HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-2-08Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
FEBRUARY 8, 2012
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:00 P.M., ROOM 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
3. Public Hearing: ZTA-2012-000__Special Exceptions – Add Sec. 31.8, Special
Exceptions, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would add Sec. 31.8 to authorize the
board of supervisors to consider and act on special exceptions, identify the matters to be considered in acting on special
exceptions, authorize the board to impose reasonable conditions in approving special exceptions, require that the board
act on special exceptions within 90 days after the date of the request or other period if considered concurrently with certain
zoning and site plan applications, and identify how applications are made. The matters requiring a special exception
include requests for waivers, modifications, variations or substitutions required to be acted upon by the planning
commission or an administrative officer under the current regulations, and any decision required by this chapter to be
acted upon by the planning commission under the current regulations, with “decision” being defined.
4. Work Session: Economic Vitality Action Plan Implementation Schedule:
a. Target Industry Study Results
b. Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule regarding LI and Interstate Interchange Policy
5. Adjourn.
6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda.
8. SDP-2011-00081. Verizon Wireless/Crossroads/Shifflett Property Tier II
Personal Wireless Service Facility. PROPOSED: Request for extension of an existing wood
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 94.2 feet, an 8.5 foot
extension from the top of the existing antennas, and will be approximately 8.2 feet above the reference tree. ZONING
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0208/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 9:42:02 AM]
Tentative
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Village Residential (VR) 0.4 units/acre, and Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay to protect
properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist
access. SECTION: 10.2.1 (22) which allows for Tier II personal wireless facilities in the rural areas. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 3456 Monacan Trail Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08700-00-00-007A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
PUBLIC HEARING:
9. PROJECT: ZMA-2011-00006. and SP-2011-00014. Albemarle Health and
Rehab Center (Sign #28). PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows
residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district which
allows large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre and special use permit
under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes uses. No dwellings
proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional – neighborhood-scale
commercial uses, offices, townhouses and apartments (6.01-34 units/acre) and Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses and
located in Neighborhood 4 in the Development Area. LOCATION: 91 Galaxie Farm Lane. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
09100000001200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
10. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
11. Adjourn to February 24, 2012, 11:30 a.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 SDP-2011-00072. Moore’s Creek; Verizon Wireless Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility (PWSF): Appeal of
Planning Commission Denial of Tier II Permit.
7.2 SDP-2011-00074. Turner Mountain Road; Verizon Wireless Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility (PWSF):
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tier II Permit.
7.3 SDP-2011-0011. Blue Ridge Swim Club-Site Plan Waiver – Request approval to waive requirement to submit site
development plan.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0208/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 9:42:02 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2010-00005 Special Exceptions
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Joint public hearing on Special Exceptions Zoning Text
Amendment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs: Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Cilimberg and Fritz; and Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 8, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless, the majority of the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that any kind of waiver,
modification or variation is a legislative act that can be approved only by the local governing body in the absence of State
enabling authority that expressly allows another body or official to exercise that power. The Court found that the General
Assembly had not enabled localities to delegate that authority to planning commissions or administrative officers. Zoning
administrators may be authorized to grant a modification from any provision contained in the Zoning Ordinance, but only
upon determining that a legal hardship exists, as set forth in the specific enabling authority. The Court also concluded
that planning commissions do not have the authority to act on zoning matters in the administration of the locality’s zoning
ordinance unless they are expressly enabled to do so by State law.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed zoning text amendment (Attachment A) would provide that all waivers, modifications and variations under
the current zoning regulations, and any regulation requiring a decision by the Planning Commission (e.g., a decision on a
Tier II wireless facility) would be considered and acted on by the Board of Supervisors as “special excepti ons,” a type of
approval expressly enabled by State law. Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3). The Planning Commission adopted the
attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment B) to initiate this zoning text amendment on January 24, 2012. The proposed
zoning text amendment would not affect how the Planning Commission considers and makes recommendations on zoning
text amendments, zoning map amendments, and special use permits. It also would not affect how the Planning
Commission considers site plans and subdivision plats because it is enabled to consider those applications under the
State Subdivision Law (as implemented under the County’s Subdivision Ordinance and Site Plan Ordinance), though it
would apply to waivers, modifications and variations requested under the Zoning Ordinance that may be required in
conjunction with a site plan or subdivision plat.
Special exceptions must be accompanied by “suitable regulations and safeguards.” Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3).
State law does not delineate the minimum regulations and safeguards deemed to be suitable. The proposed zoning text
amendment would require that the Board consider the factors, standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in
the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. For example, when considering a special exception to consider critical
slopes, the Board would consider the factors and criteria for allowing critical slopes to be disturbed in County Code §§ 18 -
4.2 and 18-4.2.5. However, the Board would not be required to make specific findings. The proposed zoning text
amendment also would authorize the Board to impose reasonable conditions to address possible impacts, and require
that the Board act on an application within 90 days after the date of the request, or concurrently with a zon ing map
amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is longer. Applications for special exceptions would be
made as they are currently made for waivers, modifications or variations under the applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance.
State law does not require that local governing bodies hold public hearings before acting on a request for a special
exception, and staff suggests that most if not all special exceptions could be considered by the Board on its consent
agenda.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2010-00005 Special Exceptions
February 8, 2012
Page 2
The proposed zoning text amendment is a short-term solution to comply with the State enabling authority. One long-term
solution is to obtain express enabling authority from the General Assembly to allow planning commissions to administer
the zoning ordinance and to allow planning commissions and administrative officers to consider and act on waivers,
modifications and variations. Many Virginia localities, including many of the largest localities, have zoning ordinances
similar to Albemarle County’s that allow their commissions or administrative officers to consider and act on these types of
matters. Another long-term solution, in the absence of new State enabling authority, would be to amend the several
sections of the Zoning Ordinance that pertain to waivers, modifications or variations and to either replace them with
performance standards and designate some or all of them as special exceptions, or to eliminate some or all of the waiver,
modification and variation regulations altogether. Staff is working on these possible long-term solutions.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Because most waivers, modifications and variations are approved administratively under the current zoning regulations, it
is anticipated that preparing executive summaries for every special exception will adversely impact Department of
Community Development resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting the joint public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZTA
2012-00001 as provided in Attachment A and that the Board adopt ZTA 2012-00001.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed ordinance amendment
B – Resolution of intent
Return to agenda
Draft: 01/19/12
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article IV , Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 31.8 Special exceptions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 31.8 Special exceptions
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as
follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter shall
be considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision by the
planning commission does not include the consideration and action by the commission on a
preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any action provided in section
32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter,
provided that the board shall not be required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to address
any possible impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90) days
after the date of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site
plan appeal, whichever is longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable section of
this chapter.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance currently authorizes the Albemarle County Planning
Commission and certain administrative officers to consider and act on requests for waivers,
modifications, variations and substitutions; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance currently authorizes the Planning Commission to make
certain decisions under the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide that all of the actions
described hereinabove be made by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as special exceptions,
which are expressly enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to consider and act on special exceptions to achieve the purposes described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and return its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Joint
Work Session on Economic Vitality Action Plan
Implementation Schedule
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion on preliminary Target Industry Study results
and Comprehensive Plan update schedule regarding LI
and Interstate Interchange Policy.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Graham, Davis, Cilimberg; and Ms.
Catlin and Ms. Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 8, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors requested a joint work session with the Planning Commission to
discuss the status of several efforts related to the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan. Three of the Plan’s goals
are closely tied to improving the County’s ability to provide appropriate locations for businesses: Goal #2 –
Simplify/Create Certainty in Development Review; Goal #3 – Support quality job opportunities; and Goal #4 – Expand
options for light industrial land. These three goals contain a number of strategies that are currently underway as
described in the chart in Attachment A. One of those strategies involves conducting a Target Industry Study to
determine the County’s best suited enterprise sectors. Several of the other strategies are strongly connected to the
current Comprehensive Plan update process as part of its implementation.
The Board of Supervisors has discussed whether the schedule for the Comprehensive Plan update should be adjusted
to allow consideration of LI/Interstate Interchanges to be accelerated in that process. Because Board members
recognized that the Target Industry Study is a foundational item for informing the LI/Interstate Interchanges portion of
the Comprehensive Plan update, the Board decided to delay consideration of any adjustment to the schedule pending
the results of the Target Industry Study. Preliminary Target Industry Study results are now available from the
consultant. In addition, staff has prepared initial background material and obtained roundtable feedback on the
LI/Interstate Interchange elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will review this material during the joint work session, and the
Board will be requested to provide guidance about the scheduling and sequencing of the Comprehensive Plan update
process based on this discussion. Currently, the complete Comprehensive Plan update is scheduled to be before the
Planning Commission in Fall, 2012, with its adoption by the Board of Supervisors scheduled for early 2013. A detailed
schedule will be reviewed at the work session.
DISCUSSION:
The work session will be presented as two major topics – the Target Industry Study and the Comprehensive Plan
Update regarding LI/Interstate Interchanges. Following presentation and discussion of these two items, staff will ask
for Board direction regarding the scheduling and sequencing of the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan update
process.
Target Industry Study
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development is overseeing consultant work on a Target Industry
Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County. This study identifies types of industries that have the
strongest potential to succeed and offer the best prospects for "good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of
life (security, higher wages, training, flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in Albemarle County. The
target industry analysis matches locality preferences, economic characteristics, resources and advantages with
general location and work force requirements for desired industry segments. Staff believes that the Target Industry
Study will be an important basis for strategic economic development that will help Albemarle County assess and
leverage its unique assets to provide economic vitality and diversification and to develop a place-specific strategy that
supports the County’s long term quality of life. Preliminary high level results of the study are provided in Attachment B
for initial review by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. It is important to note that the study is still in a
working stage, with opportunity for dialogue with the consultant and the County’s regional partners to form the final
product.
AGENDA TITLE: Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Joint Work Session on Economic Vitality
Action Plan Implementation Schedule
February 8, 2012
Page 2
The consultant will present the full report containing the final results of the Target Industry Study to stakeholders from
all member jurisdictions in the next month or so. Once the final study is presented, staff will evaluate the complete
study results and will work with the Board to confirm final target industries that not only have been identified as most
likely to succeed based on the County’s capabilities and the external environment but also that are compatible with the
County’s character and that further its goals, objectives and preferences. Future steps will involve determining specific
actions for directing economic development energy and resources toward those identified target enterprises.
Comprehensive Plan Update for LI/Interstate Interchanges
The Planning Commission’s work to date has included an analysis of goals and objectives, residential capacity and
future needs, and providing more opportunities for agricultural and tourist- related commercial uses in the Rural Areas.
W ork on the LI/Interstate Interchanges is underway in preparation for review by the Planning Commission,
Specifically, staff from Community Development and the Office of Community and Business Partnerships held a
Roundtable on activities, amenities and infrastructure needed to support business and industry in the County. Staff
has also prepared material regarding the County’s non-residential inventory, future needs for industry and
employment.
Goal 4 of the Economic Vitality Action Plan contains the following strategy: As part of the current effort to update the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board’s consideration a proposed modification of the Interstate
Interchange Policy that might allow lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at those intersections located in the
rural areas but are also served by highway access.
Consistent with that strategy, the Roundtable held by staff also included questions on how the interstate interchanges
might be better used to support low-impact industries as well as provide support for agriculture. The LI material,
Roundtable feedback and information about the County’s interstate interchanges, including their general description
and characteristics, and current policy about appropriate uses, is provided in Attachment C.
The issue before the Board of Supervisors at this work session following discussion of these two topics is whether
there is interest in adjusting the Comprehensive Plan update process as it currently exists. A schedule of that process
is included with Attachment C.
Conclusions
The preliminary results of the Target Industry Study provide important high level insights regarding the County’s
potential priority industry sectors based on initial data and research. Further work will be necessary by staff and the
Board once the final report is presented to analyze the results, decide how the information should inform our final
priority target industry sectors and incorporate that work into the appropriate areas of the Comprehensive Plan update,
including industrial land capacity and interstate interchange uses. Based on the results available to date, staff does
not see a significant benefit resulting from accelerating the LI/Interstate Interchange work by several months as
opposed to the schedule that is currently in place for the update process. Staff believes that other strategies of the
Economic Vitality Action Plan, including an industrial uses ordinance amendment and voluntary County-initiated
rezoning, would result in a more immediate availability of properly designated and zoned industrial land. In addition,
completing review of the Comprehensive Plan and the potential addition of more land designated for industrial uses
will not by itself make land ready for development. A rezoning of the property that is consistent with the new
designation would also be required by the landowner and need to go through the normal rezoning process.
