 15 foot long
area of chain link fence
visible from back edge of
the property.
View of subject property
from the back of the
residence located on Tax
Map 90, Parcel 35 N.
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Zoning Info
Zoning Classifications
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
R2 Residential
R4 Residential
R6 Residential
R10 Residential
R15 Residential
Planned Unit Developmen
Planned Residential Devel
Neighborhood Model Distri
Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
Commercial Office
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Sh
Planned Development Mix
Downtown Crozet District
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Planned Development Ind
Town of Scottsville
Attachment D: Location Map with Zoning Districts
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 29, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
267 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Urban Development Area
Comprehensive Plan Area
Comp Plan Roadway Impr
Crozet Master Plan Land
Greenspace *
Neighborhood Density (Lo
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Mixed-Use
Downtown
Institutional
Light Industrial
See Crozet Masterplan Te
Pantops Master Plan Land
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Urban Mixed Use
Institutional
Employment District
Employment Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use
Parks
Greenspace
River Corridor
Rural Area
Places29 Master Plan Mix
C - Community Center
D - Destination Center
NS - Neighborhood Servic
Up - Uptown
Places29 Master Plan Lan
Airport District
Urban Mixed Use (in Cent
Urban Mixed Use (in area
Commercial Mixed Use
Urban Density
Neighborhood Density
Office / R & D / Flex / Light
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Institutional
Public Open Space
Privately Owned Open Sp
Village of Rivanna Master
Comp Plan Land Use
Community Service
Industrial Service
Institutional
Neighborhood Density
Neighborhood Service
Office Service
Office/Regional Service
Parks and Greenways
Regional Service
Town/Village Center
Transitional
Urban Density
Rural Area
See Development Area Te
Master Plan Areas
Attachment E: Location Map with Comprehensive Plan Designations
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 29, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
267 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 6, 2011
Public Hearing Items
SP-2011-00020 L & B Towing-Snows Business Park (Robert Snow property)
PROPOSAL: Allow towing company on a portion of 5.78 acres under Section 27.2.2(12) of zoning
ordinance. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: LI – Light Industrial which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential
use)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research,
office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 4.
LOCATION: 1833 Avon Street Ext.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035X0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(JT Newberry)
Mr. Zobrist pointed out for the record this is the Robert Snow property and not the Duane Snow
property. He noted that he has done work in the past for Robert Snow, but not on this matter.
Therefore, he feels comfortable in participating.
J.T. Newberry presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant has applied to use a 0.5 acre section of the back of Snow’s Business Park for a Towing and
Temporary Storage of Motor Vehicles use, at the back of Snow’s Business Park. This parcel is zoned
Light Industry where this use is only permitted by special use permit. The applicant is also requesting a
waiver of § 5.1.32 (b).
The applicant’s concept plan submitted with the application shows that towed vehicles will be kept
securely in the fenced lot behind the building at 1833 Avon St. Extended. Three parking spaces will be
provided for any customers on the left-hand side of the building and maintaining the existing landscape
behind. Photographs of the site were reviewed in the presentation.
One issue discussed in the staff report is the supplemental regulations in Section 5 that address this
specific use. Section 5.1.32 (b) specifically states in part that “No vehicle shal l be located on any portion
of such property so as to be visible from any public road or any residential property and shall be
limited to locations designated on the approved site plan.” (Added 6-6-90) The property shown with a
red arrow is zoned R-1, Residential. Staff obtained permission from the property owner at Parcel 35N to
determine the potential for impact on the closest residential property and took a photograph.
Staff discovered an approximately 15 foot section of chain link fence is visible from the back of Parcel
35N. Based on the difference in elevation, it is likely that the bumpers of vehicles parked behind this
fence would technically be visible from the residential property.
However, staff notes the purpose and intent of this ordinance is substantially met through the existing
conditions. There is approximately 250’ to 275’ of mature woods that provides a very strong buffer for the
residence on Parcel 35N from any visual impacts caused by the proposed use on Parcel 35X. But,
before the Commission considers the waiver any further, he reviewed the special use permit conditions.
For the reasons stated in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-2011-00020 L & B Towing –
Snows Business Park with the following conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled L&B Towing for
SP201100020, prepared by Brian Tate and dated November 17, 2011, (hereinafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Adm inistrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following major elements
essential to the design of the development:
• location of the area for towed vehicles
• location of additional parking
• location of existing landscaping area
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Landscaping shown in the concept plan shall be maintained in its current condition, unless
authorized to change by the Zoning Administrator;
3. Vehicles may be stored on-site for a period of time not to exceed 60 days, unless directed by a
law enforcement or state government agency to keep them longer than 60 days.
Staff recommends that Section 5.1.32 (b) be waived through the following motion.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they ask that the applicant take that chain length fence and do some kind of lattice
work through the chain link fence that would serve as a barrier. She asked if they would then need to
give them a waiver.
Mr. Newberry replied no, they would not.
Ms. Porterfield asked if this waiver will run with the land.
Mr. Newberry replied that was correct.
Mr. Benish noted that it was for temporary parking. However, the special use permit would run with the
land.
Ms. Porterfield said if they ask them to do that with the fence and maintain that with the fence they would
not have to give them a waiver or worry about what would happen on the residential lot if a lot of that
vegetation should die.
The residential lot is providing the vegetation.
Mr. Newberry said that was true. He has brought up the Comprehensive Plan designations for the area.
It is all zoned Industrial Service. The plan is for it to eventually be used for an industrial use, but she is
correct that right now it is a residential lot.
Mr. Lafferty asked if there is any provision for run off for instance for oil coming down onto the residential
property.
Mr. Newberry replied that they don’t have anything in there right now. His understanding from the
applicant, and he may be able to better answer the question, is that f rom any of the vehicles that he has
towed that have been damaged any of the liquids or dangerous materials that would have come out of the
incident are released on the site where he tows it from. So on the lot there is very minimal impact from
any run off. He could let the applicant better address that for him.
Mr. Benish noted the larger site is going to be subject to the storm water detention. He did not know what
method there is for this particular portion of the site. Storm water detention is covered for the larger size
site.
Mr. Smith suggested the applicant buy some trees to put in on the back of the lot.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Brian Tate, applicant and business owner, noted that his friend who helps him out a lot when he was not
available was present. As Mr. Newberry was just talking about that most of the time during an accident
radiators are broken. Usually by the time they tow the vehicle to the lot and stuff like that there is really
nothing left coming out of them. That is pretty much it. The lot he has now he really does not see any
drainage. Every once in a while they see a little drip age here and there, but no big spillage.
Unfortunately he now has a lot in the city. He was trying to move his operation out to Snow’s property.
He was born and raised in southern Albem arle County. He started this business about seven years ago
and wants to work out of southern Albemarle County. This year he decided to take a shot at it to see if he
could get approved to move to southern Albemarle County. He would work there and pay h is taxes there.
That way he would get the use of the money he pays in taxes back.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield noted that this was in her district. The idea is great. Personally she would prefer not to
give the waiver. She would like him to do something with that back fence that will make it so they can’t
see through it.
Mr. Tate said Mr. Newberry had discussed that with both he and Mr. Snow. They wanted to wait to see
what was said about it. Mr. Snow said something about the possibility of planting some kind of plants or
something to cover the fence. But they decided to try for the waiver.
Ms. Porterfield said if they don’t want to plant anything, then they could come up with a fence that could
not be seen through at the same height that is currently there. That would solve the problem for the
residents behind them. She asked if he was amendable to that.
Mr. Tate replied yes that he could talk with Mr. Snow tomorrow. They could get things moving to get t hat
taken care of.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment on this matter. There being no public comment, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Porterfield moved to recommend approval of SP-2011-00020 L&B Towing – Snows Business Park
with the recommendations from staff 1, 2, and 3 to be in general accord with an additional condition
saying that that applicant is to either modify the existing fence or construct a new fence along the
residential property line at the same height as the current fence that is opaque.
Mr. Zobrist asked if it the condition could include plantings.
Ms. Porterfield replied no, that they would be better off to go with the fence. She felt he needs the fence
since she did not know if he had enough room to plant on his own property on the other side. She did not
want to see plants go in that don’t truly screen.
Mr. Franco pointed out there was a motion on the table. He could not second the motion at this point.
Mr. Kamptner noted that a second actually opens it up for discussion.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Mr. Zobrist invited further discussion.
Mr. Franco said he liked the way staff looked at this. He was weighing that the adjacent property owner
did not show up and obviously knew about it since staff went and talked to them and got permission to
come onto their property. Looking at the Comp Plan designation and seeing that it will eventually or it is
at least designated for industrial he sees that as somewhat of a waste. He cou ld support the staff
recommendations as is and not require additional fencing or screening.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
4
Mr. Morris supported Mr. Franco’s idea simply because this was going into heavy and light industrial.
Ms. Porterfield said she did not disagree with that, but this travels with the land.
Mr. Loach asked if she could make it optional based on the adjacent landowner since the landowner is
happy with it.
Mr. Franco said he did not think they can do it that way. He thought it should be independent of third
parties.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to put the pictures back up.
Mr. Zobrist said it was 75’ away from the house.
Ms. Porterfield said that was mostly on the adjacent residential land owner’s property. When they see the
aerial it is showing vegetation on this property. She asked if that is true and if that vegetation currently
exists. She asked is the fence at the lot line.
Mr. Newberry replied no, the fence shown in the picture is up around the two lots. It is 30 feet higher in
elevation and probably about 50’ from the back property line.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the property line is a big slope.
Mr. Newberry replied that was correct. When he visited parcel 35N he went through all that vegetation as
shown on the aerial. It is certainly there and very thick. He pointed the camera through the trees and
took the photo to show that technically it does not meet the supplemental regulation. The supplemental
regulation is really broad to say it can’t be visible from any residential property. Som e people brought up
later what if a residential property was up on a mountain and they could look down at this. The County
has never faced enforcing this regulation. This is only the second time they have reviewed a special use
permit for this use. It is kind of a new thing. The fence is 8 feet tall.
Ms. Porterfield noted the only thing she was concerned about is if they see lots that have damaged
automobiles or other vehicles on them they are not very pretty. Many of the lots are fenced with
something that they can’t see through it or simply the ability to not have to look at that kind of damage.
The vehicles are going to be there for quite a while, which means that they could have rusting and other
things happening to them. She was only suggesting that since this is residential property, since the
applicant is not opposed to doing a screening that they simply ask him to do it along that lot line only.
She was not saying that he had to take the fence all around.
Mr. Franco noted that he remained concern that is sort of a needless expense.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the Commission wants to vote on the motion as made.
Mr. Loach asked staff if they have spoke to the residents there.
Mr. Newberry replied that people are renting that property right now. He had an email and a quick phone
conversation and he gave permission for him to take a picture. He did not seem to indicate any
significant future plans for the property. He is just renting the house that exists there.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he actually spoke to the land owner.
Mr. Newberry noted he spoke with the owner briefly. They were going out of town and just said to just
keep them informed of anything and if they had any problems they would let him know. He thought the
owner understood the nature of the request.
Ms. Porterfield said based on that she would withdraw her motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
5
Mr. Loach said he could support her motion.
Mr. Kamptner questioned if the yellow portion in Attachment A backs up to parcel 35P.
Mr. Newberry replied yes it does. Parcel 35P is also zoned Light Industrial. The section of Snow’s
property that is applying to be used tonight backs up to that Light Industrial parcel. However, from that
back corner of parcel 35N that is where you get that 15 foot section of fence.
Motion on Special Use Permit:
Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00020 L&B Towing
– Snows Business Park with recommended conditions 1, 2 and 3 as noted by staff.
1. Development of the use shall be in general acc ord with the Concept Plan entitled L&B
Towing for SP201100020, prepared by Brian Tate and dated November 17, 2011,
(hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following major
elements essential to the design of the development:
• location of the area for towed vehicles
• location of additional parking
• location of existing landscaping area
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Landscaping shown in the concept plan shall be maintained in its current condition,
unless authorized to change by the Zoning Administrator;
3. Vehicles may be stored on-site for a period of time not to exceed 60 days, unless
directed by a law enforcement or state government agency to keep them longer than 60
days.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Waiver:
Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of the waiver for Section
5.1.32(b) of the zoning ordinance as recommended by staff and based on findings presented in the staff
report.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00020 L & B Towing – Snows Business Park and the waiver would be
scheduled to go to the Board on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2011
Stephen Waller, AICP
536 Pantops Center - PMB #405
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: SP 2011-00021 – Verizon Wireless – Herring Property
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05300-00-00-00600
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 6, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “I-64 West –
Herring Property” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 8/30/2011 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within
the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antennae
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Verizon Wireless
C/O Maynard Sipe
123 East Main Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Herring, James M Jr Or Julie Ann
P O Box 1243
Verona Va 24482
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201100021 Herring - Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 6, 2011
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
TBD
Owners: James M. Herring, Jr., or Julie Ann Herring Applicant: Stephen Waller- GDN Sites;
Verizon Wireless C/O Maynard Sipe, LeClair
Ryan
Acreage: 83.42 acres
(Lease Area: 1,200 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 53 Parcel 6
Location: 8268 Newtown Heights
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas; EC, Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Special use permit amendment to
allow replacement of existing 53.5-foot treetop
monopole with a 97-foot treetop monopole, with
associated ground equipment. .
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Mostly wooded and currently
contains four existing monopoles and associated
ground equipment.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas –
large forest parcels and small single family
residential lots
Factors Favorable:
1. The replacement is proposed within an
existing facility and will not have any visual impact to
the entrance corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval based on minimal visibility
from I-64, an Entrance Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201100021 (with a
condition) and associated modification requests (for Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(9).
2
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100021:Herring - Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: James M. Herring, Jr., or Julie Ann Herring
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to amend an existing special use permit to allow replacement of existing 53.5-
foot treetop monopole with a 97-foot treetop monopole, with associated ground equipment. This
use requires a special use permit because there are already four personal wireless service
facilities on the site. The new proposed monopole would be at the same height as the reference
tree, which is located on a steep slope behind the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site contains an existing personal wireless service facility and associated ground equipment.
The property is mainly wooded, and the character of the surrounding areas is a combination of
large forest parcels and small single family residential lots. This site is along I-64, directly north
of the VDOT Workers’ Memorial overlook.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The following applications, all for personal wireless services facilities, have been approved for
this site:
Special Use Permits
o SP 1999-00010 – Personal Wireless Service Facility
o SP 2000-00030 – Personal Wireless Service Facility
o SP 2000-00041 – Personal Wireless Service Facility
o SP 2003-00012 – Personal Wireless Service Facility
o SP 2003-00054 – Personal Wireless Service Facility
o SP 2007-00065 – Personal Wireless Service Facility (Herring Property – Verizon)
Site Development Plans
o SDP 2007-00101 – Wireless facility site plan
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because the site has more than three personal
3
wireless service facilities within 200 feet (subsection 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance). Four
wireless facilities are currently located on the site. This proposed facility would replace one of
them.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The facility is located in a densely wooded area on a steep hillside that prevents any
of the poles on the site from being skylighted. The replacement facility would have no greater
impact on adjacent properties than the existing facilities.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
This proposal is for the replacement of an existing facility, not the introduction of a new use.
Thereore it is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this
use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
As noted above, this proposal is for the replacement of an existing use. No significant adverse
impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area district are anticipated. The proposed
personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-right uses within the Rural
Areas district.
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 through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposal is for a replacement of an existing,
approved monopole. No change to the public health, safety and general welfare is expected
with the approval of the replacement.
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 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
4
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, 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 31.6.1 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 proposed wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. 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 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 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 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 replacement will not require guy wires or whip antenna. The proposed grounding rod meets
the requirements of the ordinance, and the facility will only have one outdoor light fixture that
will only be in use when service is being performed at the site at night or during weather events.
The ground equipment will be located next to the existing ground equipment which is sheltered
from all lot lines by existing vegetation. The applicant will be required to provide a statement
certifying that the height of the new extension complies with this regulation.
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
5
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.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of two sectors with three panel antennas that
measure 94.6”x 11.2”x 4.5”, and each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. Mounting
collars will keep the outer edge of the antennae within 12 inches of the pole. All antennae will be
painted to match the color of the monopole.
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 additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed extension and all supporting ground equipment will be kept
within the existing facility compound. No trees will need to be removed in order to install the
new antennae and ground equipment.
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.
A tree conservation plan will not be needed since this is an existing site and no additional trees
will be removed with the installation of the antennae and ground equipment.
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
6
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 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 Wireless 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.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon Wireless will submit an annual report
updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
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 applicant is requesting a modification of this section. The existing facility is not fenced, and
the applicant is not proposing to install a fence surrounding the existing and proposed facility
and ground equipment. Staff does not believe a fence would protect the facility from livestock or
wildlife, and not having a fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
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
7
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 monopole would replace at 53-foot pole with a 97-foot pole. The new pole would
be at the same height as a reference tree directly behind it.
A balloon test was conducted on October 21st, 2011 [Attachment C]. During the site visit, staff
observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Staff travelled Interstate 64, US 250, and Newtown Road to determine the extent of visibility of
the proposal. The balloon was visible to the right side of the vehicle for approximately 1000 feet
when traveling west on I-64 for approximately 1000’ approaching the VDOT Workers’
Memorial overlook, and for approximately 2300 feet when traveling east on I-64 for
approximately 2300’ in the vicinity of the same overlook. From Newtown Road and US 250, the
balloon was barely visible due to distance. The balloon was not skylighted from any of these
vantage points due to the steep, wooded slope behind it.
Architectural Review Board staff reviewed this request and attended the balloon test and has
stated that this proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor
[Attachment D]. It is staff’s opinion that at the proposed height (the same as the height of the
reference tree on the steep slope behind), the level of visibility will be low and is not expected to
have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors or adjacent properties.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
This property is in a mountainous area listed in the Mountain Resource Protection Plan, and is in
an large area of critical slopes (although the site itself is flat). It is also in the Greenwood-Afton
Rural Historic District which was created after the adoption of the Open Space & Critical
Resources Plan. However, due to the limited area of the proposal and the minimal visibility of
the wireless facilities on the site, no one of these resources would be adversely impacted by this
pole replacement.
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 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).
8
The proposed replacement monopole would have a height of approximately 1,357 feet above
mean sea level (AMSL). The existing monopole is at a height of 1,312.7 AMSL. The height of
the reference tree is approximately 1,357 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As proposed by the
applicant the monopole would be the same height as the reference tree. The replacement is
proposed to stay within the requirements of this section.
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 new antenna and all associated and equipment will be painted to match the existing facility.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Conditions of approval are recommended below, and the facility will be held to those conditions.
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 sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
9
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The replacement is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to
the entrance corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from I-64, which is an Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2011-00021 Herring with the
condition listed below, and with the following modifications, based on the analysis provided
herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “I-64
West – Herring Property” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 8/30/2011 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antennae
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
10
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Balloon photos
D. Architectural Review Board Staff comment
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to approve or deny modifications for Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(9) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6).:
I move to recommend approval of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(9) for the
reasons outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(9). (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP20110021) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110021 Herring Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100021 Herring Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
I-64 E
I -6 4 W
NEWTOWN RDSKYLINE DRM O U N T A IN H O L L O W R D
N E W T O W N H T S
S U M M E R R E S T L N
SP20110 0021 Herring 0 1,000 2,000500Feet¯
Herring Property
Parcels
Contour Lines (20m Inter val)
Attachment B
Balloon-test photo from VDOT Workers’ Memorial on I-64 East
Balloon-test photo from Newtown Road, south of I-64
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Clark
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: SP-2011-21: Herring (Verizon) and ARB-2011-104: Herring (Verizon)
DATE: October 26, 2011
At the balloon test conducted on October 21, 2011, the balloon was visible:
1) Traveling west on I-64 for approximately 1000’ approaching the Newtown Overlook, and
2) Traveling east on I-64 for approximately 2300’ in the vicinity of the Newtown Overlook.
The site is located approximately 600’ from the median of the I-64 Entrance corridor. The balloon was
clearly visible but it was never sky-lit. Based on the balloon test, the pole will be more visible than some of
the existing poles at this location due to its height above the trees that stand in front of it. However, the site
has a substantial wooded backdrop and wooded surround, and the character of the highway traveling along
the wooded mountain is such that noticeability is limited. Ground equipment will not be visible from the
EC and The level of visibility of the proposed replacement monopole is not expected to have a negative
impact on the Entrance Corridor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 6, 2011
Public Hearing Items: SP-2011-00021 Herring Property Tower
SP-2011-00023 Verizon Wireless / Hudson Property
SP-2011-00024 Verizon Wireless - Moyer Property
SP-2011-00021 Herring Property Tower
PROPOSED: Special use permit amendment to allow replacement of existing 53.5-foot treetop
monopole with a 97-foot treetop monopole, with associated ground equipment.
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) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 8268 Newtown Heights, approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Green Hill Lane
(Route F0174).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05300-00-00-00600
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized staff report.
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing special use permit to allow replacement of an
existing 53.5-foot treetop monopole with a 97-foot steel treetop monopole, with associated ground
equipment. This use requires a special use permit because there are already four personal wireless
service facilities on the site. The new proposed monopole would be at the same height as the reference
tree, which is located on a steep slope behind the site.
This is a very large steep site that is mostly wooded. The existing tower is compared to the reference tree
to the left. However, the new tower is compared to the reference tree to the right. The towers are not sky
lit on the site. The site is to some degree visible from Newtown Road south of I-64 and from some places
on I-64. He reviewed the balloon test noting the backdrop of trees.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
The applicant has requested the following modifications:
• Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
• Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted
in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
• Section 5.1.40(c)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment. The ground equipment is not visible
from any spot staff was able to find. There is no need to fence the equipment since it is invisible
from any public view.
It is an existing steep forest. It is not necessary to change any vegetation to replac e the pole.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
1. The replacement is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to the
entrance corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from
I-64, which is an Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
• none
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of:
1. The requested Zoning Ordinance modifications:
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted in
accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Section 5.1.40(c)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
2. SP 2011-00021 Herring with the condition listed below, based on the analysis provided herein.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “I -64 West – Herring
Property” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 8/30/2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• Height
• Mounting type
• Antenna type
• Number of antennae
• Distance above reference tree
• Color
• Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the reason the applicant was here was they were replacing a pole owned by that
company with a new pole. They were not increasing the numbers, but simply replacing.
Mr. Clark replied that was correct. The conditions were changing to refer to the new plan.
Mr. Kamptner noted when the Commission took an action on the modifications they were making a
recommendation to the Board. This modification is a little different than those accompanying other type
of approvals.
