HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-3-14Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MARCH 14, 2012
6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing the 18th Virginia Festival of the Book.
b. Kathryn Presson as Most Outstanding Fire Corps Volunteer.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. To solicit public input on the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for the proposed
Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation Project and the Scattered Site Rehabilitation Project. Residents of the project area
are encouraged to attend. The proposal will include rehabilitation of up to 40 houses in Orchard Acres and the
reconstruction of two units (one in Scottsville and one in Heards).
10. ASCA 2012-01. Charlottesville Volvo. Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B2. Property located on Ivy Road (US 250
West), approximately .2 mile east of the intersection of Broomley Road and Route 250. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
11. PROJECT: SP-2011-00022. Verizon Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Sign #48). PROPOSAL: Request for installation of a second
flush-mounted antenna array replacing recently removed whip antennas in order to support the attachment of a new
antenna array in a second vertical array below the company’s existing antennas. This is an amendment of SP 2003-45
#2C to allow more than 5 antenna arrays. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for
Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas
in Rural Area 2 -preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
(0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO LOCATION: 119 Lego DriveTAX MAP/PARCEL:
07800-00-00-051C0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
12. PROJECT: SP-2011-00026. New Cingular Wireless/AT&T-CV429-Tier III
(Signs #24&100). PROPOSAL: Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a
119-foot metal monopole with flush-mount antennae. Proposal includes requested waiver of section 5.1.40(d)(6) of the
Zoning Ordinance (to allow a pole height 30 feet above the reference tree, over the normal maximum of seven to ten feet).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0314/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 10:16:32 AM]
Tentative
CORRIDOR: YES LOCATION: At the northwest side of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route 20), Esmont Road
(Route 715), and Coles Rolling Road (Route 712). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-030G0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville.
13. PROJECT: ZMA-2011-00007. Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer
Amendment. PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers on property zoned NMD which allows residential (3 – 34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No new dwellings or change in residential density
proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in
Destination Center) – retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Mixed Use
(in areas around Centers) – commercial and retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers; and Commercial Mixed
Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses. LOCATION: Northwest
corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-
019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500 (as of 02/22/12).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
14. ZTA-2010-00005. Signs. Amend Secs. 4.15.1, Purpose and intent, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.4, Signs
authorized by sign permit, 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement, 4.15.7, Prohibited signs and sign
characteristics, 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, 4.15.9, Regulations
applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts, 4.15.11, Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts,
4.15.12, Regulations applicable in the C-1 and CO zoning districts, 4.15.13, Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and
PD-MC zoning districts, 4.15.14, Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts, 4.15.15, Regulations
applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district, 30.6.4, Certificates of appropriateness, and 30.6.5, Development
exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness, and add Sec. 4.15.4A, Signs authorized by temporary
sign permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
16. Adjourn to March 28, 2012.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approve Plan and Certifications of Compliance required to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funds.
8.2 Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Enhancement Grant Reimbursements.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0314/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 10:16:32 AM]
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted
over 1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF
THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world,
have made the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book
festival in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday,
March 21, 2012 through Sunday, March 25, 2012 as the
Eighteenth Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully
in the wide range of available events and activities.
Signed and sealed this 14th day of March, 2012.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Plan and Certifications of Compliance required to
receive CDBG Funds
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 14, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County has submitted an application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
(VDHCD) under its Scattered Site CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program and is also proposing to submit an application
in March 2012 for a housing rehabilitation project in Orchard Acres subdivision in Crozet. The two projects are projected
to provide assistance to between 20 and 25 homeowners. The use of CDBG funds is considered a “federal action” which
requires that the local governing body receiving the funds comply with a number of regulations. Some of the
requirements are general and have already been implemented by the County in previous years; however, some, as
outlined below, are project-specific and require further action by the Board.
DISCUSSION:
The project-specific CDBG requirements for this grant include:
Local Business and Employment Plan – The County must approve a plan to designate the project area boundaries for
the purpose of utilizing, to the greatest extent possible, businesses and lower-income residents located in the project
area to carry out the CDBG-funded activities. The proposed Plan (Attachment A) designates the entire County as the
project area and requires that the public be notified of this through publication of an advertisement in a local widely-
circulated newspaper.
Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Certification – This certification (Attachment B) states
that the County will notify the public and advise the state in the event that a CDBG-funded activity will result in demolition
or conversion of residential units. Furthermore, should displacement occur, the County and/or the development owners
will provide relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970. The proposed Orchard Acres will not involve demolition or conversion of residential units which
result in displacement. The Scattered Site projects will involve the reconstruction of two houses which may result in
temporary relocation.
Fair Housing Certification – This certification (Attachment C) states that the County will take at least one action annually
to affirmatively further fair housing. The action must be from a list of VDHCD-approved actions or must otherwise be
approved by the VDHCD. In the past, the VDHCD has approved the County-sponsored Public Housing Alliance
community training and the County’s posting of a Board resolution as a display advertisement in The Daily Progress as
qualifying actions. This year, the County’s Chief of Housing will seek VDHCD approval of his and a staff member’s Fair
Housing certification as a qualifying action.
Previous qualifying actions implemented by the County also include the adoption of the following policies:
The Non-Discrimination Policy which was most recently amended by the Board on January 3, 2007. This policy,
known as the EEOC Policy Statement, is found in the County’s Personnel Policy (P-21); and
The Section 504 Grievance Procedure and designation of a Section 504 coordinator adopted on February 4, 2009.
Section 504 is a regulation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding non-discrimination on the basis of handicap.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no budget impacts associated with the approval of these items. The cost of the required Local Business and
Employment Plan advertisement is a CDBG grant-eligible expenditure, which is reimbursable upon the execution of the
CDBG contract.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
March 14, 2012
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board 1) approve the Local Business and Employment Plan; 2) authorize the County
Executive to execute the Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Certification; and 3) authorize
the County Executive to execute the Fair Housing Certification.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Local Business and Employment Plan
B – Residential Anti-Displacement Certification
C – Fair Housing Certification
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
1. The County of Albemarle designates as its Section 3 Business and Employment Project
Area the County of Albemarle.
2. The County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall in utilizing
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds utilize businesses and low-income
residents of the Section 3 County in carrying out all activities, to the greatest extent
feasible. The Grantee will request all contractors and subcontractors both construction and
non-construction to verify their eligibility as a Section 3 Business. The Grantee will
monitor for Section 3 compliance all contracts in excess of $100,000 relative to new hires
with a goal of 30% low income representation and subcontracting with a goal of 10% low
income representation.
3. In awarding contracts for construction and non-construction the County of Albemarle, its
contractors, and designated third parties shall take the following steps to utilize businesses
which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the Section 3
County:
(a) The County of Albemarle has identified the following contracts as
necessary to complete the CDBG activities.
Construction trades associated with the repair and reconstruction of single-family
residential property.
(b) The County of Albemarle shall identify through various and
appropriate sources including:
The Daily Progress
the Section 3 Business concerns within the Section 3 County which are likely to
provide construction contracts and non-construction contracts for services which will
be utilized in the activities funded through the CDBG.
(c) The identified Section 3 Business concerns shall be included on bid lists used to
obtain bids, quotes or proposals for work which will utilize CDBG funds.
(d) To the greatest extent feasible the identified Section 3 Business concerns and any
other project area business concerns shall be utilized in activities which are funded
with CDBG assistance.
LOCAL (SECTION 3) COUNTY BUSINESS
AND EMPLOYMENT PLAN
4. The County of Albemarle and its covered contractors (those awarded a contract for
$100,000 or more) shall take the following steps to encourage the hiring of low-income
persons residing in the Section 3 County:
(a) The County of Albemarle in consultation with its contractors (including design
professionals) shall ascertain the types and number of positions for both trainees and
employees which are likely to be used to conduct CDBG activities.
(b) The County of Albemarle shall advertise through the following sources:
Virginia Employment Commission
The Daily Progress
the availability of such positions with the information on how to apply.
(c) The County of Albemarle, its covered contractors, and subcontractors shall be
required to maintain a record of inquiries and applications by project area residents
who respond to advertisements, and shall maintain a record of the status of such
inquires and applications.
(d) To the greatest extent feasible, the County of Albemarle, its covered contractors, and
subcontractors shall hire low-income project area residents (Section 3 Residents) in
filling training and employment positions necessary for implementing activities
funded by CDBG activities.
5. In order to document compliance with the above affirmative actions and Section 3 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, the County of Albemarle
shall keep, and obtain from its covered contractors and subcontractors, Registers of
Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers and Registers of Assigned Employees for all
activities funded by the Block Grant. Such listings shall be completed and shall be verified
by site visits and employee interviews, crosschecking of payroll reports and invoices, and
through audits if necessary.
6. The County of Albemarle, its covered contractors, and subcontractors shall designate a
Section 3 Coordinator to ensure compliance with this regulation. The Section 3
Coordinator for the County of Albemarle shall be the Chief of Housing throughout the
course of this active CDBG agreement.
7. The County of Albemarle, its covered contractors, and subcontractors shall create and
maintain a Section 3 Directory of all Section 3 Business concerns within the geographic
area that perform the work needed to complete this community development agreement.
8. The County of Albemarle shall report annually to DHCD on the numerical goals and dollar
amounts awarded to Section 3 Residents and Section 3 Business concerns using HUD form
60002.
Return to exec summary
RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN
CERTIFICATION
ATTACHMENT B
The County of Albemarle will replace all occupied and vacant occupiable low/moderate-income
dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than as low/moderate income dwelling unit
as a direct result of activities assisted with funds provided under the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended. All replacement housing will be provided within three
(3) years of the commencement of the demolition or rehabilitation relating to conversion.
Before obligating or expending funds that will directly result in such demolition or conversion ,
the County of Albemarle will make public and advise the state that it is undertaking such an
activity and will submit to the state, in writing, information that identifies:
1. A description of the proposed assisted activity;
2. The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling units by size (number of
bedrooms) that will be demolished or converted to a use other than as low/moderate-income
dwelling units as a direct result of the assisted activity;
3. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or conversion;
4. The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling units by si ze (number of
bedrooms) that will be provided as replacement dwelling units;
5. The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of replacement dwelling units;
6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a
low/moderate-income dwelling unit for at least 10 years from the date of initial occupancy;
and
7. Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of dwelling units with smaller
dwelling units is consistent with the housing needs of low- and moderate- income households
in the jurisdiction.
The County of Albemarle will provide relocation assistance to each low/moderate – income
household displaced by the demolition of housing or by the direct result of assisted activities.
Such assistance shall be that provided under Section 104 (d) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.
The County of Albemarle FY12 projects include the following activities:
Rehabilitation of single-family houses in the Orchard Acres subdivision in Crozet. These
activities are not expected to cause displacement.
Reconstruction of two houses, one in Afton and one in Scottsville. One family will stay
with other family members during construction. The other family will be able to remain
in their current home while the new one is constructed.
The activities as planned will not cause any displacement from or conversion of occupiable
structures. As planned, the project calls for the use of existing right-of-way or easements to be
purchased or the acquisition of tracts of land that do not contain housing. The County of
Albemarle will work with the grant management staff, engineers, project area residents, and the
Department of Housing and Community Development to insure that any changes in project
activities do not cause any displacement from or conversion of occupiable structures.
In all cases, an occupiable structure will be defined as a dwelling that meets local building codes
or a dwelling that can be rehabilitated to meet code for $25,000 or less.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT C
Fair Housing Certification
Compliance with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
Whereas, the County of Albemarle has been offered and intends to accept federal funds
authorized under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and
Whereas, recipients of funding under the Act are required to take action to affirmatively
further fair housing;
Therefore, the County of Albemarle agrees to take at least one action to affirmatively further
fair housing each grant year, during the life of its project funded with Community Development
Block Grant funds. The action taken will be selected from a list provided by the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Enhancement Grant
Reimbursements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve appropriation of Enhancement Program Grant
funding to authorize pass-through payments to the Lewis
and Clark Exploratory Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 14, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center (“LCEC”), has been awarded grants totaling $800,000.00 from the
Transportation Enhancement Fund Program administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT
Enhancement Program”) to provide funding, combined with other funds raised by the LCEC, for the construction of an
educational building (including transportation exhibits and river history); an access road and parking area; and a
connecting trail network, all located at Darden Towe Park. The LCEC’s application for the VDOT Enhancement
Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the grant from VDOT. The Board has previously
approved the grant applications for $150,000 in 2007, $300,000 in 2008, $150,000 in 2009, and $200,000 in 2010, for
a total of $800,000. The County was required to enter into a Project Agreement between VDOT and the County to
assure VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility. The County had to assure VDOT that a 20 percent local match
would be paid, that the Project would meet all VDOT requirements, and that the County would reimburse VDOT for any
costs expended by VDOT if the Project was not completed. The County then entered into a Pass -Through Agreement
with LCEC that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s responsibilities under the VDOT Enhancement Program to the
LCEC. Among other things, the LCEC agreed to pay the 20 percent local match and to hold the County harmless from
any liabilities created by the County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program grants.
As provided in the Pass-Through Agreement, LCEC is responsible for managing the Project. The Project is now under
construction. LCEC is required to pay the Project invoices and then submit reimbursement requests, including all
necessary documentation, to the County’s Office of Facilities Development. The County is responsible for
coordinating the submittal of the reimbursement request documentation to VDOT and process payments from VDOT.
VDOT has advised that all reimbursements will be paid to the County for its pass-through to LCEC.