To encourage the expansion and new location of priority industries prior to the completion of the Com prehensive Plan
update, the Board of Supervisors could consider some type of formalized fast track process for projects that provide
significant economic benefits while still maintaining the high standards that define our community and attract and
retain quality employers. Used strategically, expedited review for projects that meet defined strategic criteria can be
an effective tool for encouraging preferred industry growth in a community. Virtually all counties researched tied a fast
track review option to qualified target industry enterprises that meet certain other qualifications, for example minimum
levels of job creation at certain salary levels. The County’s review of a potential fast track option is scheduled to come
before the Board for consideration in March.
AGENDA TITLE: Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Joint Work Session on Economic Vitality
Action Plan Implementation Schedule
February 8, 2012
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no significant budget impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan update remain on its current schedule, with the entire plan
recommendations scheduled to be presented to the Board in January 2013. This would allow the careful consideration
and integration of the Target Industry Study results into the appropriate Comprehensive Plan chapters. Of most help
in keeping the update on schedule will be decisions on how the Target Industry Study affects the sectors of the
economy the County wishes to support and how the interstate interchanges should be used in conjunction with the
target industries. These decisions will allow for a coordinated effort with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan update.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Economic Vitality Action Plan Goals
Attachment B – Target Industry Study Preliminary Results
Attachment C – Comprehensive Plan Revision Materials
Return to agenda
Economic Vitality Action Plan
Attachment A
GOALS STRATEGIES ACTIONS/STATUS
Goal 2 – Simplify, Create
Certainty in Development
Review
Consider amendments to the development
ordinances to reduce complexity of plan
approval
1. Ministerial Review – PC work session in early 2012, impacted by
the Sinclair court decision
2. Legislative Review - PC work session in early 2012
Goal 3 – Support Quality Job
Opportunities
Promote targeted business and investment
1. Target Industry Study – draft completed
Goal 4 – Increase LI Land
Options
Consider amendments to the County
zoning ordinance
1. Industrial uses ordinance change – PC work session January 31,
2012
Consider options for increasing industrial
inventory within areas designated as
development areas in the Comprehensive
Plan
1. Countywide rezoning – preparations underway, will start after
Industrial uses changes are adopted
2. Stop conversion of LI land to other uses –industrial uses ordinance
change
3. Consider designating more land for LI uses –current Comp Plan
update
4. Consider modification of Interstate Interchange policy for rural
interchanges – current Comp Plan update
Attachment B
STAFF PERSONS: CATLIN, STIMART
JOINT BOS AND PC WORKSESSION: FEBRUARY 8, 2011
TARGET INDUSTRY STUDY PRELIMINARY RESULTS
BACKGROUND
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development is managing a Target Industry Study for
the TJPED region. The information below is preliminary material provided by the study consultant
Younger Associates, the final report including all supporting data will be presented to the regional
stakeholders, including the Board of Supervisors and Plan ning Commission, in the next month or so.
After the final report is presented, staff anticipates that significant work will need to be done to analyze all
the report’s components to determine how to use the material to the County’s best advantage.
While the data is very useful and informs us of important realities in our community regarding workforce,
industry groups, etc., it will be up to staff and the Board of Supervisors in the coming weeks to evaluate
and confirm our final priorities for targeted industry groups based not only on the data but on established
goals and policies of Albemarle County. Detailed information from the study will be valuable in informing
several components of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process as it moves forward.
DISCUSSION
Target industry groups have been identified for the county and screened to select sectors that have the
strongest local rationale and best industry outlook. New and emerging industry, technology assets,
workforce and locational strengths were considered in screening for select target sectors.
The select target sectors have been narrowed to a relatively precise focus in order to provide the most
meaningful guidance to the users of this report. The list of target sectors is a lis t of optimal targets and
should not be considered to exclude related sectors. These sectors within the targeted industry group are
also generally well-suited to the county.
Optimal Target Markets
Optimal targets should both provide solid business rationa le for firms looking to relocate or expand in
Albemarle County and provide Albemarle County residents with a strong reason to support their presence
in the county.
Screening criteria for optimal targets include:
• High relative wages
• Support or strengthen existing industry groups/clusters
• Make use of the location’s unique attributes, including technology assets
• Leverage local/national/global trends
• High relative jobs multiplier
• Utilize incumbent occupational skill-sets
• Match area’s educational infrastructure and postsecondary completions
• Match the area’s capacity and desire for growth and development
• Potential to employ underemployed and unemployed
For each target area matching the screening criteria, the final selected targeted industries had to meet
two additional conditions: positive projected employment growth over the next five years and industry-
specific earnings greater than the overall local or state average. Based on the screening criteria, optimal
targets for Albemarle County fall into three major categories. A set of complementary targets that build
upon local competitive advantages has been identified as well.
1. Target Industry Group: Bioscience and Medical Devices
Albemarle County has demonstrated strength and competiti ve advantages in the Bioscience and Medical
Device industry group. Potential for growth in this group is primarily generated by start-ups and related
commercialization opportunities emerging from research activities at the University of Virginia .
With its highly regarded medical school and biomedical engineering department, the University
consistently produces new technologies in related to this industry group. To maximize the economic
opportunity of a growing number of start-ups, Albemarle County could increase its support of these
embryonic, potentially high-paying enterprises.
However, noting that in recent years many start-up bioscience companies moved out of the area to gain
significant venture funding, or left after they were acquired, the county may wish to focus even more
narrowly on the medical devices subsector. This subsector has a potential to create light manufacturing.
These light manufacturing operations typically include relatively lower workforce skill requirements and
tend to help anchor the company in a location.
An alternative strategy would be to build investor networks in the TJP region, or to attract private equity
firms to base key operations in the region. The feasibility of this strategy would have to be fully explored,
but desirable quality of life, presence of high net worth organizations, proximity to major markets and
broadband infrastructure could potentially support this strategy.
The occupations required by these industries include management and executive positions, a wide
variety of life and physical scientists, as well as production positions. The life and physical scientists are
well represented in the county, while production workers and science technicians may represent a
training opportunity for those currently unemplo yed.
While the Thomas Jefferson Partnership region is not currently recognized as one of the top regions in
the country for biotechnology and bioscience, it is located between two extremely high performing
regions, the Washington, DC/Maryland area and the Research Triangle, NC, area. It may be possible to
lure partners, venture funds and other support elements of a successful bioscience cluster to the TJP
region from these adjacent regions.
Other business rationales for targeting select Bioscience and Medical Device targets include:
• High relative patent activity related to this industry group
• History of local SBIR/STTR grant activity related to this industry group
• Annual University of Virginia completions in specialized fields such as: Biology/Bio logical
Sciences (248), Chemistry (103), Mathematics (106)
Outlook
The select optimal Bioscience and Medical Device targets are expected to experience significant growth
due to four major factors: 1) expanding market because of an aging population lead b y the baby boomers,
2) potential gain of millions of new customers through Federally mandated healthcare coverage, 3)
innovation and new product developments (for example implantable devices, wireless medical
technology, real-time medical data and reporting devices) and 4
2. Target Industry Group: Business & Financial Services
Albemarle County has demonstrated strong competitive advantages for the Business & Financial
Services group and exhibits both specialization and growth momentum for this industry. A bro ad group of
select targets offer opportunities for both expansion and attraction efforts (Table 6 and 7). Among the
business rationales for targeting this industry group are:
• High jobs multiplier (5.73)
• Broad existing local base of 554 firms
• Average annual wages nationally of $69,333, which is 39 percent above the county average
• Broadband infrastructure will support the technology needs of this industry group
• Synergistic overlap with Information Technology group assets and targets
• Average five-year projected job growth of 17 percent among selected targets.
• Total annual University of Virginia and TJP region college completions in specialized fields such as:
Business Administration (390), Economics (490), Accounting (107), Mathem atics (106),
Computer and Information Sciences
Outlook
The select optimal Business & Financial Services targets are expected to experience strong future growth
due to four transformational developments: 1) rapid increases in the use of electronic payment s, 2) new
and emerging methods of retail electronic payment, including mobile technologies, 3) return to the US of
some foreign outsources services due to diminished efficiencies and customer dissatisfaction and 4)
increased demand for businesses to manage healthcare and pension plans into compliance with new
legislation. Together these forces can generate a generous number of opportunities for new start-ups,
expansions and relocations.
3. Target Industry Group: Information Technology and Defense Security
The combined Information Technology and Defense Security cluster offers a third target area for the
county. Building upon two large federal installations and a large number of high-paying jobs at nearly ten
federal contractors, and supported by University research centers and long-time large employers like GE
and Northrup Grumman, the county is positioned to both expand and recruit in select sectors of this
industry group (See Tables 8 and 9.)
While the direction of defense spending is always a question, the intelligence community seems more
immune to wide swings in federal spending. In addition, there is a trend toward moving these assets out
of the Washington, DC region, yet they cannot be sent overseas. In fact, the TJP region’s strategic
location near, but just far enough away, from Washington, DC has proven to be very advantageous in
some recent location decisions. Albemarle County already has a high specialization in the industry group,
particularly in the three select industry sectors listed in Table 9, with location quotients of 4.11, 3.2 and
3.67 respectively. Furthermore, the occupations relevant to these industries, such as computer specialists
are in good supply in the region. Other business rationales for targeting these sectors include:
• Technology assets including the federal agency locations, two large employers and other defense
contractors
• Synergistic overlap with other exiting business clusters in the county
• Patent activity related to this industry group
• SBIR activity related to this industry group
• Growth in computer facilities management services in the county
• Specialization in computer and mathematical occupations in the county
• Desire by existing workforce for training in computer technologies
• High relative wages offered by the industry group
Outlook
The select optimal IT and Defense Security targets are expected to experience strong future growth due
to four transformational developments: 1) new product developments like battery back -up systems, open-
road intelligent transportation systems and mobile medical monitors, 2) growth in market for
semiconductors in consumer electronics, such as smartphones, digital cameras and automotive
electronics, 3) increased use of electronics in the transportation industry, due to subst itution of
mechanical devices and 4) increased downstream demand for sophisticated measuring and monitoring
systems from the energy, military, health and biotechnology sectors. These factors indicate a growing
number of opportunities for new start-ups, expansions and relocations.
Complementary Targets: Health Services and Arts, Design, Sports & Media
The complementary targets that have been identified are a set of industries that boost attraction to the
area, add to quality of life factors for residents and potential newcomers and help support a vibrant,
sustainable, urban community. The Health Services targets emphasize the support of an aging population
and relocating retirees, whereas the Arts, Design, Sports & Media targets can appeal particularly to young
people looking for a diverse and active community.
Because of the types of services offered, the complementary targets provide employment opportunities
for a lower skilled workforce, a group often overlooked in some of the higher wage targeted groups. The
select target sectors are listed in Table 10 and described in Table 11.
Rationales for the Health Services target sectors include:
• A logical off-shoot of the Biomedical and Medical Devices industry
• Complementary to the University health care system
• An opportunity for the Not Employed group who seek medical related training, but do not possess
highly technical skill sets
• Support for aging population and relocating retirees
Rationales for the Arts, Design and Sports & Media include:
• Complementary to the attractive quality of life in the region
• Proximity to the regional core, Charlottesville, increases attraction of artists
• Some specialized sectors related to the group already exist in the county and in Charlottesville
• Complementary to University student population
• Complementary to and supportive of the Visitor Industry group
• Large number of annual visitors to the region can provide some of the revenue and support base
for firms in this group
• Can be a complementary element and continuing contributor to the regional quality
1
ATTACHMENT C
STAFF PERSONS: CILIMBERG, ECHOLS, SORRELL
JOINT BOS AND PC WORKSESSION: FEBRUARY 8, 2011
CPA 2013-00001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
Worksession – Industrial Recommendations and Interstate Interchange Policy
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission’s Work to date has included analysis of goals & objectives, residential capacity &
future needs, as well as how to provide more opportunities for agricultural and tourist- related commercial uses
in the Rural Areas. Review of these items will be provided to the Board at a later date. At this time, the
Commission will begin its work on the update of the Economic Development Policy. At the request of the Board,
staff is providing information at this worksession on potential changes to the current economic development
policy and land us plan related to light industrial uses and interstate interchanges.