Mr. Fritz noted staff does not view this as a replacement. If they were going to take down the tower that
is there and replace it with one at the same height that would be a replacement. This one would be
removal and construction of a new tower. There is a distinction.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it was still because there were more than three. She viewed it that there was
still going to be four towers.
Mr. Fritz agreed that it qualifies as a Tier III facility, but is not a replacement.
SP-2011-00023 Verizon Wireless / Hudson Property
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
PROPOSED: Request for extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the attachment of a
second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located above existing antennas.
The new proposed height of the existing monopole will be 96.5 feet, an eight foot extension from the top
of the existing antennas, and will be approximately 16 feet above the reference tree. The proposal
includes modifications to 5.1.40(c)(4),(5) and (9) and 5.1.40 (d)(6)
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) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zonin g District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood 5 -
residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small scale
non-residential uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 1097 Teel Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-021A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Megan Yaniglos)
Megan Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized staff report.
Proposal
• Extend the height by eight (8) feet, which will be 16 feet above the reference tree
• Install new ground equipment
• 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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment. Currently there is no fencing at
this site.
– Sec. 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the
tallest tree within 25 feet. The applicant is proposing the monopole to be 16.25 feet
above the reference tree.
A balloon test was conducted in October.
Staff traveled along Interstate 64, Route 29 south, and other areas surrounding the site.
The balloon was only visible for a brief period of time along Interstate 64. And was visible from
the on ramp connecting route 29 to i-64 eastbound when stopped.
Factors Favorable:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to the
Entrance Corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from
Interstate 64 and Route 29, both Entrance Corridors.
Factors Unfavorable: none identified
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modifications and the proposed wireless service
facility with the conditions outlined in the staff report and listed.
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Gold Eagle-
Hudson Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 8/30/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
4
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Two Separate Actions:
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment
4. Sec. 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the
tallest tree within 25 feet.
2. Approval of SP-2011-023 Hudson Property
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty noted staff mentioned that the ground equipment would need to be changed. He assumed
with the two previous requests the ground equipment would have to be modified too.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that she could not answer that question and suggested that the applicant might be
able to answer that. She did not review those applications.
Mr. Lafferty assumed that with the change in frequency the equipment would have to be changed or
added to.
Ms. Yaniglos agreed since they were adding equipment here.
Mr. Zobrist suggested the Commission hold that question for the applicant.
Mr. Morris noted he had one question for staff. For the last eight years they have been extremely strict in
the height of the towers. For the first four years he was on this Board it was like pulling hen’s teeth to get
it above 7 feet. They are now they are going to 10 feet. He fully understands exactly what the applicant
was saying that they need to look at again. However, right now the Code says maximum of 10 feet. He
questioned why the jump to 6 feet above that limit. It just does not make any sense without doing what
they are going to be doing tomorrow with the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fritz replied that they were going to be bringing those very things up. It was one of the questions staff
is posing to the Board of Supervisors. The W ireless Policy was written 12 years ago and the applicant
has pointed out there was a different level of usage and potentially a different level of acceptance. He
thought there has been some change in the level of acceptance in terms of visibility impact of 7 feet
versus 10 feet. Also, there has been a great deal of refinement in the siting of them. He felt that the
applicant and the County have gotten much better at siting them so that 10 feet is okay. They are putti ng
the towers in good places. That is what was envisioned all along with the policy. However, his point is
well taken and that is exactly the kind of thing the Board is going to need to tackle tomorrow.
Mr. Morris agreed because it is the Code.
Ms. Yaniglos pointed out she has been reviewing towers for five years. She had never had an
application where it was a Tier III above the ten feet that someone was proposing.
Mr. Morris agreed that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
5
Ms. Yaniglos said that a lot of the applicatio ns were the Tier II where that was a strict requirement.
However, they have never gotten an application where the tower was above the ten feet.
Mr. Fritz noted they have had relatively few Tier III applications.
Mr. Zobrist asked if staff is recommending that the Commission waive the ten feet.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that staff is recommending that the Commission waive that section for the height in
5.1.40.d(6) to go an additional 6.2 feet to be 16.2 feet.
Ms. Porterfield asked why is this request is before the Commission.
Ms. Yaniglos replied because it is a Tier III and has to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Zobrist asked for the staff report on the third one for the Moyer property.
SP-2011-00024 Verizon Wireless - Moyer Property
PROPOSED: Request for extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the attachment of a
second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located above existing antennas.
The new proposed height of the existing monopole will be 89.5 feet, an 8.5 foot extension from the top of
the existing antennas, and will be approximately 12 feet above the reference tree. The proposal includes
modifications to 5.1.40(c)(4),(5) and (9) and 5.1.40 (d)(6).
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) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 1841 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09200-00-00-056B3
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Megan Yaniglos)
Megan Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized staff report. She apologized that
there were some typos in the staff report. The applicant had to go back and resurvey the refer ence tree.
When the application originally came in the proposed height from the reference tree was lower than what
actually existed out on the site. Some misinformation got into the staff report. She stated that the tower
was 6 feet above when it is actually 12 feet above the reference tree.
- This is a request for an extension of an existing monopole in order to support the attachment of a
second array that will contain 3 new flush mounted antennas.
- This original monopole was approved with a Special Use Permit with conditions for an 80 foot
monopole and ground equipment
- The property is mostly wooded and currently contains two personal wireless service facilities on
site. It is located along Route 53
Proposal
• Extend the existing monopole in order to support the attachment of a second array with three new
flush mounted antennas
• Extend the height by eight (8) feet, which will be 12 feet above the reference tree.
• Install new ground equipment
• 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
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
6
– Sec. 5.1.40 (c)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment
– Sec. 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the
tallest tree within 25 feet.
There is an AT&T site located right above the Verizon site.
- A balloon test was conducted in October. There was only one location where the balloon could be seen,
which was approximately 1/3 of a mile from the site along Route 53.
Factors Favorable:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to the
Entrance Corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from
Route 53 an Entrance Corridors.
Factors Unfavorable: none identified
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modifications and t he proposed wireless service
facility with the conditions outlined in the staff report and listed.
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Nix Way- Moyer
Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 11/9/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elemen ts above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked with the towers going now above 10’ is there any consideration in the new regulations of
decreasing the number of towers that can be in vicinity. Across from VDOT on I-64 there are three or
four of them just above the tree line. This tower will not be back lit. However, all of a sudden if they are
going from 53 in 1997 are they going to have several more requests in the not too distant future. In the
future where one of them as you go by is not too visible, but with three or four towers at 16 to 20 feet
above the reference tree how will it appear.
Mr. Fritz replied that the short answer to his question is yes. All of those things are on the table in terms
of looking how potentially could the regulations be modified changing the tiers around and is it possible.
He has talked about this before. These types of requests could be modified to the Tier II level so it is not
a special use permit. It would be an administrative process through the Planning Commission to raise the
tower to more than 10 feet so that this would fall within a Tier II. Then also to change potentially the
number of horizontal total number of sites and whe n one jumps from a Tier II to a Tier III and the
relationships there. All of those things are on the table, but he does not have the answer to what it would
look like.
Ms. Porterfield said that is why she was asking the answer question of why they are here. So that is what
they are starting to look at to see that these are realistically to come before the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
7
Mr. Fritz said this is really a conversation different from the special use permit that they have before them.
Yes, they realize they and the community have learned a great deal on how to process these things.
There may be ways to make it more administrative.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Ms. Schweller, representative for Verizon Wireless, asked to go back to her presentation. In response to
Ms. Porterfield’s question about the I-64 site she noted one of the reasons why it requires a special use
permit is that there are more than three facilities within 200 feet of one another. The facilities are not
visible, but they are all there. One of the requirements is that it has to go through the whole process.
This particular facility has trees in front and behind it. It is going to be very difficult to see. It is going to
be much more difficult to see than a 5’ in diameter yellow balloon. She did not think it would add to any t o
any visual impact.
Verizon W ireless obtained a special use permit for another metal monopole about three years ago in this
very same complex. That is not being built because with the Alltel acquisition they can simply remove the
existing Alltel wooden pole replace it with a taller metal monopole that can hold the antennas that they
need. They are not increasing the number of monopoles on this site. The current wooden pole is shorter
than all of the other three poles that are there. The new pole will be the tallest on the site. Part of the
reason for that is they can’t have all of the same antennas at the same height since they will interfere wit h
one another. They took this opportunity to put a strong taller metal monopole with two sets of flush
mounted antennas to bring all of the three technologies.
All four monopoles are on the site. When looking at the site from a distance the monopoles are not
visible because they are painted brown. That helps the monopoles blend in with the trees. The
monopoles look much like the utility poles that are seen in some of the photographs, which are in the
foreground.
She emphasized that in going through these applications that one of the points they are trying to make
about how they view their Wireless Policy and changes they might consider to the Zoning Ordinance is
that currently, as the Commission has been discussing, even Tier III applications are being reviewed by
Tier II criteria. Tier III applications are special use permits. The Board can do anything it wants and the
Commission can recommend conditions that are very different from Tier II restrictions. The way the
ordinance currently reads a T ier III application needs to meet all of the conditions of a Tier I and all the
conditions of a Tier II except for a couple of them, except all of those conditions that are changed by the
Board. So whether it is 10 feet or 25 feet above the reference tre e is really not of a concern if it is a Tier
III and a special use permit. The County has the power to do that. There is a distinction between Tier I
and Tier II as well as Tier III, which is a special use permit. She would like to suggest that this
application and all Tier III applications should be evaluated by the special use permit criteria. There is no
substantial detriment to the neighborhood. There is no additional visual impact and no change to the
character of the district. This monopole has been in place for ten years.
SP-201100021
“I-64W” / Herring Property
Located within 200’ of three other monopoles so requires Special Use Permit
Fulfills all Tier II (“Treetop”) design elements; of even height with reference tree (97’)
Forested mountain slope background – no skylighting
Screening from trees on all sides
Replacement is in lieu of constructing a previously-approved monopole at site
Views from the site and from Newtown Road
Special Use Permit Approval Criteria
No substantial detriment to neighborhood; will provide improved service with minimal visual
impact;
No change to character of district; existing wood monopole has been in place nearly 10 years; no
tree removal or ground disturbance;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
8
In harmony with by-right uses because would be by-right but for nearby poles;
In harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance:
Will facilitate the creation of a convenient and harmonious community by providing
increased service, including wireless internet for this rural area of western Albemarle;
Will enhance police and fire protection with more reliable voice service;
Will support economic development, providing connections for students, home
businesses, and workers on the road and in the field.
She noted that fencing is not required by the ordinance. Fencing is permitted if the agent determines that
it would be required in certain circumstances. Therefore, it is not a waiver that they are requesting. They
just don’t have fencing and are not adding fencing unless they desire it.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions. There being no questions on the Herring proposal, he asked the applicant
to review the next request.
Ms. Schweller reviewed the next proposal SP-2011-00021 “Gold Eagle” / Hudson Property.
SP-201100021
“Gold Eagle” / Hudson Property
Just off U.S. 29N near I-64 interchange, visible only briefly on the ramps and briefly on
westbound interstate
Increase of 8.5’ to 16’ above reference tree (88’ to 96.25’)
Meets all Tier II design guidelines except for the proposed distance above reference tree but
would add no significant visual impact.
Complies with the Special Use Permit Approval Criteria
No substantial detriment to neighborhood; will provide improved service with little or no visual
impact;
No change to character of district; existing monopole has been in place since 2006; no tree
removal or ground disturbance;
The only change on the ground would be to add equipment in order to provide the LTE.
In harmony with by-right uses because would be by-right but for nearby poles;
In harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance:
Will facilitate the creation of a convenient and harmonious community by providing
increased service, including wireless internet;
Will enhance police and fire protection with more reliable voice service;
Will support economic development, providing connections for students, home
businesses, and workers on the road and in the field.
One other point was that some of these older sites may only have a couple of antennas. She pointed out
the ordinance allows three antennas by right. So they would have the ability to simply add another
antenna if need be.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions. There being none, he asked the applicant to review the next request.
Ms. Schweller reviewed the final application for SP-2011-00024 “Nix Way” / Moyer Property. .
SP-201100024 “Nix Way” / Moyer Property
Off Route 53, not visible from either direction except briefly at one point of higher elevation
Existing 81’ pole does not clear trees. The pole needs to be extended in order to clear the trees.
Extension to 89.5’ requires SUP because within 200’ of state Scenic By-Way and 12’ above
reference tree, but well-screened by surrounding trees; initial drawings included incorrect
reference tree height so 6’ above, but no difference in visual impact (example of inutility of
reference trees). Originally either they mismeasured the reference tree or measured a different
tree or the one behind the reference tree inadvertently. They thought it was going to be 6 feet
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
9
above the reference tree. All of a sudden nothing changes and they go from a Tier II to Tier III.
However, visually the impact is exactly the same. She mentions this to make two points:
Sometimes a reference tree reference is not very useful. It may be the tallest tree on the
parcel. What is usually more helpful is looking at the site from different locations and
looking at the average vegetative canopy to see what does it look like. They can use one
tree and finagle the results however you want to. This is an example of how changing
the reference tree to all of a sudden become 12 feet above the reference tree does not
change that view.
This one is within 200 feet of Scenic Byway. That is another thing that kicks this out.
Special Use Permit Approval Criteria
No substantial detriment to neighborhood; will provide improved service with little or no visual
impact;
No change to character of district; existing monopole has been in place since 2004; no tree
removal or ground disturbance;
In harmony with by-right uses because it would be by-right but for nearby poles and being close
to the Scenic Byway;
Special Use Permit Criteria
In harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance:
Will facilitate the creation of a convenient and harmonious community by providing
increased service, including wireless internet for this rural area of western Albemarle;
Will enhance police and fire protection with more reliable voice service;
Will support economic development, providing connections for students, home
businesses, and workers on the road and in the field.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions. There being none, he opened the public hearing on these three matters.
He asked if there were any members of the public that would like to be heard. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion on SP-2011-00021 Herring Property Tower
Action on Modifications:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approved of the three (3)
modifications, presented in the staff report for SP-2011-00021, Herring Property Tower, to waive certain
requirements of the following sections as follows for the reasons outlined in the staff report:
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion for Recommendation on SP-2011-00021:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00021,
Herring Property – Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “I-64 West –
Herring Property” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 8/30/2011 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within
the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
10
d. Number of antennae
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00021 Herring Property – Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF and the
recommended modifications are scheduled to go to the Board on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
Motion on SP-2011-00023 Verizon Wireless / Hudson Property
Action on Modifications:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approved of the four (4)
modifications, presented in the staff report for SP-2011-00023, Verizon Wireless / Hudson Property, to
waive certain requirements of the following sections as follows for the reasons outlined in the staff report:
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the tallest
tree within 25 feet.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Morris voted nay by reason that it exceeds the height stipulated
in Section 5.1.40(d)(6).
Motion for Recommendation on SP-2011-00023:
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00023, Hudson
Property - Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Gold Eagle-
Hudson Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 8/30/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Morris voted nay per his previous vote.)
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00023 Hudson Property – Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF and the
recommended modifications are scheduled to go to the Board on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 06, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
11
Motion on SP-2011-00024 Verizon Wireless / Moyer Property
Ms. Porterfield asked staff if SP-2011-00024 Verizon Wireless – Moyer Property is being changed to
be12 feet above the reference tree, and Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correction.
Action on Modifications:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approved of the four (4)
modifications, presented in the staff report for SP-2011-00024, Verizon Wireless / Moyer Property, to
waive certain requirements of the following sections as follows for the reasons outlined in the staff report:
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than twelve (12) feet taller than the tallest
tree within 25 feet.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Morris voted nay by reason that it exceeds the height stipulated
in Section 5.1.40(d)(6).
Motion For Recommendation on SP-2010-00024:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00024,
Moyer Property - Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions as stated and at the height of 12 feet
above the reference tree.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Nix Way- Moyer
Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 11/9/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Morris voted nay per his previous vote.)
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00024 Moyer Property – Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF and the
recommended modifications are scheduled to go to the Board on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2011
Stephen Waller, AICP
536 Pantops Center - PMB #405
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: SP201100023 Verizon Wireless/ Hudson Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-021A0
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 6, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Gold Eagle-
Hudson Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 8/30/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree
within 25 feet.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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
Planning Division
cc: Verizon Wireless
C/O Maynard Sipe
123 East Main Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Hudson, Douglas D & Sterling M Hudson Trs Of Douglas D Hudson Rev
2814 Northfield Road
Charlottesville Va 22901
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201100023 Hudson Property- Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 6, 2011
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Douglas and Sterling Hudson Applicant: Stephen Waller- GDN Sites;
Verizon Wireless C/O Maynard Sipe- LeClair
Ryan
Acreage: 1 acre
(Lease Area: 1,200 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 76 Parcel 21A
Location:1097 Teel Lane; the property is also adjacent to
Interstate 64
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas; EC, Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - X RA -
Proposal: Request for extension of an existing steel
monopole in order to support the attachment of a
second vertical array with three new flush mounted
antennas that will be located above existing
antennas. The new proposed height of the existing
monopole will be 96.5 feet, an eight foot extension
from the top of the existing antennas, and will be
approximately 16 feet above the reference tree.
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood
Density Residential in Neighborhood 5-
residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such
as religious institutions, schools, and other small
scale non-residential uses.
Character of Property: A small property that is mostly
wooded and currently contains an existing monopole and
associated ground equipment.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential; Planned Residential
Development (PRD)- single family residential
Factors Favorable:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility and
will not have any visual impact to the entrance corridor
or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended
approval based on minimal visibility from Interstate 64
and Route 29, both Entrance Corridors.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III tower at sixteen (16) feet above
the tallest tree. Also included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9) and (d)(6). Based on
findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval at the height of sixteen (16) feet above the
reference tree and associated modification requests, with conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100023: Hudson Property- Verizon Wireless Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Douglas and Sterling Hudson
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal for an extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the
attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located
above existing antennas[Attachment A]. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will
be 96.5 feet, an eight foot extension from the top of the existing antennas, and will be
approximately 16 feet above the reference tree. The property is one acre, described as Tax Map
76, Parcel 21A, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor [Attachment B].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Neighborhood Density Residential in
Neighborhood 5- residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, and other small scale non-residential uses.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is a one acre parcel that is bordered by Interstate 64, Norfolk Southern
Railroad and Route 29 South. The site is mainly wooded and contains an existing personal
wireless service facility and associated ground equipment.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP2005-134- Hudson Property- Alltel- Tier II PWSF- A Tier II personal wireless service
facility with an 87 foot monopole and associated ground equipment was approved on July 20,
2006.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because the proposed extension is more than
ten (10) feet above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet.
The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed
personal wireless facility.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
3
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The facility is located in a wooded area with lots of vegetation. The monopole will
not be skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for the facility. Also, the monopole is
only visible for a brief period of time while travelling on Interstate 64.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
It is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area or (PRD)
Planned Residential Development districts are anticipated. The proposed personal wireless
service facility will not restrict any nearby by-right uses within the Rural Areas, or Planned
Residential Development district.
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 through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposal is for an extension on an existing
monopole which was approved in July 2006. No change to the public health, safety and
general welfare is expected with the approval of the extension.
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 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, 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 31.6.1 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]
4
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 wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. The existing monopole’s fall zone is
not located fully on the property. The adjacent properties where the fall zone would be located is
in the Virginia Department of Transportation right of way, and in the Norfolk Southern Railroad
easement. 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 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 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 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 extension will not require guy wires, or whip antennas other than those that are already on
the existing monopole. The proposed grounding rod meets the requirements of the ordinance,
and the facility will only have one outdoor light fixture that will only be in use when service is
being performed at the site at night or during weather events. The ground equipment will be
located next to the existing ground equipment which is sheltered from all lot lines by existing
vegetation. The applicant will be required to provide a statement certifying that the height of the
new extension complies with this regulation.
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.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of one sector with three panel antennas that
measure 94.6”x 11.2”x 4.5”, and each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These
antennas will be installed using “cluster-mounts” that will allow for any required amount of
down-tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches
5
maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae. All antennae will be
painted to match the color of the monopole.
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 additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed extension and all supporting ground equipment will be kept
within the existing facility compound. No trees will need to be removed in order to install the
new antennae and ground equipment.
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.
A tree conservation plan will not be needed since this is an existing site and no additional trees
will be removed with the installation of the antennae and ground equipment.
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 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 Wireless 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
6
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 PWSF has been installed, Verizon Wireless will submit an annual report
updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
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 applicant is requesting a modification of this section. The applicant is not proposing to
install a fence surrounding the existing and proposed facility and ground equipment. Staff does
not believe a fence would protect the facility from livestock or wildlife, and not having a fence
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
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 antenna will extend the height of the pole from 84.75 feet to 92.25 feet,
approximately 16 feet taller than the reference tree.
A balloon test was conducted on October 10th, 2011 [Attachment C]. During the site visit, staff
observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Interstate 64 was traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The ballo4on was
visible from the on-ramp connecting Route 29 to I64 eastbound, and fro a brief moment on
Route 29 South traveling northbound. The visibility from these two areas was minimal and is not
expected to have a negative impact on adjacent properties.
The balloon was also visible from I-64 when traveling both eastbound and westbound. There
were a few vantage points from which the balloon was skylit, but the length of the view was
brief, and some tree backdrop was present.
Architectural Review Board staff reviewed this request and attended the balloon test and has
7
stated that this proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor
[Attachment E]. It is Staff’s opinion that at the proposed sixteen foot height above the reference
tree, the low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance
Corridors or adjacent properties.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
No resources identified for this property in the County’s Open Space Plan are being adversely
impacted.
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 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 applicant is requesting a modification of this requirement. As stated, the applicant is
proposing to add three additional antennas on an existing monopole. The existing monopole is
84.75 feet, and the extension of the new antennas will bring the height to 92.25 feet. This is an
approximately eight foot extension, which will ultimately be sixteen (16) feet above the
reference tree.
Staff has found in this case, that the proposed 16 feet above the reference tree does not have
additional impact on the Entrance Corridors or adjacent properties. During the balloon test, the
balloon was only visible for a brief period of time, and the majority of the time, the balloon had a
back drop. Where the balloon was skylit, it was only for a brief second when traveling along I64.
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 new antenna and all associated cable, and equipment will be painted to match the existing
facility.
8
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):
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 sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing
personal wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided herein.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to
the entrance corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Interstate 64 and Route 29, both Entrance Corridors.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
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.