DISCUSSION:
As the VDOT Enhancement Program grant reimbursements are approved, they will be wire-transferred from VDOT to
the County and placed into an account set up for this Project. In order for the County to transfer the funds to LCEC to
reimburse it for qualifying Project costs, the Board must first appropriate the funds. As discussed above, the total
amount of grant funds to be passed through to the LCEC totals $800,000.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total budget of $800,000.00, if approved, is funded entirely by the VDOT Transportation Enhancement Grant
funds and requires no local funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the appropriation of $800,000.00 of funds to be received from the Virginia
Department of Transportation Enhancement Program for reimbursements to be paid to the Lewis and Clark
Exploratory Center for its Project costs by approving the attached budget amendment (Attachment A) in the amount of
$800,000.00 and approving Appropriation #2012060.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Description
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2012060 $800,000.00
Revenue: Federal $800,000.00
This appropriation provides $800,000.00 to be received from the Virginia Department of Transportation Enhancement
Program as a pass-through of VDOT Transportation Enhancement Grant funds in the FY 11/12 Adopted Budget to issue
reimbursements to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center for qualifying Project costs. The Project includes the
construction of an educational building (including transportation exhibits and river history), an access road and parking
area, and a connecting trail network, all located at Darden Towe Park.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing for Proposed Submission of Block Grant
Applications and Approval of the Orchard Acres Housing
Rehabilitation and the Scattered Site Housing
Rehabilitation Applications
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 14, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) is a federally-funded grant program administered by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided funding
to eligible units of local government (in non-entitlement communities only) for projects which address critical
community needs, including housing, infrastructure, and economic development. Albemarle County has received
numerous grants in previous years to support housing and community improvement initiatives.
The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted. The first public hearing was
held on January 4, 2012, at which time information was provided on eligible activities that may be funded by VCDBG,
the amount of funding estimated to be available, past activities undertaken with VCDBG funds and the process for
applying for funding. There was some public comment regarding use of VCDBG funds for economic development
tendered at that hearing. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide information on proposed project applications
and to accept public comment on the applications. Applications are submitted by the County to DHCD; however, the
proposed activities may be undertaken by other agencies. Albemarle County can submit one or more applications but
is limited to awards totaling no more than $2.5 million. Currently the County has two awards totaling $742,500.
DISCUSSION:
The County is proposing to submit two applications for VCDBG funds both on behalf of the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program (AHIP). The first application is under a demonstration program, the Scattered Site Housing
Rehabilitation Program, and is being proposed at the invitation of DHCD. Four other jurisdictions were also offered an
invitation to submit applications. The proposed project consists of the replacement of two substandard, dilapidated
houses, one on Coles Rolling Road and one on Heards Lane. Both units are occupied by low- and moderate-income
persons. The total project cost for both is approximately $171,312.78 of which $164,084.78 is being requested from
DHCD. The balance will be provided by AHIP.
The second proposal is for a housing rehabilitation project in the Orchard Acres subdivision in Crozet. The County’s
Housing Office and AHIP began gathering preliminary information on the greater Crozet neighborhood last summer.
Over 370 letters were mailed to residents of an area including St. George Avenue to the north, the Parkside area to
the South and eastward to the previous Conagra site. After conducting a residents meeting on October 19, 2011 and
consultation with DHCD, the target site was narrowed to the Orchard Acres subdivision. Approximately 130 letters and
surveys were hand-delivered to all residents of Orchard Acres and a second community meeting was held on January
25, 2012. The preliminary work and survey responses indicated that approximately 40 houses appeared to be eligible
and in need of some level of repair/upgrade. The survey and assessment was conducted using a $30,000 VCDBG
Planning Grant awarded by DHCD. The work has not been finalized but it is expected that the proposed project will
target 30 houses in Orchard Acres. The number of resident beneficiaries is estimated to be 66, ten of whom are
elderly, two who are disabled, and seven are families with children. All are low- and moderate-income. The County is
proposing to request $700,000 in VCDBG funding and earmarking up to $30,000 in available affordable housing
proffer funds to cover the estimated costs of the project.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Program
March 14, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budgetary impact unless or until an application is made and approved for a funded project. Seventy-
thousand dollars ($70,000) is included in the application to cover administrative and grant management costs for the
funded activity. Although no match is required for VCDBG funds, some level of local financial support would be
factored into the competitive scoring of the proposal. The County proposes to use $130,000 of its annual support to
AHIP for a match ($65,000 each of two years FY13 and FY14) and $30,000 in affordable housing proffer money
currently on hand. This will provide a 19% match for the total $860,000 project cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Upon receiving information on the proposed VCDBG applications and taking public comment on the two proposals,
staff recommends that the Board adopt the project resolutions (Attachments A and D) approving the County’s
submission of the application for the Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation Program and the Orchard Acres Housing
Rehabilitation Program. It is further recommended that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the
applications (Attachments B and E) as well as the required disclosures (Attachments C and F) and required
certifications and assurances (Attachments G and H) to be included in both applications.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Scattered Site Resolution
B – Scattered Site Application
C – Scattered Site Disclosure
D – Orchard Acres Resolution
E – Orchard Acres Application
F – Orchard Acres Disclosure
G – General Assurances and Certifications
H – Drug Free Workplace Certification
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held January 4, 2012 and March 14, 2012 the
County of Albemarle, on behalf of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), wishes
to apply for $$164,084.78 in Community Development Block Grant funds to support the
substantial reconstruction of two owner-occupied houses both of which are low- and moderate-
income; and
WHEREAS, resources in the amount of $8,227.93 will be provided by the AHIP; and
WHEREAS, the two projects have been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development (VDHCD); and
WHEREAS, VDHCD invited Albemarle County as one of five (5) jurisdictions to submit
applications for its demonstration program for Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include:
Substantial reconstruction (replacement) of two substandard, dilapidated houses
both of which are without bathrooms; and
The replacement houses will benefit two (2) people.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign and submit all necessary and
appropriate documents for the Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation application under the
Virginia Community Development Block Grant program.
**********
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
1
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. APPLICANT INFORMATIO N
Applicant Name: County of Albemarle
Chief Elected Official: Ann H. Mallek
Chief Administrative Official: Thomas C. Foley
Local Government Address:
401 McIn tire Road
City/County:
Charlottesville, VA
Zip:
22902
Local Government Phone Number: (434) 296 - 5841
Local Planning Development Commission: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commi ssion
Project Name: Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation/Robinson & Morris
Project Location: Albemarle County
DUNS number: 66022047
U.S. Congressional District Number: 5
State House of Delegates District(s): 58 and 59
State Senate District(s): 25
Population of Applicant Locality: 98,970
Project Type: Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation
Single Locality
Regional
National Objectives: Please check the Objectives applicable to your project and provide the approximate
amount of CDBG funds attributed to each:
Low and Moderate Income Benefit $
Urgent Needs $
Elimination of Slum and Blight $
ATTACHMENT B
2
Project Primary Contact
Name: Ron White
Title: Chief of Housing
Phone: (434) 296 - 5839
Email: rwhite2@albemarle.org
Application Preparer Contact
Name: SAME
Title:
Phone: ( ) -
Email:
2. ACTIVE CDBG PROJECTS
PROJECT NAME YEAR AWARDED AMOUNT OF AWARD
Oak Hill Sewer 2010 712,500
Orchard Acres Planning Grant 2012 30,000
3. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND FUNDING SUMM ARY
Please provide a brief overview of the proposed project, including location, targeted number of
units, and identifying partnering IPR Subrecipients if applicable.
This application has been prepared in response to DHCD's invitation to apply for funding for two
projects previously submitted by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program AHIP) under the
Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation Program. The two projects are single-family residences which
will be substantially reconstructed. Neither of the projects have complete indoor plumbing and
bathrooms. One project is located in southern Albemarle County on Heards Lane and the second is
located on Coles Rolling Road also in the southern part of the County near Scottsville. AHIP is the
identified IPR subrecipient that will carryout the day-to-day activities associated with the two projects.
ATTACHMENT B
3
Please fill in the chart below with a description of the project funding source (local, federal, state,
private, other ), the amount from that source, the percentage of total project funding that source
represents, and a description of the current status of the funds (pending, secured, etc.).
SOURCE AMOUNT % STATUS
Requested CDBG $
$
$
$
$
Total $ 0 0 %
4. AFFIRMATION STATEMENTS
By checking these boxes the applicant is affirming the following statements:
Applicant is currently eligible to receive the full amount that is being requested and if this project is
awarded, this would not cause the applicant to exceed the multi-contact limitation of $2.5 million in open,
active contracts.
Applicant agrees to send responsible parties, to include and relevant subcontractors, to all mandatory
DHCD-sponsored training events, to include the Construction Management and Grant Management
workshops, and to provide representation at all management team meetings.
5. CERTIFICATION AND SI GNATURE
To the best of my knowledge and belief, information in this proposal is true and correct and the proposal
has been duly authorized by the local governing body; citizen participation requirements have been met;
and the proposal has been submitted for Planning District Commission Review.
Name: Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
Signature: Date: March 14, 2012
To be signed by the Chief Administrative Officer.
ATTACHMENT B
4
PROJECT INFORMATION
6. PROJECT/SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION
Please identify the specific localities to be served by this project. If the proposed Scattered Site project
targets an area more specific than the boundaries of the locality, provide information on the boundaries of
the target area and how and why this area is targeted.
Albemarle County
7. PRIORITIZATION
How were the targeted units prioritized and identified for this proposal? Discuss why the targeted units
were selected.
Priority is determined by Severity of need, dangerous conditions and lack of indoor plumbing facility.
AHIP has a ranking system that assigns points for each item stated above and households with the most
point accumulation are ranked at the top of our list.
8. TARGETED UNITS
Identify the maximum of four (4) units targeted for this scattered site project. Identify the units by
owners name, address, and locality.
TARGET UNITS
1. Helen Morris 690 Coles Rolling Road Scottsville VA 24590
2. Scott Robinson 4129 Heards Lane Afton, VA 22920
3.
4.
Identify additional units you would like to have considered if funds are available.
5. Jeanette Cowan 5020 Harris Brook Lane North Garden VA 22959
6. Ruby Knight 3167 Mutton Hollow Road Stanardsville, VA 22873
7.
ATTACHMENT B
5
CAPACITY AND READINESS
9. CAPACITY
Please identify the specific individuals, by name and/or title and affiliation that will be responsible for the
implementation of the project and their roles. What is their experience with CDBG-funded projects? Is a
partnership in place with an existing IPR subrecepient?
Albemarle County has a 30-year history of administering CDBG funds for a variety of project types.
The most recent have been infrastructure projects to support new and existing housing. Most of the
CDBG funding received by the County has been directed to housing rehabilitation projects,
partnering with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). The following individuals
will be responsible for implementing the proposed projects:
Ron White, Chief of Housing for the County will oversee grant administration including fiscal and
monitoring responsibilities
Jane Andrews with AHIP will be responsible for day-to-day management of the projects and
overseeing staff assigned to the projects.
Additional administrative support will be provided by financial staff in the County and at AHIP.
Lee Miller is the Rehab Specialist for the project.
Ron, Jane, and Lee have over sixty years of combined experience with housing rehabilitation and
CDBG-funded activities.
If applicable, discuss the plan for coordination between the applicant and IPR subrecipient. DHCD
recommends the subrecipient continue to manage the day-to-day operation of the program and coordinate
with the applicant to request the funds from DHCD. Alternative arrangements can be considered. Please
detail how the proposed arrangement has been derived and if a formal agreement has been reached.
The County plans to act as fiscal agent for this project with AHIP managing day-to-day
operations. AHIP will be responsible for all eligibility, procuring of services/materials, a
determining ability to pay. AHIP will also hold any notes and liens on properties assisted under
this project and report program income to the County on a periodic basis.
ATTACHMENT B
6
10. READINESS
Please discuss what activities have been undertaken to date. Describe efforts at organizing the
management of the project. Have regulatory issues been addressed? Have permits been obtained? Have
all clients committed to participation?
Both the Robinson and Morris jobs are in active preparation for construction to begin. Health
Department officials have reviewed the sights and permits are in hand. Legal work such as title
searches, surveys and easements have been secured. Household eligibility has been determined
and clients have signed all necessary documents allowing the projects to move forward. Cost
Estimates have been prepared and submitted to DHCD for review.
The County has also started some of the pre-contract requirements for this proposal.
Attachment 4 includes action requested by the Board at its March 14 meeting for adoption of the
Local Business and Employment Plan and approval of the Residential Anti-Displacement and
Relocation Assistance Plan and Fair Housing Certification. The attachment also includes draft
copies of required ads that will be published upon notification of funding. The Combined Notice
will also be published upon notification.
Environmental Review
Please provi de the status of the Environmental Review for this project. Indicate which steps have
been completed, if any, which steps are in progress, and when the review is anticipated to be
completed.
Flood plain determinations have been completed and both projects have been submitted to the
virginia department of historic review for impact assessment. We expect to hear from the
department within the month of february.
PROJECT BUDGET
Please complete the CDBG line item budget with cost breakdown by project activity and identification of
funding source. Attach the budget in ATTACHMENT 1. The budget must clearly show the activities
where CDBG funds will be applied and the amount applied to each activity. If other DHCD funds are
involved in the project, they must be broken out into separate column that identifies the funding source.
Other leverage (local, federal, etc) can be combined in the Non-CDBG column.
In Housing Rehabilitation projects, owner-occupied rehabilitation and substantial reconstruction should
be shown as separate products.
LEVERAGE
If your project contains additional funds beyond the proposed CDBG provide the status for these
additional funds. Identify the source, amount, and status of the request below. Provide documentation in
ATTACHMENT 1.