As part of the Economic Vitality Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan update, Community Development and
Office on Community and Business Partnerships staff held a Roundtable on November 28. Staff asked the
following questions:
What activities, amenities and infrastructure are needed to support business and industry in the
County?
What items are detrimental and hinder business and industry in the County?
What can the County could do to support the three rural interchanges that would also support and
not detract from the rural areas?
What is the downside of encouraging industry at rural interchanges?
In general, responses to the first question included the need for good access (roads, rail, air, mass transit),
affordable land, buildings that are ready to be occupied, locations near the workforce, and, in some cases,
locations more isolated from other uses. Potential uses mentioned for rural interchanges ranged from
warehousing and storage to commercial activities supporting tourism and agriculture, to leaving the rural
interchanges as just they are. The downside noted for encouraging industry at these locations had to do with
the lack of utilities and, at some of the interchanges, good access. There were attendees who said that the
reason the rural interchanges are rural is because citizens had worked hard to retain the rural character.
Detailed responses to the questions can be found in Attachment C-1.
Also, as part of the Livability Project being managed by TJPDC, a workshop was held at the downtown library in
December to get input from residents on the relationship of jobs and housing. Comments about jobs focused
primarily on creating jobs in the area, specifically helping create and maintain local businesses, promote local
sales, and attract retirees to the area. Many comments noted the lack of diversification in the jobs that are
available in the area and noted a dependence on UVA. These comments also noted that too much reliance on
tourism will lead to more low wage jobs. Additionally, comments were made that the City and County should
work together more to attract jobs to the area and both could work better with UVA. Several comments
mentioned renewable energy and the jobs that could be created in this field. Notes from that meeting are also
provided in Attachment C-1.
DISCUSSION
Staff has been reviewing the existing Economic Development Policy, land area available for employers and
industry, and how well the County is carrying out the strategies for economic development adopted by the
Board. Information on land area available for new industrial or employment based development is provided in
the paragraphs below:
Inventory of Non-residential Land
Residential and non-residential land area in the Development Areas equals 23,411 acres. Of that land, 71%
is designated on the Land Use Plan for residential uses. Approximately 15% of the land area is designated
for commercial activities and 6% of the land is designated for industrial activites as shown in the chart
below. Also shown is the breakdown of land use by zoning.
2
Figure 1: Land Use by Designation on Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan Zoning
These charts show that more land area is zoned residentially and commercially than is designated on the
Land Use Plan. Conversely, they also show that there is 3% more land designated for industrial uses than
is currently zoned. To get a better handle on what is actually available for new non-residential development,
staff took the total amount of land available for industrial use, then subtracted out the developed land, and
land constrained by environmental features such as streams, floodplain, wetlands, and steep slopes. The
resulting information showed that, there are 465 more acres of non-constrained land for industrial
development shown on the land use plan. At present, 376 acres is zoned industrially (including the UVA
Research Park) and could be developed.
Figure 2: Industrial Vacant Non-Constrained Land Comparison
As indicated in the industrial inventory of 2010, the biggest issues are with location and size of zoned
parcels. The chart on the next page shows mean and median parcel size which has industrial zoning by
development area:
11,035, 47%
1,337,
6%
2,099,
9%
2,938, 12%
4,154, 18%
1,847,
8%
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Greenspace (non-
buildable)
Non-parceled
841
376
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Industrial Acrage Designated
Zoned
11,035, 47%
1,337,
6%
2,099,
9%
2,938, 12%
4,154, 18%
1,847,
8%
Residential
Commercial
Industrial / Employment
Mixed Use
Institutional
Greenspace (non-
buildable)
Non-parceled
3
Figure 3: Vacant Industrial Zoned Parcels
Development Area
Parcel Size PM HM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Crozet VOR Total
less than 1 acre 0 8 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 4 0 23
1.00 -4.99 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 6 0 12
5.00 - 9.99 2 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 10
10.00 and up 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5
Total 2 17 0 0 0 15 4 0 0 12 0 50
Mean* 5.28 8.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.18 3.33 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 5.78 Average**
Median* 5.28 6.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 3.33 0.00 0.00 2.86 0.00 4.08 Average**
* Only includes parcels that are 1 acre or greater.
** Only includes Development Areas that had a mean and/or a median parcel size over 1 acre.
The Office on Community and Business Partnerships currently is working with Community Development to
prepare a proposal for rezoning industrially designated land. Some of the problems associated with parcel
size will be resolved with a rezoning. The rezoning activities will occur after the zoning text amendment for
changes to the allowable industrial uses is completed.
In terms of rezoning and special use permit approvals over the last ten years, the County has rezoned
approximately 6.7 million square feet of non-residential space in the Development Areas. These approvals
include retail/service, office, institutional, and industrial/employment uses. Attachment C-2 shows a
cumulative total of approved square footage. Of the approximately 6.85 million square feet that has been
approved in the last ten years, only 1.5 million square feet has been built. A third of that square footage
included construction of the Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Future Needs for Commercial and Industrial Land
Several studies over the last six years have indicated that the County has enough rezoned commercial
square footage to last more than the next 20 years. Because of the amount of work that has already been
done on this topic, staff is not going to perform another retail analysis. Instead, attention will be paid to the
land designated for industrial and other business development uses.
Future needs for these uses relates to the needs we have already identified (areas for small services and
industry) and areas for the business/industry/employers we want to attract or grow. Once the Target
Industry Study has been analyzed and discussed, direction can be provided by the Board on the types of
businesses and industries the County should be planning for. With this information staff can work to identify
land and parcels which can help to fill area employment needs.
Interstate Interchange Policy
The Board of Supervisors has asked for information on the County’s interstate interchanges and discussion
of potential future changes to the policy. As part of the Economic Vitality Action Plan, the Board of
Supervisors has said consideration should be given to allowing lower impact and rural-serving uses at
interchanges located in the rural areas. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed
changes should also be carefully considered as part of this work. Low impact uses would be those which
have little or no need for water or sanitary sewer, could meet VDOT access requirements, have little impact
on natural resources and meet Entrance Corridor guidelines. It would be premature to discuss future
changes to the policy until decisions are made as to the industries the County wishes to target. However,
basic analysis of the rural interchanges is provided in this report.
There are seven interchanges with I-64 in the County. Three interchanges and part of a fourth are
designated as rural for which no additional development is recommended. The other interchanges are
designated as urban and the Interstate Interchange Policy provides guidance on how the interchanges
should be used. For the urban interchanges, the policy suggests that the interchanges be considered for
regional uses such as regional shopping centers; major office, business or industrial employment centers;
regional governmental or institutional centers; convention centers; and large-scale recreational facilities. In
4
addition, the policy says that light industry, warehousing and wholesaling businesses dependent on trucking
of goods are also appropriate at such locations. Tourist related businesses and trucking services are
mentioned in the policy as appropriate to the urban interchanges. The policy provides for consideration of
high-density residential development if the interchange is not intended as a major local-traffic carrier.
Current policy indicates that the rural interchanges are expected to remain rural. Use of land at the rural
interchanges relates to the existing zoning of the land and availability of utilities. The County’s Interstate
Interchange Policy can be found in Attachment C-3.
The 3 ½ interchanges which are designated for rural uses at present are Exit 129 Route 616 – Boyd
Tavern, Exit 124 Route 250 – Shadwell (south side only), Exit 114 Route 637 Ivy, and Exit 107 Route 250
Crozet. Attachment C-4 provides information on the characteristics of the interchanges.
Changes to the Schedule to Advance Changes to the Interstate Interchange Policy and any Aspects
of the Economic Development Policy
According to the existing schedule, provided as Attachment C-5, the Planning Commission will review the LI
study and interstate interchanges in detail at a worksession in March. Preliminary recommendations for
changes to the Comprehensive Plan would come after decisions are made on which target industries should
be accommodated and analysis of land use changes, particularly in Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6, &7 that could
help meet these needs. If the schedule continues as planned, the Commission’s recommended
Comprehensive Plan amendment in its entirety will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in January
2013. Periodic check-ins with the Board will likely take place between now and then to ensure that the
Commission and the Board are not in disagreement on potential policy changes.
If the Interstate Interchang Policy and any other aspects of the Economic Developme nt Policy are to be
advanced ahead of the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, answers to the following questions will be needed
very soon:
What types of industries or employment generators should the County be pursuing?
(Discussion after Target Industry Study results)
How can those needs be accommodated by rezoning currently industrially designated land?
What additional land area exists to meet these needs?
How might Neighborhoods 4 – 7 accommodate any of these needs?
Do changes to the Interstate Interchange Policy help meet these needs?
What are the expections for appearance and functionality of the interchanges?
What scales of use and standards for development appropriate?
The change in schedule will mean that text will need to be developed, outreach provided to Neighborhoods
4 – 7, policy written, and public hearings held over the next 4 – 5 months. This will likely lengthen the
overall comprehensive plan update schedule by at least 3 months as staff will be focused on advancing
selected sections through the process earlier rather than keeping all of the Comprehensive Plan together for
public hearings and ultimate adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Once adopted, a revised economic
development policy would still need to translated into zoning map and text amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C-1 Meeting Notes from November 28, 2011 and December 6, 2011
Attachment C-2 Table of Non-Res. Square Footage Approved Through Rezonings and Special Use Permits
Attachment C-3 Interstate Interchange Policy
Attachment C-4 Interchange Analysis
Attachment C-5 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule as of 1-23-12
ATTACHMENT C-1
Indust./ Interstate Inter. Roundtable Notes
12/08/11
INDUSTRIAL & INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
November 28, 2011 10:00 A.M. – 11:30 P.M. RM. 241 COB
Moderator: Lee Catlin, Asst. to the Co. Executive for Community & Business Partnerships
Presenters: Elaine Echols (CDD- Principal Planner), J.T. Newberry (CDD – Planner), Wayne Cilimberg
(CDD- Planning Director)
Other County staff/ officials:
Name Department
Ken Boyd Board of Supervisors, Rivanna District
Ann Mallek Board of Supervisors, White Hall District
Dennis Rooker Board of Supervisors, Jack Jouett District
Duane Snow Board of Supervisors, Samuel Miller District
Rodney Thomas Board of Supervisors, Rio District
Christopher Dumler Board of Supervisors (elect), Scottsville District
Calvin Morris Planning Commission, Rivanna District
Mac Lafferty Planning Commission, Jack Jouett District
Tom Loach Planning Commission, White Hall District
Linda Porterfield Planning Commission, Scottsville District
Amelia McCulley Community Development – Director of Zoning
Susan Stimart Economic Development Facilitator
Andy Sorrell Community Development – Senior Planner
Madalen McGrory Community Development - Intern
Members of the public in attendance:
Name Organization/ Affiliation
Dennis Dutterer Pantops Community Advisory Council
Gale Wilson Buckingham Branch Railroad
Bill Schrader Crozet Community Advisory Council
Travis Pietila Southern Environmental Law Center
Morgan Butler Southern Environmental Law Center
Carolyn Shears CBRE, Charlottesville
John Chavan Cavalier Storage
Neil Williamson Free Enterprise Forum
Mike Marshall Crozet Gazette
Mark Thompson Starr Hill
Lianne Landers UVA Entrepreneurship Coordinator
John Lowery Albemarle Economic Development Authority
Jack Marshall Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population
Kelly Strickland Crozet Community Advisory Council
5
ATTACHMENT C-1
Indust./ Interstate Inter. Roundtable Notes
12/08/11
Tom Click Patriot Aluminum Products
Tim O’Brien Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development
Chris Engel City of Charlottesville
Jeff Werner Piedmont Environmental Council
Tom Goeke Crozet resident
Note: Due to the expected presence of four Planning Commission members, the Planning Commission
meeting from the prior Tuesday was adjourned to this meeting. Planning Commission Vice-Chairman,
Calvin Morris called the Commission meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Although there were five Board
members present at the meeting, they did not participate in the roundtable discussion other than listen.
Lee Catlin provided an overview of the meeting. Next, Elaine Echols reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation on the status of the Comprehensive Plan update and how the workshop fits into the
update.
J.T. Newberry next reviewed uses currently permitted by-right and by special use permit in the county’s
industrial zoning districts. Wayne Cilimberg concluded the staff presentation with an overview of recent
and proposed zoning text amendments intended to provide greater flexibility in use allowances. Mr.