9
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the
tallest tree within 25 feet.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Gold
Eagle- Hudson Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 8/30/11 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Balloon photos
D. Applicant Justification Letter
E. Architectural Review Board Staff comment
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to approve or deny modifications for Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6).:
I move to recommend approval of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6) with
the reasons outlined in the staff report.
10
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6). (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP20110023) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110023 Hudson Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100023 Hudson Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
GOLD EAGLELTE (4G)UPGRADEREV. NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEBYAPPROVAL5REV. NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEBYG-1INDEX OF DRAWINGSSITEPROJECTLTE (4G) UPGRADEHUDSON PROPERTYCONSULTING TEAMPROJECT SUMMARYSITEPROJECT
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)SURVEYOR'S NOTESGOLD EAGLELTE (4G)UPGRADEC-1 LEGENDABBREVIATIONS LEASE NOTESGRAPHIC SCALE(S)GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)GOLD EAGLELTE (4G)UPGRADEC-2GENERAL NOTES LEASE NOTES
GENERAL NOTESGOLD EAGLELTE (4G)UPGRADEC-3GENERAL NOTESANTENNA NOTESPROPOSED ELEVATION VIEWENLARGED VIEWEXISTINGPROPOSED
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)GOLD EAGLELTE (4G)UPGRADEC-4GRAPHIC SCALE(S) CONSTRUCTION NOTESNOTES DEMOLITION NOTES LEASE NOTES
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP2011-023
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 18, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
250 ft
View from bottom of existing Personal Wireless Service Facility.
View from VDOT right of way.
View from I-64 East on ramp.
View travelling on I-64 East.
Verizon Wireless Page 1 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
VERIZON WIRELESS
GOLD EAGLE (HUDSON PROPERTY)
EXTENSION OF FORMER ALLTEL MONOPOLE
TIER III PERSONAL WIRELESS FACILITY
Project Description:
Alltel Communications LLC, trading as Verizon Wireless, respectfully requests approval
of a special use permit to allow the extension of an existing steel monopole in order to
support the attachment of a second vertical array with three new antennas to be located
above an existing array with three antennas. This proposed monopole extension and
associated equipment upgrade is part of a larger project to improve Verizon Wireless’
existing network of facilities by adding fourth generation (“4G”) services to the existing
Cellular services that once were operated by Alltel, as well the company’s Personal
Communications Service (“PCS”), which is already available to residents in most parts of
Albemarle County.
Verizon Wireless currently owns the existing Personal Wireless Service Facility
(“PWSF” or “Facility”) located on property identified in Albemarle County records as
Tax Map 76 Parcel 21A (the “Property”). It lies in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District
of Albemarle County, just off of the southern side of Interstate Highway 64 and is
addressed as 1097 Teel Lane.
Verizon Wireless’ facility, which was originally owned by Alltel, includes an 88-foot tall
steel monopole tower fitted with existing antennas that are approximately 8 feet above
the tree tops immediately surrounding the facility. The proposed 8-1/4-foot extension,
using a cluster mount will place the highest array of antennas on the monopole at new top
height of the 96.5-foot tall monopole tower. The lower antenna array will be located at a
centerline mounting height of 84.75 feet in order to ensure that signals supporting all
services will clear the tree tops. Each array will use three flush-mount brackets and pipes
to support the six antennas needed to deploy the three different technologies for which
the company is licensed in Albemarle County. The new antennas will be painted
Sherwin Williams (#6090) Java Brown to match the dark-brown color and finish of the
existing monopole. Verizon Wireless’ proposed new ground equipment, consisting of a
LTE transmitting equipment rack and back-up battery cabinet will also be painted the
same color. Combined, these improvements will provide expanded services to nearby
residences and businesses as well as reliable in-car coverage for those who are travelling
along U.S. Route 29, south of the Interstate 64 interchange and other local roads.
This application requires a special use permit under the Personal Wireless Facilities
Ordinance because the final height of the monopole with the extension will be more
than 10 feet above the reference tree. For siting and design review, it may be helpful
to note that the proposed monopole extension will still meet most of the design
criteria set forth for a Tier II PWSF. Because this is an existing facility, we are
requesting approval to allow external mounting of any coaxial cables for which
there is not enough room to conceal within the existing structure. Such cables will
be affixed to the back side (away from I-64) of the monopole or painted to match it.
Verizon Wireless Page 2 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
Network Objectives:
Verizon Wireless is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
provide state-of-the-art wireless communications services within Albemarle County,
including 4G services which will be delivered through Long Term Evolution (LTE)
wireless technology (which utilizes the 700 MHz frequency band). Verizon Wireless
plans to launch new 4G service in Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and
surrounding counties during the first quarter of 2012 if zoning approvals can be timely
obtained. 4G will offer data upload, download and transmission speeds up to ten times
faster than current technologies.
It is important to note that, though the antennas for Verizon Wireless’ PCS (which
utilizes the 1900 MHz frequency band) and Cellular (utilizing the 850 MHz frequency
band) services can be combined in one set of flush-mounted antennas, LTE utilizes a
frequency band which is too close to the Cellular band’s frequency in the federally
government’s licensed radio spectrum. This makes it impossible to combine the LTE and
Cellular signal transmissions within a single set of flush-mounted antennas without
interference between the signals. Therefore, the LTE and Cellular antennas must be
physically separated on the monopole, requiring either additional height to achieve
vertical separation, or a much wider horizontal distance between the two antennas. In
this case, Verizon Wireless is proposing that the antennas be split between two vertical
arrays in order to meet the County’s preference for flush-mounting.
In order to integrate all three of these technologies into the network’s existing PWSFs, all
of Verizon Wireless’ existing sites, including former Alltel sites, must be upgraded and
modified to accommodate the new antennas and equipment required for these services.
After Verizon Wireless merged with Alltel Communications in January of 2009, the
company evaluated former Alltel 850 MHz Cellular Service resources and facilities in
this market. In this particular case, the existing monopole is too short to install new
antennas below those existing antennas and still propagate a signal above the surrounding
trees. Because the LTE antennas must be physically separated on any monopole, thus
requiring additional height, this application is a request to allow a monopole extension of
sufficient height supporting two antenna arrays that can propagate the signal of all three
wireless technologies above the trees.
It is Verizon Wireless’ goal to provide seamless in-building, in-car and on-street
coverage, and the full range of voice and data services to existing and future customers.
Without the additional height, both the new LTE (4G) service will have less of an
opportunity to connect with any existing sites and possible future sites planned for the
area.
Character of the Area:
The Property is zoned Rural Areas (RA) and is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC)
overlay district. All of the surrounding properties are zoned Rural Areas (RA) or Planned
Residential Development (PRD). The proposed modifications to this PWSF will not
substantially impact the character of the surrounding area because the monopole is only
Verizon Wireless Page 3 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
visible through the trees for a short distance, and the wooded slope to the south of the
Norfolk Southern railway provides a backdrop for the PWSF.
The existing PWSF is located approximately 36 feet south of the right-of-way of the
ramp onto I-64 (at Exit 118) in a wooded area below, just north of the railway. Access to
the facility is provided from Teel Lane approximately 1/3-mile from the intersection with
U.S. Route 29, and a gravel road that extends beyond the end of state maintenance sign to
the northeast. Verizon Wireless’ PWSF is located on the south side of the gravel road
within a small grove of trees, and a slope north of the compound is lined with trees that
run parallel with the entrance ramp onto I-64. The nearest off-site dwelling unit is in
Redfields, and nearly 490 feet south of the Verizon Wireless facility site.
Compliance with Special Use Permit Criteria (Zoning Ordinance Section 31.6.1):
A Tier III facility requires approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to Section
31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states “The board of supervisors hereby reserves
unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board
of supervisors that such use will: (1) not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property:
(2) that the character of the district will not be changed thereby; and, (3) that such use
will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance; (4) with the uses
permitted by right in the district, (5) with additional regulations provided in section 5;
and, (6) with the public health, safety and general welfare.”
Verizon Wireless will address these six criteria as below:
1. Will the use be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property?
The existing Alltel PWSF has been in place for approximately five years without
disrupting the daily activities or quality of life for any of the neighboring residents and/or
property owners. Aside from the construction to install the proposed equipment, the
monopole extension will not impose any additional activity, such as noise or traffic, upon
the immediate area. The monopole’s location will not be changed and it does not
encroach upon any of the property lines. Further, it is already well screened from
Redfields and other nearby residential properties by an abundance of trees that surround
the site and are also spread throughout the area. Therefore, this proposal to modify the
facility, which includes extending the existing monopole, will not be of any substantial
detriment to adjacent properties.
2. Will the use change the character of the district surrounding the property?
As stated in the previous section, the existing PWSF has been in place since 2006, prior
to Verizon Wireless’ merger with Alltel. At that time, the facility was reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission as a Tier II PWSF, because the top height is
currently within 10 feet of the top of the reference tree. Although the proposed extension
will be more than 10 feet above the reference trees, the new antennas will be painted
brown and will blend in with the backdrop and foreground screening. No additional
ground disturbance or tree removal will be necessary, as all of Verizon Wireless’ licensed
technologies will be deployed from a single monopole (as opposed to having to install a
second monopole to accommodate the three antennas for LTE service which would
Verizon Wireless Page 4 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
require additional clearing, grading and removal of existing trees). Therefore, the
proposed modifications and tower replacement will not change the character of the area.
3. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The “Purpose and Intent” are set forth in Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Verizon
Wireless’ request to amend this special use permit will allow additional 4G services to be
provided by this existing facility. The purposes and intents that most closely match these
improvements include, but are not limited to the following sections:
• 1.4.3 - To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community: In recent years, as more and more people have forgone the use of in-
home telephone service lines in exchange for reliable access to the quality options
that are now available in the wireless communications market, the demand for
reliable in-building and on-street service has increased. Recent independent studies
have indicated a growing correlation between home sales and access to wireless
communications in a given area. In addition to the standard voice options, several
wireless carriers now plan to deploy wireless internet service packages (such as
Verizon Wireless’ LTE service), that approach broadband speeds as another option
competing with similar to those of DHL and cable internet. The federal government’s
National Broadband Plan recognizes that broadband service access is a key
component in educational advancement growth in today’s society, which will rely
heavily on instant access to information and various research tools. In fact, many
school systems (including Albemarle County’s) are replacing textbooks with tablet
computers and instructional websites and/or requiring homework assignments to be
uploaded to designated web portals and sent via e-mail. By providing another mobile
option for these services at the most effective Personal Wireless services, should be
viewed as furthering the County’s goal of fostering a convenient, attractive, and
harmonious community.
• 1.4.4 - To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster
evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection,
schools, parks, forests, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities,
airports and other public requirements: The provision of comprehensive wireless
coverage and sufficient call capacity is essential for effective emergency services.
FCC statistics show that more than 70% of 911 calls are now being made over
wireless networks from mobile handsets. The proposed modifications, including the
extension of the monopole to implement 4G LTE service, will provide greater
capacity, reliability and thus enhance E-911 services. Approving these PWSF
improvements, therefore, furthers the public safety and services purpose of the
ordinance.
• 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
employment and enlarge the tax base: Whereas technological advances such as
cellular and broadband services were once largely viewed as a mere conveniences,
access to reliable Personal Wireless services are becoming an essential component to
economic growth in several ways. Many companies now rely heavily on these
services, as they do on other essential utilities such as power, water and gas, as
essential for a successful business. Often, companies that provide services on the
road or do most of their work in the field no longer use two-way radio systems,
Verizon Wireless Page 5 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
instead opting for mobile phones and computers to send information and pictures to
headquarters using instant texting or e-mail. Additionally, a growing number of
home-based small businesses, as well as established companies which are allowing
telecommuting as an alternative to transferring their employees regionally and
nationally, place increasing demands on wireless systems. All of these activities
illustrate ways that the proposal represented in this and similar requests will
contribute to economic development in the County.
• 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other
lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment: Verizon
Wireless’ proposed modifications at this site promotes the achievement of this
objective by combining all three of the company’s federally licensed services and
frequencies on a single monopole within the confines of the existing lease area
without additional clearing and grading. Otherwise, the installation of a second
monopole at a significant distance away would be required in order to provide the
necessary horizontal separation of two shorter flush-mounted arrays to prevent
interference. The disturbance that would be required in order to construct a second
site would likely require the removal of several trees as well as a significant amount
of grading and fill to provide access and a building site for the expanded facility.
It should also be noted that PWSFs are permitted uses in the RA zoning district, and thus
are generally deemed compatible with the purpose of the RA district. This application
meets the purpose of the RA district to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and natural
resources as noted above, and also serves to protect the rural character and scenic quality
of the district by using the least obtrusive method of providing the additional 4G service
to the area. Provision of 4G service to the Albemarle community will also serve not only
residents, travelers and business users, but also greatly aid those engaged in agricultural
or forestal activities which are encouraged in the RA zoning district.
4. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The design and siting aspects of the existing facility were all allowed under the
requirements for a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility, as permitted by-right in the
Rural Areas District. However, because the proposed extension would now place the top
of the monopole at 16-1/4 feet above the top of the reference tree, the modification of this
facility requires a special use permit. The increased height and possible attachment of
cables on the exterior of the monopole are the only deviations from the Tier II
requirements. Any increase in visibility will not have a significant visual impact, and the
proposed changes will only be marginal compared to the alternative of installing two
monopoles and removing additional trees. Therefore, the proposed facility modifications
will be in harmony with other by-right uses in the RA district.
5. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
Section 5.1.40, sets forth the provisions by which Personal Wireless Service Facilities are
to be permitted, with an emphasis on mitigating any adverse “visual impacts” (not simply
visibility) that may affect the surrounding area. It should first be noted that adverse
visual impact is often subject to the perception of the specific individual that is viewing a
Verizon Wireless Page 6 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
facility at any given point or distance within a scope of 360 degrees surrounding a
facility. Further, when focusing on the visual impact of a particular facility, the judgment
of potential impact made by those people tasked specifically with finding and
remembering where these sites are located, such as telecommunications consultants and
county staff, is often over-sensitized. Therefore, a more objective way of considering
whether the perceived impact is truly adverse, even when a facility is clearly visible, is to
consider whether or not it would be obtrusive to the average person driving past the site,
or who might glance at it by chance from static points.
In this particular case, the existing facility is visible from the on-ramp to I-64 East and for
a very short distance when traveling on I-64 in the east- and westbound lanes. However,
the existing dark brown monopole is situated within groups of trees that have similar top
elevation in the foreground and at its sides. The structure also has backdrop from trees on
the hill to the south. Therefore, any visual impact from increasing the tower’s height
while still keeping it below many of the peripheral trees and terrain will be minimal,
especially when viewed from I-64 at normal driving speeds.
6. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected
if the use is approved?
The existing facility and all wireless handsets are required to support the federally-
mandated E-911 calling and location services. Verizon Wireless currently provides these
emergency services locally through licenses for the company’s Cellular (850 MHz)
network, and growing PCS (1900 MHz) network. In order to ensure that there is no
interference between the Cellular and new LTE service, the antennas must have vertical
separation at a minimum of six inches, as proposed with this application.
Compliance with Tier II Criteria (Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.40):
The County’s specific design criteria for Tier II “Treetop” Facilities, set forth in Section
5.1.40(d), are addressed as follows:
• 5.1.40(d)(1) - The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsections
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): The proposed extension on this steel monopole will be
in compliance with the setback regulations and all other area and bulk regulations
and minimum yard requirements. This location exceeds the required setbacks
(equal to 100% of the structure’s height) for towers and similar structures distance
of 96-1/4 feet from all parcel lines shared with adjoining lots. Although there are
no setbacks from public roads, right-of-way for the ramp from U.S. Route 29
approximately 36 feet away from this facility. The attached site drawings,
antenna and equipment specifications are being provided to demonstrate that the
relevant PWSF regulations and site plan requirements, set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance, are being met with this proposal.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The proposed monopole extension will not require the
installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with any whip antennas without
further County approvals. The proposed grounding rod complies with the
County’s size requirements. The facility will only have one low-powered outdoor
Verizon Wireless Page 7 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
light fixture attached to a short pole and it will only be turned on when service is
being preformed at the site at night. The light must be adjustable Under Verizon
Wireless’ safety standards, as well as Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations requiring that “each work area and walkway
is adequately lighted whenever an employee is present.” This will help to ensure
that technical operations staff can safely move about the facility during the times
when maintenance of the site is necessary. Please note that these times are most
often during events of extremely bad weather or after tree limbs, ice or other
materials have fallen onto equipment.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): The proposed antenna configuration must be mounted
vertically in two separate arrays one above the other. The proposed extension will
hold the second array panel antennas for the LTE service (identified as Amphenol
Antel Model # BXA-70063/8CF(94.6” x 11.2” x 4.5” - approximately 1,060
square inches) to mounted above the existing antennas. These antennas will be
installed using a “cluster-mounts” that will allow a necessary amount of down-
tilting while meeting the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (twelve inches
maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antenna). All
antennas will be painted to match the color of the monopole.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4 and 5): Installation of the proposed extension and all
supporting ground equipment will be kept within the cleared and level area of the
existing facility compound. Therefore, the redevelopment of this particular
facility will not involve the removal of any trees, or necessitate completion of a
conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): Should the use of the antenna site in this location be
discontinued entirely anytime in the future, then Verizon and/or its assignee(s)
shall be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): Verizon shall submit an annual report updating the user
status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): Verizon Wireless’ proposed extension and equipment
installation will not will not require any significant grading or fill therefore, no
slopes that 2:1 or greater will be created.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Verizon Wireless is not currently proposing the
installation of fencing to surround this existing facility. However, should a future
need arise we reserve the right to install fencing that is found to be in compliance
with this section of the ordinance upon the approval of the Zoning Administrator
or any other authorized County staff person.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(2) - Extending the existing steel monopole and installation of
Verizon Wireless’ supporting equipment at this site will not require the removal of
any trees. Therefore, the existing groups of trees along the roads and around the site
will continue to screen Verizon Wireless’ PWSF. Furthermore the monopole will
continue to have adequate backdrop, as the top of it will remain below trees on the
hill to the south.
Verizon Wireless Page 8 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
• Section 5.1.40(d)(3) - Although the existing PWSF is located within the Entrance
Overlay District, this site is located well below the ridgeline to the south and some
trees located along the I-64 right-of-way. Therefore, even with the proposed 8-1/2-
foot extension surrounding trees and the backdrop provided to the monopole will
continue to alleviate much of the concerns for visual impact upon the EC district.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(4) - This is an existing PWSF and there are no other facilities on
the property or within close proximity; therefore, this section is not applicable.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(5) – The existing monopole was required to be installed with base
and top diameters that meet these requirements and the extension will not change
those diameters.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(6) - At 96-1/2 feet tall (and 540.25 feet Above Mean Sea Level -
AMSL), the proposed monopole extension will be approximately 16-1/4 feet taller
than the reference tree, which is identified as an approximately 80-foot tall (AGL)
and 20” diameter, double poplar having a drip line that is approximately 11 feet to the
east. Because the difference in the elevations of the monopole and reference tree will
exceed that allowed within the Tier II criteria, Verizon Wireless has submitted a
special use permit for this proposed extension.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(7) - The monopole and all antennas will be painted Sherwin
Williams Java Brown #6090. This color has been applied to previously approved
PWSF monopoles. The equipment that will be installed to support the new LTE
antennas will also be painted this same color.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(8) - Verizon Wireless will attempt to run all coaxial cables and
service lines located inside the monopole. However, given the thickness of the steel
on this existing monopole and the number of existing cables that it holds, it may not
be possible for it to contain all of the new coaxial cables that will run from the ground
equipment to the new set of antennas because the monopole tapers to a diameter of 18
inches. Therefore, Verizon Wireless is requesting approval to allow any cables that
don’t fit inside the monopole to be run up the back of the pole, as is permitted by-
right for wooden monopoles.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(9-13) - Verizon Wireless has reviewed and understands all of the
remaining criteria for Tier II and Treetop Personal Wireless Service Facilities and
will provide any additional information or assistance to ensure that these standards
are met.
Conclusion:
Although the PWSF modifications proposed in this application require special use permit
approval due to the proposed height, the existing facility will continue to comply with all
other design criteria for Tier II facilities and thus any potential visual impacts will be
mitigated. Further, this request meets the goals and objectives of the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance’s criteria for a special use permit.
The proposed tower extension will meet the County’s design preferences for flush-
mounted antennas on a natural dark brown tower. The new tower will also provide the
Verizon Wireless Page 9 Gold Eagle (Tier III Extension)
needed height above the nearby trees to allow the antennas to effectively provide the full
range of wireless services to the target coverage area using a single monopole.
Approval of this request will enable Verizon Wireless to provide County residents in the
area, as well as those traveling on nearby roads, access to high quality, high speed 4G
services which are more advanced than those currently available in this market.
Approval will also facilitate Verizon Wireless’ development of an improved wireless
network offering such advanced services throughout Albemarle County.
Sincerely,
Stephen Waller, AICP
GDNsites
Site Development Consultants to Verizon Wireless
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Megan Yaniglos
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: SP-2011-23: Hudson (Verizon) and ARB-2011-102: Hudson (Verizon)
DATE: October 14, 2011
At the balloon test conducted on October 11, 2011, the balloon was visible:
1) from the on-ramp connecting Rt. 29 South to I64 eastbound,
2) for a brief moment on Rt. 29 South traveling northbound, and
3) from I-64 traveling both eastbound and westbound.
The visibility from the locations described in #1 and #2 above was minimal and is not expected to have a
negative impact on the ECs.