ATTACHMENT B
7
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMAT ION
Using the 2010 Census, please list the Census tracts for the area(s) to be served. If the area
includes entire Census tracts, do not list individual block groups within such tracts. If the service
area contains less than the total Census tract, you must enter the block groups covered by the
service area. Follow this link for 2010 Reference Maps for Virginia Census Tracts.
CENSUS PLACE
C ODE
CENSUS
TRACT(S)
BLOCKS/BLOCK
GROUPS
e.g. Essex County 057 e.g. Tract 9506 e.g. Block Group 1
003 112.01 3
003 114 2
For all projects please fill out the following Compliance Charts with demographic information
about race, ethnicity and households in the locality as a whole.
Information below is for the Locality
ETHNICITY
TOTAL
NUMBER
RACE
TOTAL
NUMBER
Hispanic or Latino 5440 White alone 79770
Not Hispanic or Latino 93530 Black/African American alone 9600
Total Population 98970 Asian alone 4650
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native alone 300
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
TOTAL
NUMBER
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander alone
Female-headed 3171 Am. Indian/Alaskan Native & White
Elderly 9969 Asian and White
With Handicap
Not
available
Black/African American & White
Total Households 37671
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native &
Black/African American
All Multi-racial 2375
Other Multi-racial
Total Population 98970
ATTACHMENT B
8
ATTACHMENTS
All proposals must include relevant Attachments. Attachments should be placed at the end of the
completed proposal.
ATTACHMENT 1 - BUDGET
Budget
DERIVATION OF COSTS
VERIFICATION OF LEVE RAGING FUNDS - Include contracts, agreements, award
letters, and other documentation which confirms the commitment of other funding to the project.
Identify contact persons and contact information for other funds in the project.
ATTACHMENT 2 – HOUSEHOLD INFORMATIO N
Include the following information for each unit to be included in the project (items may be
omitted if already submitted to DHCD):
1. Completed Project Costs Worksheet
2. Work Write-up
3. Detailed Cost Estimate for the Unit
4. Completed Certification of IPR Eligibility
5. DHCD HQS Report and Eligibility Photos
6. Substantial Reconstruction Worksheet (if applicable)
7. Bid Tab and Lowest Bid (if applicable)
Cost figures should be based on actual bids or detailed cost estimates provided by the
Rehab Specialist.
ATTACHMENT 3 – ASSURANCES / CERTIFI CATIONS
Each applicant must provide a copy of its Scattered Site proposal to the local Planning District
Commission for review. Include a copy of the transmittal letter here and any correspondence
received from the Planning District Commission prior to proposal submission.
Include a copy of a resolution passed by the local governing body of the applicant giving the
chief administrative official authority to complete, sign, and submit this proposal. The resolution
must contain the following:
That the locality wishes to apply for Virginia Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds;
The project type and title;
The amount of CDBG funds requested;
The amounts of local, state, or federal funds that are part of the total project cost;
That the chief administrative official is authorized to sign and submit all appropriate
information necessary to apply for CDBG funding; and,
That citizen participation requirements have been met by holding at least TWO public
hearings, advertising both as appropriate and with at least one other form of public notice.
ATTACHMENT B
9
That the project will meet the National Objective of providing benefit to LMI persons and
that there will be a specific projected number of LMI beneficiaries (number of houses
improved, etc).
For Regional projects – Include copies of letters from other localities’ Chief Executive indicating
their agreement for the project to address targeted properties in their locality.
The executed Citizen Participation Assurances and Certification, General Assurances and
Certification, Drug Free Workplace Assurances and Certification, and Applicant Disclosure
Report should be inserted in this Attachment. Original copies should be placed in original
proposal copies and photocopies should be placed in other proposal copies.
Local Government Resolution (see Sample below)
General Assurances and Certification (SEE APPENDIX D)
Drug Free Workplace Assurances & Certification (SEE APPENDIX D)
Applicant Disclosure Report (SEE APPENDIX D)
Documentation of two Public Hearings (See Error! Reference source not found.)
Documentation of submission to Planning District Commission
NOTE: All application documents including those listed above are submitted unsigned pending the
public hearing scheduled for 6PM on March 14, 2012. Signed documents will be forwarded to
DHCD upon approval by the Board of Supervisors immediately following the public hearing.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT C
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE REPORT
Part I – Summary Information
Applicant __County of Albemarle ____________
Address __401 McIntire Road___
__Charlottesville, VA 22902________
Contact Person ___Ron White__________ ____________
Address ___1600 5th Street____ ____________
___Charlottesville, VA 22902_______
Phone Number ____(434) 296-5839____ ____________
Project Name ____Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation
FIN or SS# 54-6001102
DUNS Number 066022047
Are you requesting CDBG funding of $200,000 or more? YES X NO
If yes, the remainder of this Applicant Disclosure Report must be completed and the original
must be attached to the original copy of the proposal. Photocopies in other copies.
Part II– Other Governmental Assistance in Project
Source of Assistance
Program /
Use of Funds
Type of Assistance Amount
NONE
ATTACHMENT C
Part III– Interest Disclosure
Interested Parties Social Security / FIN
Employer ID
Type of
Participation
Financial Interest
In Project ($ and %)
NONE
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this Applicant
Disclosure Report is true and accurate.
Chief Administrative Official:
__Thomas C. Foley_____________ County Executive
Name Title
___________________________________ _March 14, 2012_____
Signature Date
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held January 4, 2012 and March 14, 2012 the
County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $700,000 in Community Development Block Grant
funds to support the rehabilitation of 25 to 30 houses in the Orchard Acres Subdivision in Crozet;
and
WHEREAS, local resources in the amount of $160,000 will be provided by the County,
$130,000 of which is a portion of the County’s annual operating support for the Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and $30,000 from available proffer funds designated for
affordable housing initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the County will execute an agreement with AHIP to implement the day-to-
day operations of the grant while the County will maintain administrative and fiscal
responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, VDHCD provided a $30,000 Planning Grant to the County to complete a
housing and infrastructure assessment of Orchard Acres; and
WHEREAS, the assessment identified over 40 eligible properties in need of system
repair and replacement, structural repairs, energy efficient improvements and accessibili ty
improvements that will benefit approximately 66 individuals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign and submit all necessary and appropriate
documents for the Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation application under the Virginia
Community Development Block Grant program.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT E
PART 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION
1. APPLICANT INFORMATIO N
Applicant Name: County of Albemarle
Chief Elected Official: Ann H. Mallek
Chief Administrative Official: Thomas C. Foley
Local Government Address:
401 McIntire Road
City/County:
Charlottesville, VA
Zip:
22902
Local Government Phone Number: (434) 296 - 5841
Local Planning Development Commission: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Project Name: Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation
Project Location: Crozet (Albemarle County)
DUNS number: 66022047
U.S. Congressional District Number: 5
State House of Delegates District(s): 25
State Senate District(s): 25
Population of Applicant Locality: 98,970
Project Type (check one):
Comprehensive Com munity Development
Economic Development
X Housing
Community Facility
Community Service Facility
ATTACHMENT E
National Objectives: Please check the Objectives applicable to your project and provide the approximate
amount of CDBG funds attributed to each:
X Low and Moderate Income Benefit $700,000
Urgent Needs $
Elimination of Slum and Blight $
Project Primary Contact
Name: Ron Whi te
Title: Chief of Housing
Phone: (434) 296 - 5839
Email: rwhite2@albemarle.org
Application Preparer Contact
Name: SAME
Title:
Phone:
Email:
2. ACTIVE CDBG PROJECTS
PROJECT NAME YEAR AWARDED AMOUNT OF AWARD
Oak Hill Sewer 2010 $712,500
Orchard Acres Planning 2012 $30,000
3. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND FUNDING SUMMARY
Please provide a brief overview of the proposed project, including location, identified
need/opportunity and products.
The Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation project is located in the town of Crozet, in
Albemarle County, 10 miles west of Charlottesville. The Orchard Acres Subdivision is one of
the oldest in the Crozet area. It was started in the 1960’s and built out over the next 20 years.
The houses are typically modest, single family homes and predominately owner occupied.
Many are in need of systems updating and energy efficiency improvements. Our project
proposes the rehabilitation of 25- 30 homes including roofing; plumbing, electrical and
HVAC repairs and upgrades; insulation, windows and doors; and accessibility improvements.
Products include preservation of existing affordable housing stock, lower utility bills for low
income residents, and accessibility enhancements to allow residents to age in place and
ATTACHMENT E
remain in their homes as long as possible.
Please fill in the chart below with a description of the project funding source (local, federal, state,
private, other), the amount from that source, the percentage of total project funding that source
represents, and a description of the current status of the funds (pending, secured, etc.).
SOURCE AMOUNT % STATUS
Requested CDBG $ 700,000 81% Pending this application
Annual County
Support to AHIP $ 130,000 15%
FY13 recommended $400,000 not yet
appropriated
Albemarle County
$ 30,000 4%
Available – appropriation request will
be made if this grant is awarded
$
$
$
$
Total $860,000 100 %
4. AFFIRMATION STATEMENTS
By checking these boxes the applicant is affirming the following statements:
X Applicant is currently eligible to receive the full amount that is being requested and if this project is
awarded, this would not cause the applicant to exceed the multi-contact limitation of $2.5 million in open,
active contracts.
ATTACHMENT E
Applicant agrees to send responsible parties, to include and relevant subcontractors, to all mandatory
DHCD-sponsored training events, to include the Construction Management and Grant Management
workshops, and to provide representation at all management team meetings.
5. CERTIFICATION AND SI GNATURE
To the best of my knowledge and belief, information in this proposal is true and correct and the proposal
has been duly authorized by the local governing body; citizen participation requirements have been met;
and the proposal has been submitted for Planning District Commission Review.
Name: Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
Signature: Date: ____________________
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT F
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE REPORT
Part I – Summary Information
Applicant __County of Albemarle ____________
Address __401 McIntire Road___
__Charlottesville, VA 22902________
Contact Person ___Ron White__________ ____________
Address ___1600 5th Street____ ____________
___Charlottesville, VA 22902_______
Phone Number ____(434) 296-5839____ ____________
Project Name ____Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation
FIN or SS# 54-6001102
DUNS Number 066022047
Are you requesting CDBG funding of $200,000 or more? X X YES NO
If yes, the remainder of this Applicant Disclosure Report must be completed and the original
must be attached to the original copy of the proposal. Photocopies in other copies.
Part II– Other Governmental Assistance in Project
Source of Assistance
Program /
Use of Funds
Type of Assistance Amount
County of Albemarle
County of Albemarle
Annual Operational
Support to AHIP
Proffer Funds – Direct
Project Support
Local General Funds
Local Funds
$130,000
$ 30,000
ATTACHMENT F
Part III– Interest Disclosure
Interested Parties Social Security / FIN
Employer ID
Type of
Participation
Financial Interest
In Project ($ and %)
NONE
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this Applicant
Disclosure Report is true and accurate.
Chief Administrative Official:
__Thomas C. Foley_____________ County Executive
Name Title
___________________________________ _March 14, 2012_____
Signature Date
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT G
GENERAL ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
(Original copy in original proposal; photocopies in other copies)
The applicant hereby assures and certifies that:
(a) It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute the proposed program.
(b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution, motion, or
similar action authorizing the filing of the application including all understandings and
assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the
official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to
provide such additional information as may be required.
(c) Its chief executive officer or other officer of applicant who has been approved by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development:
i. Consents to assume the status of a responsible Federal official under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other provisions of Federal law, as
specified at 24 CFR 58.5(a) through (h) which serve to further the purposes of NEPA
insofar as the provisions of such Federal law apply to this Program;
ii. Is authorized and consents on behalf of the applicant and himself to accept the
jurisdiction of the Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia courts for the purpose of
enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official.
(d) It will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements of the Code of
Federal Regulations (24 CFR Part 85), OMB Circular A-128 and Circular A-87 as they
relate to the application, acceptance, and use of Federal funds under this Program; and,
as applicable, all State laws and administrative requirements which may supersede
them (by virtue of being more stringent).
(e) It will comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, relating to evaluation of
flood hazards and Executive Order 12088 relating to the prevention, control and
abatement of water pollution.
(f) It will require buildings or facilities designed, constructed, or altered with funds provided
under this Program to comply with the "American Standard Specifications for Making
Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by, the Physically Handicapped,"
Number A-117.1-R 1980, or Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) in
accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The applicant will be
responsible for conducting inspections to insure compliance with these specifications
by the contractor.
ATTACHMENT G
(g) It will not recover the capital costs for public improvements financed in whole or in part with
CDBG funds through assessments against properties owned and occupied by low- and
moderate-income persons nor will fees or assessments be charged to such persons as a
condition of obtaining access to the public improvements. (Per section 104(b)(5) of Title I
of Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended).
(h) It will comply with:
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L 88-352), and the regulations issued
pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 1), which provides that no person in the United States shall
on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial assistance. A recipient, in
determining the types of housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or
other benefits which will be provided under any such program or activity, or the class of
persons to whom, or the situations in which, such housing, accommodations, facilities,
services, financial aid, or other benefits will be provided under any such program or
activity, or the class of persons to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any such
program or activity, may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements,
utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting persons
to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of
defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program or
activity as respect to persons of a particular race, color, or national origin.