Cilimberg also discussed the possibility of designating additional land for industrial and employment use
in the County’s Development Areas if the amount of land currently designated and zoned for industrial
use is inadequate to accommodate today’s industry needs. He indicated that one of the current
recommendations on the table is for the County to rezone all industrially designated land that does not
have industrial zoning on it in the Development Areas.
Public Comments and Discussion:
Mr. Cilimberg asked the public for their thoughts on what activities, amenities and infrastructure is
needed to support business and industry in the County. Comments from the public are below:
There should be easy access to transportation (interstate), human capital and utilities (high-speed
internet).
Some businesses will need land with close proximity to the airport and some to rail.
Charlottesville needs cheaper (and more) options for shipping logistics – why do businesses have to
go to Richmond to find a dedicated shipping company?
Secured on-site storage and warehousing is needed with access to highways and interstate
interchanges.
Support is needed for “very Light Industrial” uses that have less industrial (i.e. less assembly
occurring on-site) activity and more office allowed on site, such as a distributor that needs office
space for employees rather than as much manufacturing space.
Mixture/hybridization of uses (like office/RD/flex) is important and becoming more prevalent.
The retail component of light industrial (that needs public access) does not match up with what
zoning permits.
Light industrial zoning permits offices but what if property with light industrial is not available?
Business today has a mix of industrial use to office use that is lower than it used to be.
There is a need for a commercial/ industrial district – bulk up the commercial office category in such
a district.
6
ATTACHMENT C-1
Indust./ Interstate Inter. Roundtable Notes
12/08/11
New business prospects desire land that is already zoned. Some employers find land in industrial
parks (such as the UVA Research Park on Rt. 29 North) too expensive and too far away.
There needs to be a better jobs / housing balance; nearby Counties should not be just bedroom
communities. There is a greater desire for people to live and work in the same community for
example, as Hollymead develops there will be greater opportunity for people to work closer home in
the northern part of the County.
The trend of relocating truck transport to rail transport is increasing. Don’t lose opportunities for rail
access by zoning adjacent lands to non-industrial uses and thereby cutting off opportunities for rail
access.
Rail network is regional – we need to work on a regional basis with Charlottesville and engage rail
lines such as Norfolk-Southern about their plans.
The results of the Targeted Industry Study - may change ideas about the kind of business and
industry the County is trying to attract.
Small business owners are having a difficult time finding space.
Freight service at the airport existed until 2010– however since the volume was low it was
discontinued. The airport needs feedback from businesses if needs exists for enhanced freight
capacity or volume at the airport.
Keep tourism in mind – the County is an entrance to a national park.
Tourism and agribusiness are components of industrial uses today - such as with breweries, wineries
and cideries – people want to see how things they consume are made.
There is a new product distribution model today - marketing directly to consumers (end-user).
Those in the import/export business often need 10-20-50,000 square feet of space with access to
resources but not necessarily direct access to customers.
Business start-ups need 2nd stage affordable, non-smokestack, manufacturing space – ideally such
space would be near the airport; examples provided were MicroAire and NIITEK.
The County needs to ensure that existing light industrial zoned land is not lost to other uses – the
market hasn’t met the need in past; land has been valued higher for other uses than industry.
The County needs to join with the City to establish infrastructure for industrial property.
Mr. Cilimberg next asked what items were detrimental and hindered business and industry in the
County. Comments from the public are below:
Price and location are issues.
Segregation of uses is a problem – the County needs more mixed use centers where infrastructure
already exists.
The mixed-use approach affects affordability – the closer employment and industry is to residential
uses the more expensive it is.
Charlottesville is very constrained in regard to industrial inventory – only 9 acres remain and it is
fragmented – collaboration between City and County is important.
What is the acreage of land zoned industrial that is being utilized? If a lot is available, is it in the
right location? If more land was designated industrial, its price may come down.
Pay attention to industry in areas of the County that have been hard-hit by the recession such as
Scottsville.
Businesses need buildings that are ready to go and can be used for industrial purposes right away.
7
ATTACHMENT C-1
Indust./ Interstate Inter. Roundtable Notes
12/08/11
Elaine Echols next provided an overview and background on the Interstate interchanges and where they
were located. She stated that of the seven such interchanges in the County, three are located in the
Rural Areas (Shadwell, Ivy, and Yancey). Ms. Echols asked what the County could do to support the
three rural interchanges that would also support and not detract from the rural areas Rural interchanges
should support smaller business opportunities such repair operations, landscaping companies, packing
businesses and etc. that specifically serve a need in the community. The following comments were
provided:
Such interchanges could also support warehousing and storage businesses (make sure 53-foot
trailers can be accommodated) that have low traffic volume and no public water and sewer needs-
the uses need to be shielded from view.
The market for industrial land is regional – review what other localities are doing.
Rural interchanges should be left as is – too many times nearby residents find that what starts out as
a tolerable use becomes a non-tolerable use (Yancey interchange was specifically cited as one to
remain as is)
The agricultural economy is collapsing – if someone is not in the wine business it is hard to find the
necessary support businesses in the County.
Contact local farm managers and ask them what they need and what support businesses they use –
do they have to go out of the area to get service?
Remember that rural interchanges are entrances to our community - we need to protect them – do
not relocate problems out to the interchanges.
Visibility and commercial needs conflict with entrance corridor requirements – Shadwell is the entry
to Monticello.
Mr. Cilimberg asked what businesses would be suitable at the rural interchanges and if they should
support rural uses – what is the downside of encouraging industry at rural interchanges?
High tech businesses are not necessarily looking for land at the rural interchanges.
Jobs come from across the education spectrum.
Employers want an “all-in-one” location (office and manufacturing jobs).
The County’s vision for rural interchanges may not be what people are expecting there – i.e. there is
a disconnect between what the public expects to develop at the rural interchanges (i.e. fast food
restaurants and big box stores) from what they see in other localities and at the DA interchanges.
The public sees lands in the entrance corridors and wonders why the County continues to discuss
greater development in these areas.
The question is backwards – businesses want to locate where zoned land is – the County needs land
to continue to zone and designate land for industry not build industrial parks.
Lots of people are moving to the County – the County should have areas zoned specifically for
business headquarters.
County should initiate process to rezone more land industrial not wait for businesses to come to
them.
Affordability of land area-wide is a problem. Public private partnerships are needed to add
incentives to bring jobs here. The cost in time and money to zone land for industrial use is high. If
cost is a barrier to locating in an industrial park (such as UVA Research Park) the County should
provide incentives for businesses to locate in industrial parks.
8
ATTACHMENT C-1
Indust./ Interstate Inter. Roundtable Notes
12/08/11
The County should preserve and rezone land to establish a concentration/ critical mass of parcels
that will be supported for business/ industry.
The County either needs to create new, affordable options for industrial uses or figure out how to
use existing zoned land more affordably.
The County’s 1982 interchange policy calls for industry to locate there – why hasn’t it been
implemented yet and why are we still talking about it 30 years later? (Wayne Cilimberg explained
that the County’s policy changed since 1982 and that the interchanges are now looked at
differently.)
Rural interchanges are not developed yet because people who live near them have invested a lot of
time and energy into keeping them rural – residents do not want development here.
The County should help move the process along for the Acme Building in Crozet – County should
work with the EPA to get process moving along more quickly.
Why do areas of high growth areas like Crozet and Forest Lakes not have public transportation
options?
Ms. Catlin thanked those in attendance for their input and said that the information they provided
would be given to the Planning Commission for discussion at a work-session at the end of January 2012.
The roundtable adjourned at 11:30 A.M. Vice-Chairman Morris adjourned the Planning Commission at
11:32 A.M.
9
ATTACHMENT C-1
Housing & Economic Drivers Outreach Workshop Brief
On December 1, 2011 City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County & TJPDC staff hosted the third in a series
of topic-specific outreach workshops to gather community input on updates to the Charlottesville and
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plans and the Long-Range Transportation Plan for the MPO region.
The workshop was held in the Jefferson Room of the downtown public library and was attended by a
mix of approximately 56 City and County residents.
The purpose of the Housing and Economic Drivers Workshop was to seek feedback on existing housing
and economic development goals and to highlight key implementation actions the City & County are
taking. Public input gathered will be taken into consideration as Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and
the MPO move forward with their respective plan update process.
The goals and implementation actions for Housing and Economic Drivers were presented for both the
City and the County along with a housing survey which was distributed to participants.
What we heard
Housing
65 comments regarded Housing
20 comments mentioned affordable housing
o 5 comments pertained to modifying regulations-expedite the review process, examine
regulatory impediments
o 3 comments pertained to cost of housing
o 3 comments pertained to on-site affordable housing
12 comments regarded housing types or accessibility
o 3 comments related to age appropriate housing options
o 3 comments for a better balance of housing choices and prices
8 comments regarded transportation
6 comments mentioned environment or energy efficiency
Reactions to City and County affordable housing policies were generally in favor of increasing the
amount and variety of the area’s affordable housing. Comments were received seeking to change or
ease regulations for building affordable housing. Participants noted the need for a greater mix of
housing choices in the Charlottesville area. Comments mentioned accessibility for all levels of mobility
and age appropriate housing, which was geared specifically toward the older aged populations.
Comments pertaining to transportation were listed several times including providing sidewalks,
incentivizing bike lanes and providing better transit opportunities to affordable housing. Additionally,
several comments sought to increase regulations to create more energy efficient housing.
10
ATTACHMENT C-1
Housing Survey
Fifty seven participants took the housing survey during the workshop. The results from this survey can
be viewed at the end of this report.
Economic Drivers
45 comments regarded Economic Drivers
8 comments mentioned creating jobs – local jobs, jobs to attract baby boomers, renewable
energy sector jobs
6 comments mentioned diversifying the economy – lack of diversified economy, overdependence
on UVA, need to strengthen
4 comments supported local businesses – support small businesses, local agriculture
Economic Drivers comments focused primarily on creating jobs in the area, specifically helping create
and maintain local businesses, promote local sales, and attract retirees to the area. Many comments
noted the lack of diversification in the jobs that are available in the area and noted a dependence on
UVA and Kroger. These comments also noted that too much reliance on tourism will lead to more low
wage jobs. Additionally, comments were made that the City and County should work together more to
attract jobs to the area and both could work better with UVA. Several comments mentioned renewable
energy and the jobs that could be created in this field.
For a complete transcript of all public comments received at the Environment Workshop, please visit
http://1-community.org/events.
11
ATTACHMENT C-2
Non-Residential Square Footage Approved Through
Rezonings and Special Use Permits since May 15, 2001
Last updated: 12/29/2011
Project # Project Name
Approved
(sq. ft.)
Built
(sq. ft.)
Unbuilt
(sq. ft.)
ZMA 00-04 Fontaine Res.Park 106,000 106,000 0
SP 00-22 Albemarle SPCA 9,305 9,305 0
ZMA 00-06 Greenbrier Office Park 3,040 3,040 0
ZMA 00-09 North Pointe 924,548 0 924,548
SP 00-70 Avemore 8,550 8,550 0
ZMA 01-03 Rio Square 17,500 7,800 9,700
ZMA 01-04 SNB Car Wash 1,600 1,600 0
ZMA 01-07 Alb. Pl. (Stonefield) 1,190,000 0 1,190,000
ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village 125,000 23,000 102,000
ZMA 01-15 Peter Jefferson Place 840,000 659,385 180,615
ZMA 01-19 Hollymead Town Ctr B 187,000 187,000 0
ZMA 01-20 Hollymead Town Ctr C 275,000 80,800 194,200
ZMA 02-02 Hollymead Town Ctr D 50,000 0 50,000
ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 20,000 0 20,000
ZMA 03-08 Woodbrook Station 9,600 0 9,600
ZMA 04-07 Belvedere 60,000 0 60,000
ZMA 04-12 Luxor Commercial 95,000 14,000 81,000
ZMA 04-24 Old Trail 250,000 90,461 159,539
ZMA 05-03 UVAF Research Park addition 700,000 0 700,000
ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall 8,500 0 8,500
ZMA 05-08 Pantops Park 87,000 42,000 45,000
ZMA 05-10 Wachovia Shops 14,473 14,473 0
ZMA 05-15 Hollymead Town Ctr A-1 278,000 114,183 163,817
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 16,000 0 16,000
ZMA 06-12 Fontaine Research Park 30,000 23,000 7,000
ZMA 06-09 5th St./Avon St. Complex 470,000 0 470,000
ZMA 07-03 NGIC 178,000 131,115 46,885
ZMA 07-01 Hollymead Town Ctr A-2 368,000 0 368,000
ZMA 07-04 Oakleigh 14,400 0 14,400
ZMA 07-13 Fontaine Research Park 310,000 0 310,000
ZMA 07-06 Three Notch'd Center 40,500 0 40,500
ZMA 09-04 National College 28,000 0 28,000
ZMA 10-13 Morey Creek Prof. Office 100,000 0 100,000
ZMA 10-10 Peter Jefferson Overlook 33,366 0 33,366
Total 6,848,382 1,515,712 5,332,670
12
ATTACHMENT C-3
The Land Use Plan for
Interstate Interchange Development
Because Interstate 64 is a limited access highway, its interchanges may be a focus for
development activities. To accommodate appropriate land uses in the vicinity of interstate
interchanges, while maintaining the safety and functional and aesthetic integrity of such
interchanges, the standards and policies set forth below are recommended.