Regarding visibility from the locations described in #3, on I64, there were a few vantage points from which
the balloon was skylit, but the length of the view was brief. Mostly, the balloon was viewed with some tree
backdrop. The backdrop varied with the vantage point; sometimes the trees providing the backdrop were
close-by, others were further away. The total distance along which the balloon was visible was minimal
(generally just in the vicinity of the interchange and approaching the interchange), and visibility is
complicated by the curve in the road, the typical speed of traffic, and the traffic merging on and off the
highway. Given these conditions, in this particular location, the level of visibility of the proposed
monopole extension and antenna installation is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance
Corridor.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2011
Stephen Waller, AICP
536 Pantops Center - PMB #405
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: SP201100024 Verizon Wireless/ Moyer Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09200-00-00-056B3
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 6, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Nix Way- Moyer
Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 11/9/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than twelve (12) feet taller than the tallest
tree within 25 feet.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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
Planning Division
cc: Verizon Wireless
C/O Maynard Sipe
123 East Main Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Moyer, Le Roy & Helen I
1863 Thomas Jefferson Parkway Ducky Oaks
Charlottesville Va 22902
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201100024 Moyer Property- Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 6, 2011
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: LeRoy and Helen Moyer Applicant: Stephen Waller- GDN Sites;
Verizon Wireless C/O Maynard Sipe- LeClair
Ryan
Acreage: 8.98 acre
(Lease Area: 588 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 92 Parcel 56B3
Location:1863 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas; EC, Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for extension of an existing steel
monopole in order to support the attachment of a
second vertical array with three new flush mounted
antennas that will be located above existing
antennas. The new proposed height of the existing
monopole will be 89.5 feet, an 8.5 foot extension
from the top of the existing antennas, and will be
approximately six feet above the reference tree.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
Character of Property: Mostly wooded and currently
contains an existing monopole and associated ground
equipment.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential
Factors Favorable:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility
and will not have any visual impact to the entrance
corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval based on minimal visibility
from Route 53 an Entrance Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III tower at sixteen (16) feet above
the tallest tree. Also included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9) and (d)(6). Based on
findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval at the height of sixteen (16) feet above the
reference tree and associated modification requests, with conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100024:Moyer Property- Verizon Wireless Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: LeRoy and Helen Moyer
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal for an extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the
attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located
above existing antenna [Attachment A]. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will
be 89.5 feet, an eight foot extension from the top of the existing antennas, and will be
approximately six feet above the reference tree. The property is one acre, described as Tax Map
92, Parcel 56B3, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and
EC, Entrance Corridor [Attachment B].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site contains an existing personal wireless service facility and associated ground equipment.
The property is mainly wooded, and the character of the surrounding areas is single family
residential.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP2004-018- Moyer, LeRoy and Helen- Alltel Nix Way - A special use permit for a personal
wireless service facility with an 80 foot monopole and associated ground equipment was
approved on August 11, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located within 200 feet of a
Virginia Byway (Route 53). Virginia Scenic Byways have been identified in the Personal
Wireless Facilities Policy and Zoning Ordinance as ‘Avoidance Areas’.
The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed
personal wireless facility.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
3
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The facility is located in a wooded area with lots of vegetation. The extension on the
existing monopole will not be skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for the facility.
Also, the extension monopole will not be visible from Route 53.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
It is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area district are
anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-
right uses within the Rural Areas district.
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 through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposal is for an extension on an existing
monopole which was approved in August 2004. No change to the public health, safety and
general welfare is expected with the approval of the extension.
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 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, 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 31.6.1 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]
4
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 wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. 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 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 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 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 extension will not require guy wires, or whip antennas other than those that are already on
the existing monopole. The proposed grounding rod meets the requirements of the ordinance,
and the facility will only have one outdoor light fixture that will only be in use when service is
being performed at the site at night or during weather events. The ground equipment will be
located next to the existing ground equipment which is sheltered from all lot lines by existing
vegetation. The applicant will be required to provide a statement certifying that the height of the
new extension complies with this regulation.
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.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of one sector with three panel antennas that
measure 94.6”x 11.2”x 4.5”, and each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These
antennas will be installed using “pipe-mast extension” that will allow for any required amount of
down-tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches
maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae). All antennae will be
painted to match the color of the monopole.
5
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 additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed extension and all supporting ground equipment will be kept
within the existing facility compound. No trees will need to be removed in order to install the
new antennae and ground equipment.
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.
A tree conservation plan will not be needed since this is an existing site and no additional trees
will be removed with the installation of the antennae and ground equipment.
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 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 Wireless 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
6
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon Wireless will submit an annual report
updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
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 applicant is requesting a modification of this section. The applicant is not proposing to
install a fence surrounding the existing and proposed facility and ground equipment. Staff does
not believe a fence would protect the facility from livestock or wildlife, and not having a fence
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
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 antenna will extend the height of the pole from 80 feet to 85.5 feet, approximately
12 feet taller than the reference tree.
A balloon test was conducted on October 10th, 2011 [Attachment C]. During the site visit, staff
observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Route 53 was traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was
visible from a great distance away for a brief period of time while traveling north/west on Route
53. The balloon and facility was also visible directly in front of the site through the trees on
Route 53, however this is not a change from the current visibility. Staff has found that the
visibility from these two areas was minimal and is not expected to have a negative impact on
adjacent properties.
Architectural Review Board staff reviewed this request and attended the balloon test and has
stated that this proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor
[Attachment E]. It is Staff’s opinion that at the proposed sixteen foot height above the reference
tree, the low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance
Corridors or adjacent properties.
7
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
No resources identified for this property in the County’s Open Space Plan are being adversely
impacted.
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 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).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed extension antenna would have a height of
approximately 530.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The existing monopole is at a height of
525.5 AMSL. The height of the reference tree is approximately 522.0 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). As proposed by the applicant the monopole will be 12 feet taller than the tallest tree
within twenty-five (25) feet. The top of the existing monopole is below the height of the
reference tree. The extension is proposed to stay within the requirements of this section.
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 new antenna and all associated cable, and equipment will be painted to match the existing
facility.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):
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
8
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 sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing
personal wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided herein.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to
the entrance corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Route 53 an Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. 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.
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)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the
tallest tree within 25 feet.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
9
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Nix
Way- Moyer Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 11/9/11 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Balloon photos
D. Applicant Justification
E. Architectural Review Board Staff comment
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to approve or deny modifications for Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6).:
I move to recommend approval of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6) with
the reasons outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6). (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP20110024) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110024 Moyer Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
10
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100024 Moyer Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
NIX WAY
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
APPROVAL
5
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
G-1
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
EMERGENCY POWER AND
LTE (4G) UPGRADE
MOYER PROPERTY
CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY
ABBREVIATIONS
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
NIX WAY
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-1SITE PLAN
LEGEND
LEASE NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
NIX WAY
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-2
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
LEASE NOTES
ELEVATION VIEW
NIX WAY
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
GENERAL NOTES
C-3
ANTENNA NOTES
ENLARGED VIEW
EXISTING PROPOSED
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
NIX WAY
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-4
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
DEMOLITION NOTES
LEASE NOTES
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP2011-024
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 18, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
View from approximately 1600-1800’, just above the treetops, for a brief
moment traveling north/west on Rt. 53 in the vicinity of 2027 Thomas Jefferson
Parkway.
Balloon
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Megan Yaniglos
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: SP-2011-24: Moyer (Verizon) and ARB-2011-103: Moyer (Verizon)
DATE: October 14, 2011
At the balloon test conducted on October 11, 2011, the balloon was visible in two locations:
1) Through the trees when traveling directly in front of the site on Rt. 53 (which is no different than
the current view), and
2) At a great distance (approximately 1600-1800’), just above the treetops, for a brief moment
traveling north/west on Rt. 53 in the vicinity of 2027 Thomas Jefferson Parkway.
The level of visibility of the proposed monopole extension and antenna installation is not expected to have
a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor. However, based on the appearance of the reference tree and
other trees in the immediate vicinity relative to the existing pole height, it is recommended that the tree
heights be checked for accuracy and corrected on the plans as necessary.
It has been noted that the existing antennas are below the top of the reference tree. A recommendation of
“no objection” on the current application should not be considered support for further additional height to
improve the function of the existing antennas.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2011
Wilmer, Jessie
1150 Shenandoah Village Drive
Waynesboro, Va. 22980
RE: SP201100028 NTELOS CV646 Commonwealth Ave. Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-00700
Dear Mrs. Wilmer:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 13, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Commonwealth
CV646 Collocation on an Existing 100’ Self-Supported Tower” prepared by James A Bumgarner, Jr
and dated 9/27/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect
the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The following change must be made to the Conceptual Plan: The Conceptual Plan must be amended
to provide a light fixture which is fully shielded and meets the definition of Full Cutoff Luminaire, “Any
outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from
the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane” as required by Chapter
18, Section 4.17.
MODIFICATIONS
• Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(4d)- Requirement to identify each paint color on the facility, by
manufacturer color name and color number.
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(4f)- Requirement to identify the height, caliper and species of all trees
where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to establish
the proposed height and/or screening of the monopole…
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(4g)- Requirement to identify all existing and proposed setbacks, parking,
fencing and landscaping.
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(6)- Requirement to conduct a balloon test…
– Section 5.1.40 (b)(2)- Requirement to obtain an easement or other recordable document
showing agreement between the lot owners…
– Section 5.1.40 (c)(2vi)- Requirement for the applicant to provide a statement to the agent
certifying that the height of all components of the facility comply with this regulation.
– Section 5.1.40 (d)(2)- Requirement to provide adequate opportunities for screening and the
facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets…
– Section 5.1.40(d)(6) – Requirement that the height of tower shall not be taller than…
– Section 5.1.40 (d)(7)- Requirement that 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…
• Additional Zoning Ordinance Modification Not in Original Staff Report:
– Section 5.1.40(c)(6) -Transco will remove the tower if the use for a personal wireless service
is discontinued at anytime in the future…
Reason for Modification: This is an existing non conforming tower and the owner of the facility
should not be required to remove the tower if NTELOS discontinues use at this site. Staff
feels comfortable with the requested modification.
– Section 5.1.40(c)(7) - The owner of the facility shall submit an annual report to the County
regarding the users on the tower…
Reason for Modification: The tower owner, Transco requests that this requirement be
modified to require NTELOS to submit the annual report to the County rather than the tower
owner. Staff feels comfortable with the requested modification.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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,
Christopher P. Perez
Planner
Planning Division
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201100028 Ntelos CV646
Commonwealth Ave - Tier III PWSF
Staff: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 13, 2011
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation Applicant: Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C. d/b/a
Ntelos
Acreage: 0.6490 acre
(Lease Area: 300 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 22.2.2 (14) which
allows for Tier III personal wireless service
facilities in the C-1 Zoning District
TMP: 61W-03-7
Location: 345 Greenbrier Dr, Charlottesville VA 22901
By-right use: C-1 Commercial – retail sales and
service; residential by special use permit (15
units/ acre)
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - X RA -
Proposal: Request for a collocation of antennas and
associated ground equipment on an existing tower.
No height increase is proposed.
Comp. Plan Designation: UDA Places 29 –
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial,
professional office; research and development,
design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing,
assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
Character of Property: A small property that is mostly
paved. It contains a 1 story office building, a storage
shed, a small storage building, an existing 100’ personal
wireless service facility/tower and associated ground
equipment.
Use of Surrounding Properties: C-1
Commercial and Light Industrial
Factors Favorable:
1. No height increase of the existing 100’ tower is
proposed, rather only collocation on the existing
tower at the 85’ elevation.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and will not
increase or cause any new impacts to adjacent
properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(a)(4d), (a)(4f), (a)(4g), (a)(6), (b)(2), (c)(2vi), (d)(2), (d)(6)
and (d)(7). Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of all
modification requests, with conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 13, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100028: Ntelos CV646 Commonwealth Ave - Tier
III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation
APPLICANT: Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C. d/b/a Ntelos
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal for a collocation of a vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that
will be located at 85’ elevation, which is 12’ below the existing antenna array (dish with radome)
at 97’ elevation [Attachment A]. The elevation of the existing steel tower is 100’ and no height
increase is proposed. The proposal also includes the associated ground equipment, 4 additional
parking spaces, a 24” wooden retaining wall, one security light, and security fencing around
lease area. The property is 0.6490 acres, described as Tax Map Parcel 61W-03-7, is located in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is zoned C-1 Commercial, Airport Impact Area (AIA)
overlay district, [Attachment B].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as UDA Places 29 – Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of
prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is a 0.6490 acre parcel that is bordered by six properties: four zoned C-1
Commercial and two zoned Light Industrial. The site is mostly paved and contains a 1 story
office building, a storage shed, a small storage building, an existing 100’ personal wireless
service facility/tower and associated ground equipment.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP-357- Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Office Building Site Plan approved on January 15,
1973 – the plan depicts a 4816 SF one story office building and 25 parking spaces. The site also
contains a 100’ existing steel tower and associated ground equipment.
Transco Minor Site Plan Amendment approved January 29, 1990 – the plan depicts the addition
of 560’ SF of additional office space. As a result of the modification the total amount of office
space onsite is 5376 SF. Five (5) parking spaces were also lost due to the modifications, leaving
20 spaces remaining.
SDP-1995-078 – Transco Minor Site Plan Amendment approved September 29, 1995 – the plan
depicts the removal of an existing storage shed and the addition of a new 120 SF communication
shed, modification and readjustment of parking (ADA compliance) as well as an upgrade to the
fencing of the property. As a result of the modifications and readjustment of the parking the
3
amount of spaces onsite is 22.
SDP-2000-032 –Transco Storage Building Letter of Revision (LOR) approved December 5,
2000 –– the plan depicts the addition of a 12’ X 16’ wooden deck at the rear of the property and
the addition of a 18’ X 28’ detached storage building. As a result of the modifications the
amount of parking decreased by 2 spaces, resulting in 20 spaces remaining. Parking spaces
required for the site are 19.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because the existing tower was built prior to
the special use permitting process and the tower was not approved by the Planning Commission
or the Board of Supervisors as a Tier II or Tier III facility. Subsequently any modifications to the
tower are subject to Board approval. Thus the facility qualifies for a Tier III review at this time.
The Planning Commission will need to make findings/recommendations on the appropriateness
of the proposal.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The facility is existing and no height increase is proposed.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The addition of an antenna array will not impact the character of the district. The tower exists
and no height increases are proposed. The color of the proposed antennas will match that of
the existing structure.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Commercial (C-1) chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 22). This request is consistent
with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (DA) Development Area are
anticipated. Also, no significant adverse impacts to the (AIA) Airport Impact Area overlay
districts are anticipated because the existing structure is only 100’ tall and does not penetrate
the district, no height increases are proposed.
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 through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposal is for a collocation of antennas and
associated ground equipment on an existing tower. No height increase is proposed. Thus no
change to the public health, safety and general welfare is expected with the approval of the
4
proposal.
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 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, 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 Section 31.6.1 special use permits have been met. Requirements of subsection
5.1.40(a) application for approval have been met with the exception of (a)(4d), (a)(4f), (a)(4g),
and (a)(6), which are addressed below: [Ordinance sections are in italics] Compliance with
applicable Sections of 5.1.40(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Zoning Ordinance are also addressed as
follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(a)(4d): Identification of each paint color on the facility, by manufacturer color
name and color number. A paint chip or sample shall be provided for each color.
The application requires a modification for this requirement because of the existing conditions.
The facility is attached to an existing steel tower that is not painted. On sheet C-5 of the site plan
submitted with the application it is noted that “Antennas and the associated equipment shall be a
color that matches the existing structure.” Staff is comfortable with the note and recommends the
modification be granted.
Subsection 5.1.40(a)(4f): The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located
within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to establish the proposed height and/or
screening of the monopole. All trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during
installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the
facility.
The application requires a modification for this requirement. The requirement is not applicable
(NA) to the proposal. The facility is attached to an existing structure/ tower which was
established prior to the wireless policy and there are no trees associated with the tower height.
All trees onsite that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or maintenance of
the facility will be noted on the Conservation Plan for the site. Staff recommends the
modification be granted.
Subsection 5.1.40(a)(4g): All existing and proposed setbacks, parking, fencing and landscaping.
The application requires a modification for this requirement. Normally the setbacks for a PWSF
5
would be determined by the height of the facility, with a one-to-one ratio but because the facility
is existing and no height increase is proposed, the setbacks should be waived as it is not possible
to obtain such a ratio on this site. Notably, the site plan depicts all the existing and proposed
parking and fencing for the facility and the conservation plan will depict all existing landscaping.
Staff recommends the modification be granted.
Subsection 5.1.40(a)(6): For any proposed monopole or tower, photographs taken of a balloon
test, which shall be conducted as follows: (a) The applicant shall contact the agent within ten
(10) days after the date the application was submitted to schedule a date and time when the
balloon test will be conducted. The test shall be conducted within forty (40) days after the date
the application was submitted, and the applicant shall provide the agent with at least seven (7)
days prior notice; provided that this deadline may be extended due to inclement weather or by
the agreement of the applicant and the agent. (b) Prior to the balloon test, the locations of the
access road, the lease area, the tower site, the reference tree and the tallest tree within twenty
five (25) feet of the proposed monopole shall be surveyed and staked or flagged in the field. (c)
The test shall consist of raising one or more balloons from the site to a height equal to the
proposed facility. (d) The balloons shall be of a color or material that provides maximum
visibility. (e) The photographs of the balloon test shall be taken from the nearest residence and
from appropriate locations on abutting properties, along each publicly used road from which the
balloon is visible, and other properties and locations as deemed appropriate by the agent. The
applicant shall identify the camera type, film size, and focal length of the lens for each
photograph.
The application requires a modification for these requirements. These requirements are not
applicable (NA) to this application because the facility is existing and no height increase is
proposed. A balloon test is not warranted and conducting one on this site is not safe. Staff
recommends the modification be granted.
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.
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1): Notwithstanding section 4.2.3.1 of this chapter, a facility may be
located in an area on a lot or parcel other than a building site.
Complies
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(2): Notwithstanding section 4.10.3.1(b) of this chapter, the agent may
authorize a facility to be located closer in distance than the height of the tower or other
mounting structure to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable
document showing agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the county attorney
addressing development on the part of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is
within the facility’s fall zone (e.g., the setback of an eighty (80) foot-tall facility could be reduced
to thirty (30) feet if an easement is established prohibiting development on the abutting lot within
a fifty (50) foot fall zone). If the right-of-way for a public street is within the fall zone, the
Virginia Department of Transportation shall be included in the staff review, in lieu of recording
an easement or other document.
The application requires a modification for this requirement. This requirement is not applicable
6
(NA) to this application because the facility is existing and no height increase is proposed.
Requiring an easement for the fall zone of the existing tower is neither feasible nor logical. Staff
recommends the modification be granted.
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(3): The area and bulk regulations or minimum yard requirements of the
zoning district in which the facility will be located shall not apply.
Noted
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(4): Notwithstanding section 4.11 of this chapter, a facility may be located
in a required yard.
Noted
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(5): Notwithstanding section 32.2 of this chapter, a site plan shall not be
required for a facility, but the facility shall be subject to the requirements of section 32 and the
applicant shall submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other information
required by the agent to determine whether the facility complies with section 32. In making this
determination, the agent may impose reasonable conditions authorized by section 32 in order to
assure compliance.
Complies
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 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 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.
i)There are no guy wires associated with this site. ii) The facility will have one outdoor switch
operated light fixture attached 24” above the ground equipment cabinet. Ntelos staff will use the
light fixture when nighttime maintenance is necessary. The floodlight detail provided on sheet D-
6 of the site plan does not meet County requirements for outdoor lighting. As a condition of
approval the site plan shall be revised to provide a light fixture which is fully shielded and meets
the definition of “Full Cutoff Luminaire: any outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that
all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is
projected below the horizontal plane.” Ntelos must provide a revised site plan that meets these
requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. iii) Equipment cabinets not located within
the existing structure will be screened by the proposed fence surrounding the lease area. iv)
There are no new whip antennas proposed on this site. v) The proposed grounding rod complies
with the stipulated Zoning Ordinance size requirement and shall be located underground. vi) The
application requires a modification for this requirement. This requirement is not applicable (NA)
7
to this application because the facility is existing and no height increase is proposed. The new
antenna is proposed to be located at the 85’ elevation; everything above such height is existing.
Staff recommends the modification be granted.
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.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of three sectors each with a panel antenna. The
antennas will not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches. Antennas
will be attached to the tower legs with pipe mounts. The pipe mounts allow for any required
amount of down tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12-
inches maximum between the tower and the face of the antenna). Antennas and associated
equipment will be painted to match the existing tower.
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 additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
As a condition of approval the site plan shall be revised to provide a conservation plan for the
site. Ntelos must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to
issuance of a building permit.
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.
As a condition of approval the site plan shall be revised to provide a conservation plan for the
site. Ntelos must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to
issuance of a building permit.
8
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 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,
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation 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.
After the proposed personal wireless service facility is installed, Ntelos must submit annual
reports to the owner of the tower updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility
within the required time.
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 other than the
proposed 24” retaining wall.
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 6’ tall chain link fence w/ 6’ fabric mesh backing, as well as the one foot tall 12
gauge galvanized 3-strand barbed wire atop the fence will not be detrimental to the character of
the area, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
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
9
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 proposal includes fencing around the proposed ground equipment that will adequately screen
the equipment from view. However the requirement of screening for the existing tower is not
applicable (NA) because of the existing conditions of the site. The application requires a
modification for this requirement. Staff recommends the modification be granted.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
The facility does not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan.
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 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 application requires a modification for this requirement. This requirement is not applicable
(NA) to the proposal. The facility is attached to an existing structure/ tower which was
established prior to the wireless policy and there are no trees associated with the tower height,
nor are there any comparable trees onsite to fulfill this requirement. Staff recommends the
modification be granted.
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 application requires a modification for this requirement. This requirement is not applicable
(NA) to the proposal. The facility is attached to an existing steel structure/ tower rather than a
10
monopole. The property is almost completely paved and there are relatively few trees on site.
Requiring the existing tower be painted a wood color would not accomplish the intent of this
section of the ordinance. Notably on the site plan it is denoted that “Antennas and associated
equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure.” Staff recommends the
modification be granted.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):
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 sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing
personal wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided herein.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. No height increase of the existing 100’ tower is proposed, rather only collocation on the
existing tower at the 85’ elevation.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or cause any new impacts to
adjacent properties.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is
11
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:
Ntelos is in the process of improving its wireless services in the core area of Charlottesville. The
proposed collocation on the existing wireless facility is for the purpose of expanding coverage
based on increased usage, not to improve coverage around the site. Staff is able to support all of
the recommended modifications described in the staff report because the facility is existing and
there are no height increases proposed. The recommended modifications are for requirements of
the ordinance that are generally meant to aid in the determination of whether a new tower is
appropriate in the proposed area of the County or whether a height increase is appropriate, these
specific requirements are not applicable for an existing towers seeking the addition of antennas.
Listed below are the recommended modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40 (a)(4d)- Identification of each paint color on the facility, by manufacturer
color name and color number. A paint chip or sample shall be provided for each color.
2. Section 5.1.40 (a)(4f)- The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is
located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to establish the proposed
height and/or screening of the monopole…
3. Section 5.1.40 (a)(4g)- All existing and proposed setbacks, parking, fencing and
landscaping.