The project service area shall not be selected in such a manner as to provide services to a
population in which the proportion of minority and other protected population groups is
substantially lower than the proportion of those groups throughout the jurisdiction of the
locality unless:
the areas of disproportionate concentrations of minority and other protected
population groups has already been served, or
there are definite plans for the imminent provision of similar services to those areas,
or
there is reasonable justification for the provision of services to the selected area
notwithstanding the substantially lower proportion of minority and other protected
population groups.
ii.Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-284), as amended, administering all
programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to
affirmatively further fair housing; and will take action to affirmatively further fair
housing in the sale or rental of housing, the financing of housing, and the provision of
brokerage services.
iii.Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the regulations
issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 570.602), which provides that no person in the
ATTACHMENT G
United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under,
any program or activity funded in whole or part with funds provided under this Program.
Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under Discrimination Act of
1975 or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped individual as provided in
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended shall also apply to this
Program.
iv.Executive Order 11063 on equal opportunity in housing and nondiscrimination in the sale
or rental of housing built with Federal assistance.
v.Executive Order 11246, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto 41 CFR Chapter 60),
which provides that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex or national origin in all phases of employment during the performance of
Federal or federally assisted construction contracts. Contractors and subcontractors on
Federal and federally assisted construction contracts shall take affirmative action to
insure fair treatment in employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or
recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of
compensation and selection for training and apprenticeship.
(i) It will comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as
amended, requiring that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and
employment be given to lower-income residents of the project area and contracts for work
in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located
in, or owned in substantial part by, persons residing in the area of the project.
(j) It will:
i.In acquiring real property be guided, to the greatest extent practicable under State law, by
the land acquisition policies in Sections 301 and 302 of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; and
ii.Pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as specified in Section 303 and
304 of the Uniform Act; and
iii. Comply with the applicable Sections (202 through 205) of Title II (relocation assistance)
of the Uniform Act in providing relocation payments and relocation assistance; and
iii.Comply with DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 in implementing the requirements, it will:
1) Carry out the policies and procedures of Part 24 in a manner that insures that the
acquisition and relocation processes do not result in different or separate treatment to
persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or source of income;
and
ATTACHMENT G
2) Assure that, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, comparable
decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwellings will be available to all displaced
families and individuals and that the range of choices available to such persons will
not vary on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or source of income;
and
3) Inform affected persons of their rights under the policies and procedures set forth
under the regulations in Part 24, including their rights under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended.
(k) It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using positions for a purpose that is or
gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or
others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties.
(l) It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limits the political activity of
employees.
(m) It will comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act as amended and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act as determined by the Secretary of Labor. This
section shall apply to rehabilitation of residential property only if such property is designed
for residential use of eight or more families.
(n) It will give the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and the
Comptroller General through any authorized representatives access to and the right to
examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant.
(o) It will insure that facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized in
the accomplishment of the program are not listed on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify the Virginia Department
of Housing and Community Development of the receipt of any communication from the
Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a facility to be used in the
project is under consideration for listing by the EPA.
(p) It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102 (a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December 31,
1973. Section 103 (a) required, on and after March 2, 1974, the purchase of flood
insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt
of any Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any
area, that has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as an area having special flood hazards. The phrase "Federal financial
assistance" includes any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy,
disaster assistance loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance.
(q) It will in connection with its performance of environmental assessments under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
ATTACHMENT G
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470), Executive Order 11593, and the Preservation of
Archeological and Historical Data Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1, et. Seq.) by:
i.Consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to identify properties listed in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are subject to
adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the proposed activity, and
ii.Complying with all requirements established by HUD and the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such
properties.
(r) Assure upon funding, it will implement a "residential anti-displacement and relocation
assistance plan," pursuant to Section 570.496a(b).
(s) It will implement all required actions to ensure compliance pursuant to 24 CFR Part 8,
Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs and Activities.
(t) The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
i.No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the
undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee or any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment,
or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
ii.If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee or any agency,
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member
of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure
Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
iii.The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the
award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and
contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall
certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed
when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31,
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
ATTACHMENT G
(u) Any survey information submitted with the application is a true representation of the data and
has not been altered or fabricated. The survey was conducted and analyzed in strict
accordance with the methodology stated.
(v) The certification set out below is a material representation upon which reliance is placed by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in awarding the grant. If it is
later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise
violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, in addition to any other remedies available to the
Federal Government, take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
Chief Administrative Official:
__Thomas C. Foley________________ _County Executive_____________
Name Title
_________________________________ _March 14, 2012_____
Signature Date
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT H
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION
(Original copies in original proposal; photocopies in other proposal copies.)
The grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's
workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of
such prohibition;
(b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about -
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
ii. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
iii. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
iv. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring
in the workplace;
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be
given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of
employment under the grant, the employee will -
i. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
ii. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statue conviction for a violation occurring in
the workplace no later than five days after such conviction;
(e) Notifying the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development within ten days after
receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employe e or otherwise receiving actual
notice of such condition;
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph
(d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted –
i. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including
termination; or
ATTACHMENT H
ii. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law
enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through
implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Chief Administrative Official:
__Thomas C. Foley__________________ _County Executive____
Name Title
___________________________________ _March 14, 2012_____
Signature Date
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville Volvo, Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Amendment Request
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to amend the Jurisdictional Area Boundary
to provide sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B2,
located on Ivy Road (US 250 West, approximately .2 mile
east of the intersection of Broomley Road and Route 250
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 14, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for sewer service to a 3.6 acre property containing a
commercial building currently housing the Charlottesville Volvo dealership (Attachment A). The parcel is located
entirely within the designated Rural Area, but has been zoned HC, Highway Commercial since at least the 1970s. The
property is located on the north side of Ivy Road, adjacent to the University of Virginia Long Range Acute Care
Hospital (LTACH) and Northridge Office Building. The Volvo dealership site is currently designated for public water
service only, and is served by an existing septic system. The LTACH and Northridge sites are served by public water
and sewer service.
The existing septic system serving the property is failing, and staff from the Virginia Department of Health has
determined that there is no alternative area available for a new septic system onsite (Attachment B). The property is
relatively small and is mostly developed with the building and paved parking areas for the dealership. The soil on the
property consists of mostly fill material which is not suitable for a septic system and the small portion of undeveloped
area around the perimeter of the property consists of slopes in excess of 25 percent.
Because this has been deemed an emergency request due to existing conditions, it is being submitted to the Board for
an immediate public hearing rather than as an item to be set for a public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The property is located within the designated Rural Area and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan
provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Area:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p.
114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where
the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
Water and sewer services by policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is
encouraged and are discouraged in the Rural Area because extension of public utility services are a potential catalyst
for growth. As such, public water supply and sanitary sewer system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively
used and reserved to serve the Development Area. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Area can result
in further extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and into the Rural Area, potentially
straining limited water resources and sewer capacity.
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville Volvo, Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Amendment
Request
March 14, 2012
Page 2
This request meets both criteria for the provision of service to Rural Area parcels. A sewer line is located adjacent to
this site and the adjacent properties to the east of this property are currently served by public sewer. A health and
safety issue exists due to the existing system failure and the lack of suitable areas on the property for a replacement
septic system and drainfield or other alternative system.
Generally, when properties located in the Rural Area are added to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area, the service provided
to those properties is limited to the existing structures only. Given the current zoning of the property, the existing level
of development of the site, and the size of the parcel, staff recommends the property be designated for “water and
sewer service” without any limitation on any new sewer service being provided to the site. This designation is
consistent with the designations for the adjacent LTACH and Northridge sites, which are also in the Rural Area.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner will bear the costs for sewer connection.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide
“water and sewer service” to Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B2.
ATTACHMENTS
A -- Location and Jurisdictional Area Map
B – Virginia Department of Health Letter
C – Aerial Photo of Site with Critical Slopes
Return to agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Str
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
ATTACHMENT A -- Location Map and Existing Jurisdictional Area Designation
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 23, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
275 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Voting Info
Magisterial Districts
Parcel Info
Parcels
Elevation
Y2007 Critical Slopes (> 2
ATTACHMENT C -- Aerial Photo of Site with Critical Slopes
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 23, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
86 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 10, 2012
Stephen Waller, AICP
536 Pantops Center - PMB #405
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: SP201100022 Verizon Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-051C0
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 24, 2012, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
site plans, entitled “Southwest Mountain LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
11/10/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown
on the Conceptual Plan:
– Height
– Mounting type
– Antenna type
– Number of antenna
– Color
– Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2 The monopole shall not be increased in height above the existing 260 feet above ground level (AGL).
3. Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows:
(i) The total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed six (6),
and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size
shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152)
square inches.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of the facility shall submit an updated report to the
agent identifying each user of the tower to be updated annually between May 1 and July 1 in
accordance with the requirements of Section 5.1.40(c)(7).
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval for modifications of Sections
5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4) and (c)(5) for SP-2011-00022 Verizon Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility for the reasons delineated by the staff report.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 14, 2012.
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Sarah Baldwin
Senior Planner
Zoning Division
cc: Verizon Wireless
C/O Maynard Sipe
123 East Main Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
American Tower L P
C/O American Tower Corporation
P O Box 723597
Atlanta Ga 31139
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials
for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this
preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other
documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two
days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff
will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each
applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be
advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that
good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be
scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are
made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to
deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward
the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the
advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing
resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board’s Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that
the policy can be re-examined annually.
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201100022 Southwest Mountain-
Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 24, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: American Tower L.P.C. c/o American Tower
Corporation
Applicant: Verizon Wireless-c/o Maynard
Sipe
Acreage: 3.00 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 78 Parcel 51C
Location: 191 Lego Drive-1/3 mile north of the
intersection with Hansens Mountain Rd.
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request to install a second flush
mounted antenna array replacing recently removed
whip antennas in order to support the attachment of
a new antenna array in a second vertical array
below the company’s existing antennas. This is an
amendment of SP2003-45, 2C to allow more than 5
antenna arrays.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 2.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural
Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The site
is located in a wooded area on a hill with existing mature
trees and vegetation. The tower, in existence for nearly
40 years was shortened and modified in 2004.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential and Planned Residential
Development
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the
additional antenna will not increase or cause any
new impacts to adjacent properties or important
resources.
2. The proposal meets most of the requirements of
Section 5.1.40 except for the current SP conditions
which limit the number of antenna arrays to five.
Factors Unfavorable: None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), and (c)(5). Based on findings presented in
the staff report, staff recommends approval of all modification requests, with conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 24, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100022: Southwest Mountain-Verizon Tier III
PROPERTY OWNER: American Tower L.P.C. c/o American Tower
Corporation
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless-c/o Maynard Sipe
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a second flush mounted antenna array on an existing Personal
Wireless Service Facility (“PWSF”) replacing recently removed whip antennas. This installation
will support the attachment of a new antenna array in a second vertical array below Verizon’s
existing antennas. This is an amendment of SP2003-45, 2C to allow more than 5 antenna arrays.
The existing guyed tower is approximately 260 feet above ground level (AGL). The new antenna
array will be located at 154 feet above ground level (“AGL”), and will support the new vertical
array to be located 148 feet AGL, which is the same location where the original whip antenna
arrays were located. No changes in height or other modifications are proposed at this time.
The 3.00 acre property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 51C, is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District and is zoned Rural Areas (“RA”).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The site is located in a
wooded area on a hill with mature trees and vegetation. The tower, in existence for over 40 years was
shortened and modified in 2004.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
A special use permit (SP2003-45) was approved for the site in 2003, which predated the Personal
Wireless Facilities Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
An amendment to the Special Use Permit is required for this proposal only to accommodate an
increase in the number of antennas above that which is stipulated in the current special use
permit conditions. More specifically, condition 2c, limits the number of antennas to five, while
the current proposal would bring the total number of antennas to six. In addition, many of the
conditions contained in the current SP could be eliminated since they are now required
regulations as contained in the PWSF Ordinance.
3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is not anticipated that the proposed addition of an antenna array will be of any detriment to
the adjacent properties, aside from limited construction activity to accommodate the array and
associated ground equipment. The tower has been in existence for over 40 years and pre-dates
the rural subdivisions that currently surround the tower. The new antenna array will not
substantially change the visual impact of the existing tower.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
As mentioned above, no substantial changes will occur with the addition of an antenna array
aside from limited construction activity associated with the change. Additionally, when the
2004 special use conditions were approved the tower was shortened further limiting its
presence and visability. Since the surrounding developments occurred after the tower was
already in existence, any impact should be limited.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4. of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural
Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with both
sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, since this request only involves an addition of
an antenna array.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposed increase in antenna arrays will provide
more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include schools and residences.
This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare. Otherwise, no
change to the public health, safety and general welfare is expected with approval of the
additional antenna array.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40(e) are
addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40(d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
4
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Since this tower is an existing facility, no balloon test was needed.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design
criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as
follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable
regulations in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility meets the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)-: The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as
follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be
permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any
equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines
either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by
the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may
exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed
two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering
to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month
after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to
the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this
regulation.
The proposed changes to the monopole do not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be
fitted with any whip antennas. In fact, the lower whips on the facility were recently removed and
will be replaced with the proposed antenna array which will be flush-mounted, dual-band,
dipolar panel antennas. All other requirements of this subsection have been met.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application
shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand
one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure
beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on
the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and
(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing
structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use
shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed additional antenna array configuration is a flush-mounted, dual-band, dipolar panel
which will bring the total number of antenna arrays to 6 (six) and requires modification of the SP
conditions. The previous special use permit (SP2003-45), modified this condition to allow for
5
five arrays. The existing and proposed changes to the tower meet all other relevant design,
mounting and size criteria of this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the
agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to
be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove
existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions
surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify
additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the
plan.