Urban Area land at the following interchanges should be developed in accordance with the
standards set forth below:
- Route 250 East (Shadwell) (Urban Area side only)
- Route 20 South
- Route 631 (Fifth Street), north side only.
- Route 29 South
Other interchanges-Route 250 West (Yancey Mill), Route 637 (Ivy), and Route 616 (Black Cat
Road) - are not recommended for development except as provided generally in the Plan and as
permitted under Rural Areas zoning provisions.
1. Permitted land uses should be related to and supportive of the interstate highway function.
More specifically, two categories of land uses are most appropriate:
- Regional uses which rely on a regional or larger scale market (sales,
labor, service) and consequently would depend on the interstate
highway’s function as a non-local mover of people and goods. This
category would include such uses as: regional shopping centers; major
office, business or industrial employment centers; regional governmental
or institutional centers; convention centers; and large-scale recreational
facilities. Light industry, warehousing and wholesaling businesses
dependent on trucking of goods also favor such locations. Provided the
interstate is not intended as a major local-traffic carrier, high-density
residential development may also be appropriate.
- Highway service businesses which primarily rely on the interstate traveler as a
market, including hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, truck stops,
convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
13
ATTACHMENT C-3
2. Areas suitable for regional uses or highway service businesses should not be
developed with inappropriate uses which are locally oriented (i.e. neighborhood
shopping centers, low-density residential development). In addition to preempting
more appropriate uses, such development would generate unnecessary local traffic on
the interstate highway.
3. Site area requirements for a regional use will be generally determined by the specific
needs of the use. A regional use need not be located adjacent to an interchange but
should have direct access to an interchange over a road segment of adequate capacity,
without going through residential areas.
4. The random, individual location of highway service businesses should be
discouraged. Such uses should be located exclusively in dusters with common access
points on sites ranging from three to live acres m area. Where the duster approach is
not practical, businesses should utilize service road or reverse frontage access shared
by three or more establishments to minimize the number of accesses in the area of the
interchange.
5. All interchanges are in the Entrance Corridor Overlay zoning district, with the Route
29 and Route 250 (Shadwell) interchanges in particular, serving as gateways to
Charlottesville and the Urban Area. Maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity
should be emphasized in review of applications for development. Such review should
occur in the early stages of the development process (i.e. rezoning petition, special
use permit application) and should address such matters as: control or access, use of
service road or reverse frontage development, separation of access from interchange
ramps and other transportation planning concerns, landscaping and buffering, setback,
signage, righting, building mass and height and orientation in regard to aesthetic
concerns.
6. Commercial entrances on roads crossing the interstate should be adequately separated
from the interstate ramp. The location of proposed entrances onto such roads should
be evaluated for overall traffic impact. Subdivision of land near an interstate ramp
should not be permitted unless access is provided by a single entrance. The following
separation from interstate ramps should be achieved:
Table III: Roads Intersecting Interstates
Route Road Name Minimum Distance to Entrance
250 East (Shadwell) Richmond Road 1,000 feet
20 South Scottsville Road 1,000 feet
Route 631 Fifth Street 800 feet
29 South Monacan Trail Road 1,000 feet
Where existing parcels cannot comply with these access recommendations, provisions
should be made for service roads so ultimate development of the area can comply and
non-complying entrances can be closed.
14
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOYD TAVERN-BLACK CAT RD. INTERCHANGE – RURAL AREA
Area Name: Boyd Tavern Black Cat Rd.
Magisterial District: Rivanna and Scottsville
Physical Characteristics:
Critical environmental resources (streams,
floodplain and steep slope) exist on most
properties near the I-64 interchange.
There are four vacant properties near the
interchange on which no critical environmental
resources exist, other than woods.
Most of the properties at the interchange are
wooded and the interchange itself is heavily
wooded and rural in nature
Terrain varies greatly across all of the land
surrounding the interchange. Black Cat Road
is the high point along most of the parcels and
the land slopes away from Black Cat Road
decreases in elevation.
Protected streams predominantly flow through
properties under conservation easement.
Black Cat Road extends south of the
interchange to intersect with Rt. 250
approximately a half mile from I-64
Existing Uses:
Several farms and large pasturlands are present
near the interchange.
The southeastern corner has single-family
subdivision of 16 dwellings
While vacant, the southwestern corner has CO
zoning on two properties
Other Considerations:
Conservation easements abut all vacant
parcels.
Access to Utilities:
There is no public water or sewer service
nearby
Transportation Issues, if any:
VDOT’s requirements for intersection spacing
appear to be met for the northwest and
southwest properties adjacent to the
interchange and Black Cat Road
15
I-64 E
I-64 WBLACK
CAT
RD
C
L
U
B
D
R
MECHUNK RDRICH
M
O
N
D
R
D WOODBOUND RDFURTHER LN 432420408
3963843
7
2444 36045
6 3483363243124683
9
6
408
3
8
4
348384396360
396
384
37
2
420
408420
468384384432384396
3
4
8
40
8
468432396396384420396
396
372396432444
384 432408
456 384444468468456468 38442
0
31243
2
432
348
432
4
0
8
468 336408
420396
39
6
3 72408
408
420
420
44
4
43245
6
408408396 384
384
360 408408384396
396
372
420
444 3244' ContoursRoadsRailroadsDriveways
BuildingsStreamsWater BodyParcelsCritical Slopes
Water Protection Ordinance BuffersConservation EasementsRural AreasC1 Commercial
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2012.
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 400 800200Feet
Boyd Tavern / Black Cat Rd. Interchange
16
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
SHADWELL INTERCHANGE – RURAL AREA
Area Name: Shadwell Interchange (southside)
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Physical Characteristics:
Critical environmental resources (streams,
floodplain and steep slope) exist on most
properties near the I-64 interchange.
On the north side, except for the Comfort Inn
property, a steep wooded bank exists in the
right-of-way between Route 250 and the
properties from North HL Lane for
approximately 2/3 of a mile.
Existing Uses:
The South Lego Farm is largely undeveloped at
the southwest corner of the interchange.
The Comfort Inn is located at the southeast
corner of the interchange.
Several homes take access from North HL Lane
An existing industrial park is located east of the
interchange with 6 businesses zoned HC and
10 zoned LI.
Other Considerations:
Properties adjacent to the South Lego Farm
parcels are within the Southern Albemarle
Rural Historic District.
A citizen initiated request has been made for
the parcel at the eastern corner of North HL
Lane to become mini-warehouses.
South Lego Farm property is adjacent to
railroad line; however terrain prohibits rail
access.
Other Considerations, Continued:
The property south of 250 across from Hunters
Way Industrial Park is within the Monticello
Historic District as well as property south of the
Rivanna River adjacent to the South Lego Farm
property.
Both above properties are also within a
conservation easement and this area is within
the Monticello Viewshed.
Access to Utilities:
Six parcels adjacent to the hotel have water
service through ACSA from water line along
250 that runs to Glenmore. One residential
parcel is limited to water service to the
existing structure only.
The nearest ACSA sewer line is north of the
interchange at Hasens Mountain Rd. would
require a pump station and improvements to
existing Peter Jefferson Pump Station if
connection was desired.
Transportation Issues, if any:
Access issues exist for South Lego Farm
property – any entrance would need to be south
of the property between the Kohr’s Brothers
building and Jarman’s Sports Cycles. Such an
entrance would have to cross steep slopes and
then a stream.
Properties with developable acreage which
could meet VDOT access guidelines are
farthest from the interstate and closest to the
existing Hunter’s Way Industrial park.
17
I-64 E
I-64 W
RICHMOND RD
HANSENS MOUNTAIN RD
N O R T H HLHUNTERS W AYINN D R LEGO DRHUNTERS PLSO UTH LEGO FA R M
396444
432
408
420456372360348
468
312
336 324 384
300
492
480
504
516
528
540420444
372
312444480456
444
348444480
408
480
4565
2
8432
396444432
468
468456
42
044
4504468
492
384
4
4
4
396
504
504
408
468
432408468492
324
516
480
492420
540
4
0
8
300516
384
444
384
456
40848
0
384312
456
336
492
468
504
38
4
456
360384528528492
312
540
432
396
372
492 504432456516
504
456
408
50 4444
492
4
0
8
40
8
348 46849 2
4 563
48480
396
4 3 2
420456
468468480
408
42
0
312456
360 492432492
516
4' Contours
Roads
Railroads
Driveways
Buildings
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Critical Slopes
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Conservation Easements
Zoning
Rural Areas
Planned Residential Development
Monticello Historic District
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Shopping Center
Planned Development Mixed Commercial
Light Industry
Natural Resource Extraction Overlay
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2012.
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 400 800200Feet
Shadwell Interchange (southside)
18
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
IVY INTERCHANGE – RURAL AREA
Area Name: Ivy Interchange
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Physical Characteristics:
Critical environmental resources exist on all
properties at this interchange including
streams, floodplain, and steep slopes.
The interchange itself is heavily wooded and
rural in nature.
Critical slopes are scattered throughout the
properties but comprise a small portion of the
land area.
Terrain varies greatly across all of the land
surrounding the interchange and varies most
south of the interchange due to stream valleys
of Ivy Creek and its tributaries.
Existing Uses:
Five dwellings are located in the immediate
vicinity of the interchange
The southeast corner has the entrance to the
Rocks subdivision; the southwest corner has a
43 acre farm.
The northwest corner has a 22 acre parcel with
a house, and the northeast corner has a
conservation easement.
Other Considerations:
The land east of Route 637 and north of
Interstate 64 is under conservation easement
Access to Utilities:
No public water or sewer service nearby
Transportation Issues, if any:
It appears that entrance meeting VDOT
requirements could be constructed on the 43
acre farm at the southwest corner which has the
largest buildable area of the properties at the
interchange.
19
I-64 E
I-64
WDICK WOODS RDLANGFORD DR
R
OC
K
S FA
R
M DR
BLUE SPRINGS LN
ROSEMONT FARM WAY
PETAL LN61
2624576
636
648
600660588
672
564684
696
708
720552
732540
744756528
768780792816804828840672
672
600
576
672
7805 8 8
696
612
552
720636
648 672588
612
5
8
8
624
5
6
4
66
0
684
564
600
684
6
0
0
68
4
624
564
624
696
5
5
2
624 600804792
5
5
2 588708756
588
600
636
732
636
612
768
540
6
3
6
54 0
612
612
636
612
648624
624
624
61
2
66058
8
55 2 576648
600
67
2
588
636636
672
6 48
600 684624
696
744
4' ContoursRoadsRailroadsDrivewaysBuildingsStreams
Water BodyParcelsCritical SlopesWater Protection Ordinance BuffersConservation EasementsRural Areas
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2012.
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 400 800200Feet
Ivy Interchange
20
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
CROZET INTERCHANGE – RURAL AREA
Area Name: Crozet Interchange
Magisterial District: White Hall
Physical Characteristics:
The terrain varies greatly across all of the land
surrounding the interchange.
Parcels in the northeast corner closest to Rt.
250 are fairly level with an elevation of about
700 ft.; however, parcels further from Rt. 250
fall off over 50 ft into stream valleys where the
elevation is about 640 ft.
The southern part of the interchange has
several streams in close proximity to the
interchange.
The intersection is heavily wooded; however
approximately 400 feet from the interchange
on the northeast side an active lumberyard
exists up to the Rt. 250 r.o.w.
Existing Uses:
The southeast corner contains a residence
and church a large farm, and a VDOT facility.