4. Section 5.1.40 (a)(6)- Balloon test…
5. Section 5.1.40 (b)(2)- Notwithstanding section 4.10.3.1(b) of this chapter, the agent may
authorize a facility to be located closer in distance than the height of the tower or other
mounting structure to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable
document showing agreement between the lot owners…
6. Section 5.1.40 (c)(2vi)- 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.
7. 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…
8. Section 5.1.40(d)(6) – Height of tower shall not be taller than…
9. 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…
Conditions of Approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Commonwealth CV646 Collocation on an Existing 100’ Self-Supported Tower”
prepared by James A Bumgarner, Jr and dated 9/27/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
12
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The following change must be made to the Conceptual Plan: The Conceptual Plan must
be amended to provide a light fixture which is fully shielded and meets the definition of
Full Cutoff Luminaire, “Any outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light
emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is
projected below the horizontal plane” as required by Chapter 18, Section 4.17.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to approve or deny modifications for Sections
5.1.40(a)(4d), (a)(4f), (a)(4g), (a)(6), (b)(2), (c)(2vi), (d)(2), (d)(6) and (d)(7) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve modifications of Sections
5.1.40(a)(4d), (a)(4f), (a)(4g), (a)(6), (b)(2), (c)(2vi), (d)(2), (d)(6) and (d)(7).:
I move to approve granting the modifications for reasons outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny the modifications for this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to deny the modifications outlined in the staff report. (Planning Commission
needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201100028) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201100028 Ntelos CV646 Commonwealth Ave
Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
13
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100028 Ntelos CV646 Commonwealth Ave
Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
Points of InterestAIRPORTCOLLEGE/UNIVERSITYCOMMUNITYFIRE/RESCUE STATIONGOVERNMENTHOSPITALLIBRARYPOLICE STATIONPOST OFFICERECREATION/TOURISMSCHOOLVoting InfoMagisterial DistrictsParcel InfoParcelsZoning InfoAirport Impact AreaZoning ClassificationsRural AreasVillage ResidentialR1 ResidentialR2 ResidentialR4 ResidentialR6 ResidentialR10 ResidentialR15 ResidentialPlanned Unit DevelopmenPlanned Residential DevelNeighborhood Model DistriMonticello Historic DistrictC1 CommercialCommercial OfficeHighway CommercialPlanned Development ShPlanned Development MixDowntown Crozet DistrictLight IndustryHeavy IndustryPlanned Development IndTown of ScottsvilleMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesNovember 29, 2011GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)189 ft
Points of InterestAIRPORTCOLLEGE/UNIVERSITYCOMMUNITYFIRE/RESCUE STATIONGOVERNMENTHOSPITALLIBRARYPOLICE STATIONPOST OFFICERECREATION/TOURISMSCHOOLParcel InfoParcels61W-03-7Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesDecember 2, 2011GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)131 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Places29 Master Plan Mix
C - Community Center
D - Destination Center
NS - Neighborhood Servic
Up - Uptown
Tm # 61W-03-7
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 8, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
186 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 13, 2011
Public Hearing Item:
SP-2011-00028 – NTELOS CV646 Commonwealth Ave. Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility
PROPOSED: Request for a collocation of antennas and associated ground equipment on an existing
tower.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial – retail sales and service; residential by
special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 22.2.2 (14) which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the C -1 Zoning
District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: UDA Places 29 – Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of prototypes;
manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
LOCATION: 345 Greenbrier Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-00700
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(Christopher Perez)
Mr. Perez presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because the existing tower was built prior to the
special use permitting process and the tower was not approved by the Planning Commission or the
Board of Supervisors as a Tier II or Tier III facility. Subsequently any modifications to the tower are
subject to Board approval. Thus the facility qualifies for a Tier III review at this time.
The Planning Commission will need to make findings/recommendations on the appropriateness of the
proposal.
Proposal: To collocate a vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas at 85’ elevation, which is
12’ below the existing antenna array (dish with radome) at 97’ elevation. The elevation of the existing
steel tower is 100’ and no height increase is proposed.
• The proposal also includes the associated ground equipment, 4 additional parking spaces, a 24”
wooden retaining wall, one security light, and security fencing around lease area.
Proposal:
• Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
– Section 5.1.40(a)(4d)- Requirement to identify each paint color on the facility, by
manufacturer color name and color number.
– Section 5.1.40(a)(4f)- Requirement to identify the height, caliper and species of all trees
where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to
establish the proposed height and/or screening of the monopole…
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
– Section 5.1.40(a)(4g)- Requirement to identify all existing and proposed setbacks,
parking, fencing and landscaping.
– Section 5.1.40(a)(6)- Requirement to conduct a balloon test…
– Section 5.1.40(b)(2)- Requirement to obtain an easement or other recordable document
showing agreement between the lot owners…
– Section 5.1.40 (c)(2vi)- Requirement for the applicant to provide a statement to the agent
certifying that the height of all components of the facility comply with this regulation.
– Section 5.1.40 (d)(2)- Requirement to provide adequate opportunities for screening and
the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets…
– Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Requirement that the height of tower shall not be taller than…
– Section 5.1.40(d)(7)- Requirement that 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…
Proposal:
• Additional Zoning Ordinance Modification Not in Original Staff Report:
– Section 5.1.40(c)(6) -Transco will remove the tower if the use for a personal wireless
service is discontinued at anytime in the future…
Reason for Modification: This is an existing non conforming tower and the owner of the
facility should not be required to remove the tower if NTELOS discontinues use at this
site. Staff feels comfortable with the requested modification.
– Section 5.1.40(c)(7) - The owner of the facility shall submit an annual report to the
County regarding the users on the tower…
The applicant, Transco, has expressed some concern they did not want to be responsible to submit the
annual report to the County and would rather have Ntelos do it. That is what staff is proposing for this
modification is to allow Intelos to submit the annual report to the County.
Summary and Recommendation
Factors Favorable:
• No height increase of the existing 100’ tower is proposed, rather only collocation on the existing
tower at the 85’ elevation.
• The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or cause any new impacts to adjacent
properties.
Factors Unfavorable: none
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing personal
wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided in the staff report.
Conditions of Approval
1. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
conceptual plan , entitled “Commonwealth CV646 Collocation on an Existing 100’ Self-
Supported Tower” prepared by James A Bumgarner, Jr and dated 9/27/11.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
2. The Conceptual Plan must be amended to provide a light fixture which is fully shielded and
meets the definition of Full Cutoff Luminaire as required by Chapter 18, Section 4.17.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked why a balloon test would be required since it did not exceed the height of the existing
tower.
Mr. Perez replied that staff did not require a balloon test. That was one of the modifications.
Mr. Lafferty asked why they require a report of usage.
Mr. Fritz replied that it was one of the provisions put into the ordinance when the special use permit was
originally adopted. In most special use permits received in Tier II there is a requirement that the tower
be removed if it is not used for a personal wireless facility. The only way the County staff knows is if
the applicant provides a report, which is why a report is required.
Mr. Smith asked if the report would say they are just using the facility.
Mr. Fritz replied yes, because literally all they need to say is they have the equipment and are licensed to
operate. If they fail to get the report then they could go to them and say they are technically in violation
of the ordinance and either need to give them a report or take it down because they don’t have any
evidence that it is being used.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the
application to address the Commission.
Jesse Wilmer, with Ntelos from Waynesboro, Virginia, said Ntelos is proposing this site. It is on an
existing structure. She understands the difference between this and a Tier I, which is a simple
collocation versus a Tier III. This site does not have a current special use permit on it. So Ntelos had to
take the extra step to apply for the special use permit to get the nonconforming tower into compliance.
Therefore, it is a Tier III instead of a normal Tier I. They abide by their restrictions to go on existing
structures whenever applicable. They will follow all the other wireless service facility requirements –
flush mounting, color of the antennas, etc. The only other oddity in this collocation is their ground
equipment is going across the parking lot from the tower. They are not taking away parking spaces from
Transco. The Williams Gas Pump Pipeline Company is currently at this location. They are not taking
away any parking spaces from them, but adding four parking places for their business. That will require
an additional site plan review. They included it in this application. She would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the
public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that two motions were needed – one for a recommendation on the special use
permit and two, a recommendation on the modifications.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
Mr. Perez noted there were two recommended conditions in the staff report.
Motion On Modifications: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of
modifications to Sections 5.1.40(a)(4d), (a)(4f), (a)(4g), (a)(6), (b)(2), (c)(6), (c)(7), (c)(2vi), (d)(2),
(d)(6) and (d)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for reasons outlined in the staff report and in the presentation.
Mr. Kamptner asked for clarification that the motion includes the two additional modifications to
Sections 5.1.40(c)(6) and 5.1.40(c)(7) with the modification being that Ntelos instead of the owner
would submit the report.
Mr. Lafferty agreed.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted the following Zoning Ordinance modifications will be forwarded to the Board with a
recommendation for approval:
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(4d)- Requirement to identify each paint color on the facility, by
manufacturer color name and color number.
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(4f)- Requirement to identify the height, caliper and species of all trees
where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to
establish the proposed height and/or screening of the monopole…
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(4g)- Requirement to identify all existing and proposed setbacks, parking,
fencing and landscaping.
– Section 5.1.40 (a)(6)- Requirement to conduct a balloon test…
– Section 5.1.40 (b)(2)- Requirement to obtain an easement or other recordable document
showing agreement between the lot owners…
– Section 5.1.40 (c)(2vi)- Requirement for the applicant to provide a statement to the agent
certifying that the height of all components of the facility comply with this regulation.
– Section 5.1.40 (d)(2)- Requirement to provide adequate opportunities for screening and the
facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets…
– Section 5.1.40(d)(6) – Requirement that the height of tower shall not be taller than…
– Section 5.1.40 (d)(7)- Requirement that 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…
• Additional Zoning Ordinance Modification Not in Original Staff Report:
– Section 5.1.40(c)(6) -Transco will remove the tower if the use for a personal wireless
service is discontinued at anytime in the future…
– Section 5.1.40(c)(7) - The owner of the facility shall submit an annual report to the
County regarding the users on the tower…
Motion for Special Use Permit:
Mr. Laffert y moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00028 Ntelos CV646
Commonwealth Ave. Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Commonwealth
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
5
CV646 Collocation on an Existing 100’ Self-Supported Tower” prepared by James A
Bumgarner, Jr and dated 9/27/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design
of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The following change must be made to the Conceptual Plan: The Conceptual Plan must be
amended to provide a light fixture which is fully shielded and meets the definition of Full Cutoff
Luminaire, “Any outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the
horizontal plane” as required by Chapter 18, Section 4.17.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00028 Ntelos CV646 Commonwealth Ave. Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility and modifications will go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP2010-00040 Keswick Lake (formerly Clifton Lake)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special Use Permit to allow fill in the floodplain for
upgrading and widening a private dam to allow a private
road for the proposed Keswick Lake development
(formerly Clifton Lake)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Cilimberg, and Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This proposal, to obtain a special use permit to place fill in the floodplain, was heard by the Planning Commission on
November 15th, 2011. The staff report is provided as Attachment A. During deliberation, the Planning Commission
recommended approval with a possible change to condition #6, regarding a boat access to be provided to the County.
During the public hearing, members of the public raised some concerns regarding road access to the subdivision. To
address these concerns, the Planning Commission took further action to request the subdivision plat be reviewed by
the Planning Commission. The road access is a separate issue from the consideration of this special use permit.
DISCUSSION:
After further consideration of the boat access condition by the Planning Commission, staff believes the boat access
can be better addressed as a condition of approval of a variation to the application plan that will be requested by the
applicant. If granted, the variation would allow the applicant to relocate a proposed subdivision road that would be in
close proximity to the proposed boat access. The variation request will be considered by the Director of Planning.
The variation would need to be granted before the subdivision plat is approved.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None identified.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions, however, with the removal of Condition 6 (boat
access). Staff believes the boat access can more appropriately be addressed as a condition of the requested variation
of the approved master plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission action letter
Planning Commission staff report
Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 1, 2011
Michael Myers Ple, Dominion Eng.
172 S. Pantops Dr.
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: SP201000040 Clifton Lake
Dear Mr. Myers:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 15, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the FEMA
maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the road, culvert, dam and spillways.
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan, and
obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements,
regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to construction
(Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
6. The applicant shall construct the parking and river access and dedicate it to the county as shown on
the plan.
Return to exec summary
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on January 11, 2012.
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,
Glenn Brooks
County Engineer
Administration/Central Operations
CC: Greg Baldwin, Greg Baldwin Realty
195 Riverbend Dr.
Charlottesville, Va 22911
Country Inns Extraordinaire Inc
1296 Clifton Inn Drive
Charlottesville Va 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010-00040, Clifton Lake Staff: Glenn Brooks
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Owners: Country Inns Extraordinaire Inc. Applicant: Country Inns Extraordinaire Inc. and Greg
Baldwin Realty
Acreage: NA Zoning: Planned Residential Development and
Flood Hazard Overlay
TMP: TM 79, Parcel 36
Location: Southeast of Clifton Inn
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PRD, residential
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes
Proposal: To upgrade the existing dam and build
a road across it to access North Milton Rd.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Development Area: NA
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas.
Character of Property: Wooded rural property
with river and floodplain, and the existing Clifton
Lake and dam.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residences and the
Clifton Inn
Factors Favorable:
1. An upgrade to the existing dam.
2. Compliance with the approved zoning plan.
Factors Unfavorable:
Encroachments into the edges of the floodplain of the
Rivanna River.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
STAFF: Glenn Brooks
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 14 Nov 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: TBD
SP 2010-00040 Clifton Lake
PETITION
PROJECT: SP2010-00040 Fill in the floodplain and stream crossing
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to upgrade the existing dam and build a road on it with an
arched culvert crossing of the spillway/stream, and additional fill for the road to reach North
Milton Road,.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PRD – Planned Residential Development for
Clifton Lake Subdivision, and FH – Flood Hazard Overlay
SECTION: 30.5.5.2.d.6 Flood Hazard Overlay
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - agricultural and residential
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Southeast of Clifton Inn, between the Inn and Clifton Lake Subdivision
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 79/36
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Wooded slopes and floodplain. Rural agricultural land.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is to expand the existing dam on Camp Branch, and build a road across it,
which will continue along the edge of the Rivanna River floodplain to North Milton Road. A
new spillway will be constructed on the dam, and the road will span it with an arched culvert.
The road will be cut into the wooded slope at the edge of the floodplain of the river until it
reaches North Milton Road along the existing entrance and driveway.
In conjunction with the above proposal, the applicant is offering to build a boat access
parking area for the county, which will replace the substandard access currently in place. Its
entrance will be from the newly constructed road, and the parking itself will be within the
floodplain of the Rivanna River.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA-77-24, Shadwell Heights. This road will satisfy condition #16.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed road conforms with the comprehensive plan.
STAFF COMMENT
Regarding the provisions of Sections 31.6.1 and 30.5.5.2d6 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff
notes the following;
31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
This is road has been planned in the existing PRD, and in subsequent modifications. An
analysis of the affects on the floodplain shows that there will be no significant impacts to
adjacent property, and that flood levels will not be significantly affected. Attached are the
applicant’s plans for the road and dam.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The ordinance anticipates this use in 30.5.5.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This is a roadway permitted by-right, as it is planned in the existing PRD.
with additional regulations provided in section 5,
Section 5 does not appear applicable in this case
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff believes that the proposed changes to the dam are an improvement over the existing
condition in regard to stability and safety. The risk of damage to life and property is
increased by placing a road on the structure, but this has been previously approved with the
zoning.
30.5.5.2d6: Bridges, causeways and other similar structures designed for pedestrian
and/or vehicular access; provided that the board of supervisors shall find, by clear
and convincing evidence, in addition to the findings required by section 31.2.4.1, that:
(a) such bridge or other structure is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford
or other stream crossing;
This is the site of an existing spillway for the dam.
(b) such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is to
be used, as to the sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully occupied
dwellings;
This crossing will be used for access to Clifton Lake Subdivision.
(c) no alternative means of access to such dwellings is physically practicable
This is an alternative access to Clifton Lake, as provided for in the existing zoning.
(d) no such alternative means of access has been abandoned, aliened or otherwise
relinquished by the voluntary act or omission of the owner of the land upon which
such dwellings are located since December 10, 1980;
No other access has been abandoned.
(e) such bridge or other structure is necessary to prevent, eliminate or substantially
alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the county;
This crossing provides alternative access to Clifton Lake Subdivision.
(f) such bridge or other structure is so designed as to pose the minimum practical
disruption of the environment of the stream consistent with the other provisions
hereof; and
This is the case as provided for in the design and demonstrated in the floodplain study.
(g) such bridge or other structure shall comply with all applicable state and federal
law including, but not limited to, Chapters 3.5, 7, 8, 9 and 20 of Title 62.1 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, to the extent that any or all of the same may be
applicable in a particular case. (Added 1-19-83)
The conditions recommended will ensure county staff checks for compliance with state and
federal agencies. The chapters referenced in this section are;
Chapter 3.5 -“Flood Damage Reduction Act”, Chapter 7 -“Water-Power Development,
Conservation of Hydroelectric Power Dams and Works”, Chapter 8 - “Impoundment of
Surface Waters”, Chapter 9 - “Mills, Dams and Certain Other Works on Watercourses”, 20 -
“Miscellaneous Offenses” (such as dumping garbage)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable:
1. Safety and stability of the dam is improved.
2. The road achieves compliance with the PRD approved plan.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update
the FEMA maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the road, culvert, dam
and spillways.
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment
control plan, and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection
Ordinance requirements, regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum
disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to
construction (Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide
mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
6. The applicant shall construct the parking and river access and dedicate it to the county
as shown on the plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Plans provided by the applicant
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 15, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for
the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Bill Fritz,
Director of Community Development; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
A. SP 2010-040, Clifton Lake (Signs 84 & 85).
PROPOSED: Placement of fill in the floodplain to allow the construction of a private street.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots), PRD - Planned Residential Development -
PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial
uses and FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding.
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 4 - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: This fill is proposed below and adjacent to the dam located southeast of the Clifton Inn.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07900-00-00-02300, 07900-00-00-023F0 and 07900-00-00-03600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Glenn Brooks)
Glenn Brooks presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit for fill in the floodplain area of Camp Branch and the Rivanna River and also
for a stream crossing of Camp Branch on the Clifton Lake Dam. In the presentation staff reviewed the
overall view of the property. Clifton Lake covers Camp Branch Stream outlets into the river down below.
The bridge on the upper left is North Milton Road. The subdivision on the upper right is Shadwell Road
that leads into the property from Route 250. The applicant’s plan provides a more detailed view of the
proposed Clifton Lake Subdivision coming off of Shadwell Road at the top and coming down across the
dam from Clifton Lake and the proposed road that meets up with Randolph Mill Lane, which comes into
North Milton Road next to the bridge on the bottom left. One view shows the proposed road over the dam
and the expansion of the dam. The darker lines shown are the proposed contours to fill in the rear portion
of the dam. The river is down below on the drawing and some distance from the dam. The floodplain is
very wide from the river. The dotted lines are depictions of the floodplain. Later pictures will clarify that.
The proposed road will meet Randolph Mill Lane, which is a small existing private road that goe s into the
Milton Board Launch, which is a little path through the bank of the river to carry their canoe. It is rather
steep. It meets North Milton Road near the bridge, which is just down the street from Clifton Inn. Clifton
Inn is shown as a large outline of a building with a circular driveway. The area of the floodplain has been
shaded in as they have it now. Clifton Lake during a flood event our maps show that whole area flooding
over the dam also, with the area of the bridge down on the bottom left and the wide floodplain and the
Rivanna River below. There are two floodplains meeting here. There is Camp Branch at the top and it
meets the Rivanna River, which is the larger one. The dark blue line shaded in is the proposed road as it
will come across the rear side of the dam . The area of fill is shown in red. This is what this special use
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
permit is technically for. In that area they are a dding road embankment. The far left piece is a small
entrance way for a proposed new parking area and new boat launch that they are proposing to donate to
the park service. That is just a small amount of fill for the driveway location.
The long narrow one along the road is just a road embankment to cut the road into the existing bank,
which comes down from Clifton Inn. Then the section at the end of Clifton Lake is the actual construction
of a larger dam. The existing dam for Clifton Lake is very steep and overgrown. It would not meet
today’s specs if they were building a new dam. It would be too steep and not very stable. It has been
there for 20 to 30 years or possibly longer. He noted the direct impacts to the floodplain by taking away
the red, which were pretty minor. The section at the dam has been cut out because they are designing a
new spillway on the dam, which will carry the flood waters. Therefore, the flood waters would not be
expected to go to the other side of the dam, but would just go around one side in the spillway or
contained. It does affect floodplain map because it gets rid of that section of floodplain. Also, along the
road way there is a small cut out where the ramp would be down to the new boat launch. There are some
small differences along the road way itself, which really are not significant when they talk about the
accuracy of the large flood plain like this. It is just wavering along the road way.
He noted the depiction of the crossing itself. The ordinance requires separate permission for an actual
crossing of the stream. This is a gray area since it is not reall y crossing an existing stream. It is a dam
and a designated stream . Technically it is a crossing. There is no stream there anymore. It is the dam
itself. He pointed out the depiction from their computer model. It shows the dam in gray and the arched
culvert crossing down below. Staff did not get an actual plan of that yet. That would come later.
Staff’s recommended conditions are fairly standard conditions for fill in the floodplain, except for the
section about the boat launch, which staff will have to modify later when the County Attorney can discuss
that. Before the request goes to the Board staff would have to modify that condition to say something
slightly different. The intent is the same.
Staff is recommending approval. In his estimation this is a vast improvement to the dam. The road itself
and the fill for the road was something called for back in 1977 when the rezoning was approved as
another entrance to the approved PRD of Clifton Lake Subdivision. It is fulfilling that requirement of the
Board for the rezoning. It is road they have anticipated as a County for a long time. As they saw with the
changes to the floodplain the impacts to the floodplain are very minimal.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable:
1. Safety and stability of the dam is improved.
2. The road achieves compliance with the PRD approved plan.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the road, culvert, dam and
spillways.