The installation of the proposed antenna array for this personal wireless service facility will not
require the removal of any trees. Since this is an existing tower and no changes to the height are
requested, modification of this requirement is appropriate.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by
the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal
is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
As stated above, this is an existing tower where no changes are proposed that will require the
removal of any trees and a modification of this subsection is appropriate.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility
submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety
should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the
tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual
report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole
will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable
regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within
the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
Verizon Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no
earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user
of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying
6
which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider.
Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report,
provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user
acquiescing in the report.
It is recommended that Verizon Wireless submit an annual report updating the user status and
equipment inventory of the facility at or prior to building permit issuance and then annually to
satisfy the requirements under the Ordinance.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
Again, since this is an existing facility and proposed changes include the addition of an antenna
array and associated changes, no slopes are affected.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall
be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the
rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The existing facility contains a fenced in area and is therefore not be detrimental to the character
of the area, nor the public health, safety or general welfare.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the
facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of
their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a
national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility
also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would
be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent
to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not
visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The existing facility has been in place for over 40 years and Staff has found that it contains
adequate screening and meets the requirements of this subsection.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the
county’s open space plan.
The existing facility has been in place for over 40 years. This proposal does not substantially
change the visual impact of the tower and does not adversely impact any resources in the open
space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level,
shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be
more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole,
and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing
natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to
ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the
7
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).
No changes to the height of this facility are proposed. The existing facility has been in place for
over 40 years. This proposal does not substantially change the visual impact of the tower and
does not adversely impact any resources in the open space plan.
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 applicant states that the proposed antenna array will be painted with a light blue gray hue to
match the existing color of the tower. All supporting equipment changes will be in the interior of
the existing shelter.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 31.6.3).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
8
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the additional antenna array for this
personal wireless facility, and modifications based upon the analysis provided herein.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The addition of the antenna array will provide advanced technology service and support a
larger project to provide fourth generation (4G) services therefore contributing to the
general health, safety, and welfare of the public.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and the additional antenna array will not increase or cause
any new impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
None identified.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for denial,
the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the
basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
The proposed modifications for an additional antenna array on the existing tower 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. Staff is able to support all of the
recommended modifications described in the staff report because the facility is existing. The
recommended modifications are for requirements of the ordinance that are generally meant to aid
in the determination of whether a new tower is appropriate in the proposed area of the County or
whether a height increase is appropriate, these specific requirements are not applicable for an
existing towers seeking the addition of antennas. Listed below are the recommended
modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i)- Total number of antenna arrays attached to existing structure.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)(4)-Submittal of a tree conservation plan.
3. Section 5.1.40(c)(5)-Tree Conservation Plan.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff recommends the
following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's
request and site plans, entitled “Southwest Mountain LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final
zoning drawing submittal date of 11/10/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined
9
by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within
the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2 The monopole shall not be increased in height above the existing 260 feet above ground
level (AGL).
3. Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows:
(i) The total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed six (6), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application
shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one
thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of the facility shall submit an updated
report to the agent identifying each user of the tower to be updated annually between May
1 and July 1 in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.1.40(c)(7).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Return to PC actions letter
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP20110022) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny modifications for Sections
5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), and (c)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve modifications of Sections
5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), and (c)(5):
I move to approve granting the modifications for reasons outlined in the staff
report.
10
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny the modifications for this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to deny the modifications outlined in the staff report. (Planning Commission
needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201100022) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110022 Southwest Mountain -Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100022 Southwest Mountain-Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP2011-22 Southwest 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)
744 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP2011-22 Southwest 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)
131 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 24, 2012
Public Hearing Item:
SP-2011-00022 Verizon Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a second flush-mounted antenna array replacing recently
removed whip antennas in order to support the attachment of a new antenna array in a second vertical
array below the company’s existing antennas. This is an amendment of SP 2003 -45 #2C to allow more
than 5 antenna arrays.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 2 -preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO LOCATION: 119 Lego Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-051C0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Sarah Baldwin)
Sarah Baldwin presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit and to Section 10.2.2(48), which allows for a Tier
III Personal Wireless Service Facility in the Rural Areas (RA). The existing facility is located on Tax Map
78, parcel 51C. Surrounding areas are rural to include single-family residential and PRD and is located in
a wooded area with existing mature trees and vegetation.
Proposal:
• This is a request to install a second flush mounted antenna array to support the
attachment of a new antenna array on an existing PWSF.
• This request will amend condition 2C of SP2003-45 to allow more than 5 antenna arrays.
For clarification under the Tier I and Tier II ordinance requirements up to 3 antennas are permitted. Since
this request exceeds 3 antennas it is considered a Tier III facility.
This tower has been in existence for over 40 years. There are not other changes p roposed to the tower
except to allow for the addition of the antenna array. The applicant has submitted plans and photo
simulations to show the location of the additional antenna array and additional photo simulations of the
existing and proposed tower changes.
Factors favorable:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the additional antenna will not increase or cause any
new impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
2. The proposal meets most of the requirements of 5.1.40 except for the current SP conditions
which limit the number of antenna arrays to five.
Staff found no unfavorable factors to this amendment.
Recommendation:
• Staff recommends approval of the additional antenna array and modifications provided herein.
• Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application to the Board
of Supervisors, Staff recommends the conditions as outlined in the presentation and staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
2
Mr. Lafferty asked if this would allow the applicant to put one more antenna up without having to come
back.
Ms. Baldwin replied that was correct.
Mr. Randolph requested to ask a question of consistency. He noted with interest that the first two
applications, which they have just denied for obvious constitutional reasons, specified in exactitude the
manufacturer and color of the paint that was to be used. In this application the applicant states on page 7
the wording of staff’s report the applicant states that the proposed antenna array will be painted with a
light blue gray hue to match the existing color. He was intrigued as a new member of the Commission
why they were so exacting as to the supplier and the exact color of the paint that is to be used in the other
two towers and here they just came up with a general remark about light blue gray hue.
Ms. Baldwin replied that it is a requirement of the ordinance to have similar colors. To the extent they
were not in the first two is because they were consistent with the existing facilities.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Lori Schweller, with Leclair Ryan, represented Verizon Wireless. She requested the Commission’s
recommendation of approval of an amendment to a special use permit. This special use permit was
granted before the current ordinance. That may help to answer Mr. Randolph’s question about why the
array is proposed to be painted light blue gray. The special use permit only permits 5 flush mounted
antennae arrays and they are requesting a recommendation of approval for one additional antennae
array. There would be six antennae arrays and not antennas. She wanted to make that clear for the
record. That is depicted in the concept plan. There are no other changes to the site proposed. Any
ground equipment will be installed within an existing equipment shelter.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00022 Verizon
Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility with staff’s recommended
conditions.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
site plans, entitled “Southwest Mountain LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date
of 11/10/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown
on the Conceptual Plan:
– Height
– Mounting type
– Antenna type
– Number of antennajj
– Color
– Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2 The monopole shall not be increased in height above the existing 260 feet above ground level (AGL).
3. Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows:
(i) The total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed six (6),
and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size
shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152)
square inches.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
3
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of the facility shall submit an updated report to the
agent identifying each user of the tower to be updated annually between May 1 and July 1 in
accordance with the requirements of Section 5.1.40(c)(7).
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said the request would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a time to be determined.
Motion for Recommendation on Modifications:
Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval for modifications of Sections
5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4) and (c)(5) for SP-2011-00022 Verizon Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility for the reasons delineated by the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2011-00022 Verizon Wireless/Southwest Mountain Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility and modifications will go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 10, 2012
Ms. Valerie Long/Williams Mullen
321 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: SP201100026 Flatswoods Land Trust New Cingular Wireless/AT&T-CV429-Tier III
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-030G0
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 24, 2012, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of SP 2011-00026 Flatwoods
Land Trust with the conditions listed below, and of the requested modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6) (to
permit the facility to extend 30 feet above the reference tree), based on the analysis provided herein.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “CV429” prepared by O.
Warren Williams, Jr., and dated 10-10-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a) Height
b) Mounting type
c) Antenna type
d) Number of antennae
e) Distance above reference tree
f) Color
g) Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation before
construction of the access road for this use may commence.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Modification of requirement that facility extend no more than 7 feet above
the reference tree, to permit it to extend 30 feet above the reference tree.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 14, 2012.
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Planner
Planning Division
CC: Joe O'connor/Sai-Comm For AT&T
10408 Lakeridge Parkway Ste. 1100
Ashland, Va. 23005
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials
for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this
preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other
documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two
days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff
will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each
applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be
advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that
good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be
scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are
made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to
deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward
the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the
advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing
resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board’s Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that
the policy can be re-examined annually.
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2011-00026 Flatwoods Land
Trust
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 24, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
TBD
Owners: Flatwoods Land Trust Applicant: SAI-COM for AT&T
Acreage: 421.04 acres
(Lease Area: 1,600 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 112 Parcel 30G
Location: Approximately one mile north of the
intersection of Route 20 and Plank Road, on the
west side of Route 20.
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas; EC, Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Special use permit request for a
personal wireless service facility including a
119-foot metal monopole with flush-mount
antennae. Proposal includes requested
waiver of section 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance (to allow a pole height 30 feet
above the reference tree, over the normal
maximum of seven to ten feet).
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Hardwood forest, with a
pine plantation at the southwest corner.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The adjacent
properties are forests and farms, except for the
commercial uses at the intersection of Route 20 and
Plank Road.
Factors Favorable:
1. The facility will not be visible from the
Virginia Byway (Route 20).
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Route 20, which is an Entrance
Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201100026 (with
conditions) and associated modification request (for Section 5.1.40(d)(6)).
2
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 24, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100026 Flatwoods Land Trust
PROPERTY OWNER: Flatwoods Land Trust
APPLICANT: SAI-COM for AT&T
PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED: Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a 119-
foot metal monopole with flush-mount antennae. Proposal includes requested waiver of section
5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance (to allow a pole height 30 feet above the reference tree,
over the normal maximum of seven to ten feet).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: At the northwest side of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route 20), Esmont
Road (Route 715), and Coles Rolling Road (Route 712).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-030G0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The area is largely made up of large farm and forest parcels, with a few groupings of smaller
residential parcels to the north and south along Route 20, and a small area of commercial uses at
the southeast corner of the property (at the intersection of Route 20 and Plank Road). The parcel
and much of its surroundings are forested, mostly in hardwoods but with some significant areas
of pine plantations.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The property has no previous planning or zoning history.
3
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located on a Virginia By-Way
(Route 20), which qualifies as an “avoidance area.” Also, the height of the proposed tower would
be more than ten (10) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The proposed facility would located in a densely wooded area approximately 390
feet from the nearest road (Route 20) and behind the top of a steep rise that further obscures
visibility.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The facility would be very difficult to see from Route 20, and would be visited only for
occasional maintenance. Therefore it is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district
will not change with this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed facility would be located over 1,500 feet from the nearest dwelling and would
be surrounded by woods. No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA)
Rural Area district are anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not
restrict any nearby by-right uses within the Rural Areas district.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested.
The proposal is for a new monopole with an associated access road. The Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) has stated that a new entrance permit will be required. However,
no safety issues were noted.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are
4
addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a
special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an application
satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, and it shall be installed
and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The tower will not require guy wires or a whip antenna. The proposed grounding rod meets the
requirements of the ordinance, and the facility will only have one outdoor light fixture that will
only be in use when service is being performed at the site at night or during weather events. The
ground equipment will be located at the base of the tower, in an area that is sheltered from all lot
lines by existing vegetation. The applicant will be required to provide a statement certifying that
the height of the new extension complies with this regulation.
5
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall
not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond
the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For
purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted
toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antennae configuration would consist of two sectors with three panel antennas, and
each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. The outer edge of the antennae would be
within 12 inches of the pole. All antennae would be painted to match the color of the monopole.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree
conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan
shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be
removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for
the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease
area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The tree conservation plan would be reviewed after approval of this special use permit request
and before issuance of a building permit for the facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
This requirement applies after the approval of the required tree conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
6
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, the
applicant and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier
than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which
equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
If this special use permit request is approved, and after the proposed PWSF has been installed,
the applicant would submit an annual report updating the user status and equipment inventory of
the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The proposed fence would (i) provide protection from wildlife, (ii) would not be detrimental to
the character of the area, as it would not be visible from Route 20 or from adjacent properties,
and (iii) would have no health or safety impacts. Therefore staff believes that the proposed fence
should be approved..
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
7
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed monopole would be 119 feet tall, and would be 30 feet taller than the reference
tree.
A balloon test was conducted on November 10, 2011. During the site visit, staff observed a test
balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Staff travelled Route 20, Plank Road (Route 712), and Fry’s Path (Route 627) to determine the
extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was not visible from any point, except when,
after careful observation, it was glimpsed through trees at the closest point of Route 20.
However, if the forest between the tower site and the road was cleared, the antenna would be
visible.
Architectural Review Board staff reviewed this request and attended the balloon test and has
stated that this proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor. It is
staff’s opinion that at the proposed height, the level of visibility will be low and is not expected
to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors or adjacent properties.
The northeast corner of this property meets at a point with the southwest corner of another parcel
that is under a conservation easement. However, the proposed facility is not expected to be
visible from the latter property due to topography, vegetation, and the distance from the facility
to the eased property (approximately 800 feet).