The southwest corner contains a small house
on approximately 7 acres
The northeast corner contains two parcels
with houses on approximately 11 acres as
well as a large undeveloped area which is
accessed from Yancey Mill Lane and is
approximately 55 acres in area
The 55 acre parcel is adjacent to two other
undeveloped parcels which contain critical
environmental resources. Also located in
this area is an existing sawmill and
lumberyard which has industrial zoning.
The northwest corner is the Yancey Mills
community with existing homes and
neighborhoods.
Other Considerations:
The southwest corner and northwest corner
are part of the Greenwood-Afton Historic
District
Properties are within the Rt. 250 Entrance
Corridor
Other Considerations, continued
Request for expansion of the Development
Areas to include undeveloped parcels
northeast of the interchange as well as the
lumberyard was made in 2008. The Board of
Supervisors declined to include this area in
the Development Areas but said
21
consideration for other uses might be
appropriate.
Access to Utilities:
Portions of the northeast corner are in the
jurisdictional area for water. The parcels have
access to the 6-inch diameter asbestos
cement water main that runs along Rt. 250.
Due to the size of this water main, the
installation of a new larger diameter water
main would likely be necessary to meet the
required fire flows. There is a 12-inch
diameter water main just east of the entrance
into Old Trail. The nearest public sanitary
sewer main to these properties is an existing
8-inch along Rt. 250 at Henley Middle School.
These sites would require a wastewater pump
station to get wastewater flows up to the
public sewer system. Depending on the
projected wastewater flows from this area,
upgrades to the ACSA 8-inch diameter sewer
main and the Crozet Interceptor may be
required.
Transportation Issues, if any:
Meeting VDOT access guidelines may be
difficult for some properties south of the
interchange
Other than the northwest corner, all other
three corners have good visibility.
22
I-64 E
I-64
WROCKFISH GAP TPKEHILLSBORO L
N
PATTERSON MILL LN
YANCEY MILL LN
T
WINKLING S
P
GS
T U C K ER W A Y HALF MI
LE BRANCH RD672660
708 696720648
61268462463
6732
600
5885 765
64
66
0
64872
0
672
720
708
6726966
1
2672
6126
4
8672672
6367
3
2
612
648696
684708
696
672684
696
672684
684636
672
6
2
4648720732
73
2
624684600
684 624636
708
684
708
636672708
636720696 672
660
66
0 684660
708648660684720720
62466 07
0
8
69
6720
648
648
684
708
708648696720
684
660684
636
4' ContoursRoadsRailroadsDrivewaysBuildingsStreams
Water BodyParcelsCritical SlopesWater Protection Ordinance BuffersConservation Easements
Rural AreasVillage ResidentialR1 ResidentialNeighborhood Model DistrictHighway CommercialHeavy IndustryNatural Resource Extraction Overlay
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2012.
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 400 800200Feet
Crozet Interchange
23
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Update
Meeting Schedule for Concurrent Planning Processes
(Subject to Change)
Last updated 1-23-12
Key:
City/Co PCs Livability Project Albemarle County
Sept. 13 6 pm Albemarle Co PC Review of Goals for Sept. 20 Mtg
Sept. 20 Joint PC Meeting – Environmental Goals & intro to Land Use questions
Sept. 29 4 – 7 pm Public Workshop – Environmental – City Space
Oct. 11 6 pm Albemarle Co PC – Res. Inventory and Expansion Areas
Oct. 27 4 – 7 pm Public Workshop – Land Use and Transportation
November 1 – Agricultural Uses Roundtable
November 28 – Industrial Roundtable
Nov. 29 6 pm Albemarle Co PC – Rural Land Use & Urban Agriculture
Dec. 1 4 – 7 pm Public Workshop – Housing – Ec. Dev. – Downtown Library
Completed
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2012
January 26 4 pm Public Workshop – Transportation – Water Street
Feb. 14 6 pm Albemarle Co PC – Housing and Population follow-up, Goals/Vision format
and Standard Land Use Designations
Feb. 23 4 – 7 pm Public Workshop -- Facilities/Services
March 13 6 pm Albemarle Co PC -- Non-residential Land Use and Ec. Dev. Policy
March 22 4 – 7 pm Public Workshop -- Historic Pres./Natural Heritage/Historic Res./E.C.s
April 6 pm Albemarle Co PC- N 4 – 7 Land Use/Master Plan format - impt. elements
April 2012 Joint PC Work session on Joint Goals
May 6 pm Community Facilities/Service Standards
Entrance Corridors and Design Guidelines
Spring 2012 Focused Citizen Input Meetings
July 2012 Albemarle Co PC -- Review of Draft Comp. Plan
Early Summer 2012 Joint PC Worksession on Chapter Updates
Fall 2012 Albemarle Co PC – Public Hearings and Recommendation to BOS
Fall 2012 Citizen Check-ins on Recommendations
Winter 2012 Recommendations to PACC-Tech
Early 2013 BOS Adoption of Alb. Co. Comp. Plan
ATTACHMENT C-5
24
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP2011-072 Moore’s Creek-
Verizon Wireless- Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin- Senior
Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 24, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
N/A
Owners: Canody, John C. or Anita L. Applicant: Verizon Wireless-
Stephen Waller
Acreage: 6.364 Acres
(Lease Area: 1200 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not
applicable
TMP: Tax Map 89, Parcel 4
Location: U.S. Route 29, approximately 3 ¼ miles
south of the I-64 Interchange on the east side of the
road across from the Eltzroth Thompson Nursery
By-right use: RA-Rural Area, EC-
Entrance Corridor
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lot: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for an extension of an existing
steel monopole in order to support the attachment of
a new set of antennas mounted on a second array.
The new proposed height of the monopole will be
approximately 96 feet, a 7 foot extension from the
top of the existing antennas which will slightly clear
the surrounding tree tops.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural
Area in Rural Area 4
Character of Property: The existing facility is
located in a wooded area surrounded by several
trees screening the ground based equipment and
taller trees located to the north and west.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Single-family Residential, Vacant
Residential and Commercial
Factors Favorable: Proposal meets the
requirements of Section 5.1.40
Factors Unfavorable: none
identified
Recommendation:
Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Staff recommends approval of 7 foot extension of the
existing monopole to support the attachment of a new set of antennas, which will bring the height
to approximately 96 feet, slightly clearing the surrounding tree tops.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 24, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2011-072 Moore’s Creek- Verizon Wireless- Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Canody, John C. or Anita L.
APPLICANT: Stephen Waller, Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of a 7 foot extension of an existing of a steel monopole for the attachment
of a new set of antennas mounted on a second array. The existing tower is approximately 89 feet
and contains an existing antenna array located below the top of the monopole at a centerline
located approximately 85.42 feet above ground level (AGL). The 7 foot extension will utilize a
pipe mount extension that will bring the top of the new antennas to approximately 96 feet AGL,
slightly clearing the surrounding treetops [Attachment].
The BOS approved Special Permit SP2003-66 on 12/10/03 authorizing the construction of this
facility. The current regulations for Wireless Facilities were adopted on 10/13/04. Because this
facility was approved prior to the current regulations it is still subject to the conditions of SP
2003-66 and is not considered a Tiered Facility because the concept of Tiered approvals did not
exist. Any change to the site must be consistent with the conditions of the Special Permit or the
conditions must be modified by using the Special Permit process or the site must be approved as
a Tier II. The site meets all the requirements of a Tier II facility and will be considered a Tier II
facility for the purposes of administering the ordinance and subsequent changes to the site may
be made provided that it meets the requirements of the Ordinance regulating Wireless Facilities.
The existing site and current application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of
the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas.
The property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 4, containing 6.364 acres is located in the Samuel
Miller District, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property and existing facility is a wooded site on a hill above the northbound lane of I-64.
The leased area is surrounded by several trees that screen the existing ground equipment and
taller trees located to the north and west of the monopole. The adjacent properties are zoned
Rural Areas, and contain single family residential, vacant residential and commercial.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier III personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a
Tier I nor a Tier II facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or board
of supervisors as a Tier II facility.
3
Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feel taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way.
Section 5.1.40(d), “Tier II facilities” states:
“Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying
the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and
operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act
on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission
shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these
requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each
requirement.”
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a). No balloon test was deemed necessary since it is an existing structure. Staff is
comfortable with the limited increase in height which does not substantially alter the structure.
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed facility’s location complies with all of the exemptions of
Section 5.1.40(b). It should be noted that this tower exceeds the required setbacks due to the
height of the tower. No easement is necessary since the adjacent parcel is a public road right-of-
way (Route 29). The proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size criteria
set forth in Section 5.1.40(c) (2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c) provides requirements
that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
4
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, the facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The lease site is located upon a hill in a wooded area, and will not require removal of any trees.
Staff has found that the existing trees, along with the vegetative screening and existing fence
adequately screen the both the existing and proposed extension of the monopole and equipment
shelter.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
and Critical Resources Plan. Staff believes there will be no significant loss of resources related to
the installation of the towers.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or
approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
Aside from the existing facility under review, no additional personal wireless service facilities
are located within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius
of two hundred (200) feet.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches
and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches.
The existing facility will not require any increase in either the base diameter or the top of the
existing monopole.
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 proposed height increase to the existing monopole will be 96 feet tall and 759 feet above
mean sea level (AMSL). The extension will place the antennas approximately 1 foot above the
top elevation of the reference tree, which is identified as a 101 foot tall (AGL), 18 inch diameter
tree located 5 feet away from the monopole.
5
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 extension of the monopole and all antennas as well as proposed equipment will be painted
Sherwin Williams Java Brown #6090, which is consistent with previous approved PWSF.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and
similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on
the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar
attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure.
The existing monopole was constructed with cables and wiring contained within the monopole.
The Application states that an attempt will be made to locate any new required coaxial cables
and service lines inside the monopole. However, if the new cables do not fit, they will be located
vertically on the back side of the pole from the ground equipment to the antennas facing the
interior of the property.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following
language, “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions’ regulations concerning such emissions.” In order to operate the proposed
facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions.
These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
It is staff’s opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless communication services.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon findings represented in the Application and presented in
the staff report, approval of this 7 foot extension to the personal wireless service facility is
recommended by Staff.
6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulation
Appeal letter
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SDP2011-72 Moore's Creek
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources January 9, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
263 ft
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP2011-074 Turner Mountain-
Verizon Wireless- Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin- Senior
Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 24, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
N/A
Owners: Michie P. Bright, Trust Applicant: Verizon Wireless-
Stephen Waller
Acreage: 5.144 Acres
(Lease Area: 400 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not
applicable
TMP: Tax Map 58, Parcel 61A
Location: Tilman Rd. (Rt. 676), approximately 1/3
of a mile north of the intersection with Ivy Rd. (Rt.
250)
By-right use: RA-Rural Area
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lot: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for an extension of an existing
steel monopole in order to support the attachment of
a new set of antennas mounted on a second array.
The new proposed height of the monopole will be
approximately 108 feet, an 8.5 foot extension from
the top of the existing antennas which will be
approximately 2.9 feet above the reference tree.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural
Area in Rural Area 3
Character of Property: The property and existing
facility is a wooded site on a hill that is surrounded
by trees that screen the existing ground equipment
and monopole.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Rural Area, Single-family Residential
Factors Favorable: Proposal meets the
requirements of Section 5.1.40
Factors Unfavorable: none
identified
Recommendation:
Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Staff recommends approval of 8.5 foot extension of
the existing monopole to support the attachment of a new set of antennas, which will bring the
height to approximately 108 feet, 2.9 feet above the reference tree.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 24, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2011-074 Turner Mountain- Verizon Wireless- Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Michie P. Bright, Trust
APPLICANT: Stephen Waller, Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of an 8.5 foot extension of an existing steel monopole for the attachment of
a new set of antennas mounted on a second array. The existing tower is approximately 100 feet
and contains an existing antenna array located below the top of the monopole at a centerline
located approximately 98 feet above ground level (AGL). The 8.5 foot extension will utilize a
cluster mount extension that will bring the top of the new antennas to approximately 108 feet
AGL, which is approximately 2.9 feet above the reference tree [Attachment A].