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan,
and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements,
regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to construction
(Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
6. The applicant shall construct the parking and river access and dedicate it to the county as shown
on the plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that he had been working with this over time. As Mr. Brooks mentioned there is
anticipation that there would be this access on this side of the lake and the dam. The original plan was
showing that access actually going behind Clifton Inn and coming up to Route 729 near the entrance to
Stone Robinson. So this actually creates a new location that will not impact Clifton Inn in terms of its
proximity and also will be a better separation from the Stone Robinson School entrance than what would
have occurred under the original zoning. A part of that, which is actually a variation from the Planned
Development approval, is the provision for this parking area that gets some cars into an area that access
the river rather than having them randomly parking along Randolph Mill Lane as they do now. Parks and
Rec has said on a number of occasions it ends up being kind of a nightmare from the standpoint of
people coming and going in access to the river. Altogether it is an improved situation there.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the road after being built will actually be in the floodplain.
Mr. Brooks replied that portions of the road will be in the floodplain as shown.
Mr. Franco asked if this was a public road.
Mr. Brooks replied his understanding was it is a private road. However, the applicant could tell them
more.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the part that would come into the boat launch is for public use. Beyond that it is
an existing private road, which will be improved to allow for a better road as well. The applicant probably
needs to speak to how they plan to control the private aspect of this.
Mr. Morris asked what road will be used to bring the fill in. Also, what road will be used for the
construction of the housing and so on?
Mr. Brooks replied his understanding is that North Milton Road and that entrance at Randolph Mill Lane
will be used and not the road coming through Shadwell and Route 250. They don’t have a commitment to
that right now, but he would expect that on the next set of plains that will be more detailed.
Mr. Smith asked what year of flood they are talking about.
Mr. Brooks replied that this was the 100 year interval for the floodplain. For the design of the dam they
may use more or less depending on the Department of Dam Safety at the state level.
Mr. Smith asked if the dam has ever been inundated.
Mr. Brooks replied that he did not know.
Mr. Zobrist assumed that the subdivision portion has been treated in a separate application.
Mr. Brooks replied that the subdivision itself he understood would be a separate plat that would be a by
right plat since it meets the existing zoning.
Mr. Zobrist noted that is why the Commission has not seen it.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the entitlement for the subdivision was created by that zoning in the 70’s, which some
Commissioners about three years ago as an update of that zoning as he recalls.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Andrew Baldwin, project manager for Charles W. Hurt for this development, noted that they had met with
the County extensively. They are doing away with the old river access that is currently there now. It
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
sounds like there is some concern on how that would be controlled. They are planning on putting a key
gate just beyond where the new park will be put in so essentially anyone who is not a member of the
community and/or does not have a punch code for those members would access the property that way.
Obviously the other entrance through Shadwell Estates he thought they would essentially try to keep
open depending on what is required fire safety wise. Right now they would like to just do a gate at that
entrance to not promote traffic through the development.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the applicant would be willing for the Commission to add a condition to the
approval that indicated that the new road or new entrance just talked about as the key gate would be the
main entrance to their subdivision.
Mr. Baldwin replied yes that it is and was desired to be.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they would also agree that would be their construction entrance.
Mr. Baldwin replied yes, that is correct.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that was one of the big discussion points about three years ago when they
saw this prior to when Mr. Zobrist came back on. It was really important to have that.
Mr. Baldwin said they are willing to do that.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Rick Bowie, resident of the Shadwell Subdivision in the Scottsville District, said they don’t want 30 more
houses there, but they have that by right. Therefore, they don’t contest it. They are vitally concerned of
the safety of the people who already live there who use Shadwell Road/Route 709. They will address
that further. He thinks what bothers him as he looks at this proposal is map #4 of 4. The road proposed
still has the main entrance shown on Shadwell Road. Not only that this other is just secondary. They
were going to recommend denial. However, if the Commission approves this they want a condition that
entrance be eliminated. There will be no traffic. He thought that was taken care of in their
recommendation. They don’t want the construction traffic or anything else on Shadwell Road since it
won’t take it. They would like to see it redesigned and redrawn so that it is very clear that is no longer an
option going in there. They are the Shadwell Estates – Milton Heights Neighborhood Group. There are
30 plus houses in there. They would like to see the conditions state there will be no entrance at all to
Shadwell Road and this is the primary and only access. That complies with the Board’s condition in 1978
Steve Houchins, an adjacent property owner to Clifton Lakes in Shadwell Estates, said his family is not
opposed to the development. The challenge is they are already seeing the increased traffic because they
are already marking lots and digging wells. So they are already driving down Shadwell Road. Shadwell
Road cannot handle any additional traffic and there are so many blind spots already in the road. There
are safety concerns in getting their children from the school bus stop home due to the blind spots in the
road. They can’t handle any additional traffic there. He asked as Ms. Porterfield suggested that they
make it a factor of the approval that is the main road. The concern is they want to put a security gate up
there to discourage the traffic through their neighborhood. In fact, what that security gate will do is
encourage the traffic through their neighborhood. It would be logical that people would come in that way
because it is a more direct route right off of Route 250 and there is no security gate. Therefore, they
could jet right home. That is a concern. Even with 30 houses when that is fully built out that is at a
minimum an additional 120 cars a day on that road. It simply cannot handle it. It is a rural state road.
Mr. Houchins noted he had a signed petition that has previously been supplied to the Commission of
every single household in Shadwell Estates. Again they are not opposed to the neighborhood. They
simply cannot handle any more traffic on their road. T he important part to note about that is just that all of
these layers have been put on. You can build your neighborhood if they have their own a ccess. The
access did not work to go through the Clifton’s property to Stone Robinson because Clifton did not want
to cut through their property to do that. So now this alternative route has been designed, but it is not
designed to give a new boat landin g, to give a new dam, or to correct the dam that has worked fine since
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
5
it was built. The design of this road is to get back to this neighborhood. If that is the case and this could
be the main road and either their road could be closed off or somehow put a security gate on the other
side as well. He asked that they give them the same opportunity to discourage traffic through their
neighborhood on that side of the neighborhood as they are doing on the other side. Again, they are not
opposed to the neighborhood and welcome them as neighbors.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he wanted the petition and information to be made part of tonight’s record.
Mr. Bowie said that the petitions were turned in during 2008. The people still are in opposition and it
should be made part of the file. He submitted the following to be made part of the record: Petition signed
by every household in the Shadwell Estates – Milton Heights subdivision dated February 9/10, 2008
Submitted by Steve Houchins. (Attachment A)
Bill Weakley, resident of Shadwell Estates for over ten years, said he was concerned about the road that
was to go in. He did not hear in the plan tonight how wide the roadway would be going through there. It
was late breaking news that would be the main entrance. He was assuming school buses or whatever
they do to get their children to school would be going that route. He was a little concerned when they say
main entrance. What does that mean to the entrance off of Shadwell Estates? That is the area he would
really like to speak to in a moment.
Back to the road they are putting in, the fill area they talked about affecting the floodplain on the
north side of the river adjacent to the road to be put in. He did not see any comments about the
south side of the river or on the Milton Heights side. If they build up a section in a floodplain they
are pushing water somewhere else. The water could not take the same path anymore. He would
be concerned for those people that they don’t get some extra water over there. Ho w often does it
flood? He could tell them in 1972 it flooded. He was at the old bridge cleaning the debris away
so the highway engineers could do a study. That whole bottom flooded out in 1972.
Regarding Shadwell Road, it is a very rural road of tar and gravel. It is not very wide and does
not have lines on it. They did a traffic study back in 2008. His wife was part of that. They looked
at traffic during the off hours, which was 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The count was 100 to 130 cars
every 10 minutes or one car about every 6 seconds. During rush hours the count ranged from
150 to 202 cars or one car every 3 seconds. The traffic has only gotten worse from the past
traffic study. They did not have time to do an updated study. He could tell them t hat it was worse
than that.
They also measured the distance from the center of Route 709 to the top of the hill. Coming from
the east heading west that was 264 feet. That is not enough sight distance for a 35 mph zone.
The speed limit coming from the other direction is higher than that and still 55 mph.
They have letter from 2006 from Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planner that said the
entrance to 250 does not meet VDOT’s minimum sight distance standards due to the vertical
curvature of Route 250. Route 709, Shadwell Road, entrance to 250 is currently unsafe with
existing traffic. He would say that has gotten worse. Additionally traffic at this intersection would
further aggravate a substandard entrance. VDOT made it clear that they would not approve
additional traffic at this section until Route 250 is improved. VDOT will not support the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 709 and Route 250. That is all he had to add to it.
He asked to make that part of the record. (Attachment B –Traffic Study note with VDOT memo
dated May 25, 2008 to Scott Clark and Letter to Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner in reference to
SUB-07-396 Clifton Lake, Phase I from Lori Weakley, Bill Perry, Rick Bowie and Dave Salzman
received on February 8, 2008 – submitted by Bill Weakley on November 15, 2011)
Mr. Zobrist asked that the letters be given to Mr. Brooks to be made part of the record.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant had a rebuttal.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
6
Mr. Baldwin asked to address the main points primarily the concern of the traffic in and out of Shadwell
Estates now. The idea for leaving that end open is so that the residents of Shadwell Estates due to the
intersection at 250 being or seemingly unsafe due to the hill was so they could leave the subdivision
through their entrance. When leaving the subdivision they would not need a key since the gate would
essentially rise when leaving. The residents of their development could come in that way and/or come in
through Shadwell Estates, which is a safe turn in but not necessarily a leave. He would h ope that the
residents of Shadwell Estates would find it a safer place to leave their community as opposed to what
they are dealing with now.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he would talk to the size of the road he was putting in. She asked if the width of
the road they were putting in would match the rest of the roads in the subdivision.
Mr. Baldwin replied that he was not c lear on what road.
Ms. Porterfield replied it was for the new entrance/exit.
Mr. Baldwin replied that it would match the new Randolph Mill Lane. He asked that Mike Myers speak to
that.
Mike Myers said Randolph Mill Road is 18’ wide and is a standard entrance at North Milton.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it would match what is shown now running through the subdivision, and Mr. Myers
replied that was correct.
There being no further public questions for the applicant, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked how they can handle the Shadwell Road problem. What the applicant said is it was
nice that they are trying to figure out how to let the people in Shadwell Estates e xit onto an easier spot,
but without anything that is going to impede just the regular person just coming in they could easily see a
lot more traffic coming and going on Shadwell Road. T hat was the original concern and is still the
concern. The one gentleman that spoke is completely right that area right there is 55 miles an hour. That
hill is deadly because you just can’t see. She questioned whether they could put a key gate on each end
and give the people who live in Shadwell Estates the ability to go through that by giving them an access
code to be able to do that. She asked will doing that on both ends meet the County and VDOT’s
regulations.
Mr. Brooks replied that he looks strictly at fill in the floodplain and impacts to the floodplain with this
application. His preview stopped there. If they want to talk about access and the road itself that will really
be part of Mr. Cilimberg’s variation to allow this route instead of the one through Clifton Inn. That is a
variation strictly speaking to the rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg said that actually is an element of the subdivision, which is not before the Planning
Commission tonight. The question to Mr. Kamptner is for a special use permit like this can conditions
such as Ms. Porterfield has suggested be part of the special use permi t for a controlled entrance at both
locations.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes that condition and what is in the staff report is condition 6. They will need to
look at and consider whether or not if the law requires there to be a nexus between the condition that the
Commission is considering recommending and the actual application and the impacts that are being
considered here. As Mr. Brooks noted, this is a fill in the floodplain special use permit. So there needs to
be a connection between those particular impacts arising from fill in the floodplain and the controlled
access points.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
7
Ms. Porterfield said it seems that the way they fit together is that the original rezoning in the 70’s said the
access was to be the way this design is happening across the dam and out. It was not to be at where
Shadwell Road intersects 250. W hen the applicant came in about 3 years ago that was the discussion,
which has been what they have been working on as a way to get out of what they are doing. It seems
that the fill in the floodplain fits very nicely with creating this main entrance. The only thing is to try to end
up with two ways and be nice neighbors to Shadwell Estates. If they can put the same limited access on
both ends it is going to keep people from just cutting through who might want to cut through. It would
take a lot of the burden off Route 250 where there are lots of problem not just at that place but other
areas on 250. She asked does that connect.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it may. Staff would need to look at that between now and before this goes to
Board. It very well may be, but he has not looked at the 1977 rezoning materials in a couple of years. He
would need to go back and look at that. The other consideration that comes in is that this land already
has the zoning for the use. Controlling how somebody has access onto a public road it eventually will just
be the subdivision process and something that is usually dealt with by VDOT and the county engineer.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out when the Commission saw it the original zoning clearly one of the items of the
conditions said that the main access was to be off of Milton Road. It was not to be off of 250. That was
very clear and that is why her guess is the applicant has not built anything there yet. They have been
trying to figure out how to make it happen. They finally were because they have this piece of land so they
can create the road.
Mr. Kamptner asked was that a condition of the original rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg replied there were 17 conditions in the old rezoning. He could not remember the specifics.
Mr. Kamptner said they can look at that. That requirement may already exist. Under the Planned
Development regulations that were in effect at that time conditions were imposed. So if there is a
condition that already requires that Milton Road serve as the primary entrance, then that is essentially a
zoning requirement that already exists.
Ms. Porterfield said that it does. She asked if they can rewrite another condition, condition #7 to the fill in
the floodplain which is that the main entrance and the construction entrance will be from Milton Road and
that the applicant will put up limited access gates at that point and also coming off of Shadwell Road in
order to limit access, but also to be able to be good neighbors to Shadwell Estates and will provide those
residents with a code so they can actually exit onto North Milton Road.
Mr. Zobrist asked to summarize. If he heard the members of the public who live next door correctly they
are happy with the entrance they have and with their comings and goings that they have been doing for
years. So what they have asked is just to block it and stub the entrance off. He suggested that the
Commission should talk about that.
Mr. Smith pointed out that is not what is before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that it was not before the Commission.
Mr. Morris said what he would really like to do is focus on what is before the Commission, which was
phase one. He thought that the applicant clearly hears what they are saying, which is really going to be
addressed in phase two or phase three. That is how they work out the secondary connecting route and
so on. Right now he thought they need to focus on phase one.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission should condition that the preliminary subdivision plat come before
them.
Mr. Cilimberg said they would not need to make that a condition of the special use permit. The
Commission could just establish that they would like th e preliminary plat to come before them.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
8
Mr. Franco said that was the simplest way to do it since it answers his question and brings the plat before
them.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that is a way to do that. The Commission would also look at the zoning
conditions at the same time so the y would know how they are being applied with the action that would
actually approve the subdivision itself.
Ms. Monteith said along with that she would suggest that the applicant talk with the adjacent community.
They need to talk to each other.
Mr. Zobrist noted it was the Commission’s consensus that they take into consideration the concerns of
the neighbors and they would like those concerns to be mitigated and alleviated if possible at the second
phase. The only thing they were voting on tonight is what was before them in the staff report.
Ms. Porterfield suggested with the addition to say specifically that the plat comes back to the
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that was not a condition of the approval. The Commission could take a second
action tonight.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of SP-2010-00040, Clifton Lake with
the conditions as listed in the staff report with the potential revision to condition #6.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it had been moved and seconded th at the staff report be accepted that they
approve the upgrade of the existing dam and the road across to access Milton Road subject to condition
6 being possibly revised.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to request the preliminary subdivision plat for Clifton
Lake be brought before the Planning Commission.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the preliminary subdivision plat for Clifton Lake will be brought back to the
Commission. SP-2010-00040, Clifton Lake will go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be
determined with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff, with the
potential revision to condition 6, as follows:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the road, culvert, dam and
spillways.
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan,
and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements,
regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to construction
(Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
6. The applicant shall construct the parking and river access and dedicate it to the county as shown
on the plan.
Rick Bowie said as he understands it they as the persons who live there will be notified when the site plan
review comes up.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that subdivision plats have notification.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-40 CLIFTON LAKE SUBMITTED TO BOS
9
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Brooks to put a note in the file to make sure the neighbors get notification.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Dedication of Sanitary Sewer Easement to Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting a sanitary sewer
easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
as part of the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands
Project.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Harper, and
Patsch
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project is currently under construction. The project includes the
relocation of an existing sanitary sewer line to accommodate the construction of the system forebay, a major
component of the project. The new sanitary sewer alignment requires the County to convey a new easement to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to replace the easement segment being relocated. The project
construction documents have been reviewed and approved by the County’s Community Development Department
and the RWSA.
DISCUSSION:
This conveyance of County property requires a public hearing pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800.
Approved plans for the stormwater project call for a system forebay to be located in an area currently occupied by an
existing sewer line. Project design requires the relocation of this existing line, which the RWSA has agreed to upon
receiving an easement for the location of the new line. Upon successful operation of the relocated line, the RWSA
has agreed to abandon the existing line, allowing the County stormwater improvements to be located as designed.
Relocating the existing sanitary sewer line is necessary under the current design of the stormwater project. This
design will provide maximum stormwater management for the Downtown Crozet area. In addition, older and
potentially deteriorating sanitary sewer infrastructure will be replaced with new infrastructure ; thus insuring that the
County’s natural resources are protected.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The granting of this easement does not affect the cost of the improvements, which are already budgeted and
approved.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that following the public hearing, the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the following
documents on behalf of the County, each in a form acceptable to the County Attorney:
a. Deed of Easement from the County to the RWSA to relocate an existing sanitary sewer line on County
property: TMP 56-11.
b. Plat for TMP 56-11 showing the existing RWSA sanitary sewer easement to be abandoned and the new
sanitary sewer easement to be dedicated. (Attachment A)
ATTACHMENTS
A – Plat for TMP 56-11
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Claudius Crozet Park Community Building Improvements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider Converting Existing County Capital Fund
Appropriation for Claudius Crozet Park Improvements to a
Donation to support Construction of an Aquatics and
Recreation Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Crickenberger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Claudius Crozet Park (CCP) is a 23 acre community, non-profit recreational facility open for public use that has been
serving the Crozet community since 1958.
History of Cooperative Agreements
In 1985, CCP approached the County seeking funding for the ongoing maintenance of their existing park facilities as
well as CIP resources for future recreational improvements and amenities. On November 6, 1985, CCP and the
County entered into a Restrictive Covenant Agreement for 13.62 acres of the park. This agreement established that
this property was to be used solely for recreational and public purposes. The County agreed to consider funding park
improvements as part of its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process and to have County staff assume responsibility
for the maintenance of these improvements. This agreement allowed the CCP Board to place all of its resources
toward the operation and maintenance of the pool, and to retire its pool debt of $50,000 in 1988.
In the mid 90’s, the CCP swimming pool was deteriorating rapidly, and the options before CCP were to either renovate
the pool for $200,000 (with no warranty) or to build a new pool for $330,000. The CCP asked the County to assist with
funding the construction of a new swimming facility and to assist with master planning and funding additional
recreational facilities at the Park. Recognizing the County’s critical need for athletic fields and that a very vital part of
Crozet’s history and future was in jeopardy, the County agreed to enter into a joint operating agreement with CCP for
the Park’s operation in 1997. Under the 1997 Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant the County agreed to
contribute $200,000 to be used solely for the construction of a new swimming facility while CCP agreed that the entire
23-acre park would be solely used for recreational and public purposes in perpetuity, would be open for public use,
and if the CCP ever ceases to exist as a legal entity, that fee simple title to the park and all improvements will transfer
to the County at no cost upon the County’s request. This operating agreement provided CCP and the County, as
partners, the opportunity to provide the needed recreational improvements and opportunities to serve the Crozet
community and citizens of Western Albemarle.
This joint operating agreement has resulted in over $1,000,000.00 of improvements to the CCP being constructed and
funded by the County, including the construction of baseball fields, a multi-purpose field, and playgrounds. In addition
to these capital costs, the County maintains all the fields and playgrounds, mows the entire park, and provides daily
trash pick-up. Although these activities are not accounted for in a distinct line-item in the Parks & Recreation
operating budget, staff estimates that these maintenance activities translate to approximately $20,000.00/year; a total
of over $300,000 over the past fifteen years. In exchange, the CCP is solely responsible for the maintenance and
operation of the pool and has worked collaboratively with the County in the maintenance of the community center
located adjacent to the pool.
In 2004, the County’s Department of Parks & Recreation, working in conjunction with CCP, developed a Long Range
Master Plan for the property and identified the following improvements:
Amphitheater
Aquatics and Recreation Center
Basketball Courts
Multi – Purpose Perimeter Trail
Resource Center
AGENDA TITLE: Claudius Crozet Park Community Building Improvements
January 11, 2012
Page 2
Skateboard Park
Tennis Courts
In its adopted FY 2009 CIP, the Board of Supervisors approved the following CCP Masterplan improvements and
funding based upon the recommendations of County staff and the CCP long-range planning committee and the
recommendations of the CIP technical review and oversight committees:
$100,000 Tennis Courts and Skate Park
$ 68,000 Multi-Purpose Perimeter Trail
$ 32,000 Replacement of existing basketball courts
$200,000 Total
Current Proposal
At the request of CCP, Supervisors Mallek and Rooker, along with County staff, met with CCP Park Board members
on November 30, 2010 to discuss CCP’s proposal for the reallocation of funding for the above projects to the
construction of the Park’s Aquatics and Recreation Center. The intent of the meeting was to provide County feedback
and direction to CCP in their preparation to formally request that the Board of Supervisors re-direct these appropriated
funds for previously approved Park Master Plan initiatives to this Center. Subsequent to this meeting, staff submitted
to CCP a document which contained seven (7) areas/issues to be addressed in order for this matter to be presented to
the Board for consideration (Attachment A). During 2011, CCP aggressively pursued fundraising initiatives for its pool
enclosure as well as a partnership agreement with Piedmont YMCA for operation of the proposed Center. On
November 15, 2011, approximately one year from the date of the initial meeting, CCP submitted its formal proposal to
the County , including its responses to the issues raised by County staff and indicated that its fundraising goals were
practically fulfilled (Attachment B). On December 6, 2011 Supervisor Mallek along with County staff met with CCP
representatives to review its responses and discuss future considerations. Following this meeting, staff advised CCP
of the following actions needed in order for this request to be forwarded to the full Board for consideration:
Prepare a Memo of Understanding (MOU) between CCP and the County outlining the conditions and
requirements associated with the donation and one that all parties can agree upon.
Staff preparation of an Executive Summary to the Board of Supervisors outlining CCP’s request and staff’s
recommendation.
Staff advised CCP that provided the terms of the MOU could be agreed upon in a timely manner, this matter could be
submitted to the Board at its meeting on January 11, 2012 for consideration.
The Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation Center has been the number one priority of the CCP Long Range Master
Plan since 2004. The facility is estimated to cost $600,484 and will consist of an inflatable removable dome center to
cover the existing swimming pool and renovations to the existing community building. CCP has obtained $422,000
through fundraising, grants and pledges and has allocated $400,484 toward the Aquatics and Recreation Center, and
is requesting that the County convert the CIP appropriation for Park Improvements totaling $200,000 to a lump sum
contribution toward construction of renovations to the existing Recreation Center which are needed in order for the
Piedmont YMCA to assume responsibility, on behalf of CCP, for operation of the proposed enclosed pool and
recreation facility. CCP has entered into a year-to-year joint operating agreement with the Piedmont YMCA that has
not been shared with the County. Staff understands that this agreement allows both nonprofits to work jointly to
provide the community of Crozet and residents of the County with year round aquatics and recreational and fitness
programs for all age groups. The plan is that the YMCA will begin operating the Recreational Center and the summer
pool in May 2012, and begin operating the Recreation Center and the domed pool in the fall of 2012.
DISCUSSION:
The County has enjoyed a long successful working relationship with CCP which has generated positive benefits for the
citizens of Crozet and the entire western region of the County. CCP represents a dedicated, energetic and
enthusiastic group of volunteers. The Board, through its adopted FY2013-17 Strategic Plan, emphasized the need
and desire to pursue and promote community/volunteer partnerships to the greatest extent possible to ensure the
County’s vibrancy. The proposal by CCP, as well as its passion and commitment to raising private donations for this
project, are truly reflective of the spirit and intent of the Board’s strategic plan goal.
AGENDA TITLE: Claudius Crozet Park Community Building Improvements
January 11, 2012
Page 3
While the efforts of CCP are extremely laudable and truly reflective of core community spirit and commitment to create
positive good for Crozet and Western Albemarle, staff believes that, based on current policy and past direction by the
Board, there are several policy matters the Board should weigh as it considers this request. While the Board may
ultimately determine that other factors outweigh the issues raised below, based on current policy and past Board
direction, staff felt it important to raise these issues for your consideration:
1. CIP Review & Prioritization Process:
The Board appropriated funding for the basketball/tennis courts and perimeter trail system upon these projects
being vetted against other County-wide priorities through the CIP Technical Review Team and Oversight
Committee process. Given that CCP’s proposal was received on November 15, 2011, the request to
reallocate these funds to assist with construction of the Recreation Center has not been reviewed by the TRT
or Oversight Committee to provide a recommendation to the Board on whether this request meets a high-
priority capital improvement need for the County as a whole. Other school and local government projects
have been directed back to the Oversight Committee for consideration when changes have been proposed.
While this proposal does call for completion of the original projects eventually, it delays the completion of
those projects for up to seven years in order to complete a project not previously identified for funding or
determined to be a priority. The cost of completing all of these projects over seven years is also likely to
increase.
2. Previous Discussion Regarding Aquatics and Recreation Centers
While according to the proposal, the County is not being asked to make a long term investment in this facility,
the proposal does request a short term investment with a certain level of risk. This risk is being taken on for a
facility that has not been identified as a high priority of the County, and results in other higher priorities being
delayed. In addition, the County has previously committed to a centrally located aquatics and recreation
facility through the proposed YMCA facility in McIntire Park. Finally, other swim clubs have unsuccessfully
requested support from the County in the past. While those requests have clearly been different than this
proposal, particularly regarding the fundraising efforts of CCP, the Board has focused its efforts on a central
facility rather than involving itself in more local efforts.
3. Operation of the Aquatics and Recreation Center
As previously noted, CCP and the Piedmont YMCA have entered into a year-to-year agreement setting forth
the terms/conditions for the YMCA to assume operation of the proposed facility. Staff has not reviewed this
agreement. As noted in Exhibit D to CCP’s November 15, 2011 submittal to County staff, the anticipated cost
of operation of this facility is expected to total approximately $547,000 per year. Should forecasted
memberships/revenues not be realized, or should the YMCA decide not to renew this year-to-year agreement,
the County’s $200,000 investment in this facility and $200,000 of future priority improvements could be at risk.
Staff is unable to assess the viability of this new venture without understanding the nature of the year to year
agreement and, more importantly, is not typically involved in assessing the viability of these types of ventures
regarding the use of public funds. Other non-profit proposals for new ventures have come before the County
in the past and the Board has decided that the use of County funds was not appropriate.
4. Pending Case before the Virginia Supreme Court
As the Board is aware, the County remains in litigation regarding a challenge to a similar donation made to the
YMCA for recreational facilities. While the County feels it has a strong case, this litigation is currently pending
before the Virginia Supreme Court and is unlikely to be finally decided until May or June of this year.
Attachment C represents staff’s recommended version of a Memorandum of Understanding between CCP and the
County should the Board decide to approve this request for converting its CIP appropriation to a donation for the
recreation center and delay currently approved projects into the future. While staff understands from Supervisor
Mallek that some discussion is still ongoing, the primary area of disagreement between staff and CCP related to this
agreement is the manner in which the previously approved park improvements will be completed in the future. Since
the concept of converting this appropriation to a donation was first proposed by CCP in late 2010, staff has
emphasized the need for CCP to directly repay this amount to the County in order for the tennis/basketball court
improvements as well as perimeter trail network to be constructed as currently programmed. (Question 7, Attachment
A) Since the County maintains all amenities at the park with the exception of the pool, repayment of these funds to the
County is considered by staff to be critical to ensuring that these improvements are constructed in conformance with
AGENDA TITLE: Claudius Crozet Park Community Building Improvements
January 11, 2012
Page 4
County standards and procedures. CCP maintains that it is in a better position to accomplish the necessary
fundraising to provide these funds without such a requirement and is proposing instead to solicit donations and
complete these improvements on its own. Staff is committed to ensuring that construction of these improvements will
be made in a very collaborative and cooperative process but that construction of the improvements should be
managed by the County as a CIP project pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive
Covenant.
The CCP Board is requesting that the Board approve its request at Wednesday’s meeting and that the County submit
its donation by January 22, 2012 in order for it to complete work on all phases of this proposed project in a timely
manner.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct budget impact to the County should the Board agree to convert the existing appropriation to a
contribution by removing this amount from the Capital Fund and reallocating these funds to the General Fund.
However, it is recognized that future County support could become necessary in the event CCP, for some unforeseen
reason, is unable to continue to fund the operation of the Aquatics and Recreation Center. There is also a risk that in
the event the CCP is unable to raise $200,000 over the next seven years that additional County funding will be
required to complete the basketball/tennis court improvements and the perimeter trail system. Additional funds will
also most likely be required if the cost of the CIP projects increase over the next seven years because the construction
is delayed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Board wishes to contribute $200,000 to the Claudius Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation Center Project, s taff
recommends that the Board 1) authorize the appropriation of $200,000 from its CIP Fund to its General Fund by
approving the attached budget amendment and approving Appropriation #2012050 (Attachment D) in the amount of
$200,000; 2) authorize the County Executive to execute an agreement between the CCP and the County setting forth
the financial arrangements after approval to both form and substance by the County Attorney; and 3) approve a
$200,000 donation to Claudius Crozet Park, Incorporated subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Original 7 questions from Parks/Recreation to CCP submitted 1st quarter of 2011
B – CCP’s November 15, 2011 submittal/response to 7 questions
C – Draft MOU
D – Appropriation #2012050
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
Identify the recreational improvements that were funded in the original master
plan that was developed by the Crozet Park Board’s Long Range Planning
Committee and Parks and Recreation and how that master plan has now changed
and why.
Demonstrate how the improvements to the existing pool and recreational center
will benefit the entire community. Outline the various organizations/groups that it
will serve.
Provide the scope of Phase 1A,(Dome) & 1B, (Recreation Center) with desired
outcomes, timeframe and cost and the need to have both phases completed at the
same time to satisfy the requirements set by the YMCA. Also include information
of your partnership with the YMCA and a letter of support from the YMCA
would be helpful and any others that you may have.
Provide supportive information that the improvements to the pool and recreational
center can and will support itself.
Current available funding that the Park has on hand for Phase 1A and include
pledges, in-kind donations, grants, etc.; and identify any finding shortage towards
Phase 1A and the boards’ strategy towards closing the gap.
Desired amount the Crozet Park Board will be requesting from the County and
clearly identify that the donation will come from existing Capital dollars which
total $200,000 and were appropriated in support of the Crozet Park Master Plan.
Clearly identify that all funding will be directed towards the improvements to the
recreational center and how the Board would like to receive the funding.
Provide what’s the Crozet Park Boards funding strategy and time table towards
the repayment of the donation and that the Crozet Park Board is agreeable in
providing the necessary funding to complete the recreational improvements at
market value.
Return to exec summary
Claudius Crozet Park Board Request for reallocation of funds from Albermarle County
Parks and Recreation
Whereas the county has $200,000 set aside for Crozet Parks funding which falls into these CIP
cost centers:
In Parks and Recreation Maintenance/Replacement - $32,000 toward the replacement of the
existing basketball courts
In Park Enhancements - $100,000 toward the Tennis Courts and Skate Park
In Crozet Greenway - $68,000 toward the Perimeter Trail
The Board of Claudius Crozet Park requests that these funds be converted into a one-time lump
sum payment of $200,000 that would go toward the renovation of the community building at
the Claudius Crozet Park. We would like to receive this payment by the first of the year, 2012
so that building renovations could occur over the winter of 2011/2012.
This renovation would allow the park to enter a Joint Operating Agreement with the Piedmont
YMCA to provide year-round programming in Crozet Park. The park has raised $400,000 to
allow for year round swimming in Crozet Park and the building renovations are necessary for
the business model to work successfully between the Piedmont YMCA and Crozet Park.
It is the intent of the board to continue to work on the master plan for Crozet Park and provide
$200,000 toward tennis courts, a skate park, a perimeter trail and replacement of the existing
basketball courts within the next 7 years. These items are on the park’s priority list for
improvements and the Board continues to form partnerships to move forward on these park
improvements. A Programs Committee has recently been formed to oversee these
improvements and work directly with partners. A member of the Crozet Trails group has
joined the Park Board and will assist the park with greenways and connections to the park. A
tennis subcommittee is actively raising money to bring tennis to the Park in the next year. The
Park joined the United States Tennis Association and has been named part of a pilot program
with Quick Start Tennis of Central VA. Partnerships with parties interested in the skate park
and basketball courts are in the works. Overall these partnerships and our work with the
Piedmont YMCA for a year round aquatics and recreation center will allow us to better serve
the Crozet Community in the years ahead.
The Claudius Crozet Park has been working with the county for the last 14 years, and signed a
joint operating agreement in 1997. The park continues to run the only public swimming pool
in the county, open to all. All of our future operations will continue to be open to the public,
and with the help of the Piedmont YMCA, we will continue to offer scholarships and affordable
rates. The community building renovations are essential to the park, its operations and future
programming opportunities and will provide a hub for all the above park improvements. The
reallocation of funds will build a foundation for successful year round recreational and fitness
offerings in Western Albemarle accessible to all.
ATTACHMENT B
Answers to Questions
1. Identify the recreational improvements that were funded in the original master plan that
was developed by the Crozet Park Board’s Long Range Planning Committee and Parks and
Recreation and how that master plan has now changed and why.
A numerical priority list along with a master plan was presented to the County during a 2008
meeting with the County. At that time our number one and two priorities were (and continue to
be) the renovation of the community building and a removable dome for year round swimming in
Crozet. However, in 2008, the Park Board’s Long Range Planning Committee (now referred to as
the PARC committee) did not have the infrastructure, support or funds to successfully complete
either project. Since then the PARC Committee has created subcommittees with experienced and
talented community members in fundraising, building, architecture, and programming and with the
support of the community has raised $400,000 to bring year round swimming to Crozet Park. The
Piedmont YMCA, an experienced operator in affordable aquatics and recreational programming
has agreed to become the operator of the facility and has been an integral part of the project for the
past year.
The recreational improvements the County allocated funding for include new basketball courts, a
perimeter trail, tennis courts and a skateboard park. All of these projects remain priorities for the
Park and will be added once all funds are secured. Current plans call for the reallocation of funds
to be used ($200,000) for the sole purpose of renovating the existing recreation building to support
a year round aquatic and fitness center. This center will be the economic driver that will allow
other ancillary programs to be economically viable in the park and will serve as the hub to offer
programs such as tennis and basketball for community members.
2. Demonstrate how the improvements to the existing pool and recreational center will
benefit the entire community. Outline the various organizations/groups that it will serve.
The PARC will be operated by the Piedmont Family YMCA through a joint venture agreement
with Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. This agreement will allow both nonprofits to work together to
provide the community with affordable aquatics, recreational and fitness programs for all age
groups in the Western communities. Programs will including exercise classes, prevention classes,
pre-school programs, family programs, water safety, lifeguard and CPR training, swim lessons, lap
swimming, dance and movement, physical education for home schooled children, aerobic fitness,
body and mind classes, summer youth camps and any other fitness needs expressed by the
community. At present there are no indoor aquatic and recreational facilities in the County open
to the public. In addition, the Park lies within the growth area and the Crozet downtown district,
surrounded by many neighborhoods and the Crozet Trails system.
Organizations and groups who will be served include:
a. Western Albemarle Public and Private Schools - Competitive aquatics for high schools;
afterschool and enrichment programs for elementary schools.
b. Innisfree - Special Olympic programs
c. Senior and Assisted living facilities in area - Senior aquatics, therapeutic and fitness
programming. Meadows and Mountainview senior living are less than a mile from Crozet
Pool.
d. Civic and non-profit organizations - Meeting space for local clubs and non-profits;
community space to host events, health fairs, and other community minded programs
e. Ben Hair Just Swim for Life Foundation - Crozet is the pilot program for the County which
will provide free swim lessons to those who cannot afford it in an effort to waterproof the
community. The program will start with Crozet Elementary School which has the largest
free and reduced lunch program in the Western feeder system.
ATTACHMENT B
3. Provide the scope of Phase 1A, (Dome) & 1B, (Recreation Center) with desired outcomes,
time frame and cost and the need to have both phases completed at the same time to satisfy the
requirements set by the YMCA. Also include information of your partnership with the YMCA
and a letter of support from the YMCA would be helpful and any others that you may have.
The first phase of the Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation Facility (P.A.R.C.) consists of two
major components: an inflatable, removable pool dome to cover the Park's existing swimming
pool and simultaneous renovations and additions to the existing community building to
expand locker rooms, toilets and fitness facilities for coordinated, year-round use.
The pool dome will be procured and fabricated while preparatory groundwork takes place. The
existing pool deck will be enlarged and a perimeter grade beam will be installed to receive the
dome. Turnkey mechanical and electrical components will be provided by the dome
manufacturer. Necessary modifications to the existing pool equipment will be executed at this
time. The entire existing pool area -- including competition lanes, zero-depth entry and wading
pool and surrounding deck space will be captured within the dome. Funding for this phase has
been secured from the community and the Park.
The existing community building, an approximately 3,500 gross square foot structure, will be
modestly added upon for expanded toilet/locker rooms (about 500 square feet.) The building will
be renovated concurrently so that when the pool dome opens it will be supported by a full-service
recreation facility, including:
- New Entry / Checkpoint (300 SF)
- Exercise Room with various training machines and free weights (800 SF)
- Group Exercise / Yoga Studio (1000 SF)
- Mens and Womens Locker Rooms with toilets and showers (400 SF ea.)
- Managers Office (150 SF)
- Existing Kitchen (250 SF)
- Existing Equipment Storage (100 SF)
- All-weather connecting passage to Pool Dome
New interior finishes and fixtures appropriate for use in a small recreation center will be
utilized. Although improvements to building insulation are planned, no upgrades to the building's
exterior are anticipated at this time. Upgraded plumbing, HVAC and electrical systems will be
included in the work, and the building will comply with all applicable building codes and
accessibility guidelines.
The timeline for starting the site work and dome utility is January 2012 with installation of grade
beams and UG power in February. Building modifications to the community building are
anticipated to begin in early February with final finishes being completed in April. Grand
opening for the PARC facility is scheduled for May 1. The architecture and building committee
is moving forward with designs documents for bidding and permits (all in-kind donations) with
the hopes of having County reallocation approval by mid December.
ATTACHMENT B
The recreation center is necessary to both support the dome and provide additional revenue to
create a viable business plan. In combining the phases, the most cost effective and efficient
design called for the connector to the dome to feed off the recreational building, not the summer
pool entrance. This allows the YMCA to have one entry point and patrons to move freely
between the recreation center and pool, providing multiple fitness opportunities for family
members. Exhibit A outlines the costs associated with the project.
Crozet Park and the Piedmont YMCA are in the midst of finalizing a Joint Operating
Agreement. If the reallocation of funds is granted and construction begins as scheduled, the
YMCA is prepared to start operations in May in 2012, operating both the recreational facility
and the summer pool operation during the summer months and the domed pool and recreational
facility the remaining year. The joint venture will operate under the name “Crozet Park Aquatic
and Recreation Center (Crozet PARC)” operated by the Piedmont YMCA. The YMCA has
been actively involved with the PARC for the past year, attending regular meetings and
working with PARC volunteers to create a successful operation. The most recent letter of
support is providing in Exhibit B.
4. Provide supportive information that the improvements to the pool and recreational
center can and will support itself.
The YMCA is presently finalizing the business plan for the PARC project. A narrative
completed by the YMCA outlines the joint venture operation and can be viewed in Exhibit C.
Exhibit D includes the financial forecast and projected operating costs provided by the YMCA.
5. Current available funding that the Park has on hand for Phase 1A and include pledges,
in-kind donations, grants, etc.; and identify any finding shortage towards Phase 1A and the
boards’ strategy towards closing the gap.
PARC Account Balance: $128,244.21
Perry Foundation Grant: $60,000 (to be paid over 3 years)
Family Pledge: $10,000 (to be paid once project begins)
Family Payment Pledge: $3000 with $2433.35 to be collected (monthly installments of $83.33
through Donor Town Square; $416.65 collected to date minus 5% collection fee)
Downtown Crozet Assoc.Pledge: $3315 (to be paid by end of year)
Crozet Park: $170,000 (This figure provides the park with a reserve fund for maintenance and
future park improvements)
There is presently a $26,000 shortfall in available funds through the Park match due to the
$55,000 re-plastering improvement on the pool this past spring. However, the detailed cash
flow payouts presented by the dome manufacturer indicate that payments for the dome will
continue throughout the spring, summer and fall with final payment being made in September
of 2012, allowing the Park to raise the above shortage through the Spring Arts and Crafts Fair.
The PARC committee is also planning a spring fundraiser and is seeking end of the year
donations to help increase the reserve fund and provide additional cash on hand for the project.
Lastly, we are seeking a bridge loan to offset the Perry Grant and future Arts and Crafts Fairs as
needed.
ATTACHMENT B
6. Desired amount the Crozet Park Board will be requesting from the County and clearly
identify that the donation will come from existing Capital dollars which total $200,000 and
were appropriated in support of the Crozet Park Master Plan. Clearly identify that all funding
will be directed towards the improvements to the recreational center and how the Board would
like to receive the funding.
As indicated in the cover letter, the Crozet Park Board is requesting that the County reallocate
the $200,000 slated for the basketball, tennis, trail and skateboard improvements appropriated
in support of the Crozet Park Master Plan. All funding will be directed toward the
improvements needed to the recreation center. The Park Board is requesting a lump sum
payment by the first of the year 2012 so construction can begin as schedule in late January.
7. Provide what ’s the Crozet Park Boards funding strategy and time table towards the
repayment of the donation and that the Crozet Park Board is agreeable in providing the
necessary funding to complete the recreational improvements at market value.
Crozet PARC has established a Programming Committee and is actively working with partners
to raise the money needed to replace the allocated funds for the originally intended
improvements. The Park intends to raise the funds through grants, monetary and in-kind
donations. Funding has already begun for tennis, with plans to have tennis in the Park in the
next year, reducing our repayment amount significantly by year end 2012. Plans for basketball,
trails and a skate park will follow. The funds needed to make these improvements is intended
to be raised within the next 7 years, although we anticipate the dollar amount or market value of
the County donation will occur much sooner.
ATTACHMENT B
Pool Dome $377,612
Dome Supply (incld. Equip)$287,839
Dome Install $0
Prep for Dome $82,653
Site/Demo $14,000
Concrete $53,690
Mech/Electric $14,963
Management & Contingency $7,120
GC and Fee $0
Contingency $5,000
Building permit $2,120
Building Modifications $222,872
Connector to Pool $41,167
Bathrooms $66,049
Demo/Patch/Infill $9,890
Finishes $33,759
Mech/Electric $22,400
Building $95,386
Demo/Patch/Infill $2,000
Insulate Ceiling $7,772
Finishes $29,834
New Shtrock Clg $3,000
Mech/Electric $35,980
Electric $16,800
Vestibule Addition $2,000
Exterior $250
Finishes $1,000
Electric $750
Management & Contingency $18,270
GC and Fee $0
Contingency $16,000
Building permit $2,270
Total Project $600,484
Note:
1 Dome Supply does not include TEDLAR top coat (PVDF is included).
2 Dome Supplier quote for complete package (supply,install,prep work, management) is $430,000.
3 Building Modifications do not include storage area for dome when not in use.
Budget Summary
Exhibit A ATTACHMENT B
Exhibit B
27 Oct. 2011
Bob Crickenberger, Director
Albemarle County Parks & Recreation
County Administration Bldg. – Rm. 118
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Dear Mr. Crickenberger:
YMCA Greetings! This letter shall serve to re-affirm our enthusiastic endorsement -- and
expressed intention of operational support -- for the proposed Crozet Park pool enclosure
project. It is our objective to establish an on-site collaborative partnership with the Claudius
Crozet Park, Inc., through the execution of a mutually-executed joint-venture agreement.
On June 20, 2011, the Piedmont Family YMCA commenced initial operations in Crozet, with the
launching of summer day camp. Further, it is our long-term objective to maintain a continued
presence in Western Albemarle County; and to program a satellite YMCA operation in the
Crozet Park.
Our initial plans call for a small fitness facility, exercise/aerobics studio, afterschool
programming, and youth sports options… PLUS an enhanced year-round aquatics program,
which would include competitive swimming, as well as water aerobics, swimming lessons,
parent/child programs, recreational/lap swimming, and Senior Aquacize classes, etc.
We look forward to a successful and lasting partnership with the Claudius Crozet Park.
Working together, we are confident that we can accomplish so much more. Be assured that the
Piedmont Family YMCA is committed to the success of this joint-venture, and we are excited
about the possibilities of service to the Crozet Community, and all residents of Albemarle
County.