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
No significant resources identified in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan would be
adversely impacted.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall
not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than
seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall
include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The applicant is requesting a waiver of this section. In order to give sufficient service in the area,
the applicant is requesting to increase the height above the reference tree to 30 feet. While no
8
request for this much additional height has been considered by the County in the past, in this case
the impact of the additional height would be negligible due to topography and vegetation. As
stated above, staff found the proposed tower height (shown by the test balloon) practically
invisible from all of the surrounding roads. If it was pointed out, staff could find the balloon
through the trees (leaves were off), but only with effort. The brown monopole would be
significantly less visible than the large red balloon.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall
be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The new antenna and all associated equipment will be painted a natural brown color.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Conditions of approval are recommended below, and the facility will be held to those conditions.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
9
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The facility will not be visible from the Virginia Byway (Route 20).
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Route 20, which is an Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. none
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, if the Planning Commission
recommends denial of this request, it is required to provide the applicant with a statement
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2011-00026 Flatwoods Land Trust
with the conditions listed below, and of the requested modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6) (to
permit the facility to extend 30 feet above the reference tree), based on the analysis provided
herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “CV429”
prepared by O. Warren Williams, Jr., and dated 10-10-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”),
as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antennae
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
10
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Modification of requirement that facility extend no more than 7
feet above the reference tree, to permit it to extend 30 feet above the reference tree.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan
Return to PC actions letter
Motions (Two Separate):
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend approval or denial of the
modification to Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this modification
to Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)
I move to recommend granting the modification for the reasons outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this modification:
I move to recommend denial of the modification outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP20110026) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110026 Flatwoods Land Trust with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20110026 Flatwoods Land Trust. (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
SCOTTSVILLE RDPLA
N
K R
D
ESMONT RDFRYS PATHGLENDOWER RDFORTUNE LNGREEN MOUNT
AI
N RDSECRETARYS SAND RDNYDRIE DR
COLES ROLLING RD
RIDING CLUB RD
R E D L A N D S F A R M
E M E R Y S L N
HARRIS CREEK RD
N U T M E G F A R M
SP 2011-00 026 Flatwoods Land Trust
0 1 20.5 Miles
¯
Attachment A
PLA
N
K R
D SCOTTSVILLE RDCOLES ROLLING RD
SP 2011-00 026 Flatwoods Land Trust
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
¯
Attachment B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 24, 2012
Public Hearing Item:
SP-2011-00026 Flatwoods Land Trust AT&T-CV429-Tier III
PROPOSED: Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a 119 -foot metal
monopole with flush-mount antennae. Proposal includes requested waiver of section 5.1.40(d)(6) of the
Zoning Ordinance (to allow a pole height 30 feet above the reference tree, over the normal maximum of
seven to ten feet).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: At the northwest side of the Intersection of Scottsville Road (Route 20), Esmont Road (Route
715), and Coles Rolling Road (Route 712).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-030G0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit request for a new personal wireless service facility located on Route 20. This
is a Tier III facility, which requires a special use permit. It would require Board approval of a modification
of Section 5.1.40.(d)(6) of the zoning ordinance because there is a request to have the facility be 30 feet
above the reference tree instead of the usual 10 feet maximum.
The property is 420 acres and located at the intersection of Plank Road and Route 20 in the Esmont area.
The proposed tower would be approximately 387 feet back from Route 20. It is also approximately 900
feet from the nearest property boundary. The tower would be 30 feet above the top of the reference tree.
Having visited the site found that even with the 30 foot extension the f acility was not visible. During the
balloon test the balloon was not visible from any location publicly accessible. There is steep terrain by
the road that flattens out where the tower is back from the road. Between that topographic formation and
the vegetation anything that is any distance back from the road becomes very hard to see.
Factors Favorable:
1. The facility will not be visible from the Virginia Byway (Route 20).
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal vi sibility
from Route 20, which is an Entrance Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable:
None
Staff recommends approval of SP-2011-00026 Flatwoods Land Trust with the conditions listed in the staff
report, and of the requested modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6) (to permit the facility to extend 30 feet
above the reference tree), based on the analysis provided in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. He was just curious again why the recommendation for approval of
something 30’ in height. The rule clearly says 7’ to 10’.
Mr. Clark replied it was largely because the tower was not visible.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
2
Mr. Loach asked if that was the only criteria staff was using. He asked if there no criteria quid pro quo if
they adjust this to 30’ they can save “N” number of 7’ to 10’ poles that make things more efficient.
Mr. Clark replied no. There are no other applications on this site to work that out with. The criterion staff
is going by is the fact that even with that large extension over the trees it was very difficult to see the
facility, which was only when they were standing still on the side of the road looking for it.
Mr. Lafferty asked if staff knows the status of the review of the antenna section of the Wireless Policy.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the work on the possible zoning changes is being handled by some others in
the department. He could not tell them what the schedule is. However, it is moving forward in terms of
the analysis. The Board had agreed to have some contract assistance provided in working towards that.
He noted that Mr. Loach’s question was a good one as to what kind of provisions are considered as
appropriate. Nothing in the ordinance actually speaks to even going beyond the 10’ to some much higher
height in lieu of other towers. There is nothing that provides guidance for that type of analysis in the
ordinance.
Mr. Randolph asked if they had provided any information with the zone of transmission that is provided
with this height in if in fact the tower was 3’ above the nei ghboring trees. Was there any difference in
terms of their service capability for the additional height.
Mr. Clark replied the applicant said the 30’ extension was necessary to serve that section of Route 20 and
still be out of view. However, as far as more details and specifics they would have to ask the applicant.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Preston Lloyd, an attorney with Williams and Mullins, was present on behalf of AT&T, the applicant.
As they heard from staff this is an application for a special use permit. Because staff has
recommended approval he would not belabor things too much. He had a few answers to a
number of the questions that have been raised so far. As anyo ne who drives down Route 20 on
a regular basis knows cellular coverage is spotty and is an area that is a high priority for AT&T.
This facility would certainly improve helping to maintain continuous coverage whether in a car,
within buildings or on the street in the vicinity around this location.
In a Power-Point presentation he explained the proposal noting that cellular coverage is certainly
not complete within this area. The County’s Wireless Policy balances the rural nature of the land
that the subject parcel lies on against the goal of minimizing the impacts of the facilities that
support the wireless telecommunications. This site is the perfect example of balancing an
improvement in the wireless coverage in this vicinity while also reflecting the impacts that can be
minimized through appropriate site selection. So they are confident that they will find that this is
the appropriate site and that the site supports the 30’ height difference which they acknowledge
certainly is unusual but is very much supported by the facts and the circumstance. The slides
reinforced the heavily forested nature of the site as pointed out by staff.
In response to Mr. Randolph’s question about what the impact on the actual coverage would be,
he noted on the propagation map three tower locations. The one to the south exists and the
center one is being proposed this evening. Prior to those being on line there is no cellular
coverage within the entire vicinity. In every other way this would be a normal application that
would be appropriate for the Tier II facility process in the sense that they have a reference tree
that is then with a monopole construction of the facility itself. There is adequate screening of the
shelter shown in the site plan. The color of the monopole will be the brown color. All these things
match the Tier II requirements.
Two things are unique about the proposal that kick it into the Tier III analysis – 1. The height
issue and 2. This facility is located in the historic district that makes up the eastern portion of the
county. Any facility constructed within the historic area would necessarily be considered under
the Tier III process. That means there is a special use permit considered by the Planning
Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors. It is appropriate in this circumstance
because it provides a lot more flexibility than the Tier II process. As a result it allows them to
consider whether 10’ above the reference tree is an appropriate height or perhaps the impacts
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
3
are just as negligible at 20’ or 30’. In fact, that is what they discovered when they visited the site.
They flew the balloon at 10’ above being the standard height. They flew it 10’ higher and walked
around to find there was no impact with the visibility negligib le. Even at 30’ it was the same.
Because this is a special use permit it takes advantage of the flexibility that is inherent in the
ordinance and allows them to proceed with that flexibility and that option. There are minimal
impacts on the visibility with no impact on the Entrance Corridor or anything else that the
ordinance is designed to guard against.
For those reasons they feel this is appropriate given the flexibility inherent in the special use
permit application process because it is a Tier III application. They thank the Commission for
their consideration.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission. He noted that there were two actions for the Commission to
take.
Motion for Recommendation on Modifications:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of the modification of Section
5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance for SP-2011-00026 Flatwoods Land Trust AT&T-CV429-Tier III for
the reasons outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion. He would have to go back on record and say that he did not
recommend approval of going beyond the 10’ pole.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Morris nay)
Mr. Morris said the request would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a time to be determined.
Motion for Recommendation on Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00026
Flatwoods Land Trust AT&T-CV429-Tier III with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “CV429” prepared by
O. Warren Williams, Jr., and dated 10-10-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director
of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and
use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a) Height
b) Mounting type
c) Antenna type
d) Number of antennae
e) Distance above reference tree
f) Color
g) Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation before
construction of the access road for this use may commence.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2011-00026 Flatwoods Land Trust AT&T-CV429-Tier III and modifications will
go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
4
Return to PC actions letter
ZMA 201100007
BOS March 14, 2012
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201100007 Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer
Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend proffers on property zoned NMD
which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed
with commercial, service and industrial uses. No
new dwellings or change in residential density
proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
March 14, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer Amendment.
The Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA201100007 with the following to be provided for in the
proffers as recommended by staff:
Reservation for future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way to the County.
Modifications to address outstanding non-substantive technical items relating to the proffers.
DISCUSSION:
The attached proffers include revisions to Proffer 1.B and Proffer 8.B. (See Attachment II)
Proffer 1.B. is amended to provide that future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way is reserved for future
dedication to the County as a public road. This amendment would allow the street whose design is appropriate for its
urban context and supported by staff to proceed as a private road, but with the opportunity to become a public road at
such time that its design would become acceptable under applicable public road design standards.
Proffer 8.B. is amended to address a conflict between when plans for improvements to roads in the City of
Charlottesville were submitted for the City’s review and the actual requirements for this submission under the current
proffer. Road plans were submitted to the City on January 11, 2012 and this amendment establishes the requirements
for executing the proffer based on this date.
Other modifications to the proffers to address non-substantive items have been made and the revised proffers are
legally acceptable.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the revisions noted above, staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the expectations of the Planning
Commission and recommends approval of ZMA201100007 inclusive of the proffers dated February 29, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated January 24, 2012
Attachment II: Revised proffers, dated February 29, 2012
PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 10, 2012
Valerie Long
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, Va 22902
RE: ZMA201100007 Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer Amendment
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-
03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 24, 2012, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors subject to the proffers
dated December 5, 2011 with the following amendments:
If the applicant agrees and can address the outstanding proffer issues and provides reservation
for future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way, staff recommends approval of ZMA-2011-
00007 inclusive of revised proffers.
There are other outstanding technical items relating to the proffers that should be addressed
prior to a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 14, 2012.
Go to staff report and attachments
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC
C/O Tom Gallagher
7200 Wisconsin Ave.
Bethesda, Md 20814
Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
P O Box 528
Columbia Sc 29202
1 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201100007 Albemarle
Place/Stonefield
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 24, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC
c/o Tom Gallagher
Applicant: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC -
contact Valerie Long
Acreage: Approximately 65 acres
Rezone from: NMD, Neighborhood Model with
proffers to NMD with amended proffers
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 061W0-03-00-019A0,
061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300,
061W0-03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500
(See Attachments A and B)
By-right use: Residential (3 – 34 units/acre)
mixed with commercial, service and industrial
uses and retail sales and service uses.
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Amend proffers regarding property
zoned NMD which allows residential (3 – 34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses. No new dwellings or change in
residential density proposed.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 700 - 800
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 1 Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use (in
Destination Center); Urban Mixed Use (in areas
around Centers); and Commercial Mixed Use.
Character of Property: The property is
currently being graded and under construction.
The property is located in the northwest corner
of the Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road
intersection.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The
surrounding properties provide a variety of uses,
including post office, residential, shopping
centers, and industrial.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request proposes District
Avenue to be a road design that would
be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Neighborhood Model
District.
2. This rezoning request will not change
the site layout or intent of the original
rezoning.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The County would prefer a public road
to better assure long-term
maintenance and better accommodate
potential road interconnections and
extensions north of Greenbrier Road.
2. There are other outstanding technical
items relating to the proffers that
should be addressed prior to a public
hearing with the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION: Provided the applicant agrees and can address the outstanding proffer
issues and provides reservation for future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way, staff
recommends approval of ZMA201100007 inclusive of revised proffers.
2 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 24, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201100007 Albemarle Place
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201100007Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers on property zoned NMD which allows residential (3 – 34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No new dwellings or change in
residential density proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in Destination Center) – retail, residential,
commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Mixed Use (in areas around
Centers) – commercial and retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers; and Commercial Mixed
Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses.
LOCATION: Northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00-
02400, 061W0-03-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject site is being graded and under construction. The site fronts on Route 29, a major arterial
road, and Hydraulic Rd. There are several commercial establishments located in the vicinity as well as
residential neighborhoods. Two small intermittent streams have been present on the site. The site has
some hilly terrain.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting substantive modification of two proffers: Proffer 1.a. Phase 1 – amend to
allow construction of the first phase of District Avenue (formally known as Albemarle Place Boulevard)
to be complete when it is constructed in conformance with the plans approved by Albemarle County or
by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”), and Proffer 1. b. Phase 2 – amend to allow the
construction of the second phase of District Avenue to be complete when it is constructed in
conformance with the plans approved by Albemarle County or by the VDOT and in any event the
County Engineer has approved it for vehicular travel. Additionally, revisions have been made to the
proffers referencing previous rezoning project numbers and regarding clarification of street names and
project name.