The BOS approved Special Permit SP2004-20 on 10/13/04 authorizing the construction of this
facility. The current regulations for Wireless Facilities were also adopted on 10/13/04. Because
this facility was approved prior to the current regulations it is still subject to the conditions of SP
2004-20 and is not considered a Tiered Facility because the concept of Tiered approvals did not
exist. Any change to the site must be consistent with the conditions of the Special Permit or the
conditions must be modified by using the Special Permit process or the site must be approved as
a Tier II. The site meets all the requirements of a Tier II facility and will be considered a Tier II
facility for the purposes of administering the ordinance and subsequent changes to the site may
be made provided that it meets the requirements of the Ordinance regulating Wireless Facilities.
The existing site and current application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of
the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas.
The property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 61A, containing 5.144 acres is located in the
Samuel Miller District, and is zoned Rural Areas (“RA”).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property and existing facility is a wooded site on a hill that is surrounded by trees that screen
the existing ground equipment and monopole. The adjacent properties contain Rural Areas and
single family residential.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier III personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a
Tier I nor a Tier II facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or board
of supervisors as a Tier II facility.
Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
3
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feel taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way.
Section 5.1.40(d), “Tier II facilities” states: “Each Tier II facility may be established upon
commission approval of an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and
demonstrating that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable
provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8) below, and satisfying all conditions of the
architectural review board. The commission shall act on each application within the time
periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission shall approve each application, without
conditions, once it determines that all of these requirements have been satisfied. If the
commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and
inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement.”
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a). No balloon test was deemed necessary since it is an existing structure. Staff is
comfortable with the limited increase in height which does not substantially alter the structure.
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c) (2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed facility’s location complies with all of the exemptions of
Section 5.1.40(b), except for 5.1.40(b)(2). The existing 100.3 foot tall monopole was previously
subject to a “fall-zone” easement that overlaps onto Tax Map 58 Parcel 61 (DB2944 P32), which
is in the process of being revised to accommodate the additional height to the proposed
monopole. The proposed extension meets all relevant design, mounting and size criteria set forth
in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c) provides requirements that are
subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
4
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, the facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The lease site is located upon a hill in a wooded area, and will not require removal of any trees.
Staff has found that the existing trees, along with the natural vegetative screening adequately
screen both the existing and proposed extension of the monopole and equipment shelter.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
and Critical Resources Plan. Staff believes there will be no significant loss of resources related
to the installation of the towers.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or
approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
One additional PWSF is located approximately 26 feet south of the area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet. This facility is now
owned by Verizon as part of its merger with Alltel.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches
and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches.
The existing facility will not require any increase in either the base diameter or the top of the
existing monopole.
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 proposed height increase to the existing monopole will be approximately 922.90 feet AMSL.
5
The extension will place the antennas approximately 2.9 feet above the top elevation of the
reference tree, which is identified as a 920 foot tall AMSL, 20 inch diameter tree with a drip line
that grows into the monopole.
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 extension of the monopole, all antennas and proposed equipment will be painted Sherwin
Williams Java Brown #6090, which is consistent with previous approved PWSF.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and
similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on
the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar
attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure.
The existing monopole was constructed with cables and wiring contained within the monopole.
The Application states that an attempt will be made to locate any new required coaxial cables
and service lines inside the monopole. However, if the new cables do not fit, they will be located
vertically on the back side of the pole from the ground equipment to the antennas facing the
interior of the property.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following
language, “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions’ regulations concerning such emissions.” In order to operate the proposed
facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions.
These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
It is staff’s opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless communication services.
6
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon findings represented in the Application and presented in
the staff report, approval of this 8.5 foot extension to the personal wireless service facility is
recommended by Staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulation
Appeal letter
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SDP2011-74-Turner Mountain
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources January 9, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
372 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP-2011-0011, Blue Ridge Swim Club-Site Plan
Waiver
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for approval to waive the requirement to
submit a site development plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
David Benish, Megan Yaniglos
AGENDA DATE:
February 8, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: NO
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved a Special Use Permit (SP-2009-35) for a swim club and day camp. The property is
located at 1275 Owensville Road (Rt. 678), north of Holkham Drive (TMP 58-75A).
This site plan would have previously been approved administratively; however, due to a recent State Supreme
decision, the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION:
SDP-2011-0011, Blue Ridge Swim Club-Site Plan Waiver; the applicant is requesting a Site Plan Waiver per Section
32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The review and approval of this request is based on the determination that the details of
the site plan being waived meet the requirements listed in Section 32.2 (c) (i) and (ii).
c. Waiver of certain details of site plan by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of
this chapter, the agent may waive certain details of a site plan otherwise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 if:
(i) the site review committee finds that all of the details required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 are not necessary
for its review of the proposed development; and (ii) the zoning administrator, in consultation with the county
engineer and the manager of zoning enforcement, finds that the details waived are not necessary to determine
that the site is developed in compliance with this chapter and all other applicable regulations. The waiver shall
identify the details otherwise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 that are waived.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of the waiver request. This recommendation is based on staff’s determination that the
details of the site plan being waived meet the requirements listed in Section 32.2 (c) (i) and (ii).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to waive the requirement to submit a site plan as per Section
32.2.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP2011-081 Shifflett/ Verizon
Wireless- Tier II PWSF
Staff: Brent Nelson, Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 7, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
N/A
Owners: Vernon L. or C. Jackie Shifflett Applicant: Stephen Waller- GDN
Sites; Verizon Wireless C/O Lori
Schweller- LeClair Ryan
Acreage: 1.71 Acres
(Lease Area: 400 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not
applicable
TMP: Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A
Location: 3456 Monocan Trail Road
By-right use: VR, Village Residential
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: To extend an existing wooden monopole
to allow for the attachment of a second vertical array
with three new flush-mount antennas above the
existing antennas. Proposed height of the
monopole, with the 8.5 foot extension, will be 94.2
feet, approximately 8.2 feet above the top of the
reference tree.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural
Area in Rural Area 3
Character of Property: Both open and wooded
areas with an existing monopole and associated
ground equipment at the edge of the wooded area,
in an unfenced lease area. Another PWSF is
located in close proximity to the northeast.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Single-family Residential
Factors Favorable: The proposed extension is on
an existing facility and will not have any negative
visual impact to adjacent properties and roadways.
Factors Unfavorable: none
identified
Recommendation:
Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier II. Staff recommends approval at the height 8.2
feet above the reference tree.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Brent Nelson, Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 7, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2011-081: Shifflett Property - Verizon Wireless Tier II
Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPERTY OWNER: Vernon L. or C. Jackie Shifflett
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of an extension of the existing wood monopole to support the attachment of
a second vertical array with three flush-mount antennas above the existing antennas [Attachment
A]. The existing monopole, approved under SDP 2005-9, is 83.75 feet tall, 2.25 feet below the
top of the reference tree. The total height of the monopole, including the extension, will be 94.2
feet, approximately 8.2 feet above the top of the reference tree. This application is being made in
accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for Tier II wireless
facilities by-right in the Rural Areas. The facility is located on a 1.71 acre parcel, described as
Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A, zoned VR and located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District
[Attachment B].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The lease area, with the existing monopole and associated ground equipment, is located on the
edge of a heavily wooded area in a rural setting of large lot, single family dwellings and farms.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
3
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way.
Section 5.1.40(d), “Tier II facilities” states:
“Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying
the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and
operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act
on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission
shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these
requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each
requirement.”
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a) and has performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility [Attachment
D].
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed extension of the existing wood monopole supporting a
second vertical array with three flush-mount antennas complies with all of the exemptions of
Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size
criteria set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c) provides
requirements that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, the facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The proposed extension will increase the total height of the structure from 85.75 feet to 94.2 feet,
approximately 8.2 feet above the top of the reference tree.
A balloon test was conducted on December 22, 2011. Staff observed a test balloon that was
floated at the approximate height of the modified facility. Staff traveled nearby roads to
determine the visual impact on other properties in the area. Staff noted that the existing ground
equipment was not visible from any of the locations traveled. The balloon was only visible along
portions of Route 29. Traveling southbound on Route 29, the balloon was not visible north of the
site due to the topography and existing trees. It was only visible when staff was directly opposite
the site. Traveling northbound, the balloon was visible, at intermittent intervals, starting at a
distance approximately 1000’ south of the intersection with Plank Road, (St. Rte 692) until a
point directly opposite the site. When visible, the trees around the balloon provided a backdrop
4
with the visual impact sufficiently mitigated. The additional pole height and antennas are not
expected to have a negative impact on adjacent properties and the ground equipment is not
expected to be visible.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
and Critical Resources Plan [Attachment E]. Staff believes there is no significant loss of
resources related to the proposed modifications to the existing facility.
The proposed monopole extension and supporting ground equipment will be within the existing
facility compound. No trees will need to be removed in order to install the new antennas and
ground equipment.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or
approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
There is only one other personal wireless service facility located within an area comprised of a
circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet. That facility
is located approximately 23 feet northeast of the facility under consideration.
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 t han
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 height of the monopole extension with antennas will be 907.2 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). The existing monopole has a height of 898.75 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The
height of the reference tree is 899 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The monopole extension
with antennas will be 8.2 feet above 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
5
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 antennas, all associated cables, and ground equipment shall be painted Sherwin
Williams (6090) Java Brown to match the existing facility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and
similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on
the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar
attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure.
A note on the site plan indicates that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments on the
outside of the pole shall be placed to face the interior of the property, away from public view.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
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 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 extension of the existing
monopole with antennas, and associated ground equipment, based upon the findings in the staff
report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Application Justification Letter
D. Balloon test photos
E. Open Space and Critical Resources Map
Return to agenda
CROSSROADS
SITE
LTE (4G)
UPGRADEREV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
APPROVAL
CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY
5
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
G-1
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
EXISTING TIER II INSTALLATION
LTE (4G) UPGRADE
SHIFFLETT PROPERTY
U.S. ROUTE 29
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
CROSSROADS
SITE
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-1
LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS
LEASE NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CROSSROADS
SITE
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-2
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
LEASE NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
CROSSROADS
SITE
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-3
ANTENNA NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
ENLARGED VIEW CLUSTER MOUNT
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CROSSROADS
SITE
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-4
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEASE NOTES
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Utilities
Towers
Parcel Info
Parcels
SDP 2011-81, Verizon - Shifflett
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources January 31, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
294 ft
Verizon Wireless Page 1 Crossroads (Tier II Extension)
VERIZON WIRELESS: CROSSROADS (SHIFFLETT PROPERTY)
EXTENSION OF FORMER ALLTEL MONOPOLE
TIER II PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
Project Description:
Alltel Communications LLC, trading as Verizon Wireless, respectfully requests approval
to allow the extension of an existing wood monopole tower for the attachment of a new
set of antennas mounted in a second array. The proposed monopole extension and
facility upgrades are 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 were once operated by Alltel, as well the Personal Communications Services
(“PCS”) that are already available to residents in most parts of Albemarle County.
Verizon Wireless currently owns and operates one of two existing Personal Wireless
Service Facilities (“PWSF” or “Facility”) on property identified in Albemarle County
records as Tax Map 87 / Parcel 7A (the “Property”). The site is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District of Albemarle County, off of Monacan Trail Road (US Route
29) approximately 1/3- mile north of the intersection with Plank Road (State Route 692)
and it is addressed as 3456 Monacan Trail Road.
Verizon Wireless’ mounting structure, which was originally owned by Alltel, consists of
an approximately 85.75-foot tall (top of antennas) wooden monopole tower, fitted with
existing antennas that do not fully clear the surrounding tree canopy. The existing
antenna array is located just below the top of the monopole at a centerline mounting
height of approximately 83.75 feet above ground level (AGL), which matches the top of
the wood pole and uses three flush-mount brackets and pipes. The proposed 8.5-foot
extension that is proposed will use a “cluster-mount” extension to bring the top of the
new antennas to an approximate top height of 94.2 feet AGL, so the new antennas will
clear the treetops on the south side of the of the pole, while continuing to have an
extensive amount of backdrop on the backside to the west. Both the existing and
proposed arrays are necessary for Verizon Wireless to deploy the three different
technologies that the company is licensed for in Albemarle County.
All proposed antennas and the cluster-mount fixture will be painted Sherwin Williams
(#6090) Java Brown to match the dark-brown color and finish of the monopole. Verizon
Wireless’ proposed new ground equipment, consisting of a LTE transmitting equipment
rack and back-up battery cabinet will be painted the same color in order to blend well
with the vegetation providing screening from the adjacent home. Combined, these
upgrades will provide expanded wireless services to nearby residences in the Crossroads,
as well those travelling along Route 29 area of North Garden, south of Red Hill, and
other nearby state and local roads in this area.