Sincerely,
Denny Blank, CEO
Piedmont Family YMCA
dblank@piedmontymca.org
Piedmont Family YMCA, Inc.
We build Strong Kids, Strong Families and Strong Communities.
ATTACHMENT B
Crozet Park Aquatic and Recreation Center
A family-focused, joint-venture operation in Western Albemarle County
General Description
The Piedmont Family YMCA (Y) and Claudius Crozet Park (CCP) will enter into a joint venture to operate
the Crozet Park Aquatic and Recreation Center (PARC), which includes a 20,000 square foot facility
offering affordable aquatics, fitness and recreational activities throughout the year. By adding a
removable dome over the existing pool, we will be able to offer lap swimming, recreational swimming,
aerobics, competitive opportunities, swim lessons, after school programs, therapeutic and special needs
programs, special events and other aquatic needs on a year-round basis to all families, regardless of
income or ability. With a renovation of the existing rental building, we will be able to provide cardio,
fitness, and strength classes, as well as after-school programming, dance, yoga, summer camp
programs, and special programs promoting healthy lifestyles.
Mission Statement:
Crozet Park (CCP) is an independent, non-profit, community-owned park open to ALL.
The YMCA is a community supported organization that offers affordable, family friendly programs and
activities structured to encourage healthy lifestyles in a wholesome and safe environment for all.
Together, the YMCA and the PARC will serve the community by turning the park into a year round
aquatic and recreation destination.
Business Philosophy:
We build strong kids, strong families, and strong communities, through programs that promote a healthy
body, mind, & spirit for all.
Targeted service Area:
Our intended market is Western Albemarle County, with particular emphasis on the entire Crozet
community and surrounding areas; including children, teens, single adults, families, and seniors.
Products and Services
Claudius Crozet Park currently has an outdoor pool that is operational from May through September. The
PARC will dome the pool, in the Fall of 2012, making it a year-round operation. The YMCA will operate
and program the pool year-round. Programs include: learn-to-swim programs, water aerobics classes,
therapeutic swim programs, competitive swim team program, recreational swim, lap swim, lifeguard
training programs, rentals for area high school and private school swim programs, etc.
In addition, CCP will renovate the existing facility to include a 1,080 square foot space for fitness
equipment, a 1,092 square foot group exercise space, locker rooms, and storage. Programs will include:
cardio and strength training equipment, fitness classes, mind/body classes, personal training, etc.
Additional programs include: afterschool enrichment programs, sports programs, family-friendly
programs such as family nights, holiday parties/events, teen leaders club, cooking classes, martial arts,
summer day camp, holiday camps, school’s out camps, etc.
What makes the Crozet PARC facility different from our competitors is (1) affordability, including financial
assistance program; (2) convenient hours of operation; (3) family-friendly programs and services; and (4)
a year-round aquatic center.
The Crozet population has seen steady growth since the 1990s with the number of residential units in
Crozet more than tripling from about 600 in 1990 to an estimated 2,192 units in the development area
today (based on March 2010 estimates). Based on the current number of units, the estimated population
is between 4,723 and 5,501 residents, depending on the multiplier used to calculate the number of
people per dwelling unit.
Exhibit C ATTACHMENT B
The table below shows growth in the Community over the last 20 years:
Residential Units and Population Growth
*US Census Bureau data and Albemarle County Department of Community Development, Office of Geographic Data Services
estimate of housing and population growth for Crozet; March 2010.
**US Census Bureau 2010 data for Census Track-111; that encompasses the Crozet Development Area Boundaries’ and surrounding
communities of Mint Spring, Yancy Mills and Beaver Creek; September 2011.
***Albemarle County Department of Community Development’s Report on the Crozet Master Plan; May 2010 and the Piedmont
Family YMCA staff analysis of Crozet’s demographic data.
Demographic Data:
Crozet has grown at a higher rate than the rest of the County as a whole. By doubling its population in 10
years, Crozet’s population is about 5% of the County’s overall population and about 10% of the population
in the County’s Development Areas.
Between the years of 1990 and 2010 Crozet’s housing stock tripled in growth from 600 to approximately
2,694 housing units. Albemarle County has approved several development projects with a maximum
density at build-out of 2,836 mixed housing units. If constructed, the Crozet Community’s housing stock
could reach 6,396 units.
Albemarle County planners estimate Crozet’s future population growth will be between 13,837 to 16,628
persons based on the maximum housing density of 5,028 to 6,396 units. In determining the number of
persons who will reside in the Crozet Development Area, a factor of 2.61 persons per household was
utilized. [The remaining parts of Albemarle County uses a growth factor of 2.34 persons per household.]
Product
The Crozet PARC will be the only public community aquatic and recreation center in Albemarle
community that is open year-round.
Features and Benefits
1. Aquatic Center
a. Features –the pool features an 8-lane, 25 meter outdoor swimming pool with a zero depth entry
area for handicapped accessibility. A removable dome will go up in September and come down in May,
making it a year-round swim destination.
b. Benefits – the pool will offer the Crozet community a variety of aquatic programs including swim
lessons, water fitness, and lap swim, competitive swim programs (CYAC, Masters Swim Team, clinics, High
School rentals, etc.), birthday parties, rentals, lifeguard certification, and more.
2. Fitness Center
a. Features –1,092 square foot fitness center that includes cardio and strength training equipment.
b. Benefits – fitness center will offer the Crozet community a variety of fitness and wellness programs
including, access to all equipment, personal training services, cross-fit programs, and more.
3. Aerobics Studio
a. Features – a 1,080 square foot aerobics studio that can also be used as a multipurpose room.
b. Benefits – the aerobics studio will offer the Crozet community a variety of fitness and wellness
classes, including cardio-based classes, strength training classes, mind/body classes, and more. In
addition, the space can be used for other programs including meeting space, CPR/AED and First Aid
certification, martial arts classes, teen leaders club, etc.
Units
Population
1990 600 1733
2000 1051 2753
2009* 2192 5501
2010** 2694 7024
Future*** 6396 16694
ATTACHMENT B
4. Locker Rooms
a. Features – restrooms, showers, and locker space.
b. Benefits – patrons will be able to change before/after using the gym and/or pool; they will have a
place to store their belongings while they work out; and they will be able to shower before/after using the
gym and/or pool.
Membership fees will cover all access to the facility and pool as well as fitness and wellness programs.
Personal training, swim lessons, and individual services are extra.
Customers
In 2010, there were a total of 2,694 households in Census Tract 111. 37.8% of these households have children
under the age of 18. Many of these families reside in neighborhood developments, such as Old Trail that offer
outdoor pools and recreational facilities. Old Trail residents currently have access to the ACAC Fitness Facility-
Crozet. In addition, there is a likelihood that many families swim year-round at either the Waynesboro YMCA
or are members at Boar’s Head or Farmington Country Clubs.
Our Niche
The Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation Center will be the only public, year-round aquatics program in
Albemarle County. In addition to aquatics, the facility will allow comprehensive fitness and wellness
programs, including family-oriented programs. Our niche is a community aquatic, fitness, and wellness
center that allows all people of all ages to participate in a variety of programs and services.
Promotion/Marketing Strategy
Claudius Crozet Park, in collaboration with the Piedmont Family YMCA will jointly promote the Crozet Park
Aquatic and Recreation Center (PARC).
CCP will utilize their website, http://ccp.avenue.org/, as well as their existing network of e-mail blasts and
access to neighborhood associations, including the school backpack program to promote the PARC. We are
relying heavily on word of mouth from existing Crozet community members.
The YMCA will utilize their website, www.piedmontymca.org, as well their existing network of program
participants living in the Crozet Community. The YMCA will also take of advantage of free promotions such as
public service announcements as well as representation at community meetings and events, including
recruitment fairs.
Together, CCP and the Y will promote the PARC in local media outlets such as the Crozet Gazette and radio
stations. In addition, we will promote the PARC through social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter,
LinkedIn, etc. The unified message is that the Crozet PARC is a year-round, aquatic and recreation
community-based center, accessible to all.
The YMCA has an existing national brand and logo that will be utilized through promotions. The PARC name
will be incorporated in all methods of communications. The YMCA will use our existing database to enroll &
register members/participants and collect their contact information. They will then receive e-mail
notifications, newsletters through Constant Contact, and seasonal program brochures through the mail.
Members will also have access to early registration and discounts on programs and services.
Physical requirements:
• 20,000 square foot facility, including pool and fitness center.
• The existing structure is a concrete block with an open floor plan. To make the space functional, CCP
is renovating the space to accommodate fitness, wellness, and locker room space.
• A removable dome will allow the pool to be operational year round.
• CCP is upgrading the HVAC system as well as electrical and mechanical systems for the building.
• CCP will make cosmetic changes to the building.
Startup Expenses and Capitalization
CCP is providing the capital necessary to purchase the dome and make renovations to the facility. Their
contribution is estimated at $600,000.00.
The YMCA is providing the start-up equipment and supplies to operate the facility, including fitness
equipment, office furniture and program supplies.
ATTACHMENT B
PIEDMONT YMCA CROZET PARK : FINANCIAL FORCAST for -2012, 2013 and 2014
Revenue :Member Monthly 2nd 3rd 4th 2012 Revenue Member 2013 Revenue Member 2014 Revenue
Goal 2012 Fee Quarter Quarter Quarter Memberships Goal 2013 Memberships Goal 2014 Memberships
Categories Members MembersMembers
Adult-Single 76 $42.00 25 50 76 $18,127.00 84 $42,336.00 92 $46,368.00
Family 194 $60.00 50 100 194 $59,264.00 213 $153,360.00 234 $168,480.00
Senior(60>) 45 $39.00 10 30 45 $9,640.00 50 $23,400.00 55 $25,740.00
Age(14-20) 50 $35.00 50 50 50 $14,150.00 55 $23,100.00 60 $25,200.00
Youth(13 <) 50 $18.00 50 50 50 $7,350.00 55 $11,880.00 60 $12,960.00
415 185 280 415 $108,531.00 457 $254,076.00 501 $278,748.00
Summer Pool Member Pass $70,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Member or Daily Guest Pass $32,700.00 $32,700.00 $32,700.00
Corporate Membership $2,700.00 $3,200.00 $3,500.00
$105,400.00 $115,900.00 $116,200.00
Total projected 2012 through 2014 Membership Revenue :$213,931.00 $369,976.00 $394,948.00
PROGRAMMING :
Swim Lessons & Life Guard Instructions, other pool programs $25,687.00 $31,000.00 $32,000.00
YMCA - Crozet Camp Program (attachment-2011 P/L statement) $42,480.00 $44,604.00 $46,934.00
CYAC Lane Fees @$14.50 hour*6 lanes*5days,plus Sat-6 lanes)$21,576.00 $48,546.00 $48,546.00
Western H. S. Lane Fee@( $14.50 per hour*8lanes*5days wk) $4,640.00 $11,600.00 $11,600.00
The Gator Swim Team (130 summer members@$70)$9,100.00 $9,100.00 $9,100.00
Bld.Rental &Fund Raising ( PARC, Leagues & Groups)$20,300.00 $35,000.00 $37,000.00
Point of Sale : Concessions $17,700.00 $18,000.00 $19,000.00
Totals Program Revenue :$141,483.00 $197,850.00 $204,180.00
Revenue : Memberships & Programming $355,414.00 $567,826.00 $599,128.00
Expenses : Memberships & Programming -$360,063.54 -$546,658.66 -$546,825.26
Revenue over Expenses -$4,649.54 $21,167.34 $52,302.74
Exhibit D
ATTACHMENT B
FINANCIAL FORECAST for CROZET PARK (2012, 2013 and 2014)
EXPENSES : All Cost Centers Operations Fitness Aquatics Trip Camp First Year Second Year Third Year
2012 Exp. 2012 Exp. 2012 Exp. 2012 Exp.2012 2013 2014
Totals Totals Totals Totals (April-Dec.) (Jan.-Dec.) (Jan. - Dec.)
Gross Wages(no> col in 2013 &2014)$77,418.00 $20,000.00 $99,405.00 $26,800.00 $223,623.00 $319,432.00 $319,432.00
Payroll Taxes $6,759.00 $1,928.00 $8,648.00 $2,283.00 $19,618.00 $28,023.00 $28,023.00
Employee Benefits $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Payroll Exp.$84,177.00 $21,928.00 $108,053.00 $29,083.00 $243,241.00 $347,455.00 $347,455.00
Supplies
Program start-up & Trip Camp $0.00 $500.00 $1,701.00 $1,300.00 $3,501.00 $3,101.00 $3,101.00
Buy or Lease (Fax &Copy Machine) $310.00 $315.00 $400.00 $75.00 $1,100.00 $0.00 $0.00
Chemicals Pool $0.00 $0.00 $7,452.00 $0.00 $7,452.00 $9,936.00 $9,936.00
Food : Pool Side (summer only)$0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00
FF&E & first aid,etc. $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $100.00 $1,300.00 $800.00 $800.00
Exercise Equipment/Lease $0.00 $11,830.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,830.00 $15,720.00 $15,720.00
Total Equip & Supplies $710.00 $13,045.00 $21,953.00 $1,475.00 $37,183.00 $43,557.00 $43,557.00
Utilities -Water/Sewer $700.00 $450.00 $4,500.00 $100.00 $5,750.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
Lighting-Electric $780.00 $580.00 $7,706.10 $100.00 $9,166.10 $27,200.00 $27,200.00
Phone, Internet & Cable $225.00 $81.00 $450.00 $75.00 $831.00 $1,008.00 $1,008.00
Fuel (propane for pool and bld.) $718.00 $718.00 $8,900.00 $0.00 $10,336.00 $54,600.00 $54,600.00
Total Utilities:$2,423.00 $1,829.00 $21,556.10 $275.00 $26,083.10 $88,808.00 $88,808.00
Adminstrative/Operations :
Employee Uniforms $320.00 $320.00 $640.00 $460.00 $1,740.00 $1,280.00 $1,280.00
Employee Training $550.00 $550.00 $600.00 $500.00 $2,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Travel Expenses (camp field trips) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,529.00 $6,529.00 $6,529.00 $6,529.00
YMCA Training &Certification $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $250.00 $925.00 $600.00 $600.00
Licenses-Permits, etc.$150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $600.00 $450.00 $450.00
Office supply (paper, print ink, etc) $665.00 $396.00 $2,403.00 $320.00 $3,784.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Website Fee(design- monthly fee) $162.00 $54.00 $324.00 $40.00 $580.00 $540.00 $540.00
Postage & Shipping $396.00 $132.00 $792.00 $100.00 $1,420.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Trash Service $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Contract Ser. (Janitoral /Accounting) $747.00 $243.00 $1,494.00 $249.00 $2,733.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Maintance Ser.(Pool; Bld. & Land) $180.00 $180.00 $9,120.00 $0.00 $9,480.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00
Storage Rental (Pool dome & Lights) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Property & Liability Ins.$3,738.00 $1,335.00 $8,010.00 $267.00 $13,350.00 $17,800.00 $17,800.00
Bank Fee(set-up acct; deposits,etc.) $108.00 $36.00 $216.00 $110.00 $470.00 $400.00 $420.00
$7,241.00 $3,621.00 $23,974.00 $8,975.00 $43,811.00 $55,099.00 $55,119.00
Marketing & Advertising
Publication (members, events) $340.00 $340.68 $340.00 $600.00 $1,620.68 $1,200.00 $1,300.00
Printing -Program; Special Events $132.00 $132.68 $132.00 $500.00 $896.68 $400.00 $400.00
Total Marketing & Adv.$472.00 $473.36 $472.00 $1,100.00 $2,517.36 $1,600.00 $1,700.00
Bld. Rental & Fund Raising $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual :Y-USA @2% of Revenue $1,822.32 $650.79 $3,904.97 $850.00 $7,228.08 $10,139.66 $10,186.26
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
1
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made by and between the County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County") and Claudius Crozet Park, Incorporated, a Virginia
nonstock corporation ("CCP") and is dated as of January 12, 2012.
Recitals
A. CCP is a charitable organization that is organized and operated for the following exempt
purposes as stated in its Restatement of the Articles of Incorporation, dated January 9, 1984:
"The purpose for which [CCP] is formed is charitable, to promote the health and well being
and enhance the general social and cultural welfare of residents of the Community of Crozet
and the surrounding area of Albemarle County, Virginia."
B. CCP owns certain property (including the improvements) known as Claudius Crozet Park,
located on Park Road in Crozet, Virginia, identified as Parcel IDs 056A2-01-00-07200, 056A2-
01-00-072A0 and 56A2-04-00-000A4 on the County tax maps (the "Park").
C. The Park is open to the public. In the Park there are playgrounds, sports fields, open spaces, a
pool and a community center. CCP is improving the community center and the pool (the
"Facility") at the Park. Renovations to the existing community center will allow for year round
fitness equipment and classes, after school programming, camps and community space for
healthy lifestyle workshops. The Facility will be a 43,500 square foot year round facility
offering aquatics, recreation, fitness and community space for all ages. A removable pool
dome will go over the pool in September of each year and come off in May.
D. CCP and Piedmont Family Young Men's Christian Association, Inc., a Virginia nonstock
corporation, ("YMCA") wish to enter into a joint venture to operate and maintain the Facility
and to conduct recreational programs at the Facility in furtherance of the exempt purposes of
YMCA and CCP. The Facility improvements must be complete before the joint venture can
begin. The Facility improvements and YMCA's presence at the Park through the joint venture
will provide the necessary oversight and growth for CCP to move forward with building,
improving and renovating basketball courts, tennis courts, a skate park and a perimeter trail at
the Park.
E. CCP and the County entered into an agreement, dated March 25, 1997, in which CCP agreed
to make land available within the Park for the County to develop recreational fields and
facilities and to assure that the Park would in perpetuity be used only for park and recreational
and community related entertainment activities for the benefit of the citizens of Crozet and the
County.
F. In or around 2008, the County allocated in its budget two hundred thousand dollars for
improvements to the Park. The County designated the funds to build, improve and renovate
basketball courts, tennis courts, a skate park and a perimeter trial at the Park. The CCP now
believes that the resources will be better spent helping to improve, remodel and renovate the
ATTACHMENT C
2
community center. Improving the community center first will enable the joint venture
between YMCA and CCP to move forward and will provide the best foundation for the proper
oversight and maintenance of additional facilities at the Park. It will also provide additional
and needed supervised recreational opportunities for youth in the Crozet area. For the
purposes permitted by section 15.1-953 of the Code of Virginia and Article IV, Section 16 of
the Constitution of Virginia, the County will instead now agree to donate the two hundred
thousand dollars to CCP to assist in the building, improvement and renovation of the
community center.
Agreement
1. The County will contribute two hundred thousand dollars (US$200,000) to CCP to
establish the Community Building Fund (the “Fund”). The County will make the donation to
CCP by check on or before January 22, 2012.
2. The Fund will be established by CCP upon transfer to and acceptance by CCP of the
contribution. CCP shall use the entire principal and the income of the Fund for the purposes
described below. The Fund will be held as a restricted asset of CCP, but not segregated as a
separate trust. The principal and income of the Fund may be combined with other funds or
accounts of CCP for investment purposes, provided that a separate accounting of principal and
income is maintained. CCP shall use the Fund only in a manner consistent with its tax exempt
purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
3. The purpose of the Fund is to assist CCP in the improvement, renovation and remodeling
of the community center.
4. If within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, should the fulfillment of the
purpose of this donation, as described above, become frustrated, burdensome, impossible, or
impracticable (or if CCP is for some unforeseen reason unable to raise all of the funds it needs to
renovate and improve the community center), then the Fund, including principal and income,
shall be transferred back to the County to be used by the County for building, improving,
remodeling or renovating basketball courts, tennis courts, skate parks and/or trails at the Park or
to make such other improvements or renovations at the Park that CCP and the County deem
appropriate and that are consistent with the exempt purposes of CCP. The money shall be
returned to the County within thirty (30) days of a written request by the County requesting CCP
to do so.
5. Within seven (7) years from the date of this Agreement, in the event that the Fund is used
for the purposes described in paragraph three (3), CCP shall partner with the County to build,
improve, remodel or renovate basketball courts, tennis courts, skate parks and/or trails at the Park
or to make such other improvements or renovations at the Park that CCP and the County deem
appropriate and that are consistent with the exempt purposes of CCP. CCP shall contribute two
hundred thousand dollars (US$200,000) to the County to fund such improvements. Such funds
shall be paid to the County no later than January 12, 2019, unless otherwise agreed to in writing
by the County. The County recognizes that the partnership between CCP and the County to
ATTACHMENT C
3
construct these improvements may require project by project consideration to assist CCP’s
fundraising efforts and to determine the most cost-efficient methods to accomplish the project.
The County agrees to coordinate these projects with CCP to achieve these purposes. Unless
otherwise agreed to in writing, these projects will be managed as part of the County’s Capital
Improvement Program in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive
Covenant. The project team will include a CCP representative and will be coordinated with the
CCP. The team will collaboratively determine the specifications for the projects and oversee the
completion of the projects. Funds contributed by the CCP for these projects, including applicable
grants, will be provided to the County as the fiscal agent for the projects. The County will track
the amount of funding contributed by the CCP. The County will keep such funds in a designated
account to be used for the sole purpose of funding the projects. The projects will be subject to all
applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Procurement Manual.
6. This Agreement is binding on and shall inure to the benefit of CCP, its successors and
assigns, and upon the County, its successors and assigns.
7. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon, and all of which
shall together constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement shall become binding
when one or more counterparts hereof, individually or taken together, shall bear the signatures of
both the County and CCP.
8. The provisions of this Agreement are not severable.
9. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Claudius Crozet Park, Incorporated
By: ___________________________________________
Its: ___________________________________________
Date: _________________________________________
Albemarle County, Virginia
By: ___________________________________________
Thomas C. Foley
Its: County Executive
Date: _________________________________________
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT D
1
Appropriation #2012050 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from General Gov’t CIP Fund $200,000.00
This appropriation provides a $200,000.00 transfer from the General Government CIP Fund to the General Fund to
fund a donation to Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. for the Claudius Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation Center Project.
Because this appropriation is from existing funding, it will not increase the total County budget.
Return to exec summary
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACSA James Colbaugh 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following application received
Paul Shoop
Equalization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Scottsville) Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following application received
Benjamin Kong
Planning Commission Duane Zobrist 12/31/2011 12/31/2013 Resigned To be advertised
Revised 01/05/2012