The applicant has submitted a request for a private street, which has been approved administratively
with the following conditions:
1. Approval of a rezoning to permit a private street within the Stonefield Development.
2. Approval of a maintenance agreement.
3. Approval of final road plan design by the County Engineer.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant would like the flexibility for District Avenue to be a private or public road. The request is
based on the applicant providing the following design elements:
1. A four-way stop condition at the intersection of Bond Street and District Avenue
3 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
2. Utilities under the pavement (water and sewer).
3. The elimination of the concrete gutter north of Houston Street.
4. Placement of street trees and sidewalk approximately 5 feet closer to the street.
5. Removal of some drains under the pavement.
The applicant would like street trees to be next to the road in order to make the road seem narrower,
potentially slow cars down, add a sense of character to the town center and provide more usable space
for on site improvements instead of the current VDOT requirement for ten feet of clear zone on either
side of a 25 mph road. Including additional utilities in the roadway, and four-way stops at intersections,
are not supported by VDOT, but could be allowed with a private road. The design elements requested
by the applicant as mentioned above are consistent with the Neighborhood Model District (“NMD”), for
which this development is zoned.
See the proffer section and Attachment D for additional details. The applicant wishes to create a
pedestrian friendly town center and believes that eliminating some of the requirements that are
characteristics for a public road will be helpful in creating this environment. At the same time the
applicant recognizes that the County may wish to have this road be public in the future. By providing
the proposed proffer amendments, the flexibility of a private or public road becomes easier to
implement. At this time the applicant has not proffered the reservation of the road’s right-of-way for
dedication for public use as discussed with staff.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
CPA 1997-0006 – Change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Industrial Service to
Regional Service to allow for a large, retail destination store on the site. This proposal did not have a
mixed–use component. The applicant withdrew the proposal prior to any Planning Commission action.
CPA 2001-0004 - In 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the Hydraulic Super Block
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
ZMA 2001-0007 - On October 22, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved Albemarle Place with
proffers, amended exhibits, Code of Development and application plan.
ZMA 2008-0003 – On August 4, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the proffers
and Code of Development.
ZMA2011-0004 – On August 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the proffers.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
With the adoption of Places 29, the land use plan now designates the subject property as Urban Mixed
Use (in Destination Center) with retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, inst itutional, and
open space; Urban Mixed Use (in areas around Centers) with commercial and retail uses that are not
accommodated in Centers; and Commercial Mixed Use with commercial, retail, employment uses, with
supporting residential, office, or institutional uses. These designations allow a range of retail, housing,
commercial, employment, and office uses that are located along major roadways and also provide
pedestrian and bicycle access. This request does not propose to change the land uses previously
approved for Albemarle Place and found to be in accord with the comprehensive plan designations.
The proposed proffer amendments will not only enhance the development but will further support the
County’s desire to build a community that provides pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets
and paths and will provide an interconnected street and transportation network.
4 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
The Places 29 Master Plan does show District Avenue (referred to in the Places 29 Master Plan as
Albemarle Place Drive) as part of a roadway network serving this area. The Master Plan identifies the
potential to extend this road to Greenbrier Drive in order to enhance interconnection and the
transportation network in the Route 29 corridor. The flexibility in the proposed proffer am endment
allowing District Avenue to be public or private does not necessarily preclude the future extension of
this road. Should this road be extended north of the Stonefield development, the County would want the
entire length of the road to be a public road. This would ensure long term maintenance and operation
of the road, without the potential conflicts related to the general public’s use of a road under private
ownership.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
Neighborhood Model Districts are intended to provide for compact, mixed-use development with an
urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within
close proximity to each other. This project continues to be consistent with the intent of the NMD district
as the mix of uses within this development will provide appropriate services and activities on a
neighborhood, community and regional scale. The proposed proffer amendments do not violate the
intent of the Neighborhood Model District.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
The changes proposed to the proffers pertain primarily to 1) design and 2) ownership/control of District
Avenue which connects Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. The issue of ownership most relates to impacts
of the public facilities and services.
This road is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and was required as part of the approval of this
project to provide an additional link in the roadway network in this area to help serve local traffic
demands in the area. It is considered a parallel road linking US29 and Hydraulic Road. The Places29
Master Plan also identifies a possible extension of the road to Greenbrier Drive at some point in the
future, which could be associated with redevelopment opportunities on properties north of Stonefield. It
is important to ensure that the County has the ability to obtain ownership of this road if needed in the
future.
Having a private road may initially be acceptable, with the property owner having control of the road, as
the development is built out. However, it will be important to ensure that, in the future, the road will be
adequately maintained to serve not only the customers/residents of the development but the through
traffic function of the road. It is also important to ensure the potential for District Avenue to
interconnect to other properties and be extended north of Greenbrier Drive as described in the Places
29 Master Plan, otherwise the long-term function and benefit of this link in the road network may be
compromised.
Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources
None anticipated with these proffer amendments.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
None anticipated with these proffer amendments.
Public need and justification for the change
These proffer amendments do not affect this project’s provision of a mixture of commercial, office, and
residential uses on a regional scale in Albemarle County. The proposed amendments would allow the
road design that is more in keeping with the neighborhood model principles than could be achieved as
5 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
public road under current VDOT standards. The status of the road as a private road may create
potential complications regarding long-term maintenance and create impediments to potential
extension/interconnection of the road in the future. Is there assurance that the owner can, and will,
provide long-term maintenance of a road intended to serve both the customers.and residents of the
development and through traffic as part of the overall road network in the area? Will the owner, or
future owners, oppose or preclude extension/interconnection of the road in the future? Providing for the
reservation of the road right-of-way for future dedication to the County would provide a mechanisms to
help to address these concerns.
PROFFERS
See Attachment C for the revised proffers. The following is an analysis of the proposed proffer
amendments.
Analysis of Amended Proffers
Original Proffer Requested Amendment
1. Phasing of Albemarle Place
Improvements: The Owner shall phase
development of the Project as follows:
A. Phase 1: Phase 1 of the Project shall be
composed of Blocks A, B, C and D as shown
on the Application Plan and as shown in more
detail on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto (“Phase
1”), and shall include street and utility
improvements to serve the planned building
improvements contained within Phase 1. As
part of Phase 1, the Owner shall design and
construct Albemarle Place Boulevard (also
known as Fourth Street/Cedar Hill Road)
(“Albemarle Place Boulevard”) from Hydraulic
Road to the point where Albemarle Place
Boulevard connects with the new planned
western entrance to the Sperry Marine facility
in the location shown on the Application Plan,
and as shown in more detail on Exhibit A-1.
This first phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard
shall include all supporting utility infrastructure
on such street, and shall be completed prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for
any buildings within Blocks A, B, C and D.
Construction of the first phase of Albemarle
Place Boulevard shall be deemed complete
when it is constructed in conformance with the
plans approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (“VDOT”) and the County
Engineer has approved it for vehicular travel.
No more than three hundred seventy thousand
(370,000) square feet of commercial space
and one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units
may be constructed within the Project until the
remainder of Albemarle Place Boulevard is
Adds “Construction of the first phase of District
Avenue shall be deemed complete when it is
constructed in conformance with the plans
approved by Albemarle County or by the
Virginia Department of Transportation
(“VDOT”), as applicable, and in any event the
County Engineer has approved it for vehicular
travel.”
The effect of this change is to provide enough
flexibility to permit the road to be public or
private.
Additional updates include references to new
street name, which change Albemarle Place
Boulevard to District Avenue.
6 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
constructed to the new planned intersection
with U.S. Route 29 as shown on the
Application Plan. Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in this Paragraph 1A,
the Owner shall be permitted to utilize portions
of the Phase 2 land (as shown on Exhibit A-1)
for the installation of infrastructure to serve the
Phase 1 building improvements to be
constructed in Blocks A, B, C and D.
B. Phase 2: Phase 2 of the Project shall be
composed of Blocks E, F and G as shown on
the Application Plan and as shown in more
detail on Exhibit A-1 (“Phase 2”), and shall
include street and utility improvements to
serve the planned building improvements
contained within Phase 2. As part of Phase 2,
the Owner shall design and construct
Albemarle Place Boulevard from the point
where it connects with the new planned
western entrance to the Sperry Marine facility
north and east through Blocks E, F and G to
the new planned intersection with U.S. Route
29 as shown on the Application Plan and as
shown in more detail on Exhibit A-1. This
second phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard
shall include all supporting utility infrastructure
on such street and shall be completed prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for
any buildings within Blocks E, F and G.
Construction of the second phase of
Albemarle Place Boulevard shall be deemed
complete when it is constructed in
conformance with the plans approved by
VDOT and the County Engineer has approved
it for vehicular travel. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this
Paragraph 1B, the Owner shall be permitted to
utilize portions of the Phase 2 land (as shown
on Exhibit A-1) for the installation of
infrastructure to serve the Phase 1 building
improvements to be constructed in Blocks A,
B, C and D. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this paragraph 1B or in
paragraph 1A above, final certificates of
occupancy may be issued for buildings within
Blocks A, B, C, D or E beyond the threshold
levels contained in paragraph 1A, provided
that the Owner (i) has constructed at least a
temporary road (at standards acceptable to
the Director of Community Development)
connecting the first phase of Albemarle Place
Similar to the description above, this adds
“Construction of the second phase of District
Avenue shall be deemed complete when it is
constructed in conformance with the plans
approved by Albemarle County or by the
VDOT, as applicable, and in any event the
County Engineer has approved it for vehicular
travel.”
The effect of this change is to provide enough
flexibility to permit the road to be public or
private.
Additional updates include references to new
street name, which change Albemarle Place
Boulevard to District Avenue.
7 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
Boulevard to the new planned intersection with
U.S. Route 29, or (ii) can demonstrate during
the site plan review process, through traffic
analysis acceptable to the Director of
Community Development and VDOT, that
additional traffic from such buildings, when
aggregated with the traffic generated by the
uses for which certificates of occupancy have
been issued for buildings in Phase 1, will not
cause the Hydraulic Road/U.S. Route 29
intersection to fall below an acceptable level of
service.
The proffer document also includes updates to the name of the project and updates to new street
names. In summary, this rezoning amendment allows District Avenue (formerly called Albemarle
Place Boulevard) to become a private road instead of a public road. The intent of the developer is to
construct the road as a private road to achieve the desired road design. Besides changing who
controls and maintains the road, the proposed private road allows the applicant to eliminate some of
the road design elements required by VDOT for public roads. By allowing this road to be private, the
County is agreeing to the following changes to the design of the road:
1. Four-way stop condition at the intersection of Bond Street and District Avenue
2. Utilities under the pavement (water and sewer).
3. Elimination of the concrete gutter north of Houston Street.
4. Placement of street trees and sidewalk approximately 5 feet closer to the street.
5. Removal of some drains under the pavement.
VDOT determined that District Avenue (formerly called Stonefield Boulevard and Albemarle Place
Boulevard) as proposed by the developer is not eligible for state maintenance. VDOT classifies the
road as a collector road and the proposed road design is not consistent with the warrants and
standards allowed by VDOT for a collector road. Also VDOT is not in agreement with the proposed
location of the waterline for the development. (See Attachment D) As noted in Attachment D, there are
many aspects of the applicant’s proposed changes that could be allowed by VDOT with some
adjustments, however, the applicant and VDOT are at an impasse regarding the proposed changes.
This situation has lead to the developer requesting the ability to construct the roads as private roads.
Regarding the road design, staff is supportive of the design as proposed by the applicant. Staff
suggests that if the Board of Supervisors chooses to approve the revised proffers to allow a private
road, it is recommended that the standards not be specifically called out. This will allow staff, developer,
and potentially VDOT to work out and modify, as necessary, the design details in the future.
Regarding the status of the road as a private road, staff is supportive of providing the option for the
road to be either public or private provided that the applicant reserves the road right-or-way for
dedication to the County.
There are a number of outstanding issues/updates related to the proffers that are not substantive in this
amendment request, but should be addressed at this time while the proffers are subject to amendment.
Please see Attachment E for the outstanding issues related to the proffers that should be addressed
prior to the Board public hearing.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
8 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
PC Public Hearing 1/24/2012
1. The rezoning request proposes District Avenue to be a road that would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model District.
2. This rezoning request will not change the site layout or intent of the original
rezoning.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The County would prefer a public road to better assure long-term maintenance
and better accommodate potential road interconnections and extensions north of
Greenbrier Road.
2. There are other outstanding technical items relating to the proffers that should be
addressed prior to a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION
Provided the applicant agrees and can address the outstanding proffer issues and provides
reservation for future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way, staff recommends approval of
ZMA201100007 inclusive of revised proffers.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT B – Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT C – Proffers dated December 5, 2011
ATTACHMENT D – Letter from D. Brent Sprinkel, dated November 8, 2011
ATTACHMENT E – Memorandum from Claudette Grant dated January 9, 2012
Return to exec summary
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this ZMA:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201100007 subject to the proffers dated December 5, 2011
as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this ZMA:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201100007. Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
From: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January17, 2012
Subject: ZMA 2011-00007 Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer Amendment
Staff has reviewed the re-submittal, dated December 5, 2011, regarding the proffer amendments in
order to provide flexibility to District Avenue (formally known as Albemarle Place Boulevard); allowing
it to be either a public or private road.