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 that will be delivered through Long Term Evolution (LTE)
wireless technology (which utilizes the 700 MHz frequency band). Verizon Wireless
Verizon Wireless Page 2 Crossroads (Tier II Extension)
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 services and technologies for PCS (which utilizes
the 1900 MHz frequency band) and Cellular (utilizing the 850 MHz frequency band) can
be combined within 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 adequate 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 vertically spaced arrays in
order to meet the County’s preference for flush-mounting.
In order to fully integrate all three of these technologies into the network’s existing
PWSFs, all of Verizon Wireless’ existing sites, consisting of 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 2009, the
company first evaluated the former Alltel 850 MHz Cellular Service resources and
facilities in this market. For this particular Facility, the proposed tower extension and
new antennas will provide for the expanded services that include all three of the
combined technologies (Cellular combined with PCS and LTE).
It is also 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. In
doing so, Verizon Wireless has identified this particular area as one that already has some
coverage issues, due to the fact that several trees near the site are as tall, and in some
cases even taller, than the monopole at its existing height. Therefore, instead of being
able mount below the existing antennas, an extension of this monopole will be necessary
so the new antennas can provide the best coverage possible tot the residents of this area.
Without the additional height, the new antennas and service they provide will have less of
an opportunity to connect with any existing sites and possible future sites in planned for
the area. Even with the additional height proposed in this particular application, coverage
from this Facility may not be optimal compared with coverage that could be obtained by
adding even more height to this monopole to allow the existing antennas to clear the
surrounding trees. However, at this time, Verizon Wireless has chosen only to propose
an extension in height that is needed to mount the new antennas with the minimum
vertical space between antennas.
Character of the Area:
The Property is zoned Village Residential (VR) and all of the surrounding properties are
zoned Village Residential and Rural Areas. The proposed modifications to this PWSF
will not substantially impact the rural character of the surrounding area because: (1) the
proposed new set of antennas will not extend 10 feet above the reference tree, (2) no trees
will need to be removed and (3) there will not be any disturbance beyond the bounds of
the area currently leased for this Facility.
Verizon Wireless Page 3 Crossroads (Tier II Extension)
The PWSF is located in a wooded area approximately 480 feet east of the right-of-way
for Monacan Trail Road, at the foot of a mountain. Access is provided from an existing
driveway that serves provides access to this Verizon Wireless / Alltel site and another
facility owned by nTelos. Verizon Wireless’ existing monopole is located approximately
86 feet from the western property line. The area surrounding the existing PWSF is
surrounded by several trees that screen the existing monopole from views off of the
property when viewed from the north, east and west. Trees that are situated upslope from
the site also provide an extensive amount of backdrop to help assist in camouflaging the
monopole when viewed from south.
Compliance with Tier II Criteria (Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance):
This facility was originally approved for Alltel with a special use permit prior to the
adoption of Section 5.1.40. However, under these current regulations, both the existing
PWSF and the extension proposed qualify for approval as a Tier II by-right facility.
The County’s specific design criteria for Tier II Facilities, as 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): At 86 feet from the southern property line, the existing
85.75-foot tall monopole is located just within the required 100% setbacks for a
PWSF mounting structure. Therefore, Verizon Wireless has negotiated with the
owners of that neighboring property to obtain a “fall-zone” easement that overlaps
onto Tax Map 87 / Parcel 6. Once it has been fully executed by both Verizon and
the adjacent property owners, this easement, will be recorded in the Albemarle
County Circuit Court Clerk’s office. There are no other property lines or public
road rights-of-way located within the monopole’s revised fall-zone that will result
from this extension. 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 extension of this monopole will not require the
installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with any whip antennas without any
further County approvals. In order to effectively extend above and protect the
new antennas, Verizon Wireless must replace the existing grounding system with
a new rod that will extend above the newly proposed height, while also complying
with the County’s size requirements.
The facility will only have one low-powered outdoor lighting fixture attached to a
short pole and it will only be turned on when service is being performed at the site
at night. The light will be adjustable, as required by Verizon Wireless’ safety
standards, and will satisfy Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulations requiring that “each work area and walkway is adequately
lighted whenever an employee is present”. Maintenance and repairs are most
often during events such as extremely bad weather or after tree limbs, ice or other
materials have fallen onto equipment. This will help to ensure that technical
Verizon Wireless Page 4 Crossroads (Tier II Extension)
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 vertically
spaced in two separate arrays one above the other. The proposed extension will
hold the second array of 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 be mounted above the existing antennas. These antennas
will be installed using a cluster-mount extension that will allow a certain 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 and the cluster-mount will be painted Sherwin William
Java Brown 6090, a flat paint that will allow the extension to closely match the
dark brown color of the monopole and the backdrop trees.
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 facility be discontinued at 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): Owing to the limited heights allowed for monopoles
serving Tier II “Treetop” PWSFs, it is unlikely that any additional carriers could
be added to this specific facility. However, if deemed necessary, then 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): All work will take place on the existing wooden tower
and in an area that is already cleared with enough level area that provides
adequate space for the proposed ground equipment. Therefore, no new slopes
greater than 2:1 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 in compliance with this section
of the ordinance subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator or any other
authorized County staff person.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(2) - Extending the existing monopole and installing Verizon
Wireless’ supporting equipment at this site will not require the removal of any trees.
Therefore, the existing wooded area around the site will continue to screen Verizon
Wireless’ ground equipment and the lower portions of the monopole from adjacent
parcels. Additionally, this site will continue to be provided with a substantial amount
of backdrop when viewed from points that are farther away from the property.
Verizon Wireless Page 5 Crossroads (Tier II Extension)
• Section 5.1.40(d)(3) - Verizon Wireless is currently proposing the modification of
this existing facility rather than proposing a second monopole which would require
the removal of several trees and additional crowding of the land just to accommodate
new LTE antennas. Therefore, the proposed 8.5-foot extension will not impose any
additional or significant impacts upon the resources identified in the County’s open
space plan.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(4) - There is only one other PWSF located on the property and it
has a monopole that is located approximately 23 feet northeast of Verizon Wireless’
monopole. In 2007, prior to the merger with Alltel, Verizon Wireless considered
building a new PWSF with a steel monopole and prefabricated shelter on the adjacent
parcel to the north and more than 200 feet away. However, because this existing site
was acquired in that merger, that proposed new facility is no longer necessary..
• Section 5.1.40(d)(5) - Neither the base diameter or the top of the existing monopole
will be increased in any way, so this section is not applicable to this request.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(6) - At 94.2 feet tall (and 907.2 feet Above Mean Sea Level -
AMSL), the proposed 8.5-foot cluster-mount extension will place the antennas
approximately 8.2 feet above the top elevation of the reference tree. This is identified
as an 86-foot tall (AGL), 15” diameter Poplar tree that has a drip line that is within 3-
1/2 feet of the monopole.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(7) - The monopole’s cluster-mount extension and all antennas will
be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown #6090. This is a color that has been applied
to previously approved PWSF monopoles. The proposed equipment that will be
installed to support the new LTE antennas will also be painted this same color.
• Section 5.1.40(d)(8) - The existing wooden monopole, which predates the adoption
of the current PWSF requirements, currently has cables that run vertically on the
outside of the pole and are painted brown. All of the new will be run vertically on
the back side of the pole from the ground equipment to the antennas, facing the
interior of the property and the backdrop trees as is required 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 with this request.
Conclusion:
Verizon Wireless is confident that the modification of this existing wireless
communications facility as proposed complies with the criteria for approval of a Tier II
PWSF, which are geared toward mitigating visual impacts. Approval of this application
will allow the extension of a wooden monopole that is slightly shorter than the tops of
some trees surrounding the site. Furthermore, the proposed tower will continue to meet
the County’s design preference for flush-mounted antennas on a natural dark brown
tower, while allowing the new antennas to have the enough height necessary for Verizon
Wireless’ new LTE 4G service to extend slightly above the treetops.
Verizon Wireless Page 6 Crossroads (Tier II Extension)
Approval of this request will enable Verizon Wireless to provide County residents in the
Crossroads area, just south of Red Hill, as well as those traveling on U.S. Route 29 and
other nearby roads access to high quality, high speed 4G services that 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201100006 and SP201100014 Albemarle Health and
Rehabilitation Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district to PD-MC
Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district.
This proposal also includes one concurrent special use
permit, SP201100014 to allow hospitals, nursing homes,
convalescent homes uses (Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning
ordinance). Waivers associated with the development
are also included. No dwellings are proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 8, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 14, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for the Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
rezoning and special use permit requests. The Board deferred ZMA-2011-00006, SP-2011-00014 and associated waivers
pursuant to the applicant’s request. In acknowledging that the proposal was a good use, the Board’s deferral was based on
the expectation that the applicant would work with staff and proffer to build a public street on County property from Mill
Creek Drive to the road serving the development that would meet County needs and design expectations.
DISCUSSION:
Since the December public hearing, the applicant and staff have interacted regarding the necessary design for the
proposed public street. As a result, the applicant has offered Proffer 2, which provides for a public street designed and
constructed to County and VDOT standards. The applicant proffers to build a full urban cross-section street to the
property line south of the Monticello fire station consistent with the previously approved Monticello Fire Station site
plan. (See Attachments I and II) The applicant further proffers to continue the street from that point with a half cross-
section street built to just beyond the intersection with the road that will serve the applicant’s development. The half
cross-section street is intended to provide flexibility for future road design and completion when the County parcels are
developed. A six (6) foot planting strip and five (5) foot sidewalk also will be provided on the west side of the entire
length of the street from Mill Creek Drive to the intersection with the road that will serve the development. A sidewalk
along the south side of the road serving the development from the public street to the development will also be
provided. A subdivision plat will be prepared at the applicant’s expense to create a special lot composed of the right-
of-way for the public street.
The proffers and the application plan as offered meet County needs and design expectations for the proposed public
street. The proffers are legally acceptable. As previously noted by staff during the review of this project, matters still
remain that will need to be addressed during the subsequent development process:
• Development as shown on the application plan may necessitate off-site grading in some perimeter locations for
which off-site grading easements have not been obtained. Without such easements in those locations, grading would
need to be kept at least 5 feet off of the property line. This may reduce the area within which the development can
take place which would result in less developable area than shown on the application plan.
• The private road from the public street to the development crosses a small portion of County property. The applicant
will need to either obtain an easement or acquire the land (accompanied by a boundary line adjustment). Acquiring an
easement or a fee simple interest in the County property will require a public hearing. If the applicant needs any other
private easements or acquisitions of County property that are associated with establishing the street, it will need to go
through a separate process with the County that may entail a public hearing.
• While shown on the application plan, the ultimate location of water and sewer lines will need to be specified in an
agreement approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority such that they may serve future County development on
County parcels.
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA201100006 and SP201100014 Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center
February 8, 2012
Page 2
It should also be noted that the construction of the proffered street will “fix” its location such that future plans for access on
and development of the County’s property will have to be oriented to the street’s location or, if not, a more complicated
process of demolishing part of an established public street to accommodate the development will have to take place.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff finds that the proffers are legally acceptable and, along with the application plan, address the Board’s desire that
commitment be made to build a public street on County property from Mill Creek Drive to the road serving the proposed
development that meets County needs and design expectations.
Thus, staff recommends at the conclusion of the public hearing that the Board approve:
1) ZMA201100006, including the proffers;
2) SP201100014 - Nursing Home, with no conditions; and
3) waivers of:
- Section 21.7 (b), Minimum Yard Requirement;
- Section 21.7 (c), Required Buffers;
- Section 32.7.9.8(c), Required Screening; and
- Section 4.12.4(a), Exceeding the maximum parking by more than 20%.
Other matters related to the development of the property as noted in this Executive Summary remain to be addressed
during the development process.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Revised proffers
Attachment II: Revised Application Plan, last revised January 19, 2012
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
APPLICATION PLAN FORALBEMARLE HEALTH &REHABILITATION CENTERTAX MAP 91, PARCEL 12SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIASHEET INDEXC1 - COVER SHEETC2 - EXISTING CONDITIONSC3 - APPLICATION PLANVICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1,000'IMAGE PROVIDED BY GOOGLE MAPSSITECOVER SHEETPROPERTY INFORMATIONBASE INFORMATIONAPPLICATION PLAN NOTES:ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B