The following staff comments, listed below will need to be resolved prior to the Board of Supervisors
public hearing:
Proffers
The following comments have been provided by Greg Kamptner:
Proffer 8(b) should be amended to address the violation, assuming that the notice required by
Proffer 14 that would make that alternative effective is not provided. This issue has been
addressed. (See Zoning comment below)
Planning
Staff encourages the applicant to revise the street names on the application plan. Following
the proffers and various name changes could become confusing.
A proffer needs to be included to address the reservation of the road’s (District Avenue) right-
of-way for dedication for public use.
Zoning
The following comments (previously submitted) related to zoning matters have been provided by
Sarah Baldwin:
Zoning has received information from the City that they have no records or improvement
information regarding Proffer 4. Technically this proffer is in violation. Please provide
documentation or provide payment to the City.
Staff received a letter addressed to Mark Graham, dated January 11, 2012 from Thomas R.
Gallagher regarding Proffer 8 (B) and notification to the City of Charlottesville.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn
Brooks:
The rezoning amendment for Stonefield has been reviewed. This proposes one small but
significant change, allowing Stonefield Boulevard, now called District Avenue, to be a private
street. This would enable the applicant to forego some of the requirements of VDOT.
To the average driver, there will be no discernible difference between the private and public
street. The proposed changes are minor, and it is not clear why VDOT would not accept them.
In brief, by allowing a private street, the county will be allowing the following changes to the
design of the street;
1. A four-way stop condition at the intersection of Bond Street and District Avenue
2. Utilities under the pavement (water and sewer).
3. The elimination of the concrete gutter north of Houston Street.
4. Placement of street trees and sidewalk approximately 5 feet closer to the street.
5. Removal of some drains under the pavement.
All of these changes are allowable under the written VDOT standards, which contain some
flexibility in implementation. If the board should approve the revised proffers to allow a private
street, it is recommended that the standards not be specifically called out. This will allow staff,
VDOT and the applicant to modify the design details in future. From the notes currently on the
plan, it appears more changes may be forthcoming.
The following staff comments, listed below are for information:
ASCA
The following comments related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have been provided
for your information by Alexander Morrison:
Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal include (Meadow Creek Interceptor –
No capacity until work is completed).
This will require Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 24, 2012
ZMA-2011-00007/Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers on property zoned NMD which allows residential (3 – 34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No new dwellings or change in residential
density proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in Destination Center) – retail, residential,
commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Mixed Use (in areas around
Centers) – commercial and retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers; and Commercial Mixed
Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses.
LOCATION: Northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00-
02400, 061W0-03-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett (Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
The purpose of the hearing is to amend proffers for property zoned Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning
district. No new dwellings or change in residential density is proposed.
The phasing plan shows District Avenue, which use to be called Albemarle Place Boulevard. District
Avenue is the main subject for the proffer change. The applicant proposes to change two proffers.
1. Proffer 1a, which relates to phase one of the development, would be amended to allow
construction of the first phase of District Avenue to be complete when it is constructed in
conformance with the plans approved by Albemarle County or by VDOT.
2. Proffer 1b, which relates to phase two of the development, would be amended to allow the
construction of the second phase of District Avenue to be complete when it is constructed in
conformance with the plans approved by Albemarle County or by VDOT and in any event the
County Engineer has approved it for vehicular travel.
In general, revisions have also been made to the proffers to update the rezoning project numbers and
also revise for clarification the street names and the project name. The applicant would like the flexibility
for District Avenue to be a private or public road. The applicant wishes to provide the following design
elements to District Avenue.
- They would like street trees to be next to the road;
- Include additional utilities in the roadway; and
- Have a four way stop at a particular intersection.
Currently the design elements the applicant would like are not supported by VDOT, however, are allowed
with a private road. Furthermore, the design elements that the applicant is seeking are elements that are
consistent with the Neighborhood Model District. It is important to mention that the Places29 Master Plan
shows District Avenue as part of a roadway network serving this area and potentially extending to
Greenbrier Drive and further north. If District Avenue provides the roadway network recommended in the
Places29 Master Plan it would be important for this road to be public for ownership of a public facility and
maintenance reasons. For this reason the County would like the provision for a reservation of the road
right-of-way for future dedication to the County. This has not been provided at this time.
Favors favorable -
• The rezoning request proposes District Avenue to be a road design that would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model District.
• This rezoning request will not change the site layout or intent of the original rezoning.
Unfavorable factors -
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
2
• The County would prefer a public road to better assure long -term maintenance and better
accommodate potential road interconnections and extensions north of Greenbrier Road.
• There are other outstanding technical items relating to the proffers that should be addressed prior
to a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors.
Staff’s recommendation- Provided the applicant agrees and can address the outstanding proffer issues
and provides reservation for future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way, staff recommends approval
of ZMA-2011-00007 inclusive of revised proffers.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach said what they were talking about seems very reasonable regarding putting the street trees
and utilities where they want. However, they are also saying VDOT does not approve of this. Therefore, it
is going to be a private road. That is great. However, staff is saying later since this is part of a road
network that VDOT will be involved. He questioned what is going to be the outcome if VDOT gets
involved. He questioned if the private road can then become public with the modifications that were
made that VDOT does not like.
Ms. Monteith asked how a private road would convert into a public road when the reason why it could not
be a public road to start with is because it did not align with their standards.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that those are the standards of today. W hat they are really talking about is leaving
open the opportunity if there are future extensions from this road that are part of the public road way
network so that it can be part of the public system. Very honestly VDOT standards may change. They
have not stopped their fight with VDOT over the possibility of having roads such as this road, which is
very consistent with the Neighborhood Model, become part of the public road system. This is all about
VDOT requirements for clear zones, which essentially favor the automobile over pedestrians. That is not
a matter that he would say has had its final argument. What Ms. Grant has recommended here is that this
can be and probably needs to be a private road for the time being, but to have the right-of-way available
for public dedication when and if the county is able to convince VDOT that it should be public, or that
additions or extensions to this road occur that are part of the public system that VDOT will maintain. That
also is with the understanding that they don’t know the future of VDOT actually maintaining roads such as
this in counties in Virginia. There is the possibility that sometime down the road they may be responsible
for these roads as a county and they would want it in the public system. They would then work by our
own standards and not VDOT’s.
Ms. Monteith asked how that would address the extension and interconnection with Greenbrier Road,
which is one of the unfavorable items.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the reservation of the right-of-way then allows us to make sure that extension
takes place and they get the public right-of-way in this road section for that to be part of the overall public
street.
Mr. Randolph asked the question of precedent and consistency. He asked staff to clarify whether
normally utilities are included to the side of the road or within the roadway in the Neighborhood Model as
established in Crozet and as projected for the Village of Rivanna.
Mr. Cilimberg replied ideally they want to accommodate the utilities in the best way they can to assure
they also get the road design in proper context for the road. That may mean utilities in the road; it may be
utilities outside of the road, but in the right-of-way; or it could be utilities behind buildings. It can vary.
They run into issues with VDOT when the utilities start getting into the street.
Mr. Loach asked if there is no worst case scenario where VDOT would refuse to connect to the private
road.
Mr. Cilimberg replied to begin with they don’t have any anticipation of this road being finished through as
a public road right now because they don’t have VDOT funds or any new development. When and if that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
3
happens, then they have a new opportunity to make sure if that can be a public road that this will be part
of that road.
Mr. Smith asked if the road was going to be built to state standards other than the utilities.
Mr. Cilimberg replied no, it was not just the utilities. There is a clear zone issue where they would have to
back the sidewalks, the buildings, and the trees way out of the road. That does not create proper context
for urban design.
Mr. Morris said he had two questions. On page 7, it says the county is agreeing to the following changes
in the design of the road. In 3 and 5, it says elimination of concrete gutter north of Houston Stre et and
removal of some of the drains under the pavement. He asked if this is going against the curb and gutter
or storm water removal.
Mr. Randolph noted that it was also repeated on pages 2 and 3
Ms. Grant asked if his question was whether these are going against the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Morris replied yes. However, they have been stressing curb and gutter and good solid drainage in the
Neighborhood Model and so on. He questioned why they are now recommending this.
Mr. Franco suggested letting the applicant chime in.
Ms. Grant pointed out with regards to the street trees and sidewalks this does speak to the applicant’s
wishes to make the streets narrower and to make it more pedestrian friendly. She thought they wanted to
have it closer. However, by VDOT standards they would want those items to be 10’ away.
Mr. Morris asked if the concrete gutters would impede upon this 10’.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested letting the applicant speak to this more particularly. However, this is not
removing curb. It is just saying a concrete gutter would be eliminated. However, that would be eliminated
only with the understanding that the necessary drainage is occurring. A curb and gutter in an urban
setting are not needed in all cases for the drainage to be taken care of. Therefore, they have a
possibility with proper engineering of having a curb without a gutter. He thought that is what this is
speaking to. However, the applicant should probably speak to that.
Mr. Morris noted the reason he addressed it to staff is the county is agreeing.
Mr. Randolph said what they are looking at is a road that is mentioned as having the potential of being an
arterial alternative to Route 29 at some future point in the Places29 design scheme. This road could be
part of that. Before the Commission is a discussion as to whether in essence they are going to narrow
and constrict the road for traffic calming to be consistent with the Neighborhood Model District or other
rationale. If approved are they jeopardizing in the future the potential of coming back and really utilizing
this road as a alternative in Places29 as an arterial north/south road to reduce congestion on 29. He did
not see anything in here that links this application to its potential impact to a Places29 destination of this
road in the future as an arterial road north/south.
Mr. Cilimberg questioned if they said this road was going to be an arterial since he did not think Places29
identified this as an arterial route. It was identified as a parallel street among many in which they were
trying to disperse the traffic. He did not think they were talking about constricting what would have
otherwise been a bigger and wider road. It is actually very consistent with the road they would expect to
have in that location in an urban setting. One of the hurdles they have to get over with VDOT is they will
sometimes consider these streets functionally as roads maybe of a higher function than what they are
actually needing to serve. That is why they run into some of these design issues. He was actually
involved in a state committee, Virginia Department of Rails and Public Transportation , which is looking to
revamp how urban area streets are being addressed in terms of their context. It actually involves VDOT ,
which is why he says there could be some big changes coming in the future.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
4
Mr. Franco said affirming the Neighborhood Model is the issue because this is the form of development or
the street pattern they are looking for. They are trying to provide the applicant the flexibility to execute
what they want. They are giving up VDOT acceptance of that at this point in time, but reserving that
potential in the future. They are saying the form they are trying to create is more important than the
VDOT acceptance right now.
Ms. Monteith said her question still stands that if they get right-of-way set aside she did not see the
guarantee that this would at some point move from a private to a public street.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed there is no guarantee. They may not be able to do that based on VDOT
requirements. However, they would be keeping that option or opportunity and in the mean time get
context sensitive design.
Mr. Franco noted the key point is that form is more important and to push the utilities outside, widen the
roads and push the trees outside they don’t have the road they are trying to create that they have asked
for.
Ms. Monteith said if it is private they don’t ultimately have control.
Mr. Franco said they were back to the question of is the form mor e important than the ownership. In this
case, they are saying yes if they affirm this.
Mr. Cilimberg noted without the agreement of the county they would not be able to restrict the utilization
of these roads. This is not the only private road in Stonefield. There are still roads for public use. They
are just privately maintained. They would have to come back and ask for gates and what have you to
actually restrict. He did not think that was something they want for their businesses and residents.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to
address the Planning Commission.
Valerie Long, attorney with Williams Mullins, represented the applicant. Also present were Tom
Gallagher, with Edens and Avant the project developer. She presented a Power-Point presentation,
which included some history of the prior amendments for the benefit of the new Commissioner.
Project Overview:
• Rezoned in 2003 to Neighborhood Model District
– Application Plan
– Proffers
– Code of Development
• Proffer Amendment approved August, 2010
• Proffer Amendment approved September, 2011
They have amended the proffers twice just in the last few years for some technicalities. This is the last
time they hope to come before the Commission with proffer amendments. Ms. Grant showed the
application plan earlier as was approved in 2003. This plan is showing what is now being called District
Boulevard, which was originally Albemarle Place Boulevard in the original proffers and the original
application plan. The first portion of the project was underway. They hope to have it finished before the
end of the year. The yellow portion of the road will be built first. The second portion to be built in phase 2
will be temporary pursuant to the proffers approved last fall. Ultimately, District Avenue will connect with
Route 29. She noted that some of the road names have been changed to comply with the regulations.
She noted an example of the types of design elements that they are requesting t o implement in the
project. The VDOT guidelines include a requirement for the 10’ clear zone, which is a fairly new
requirement they all have been struggling with. As Mr. Cilimberg indicated it really is contrary to the
Neighborhood Model principles of having narrow streets, parallel parking, street trees up next to the road,
and things like that. It just makes it very challenging, especially in projects like this, which are very dense
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
5
and compact. When they throw in 10’ on either side of the road, and th ey can’t have utilities in the clear
zone or utilities under the pavement, it makes it very challenging to incorporate and implement the design
elements of a project like Stonefield. She pointed out on the slide what had been approved with the clear
zone. On the next page, as a frame of reference, she noted the curb and gutter with no clear zone.
Therefore, the street trees are much closer, which was the difference. It may seem like a minor detail, but
it is very important to implement the feel and the quality of the design that they are really working for in
Albemarle Place. They are also working with physical limitations on real estate. That is the main issues.
Mr. Cilimberg did a great job of answering all of the questions that she would have ans wered in terms of
those challenges. Mr. Franco did a great job of explaining in this case they agree form is more important
than ownership. Ultimately, they would like it to be a public road. They would love it if they would
maintain it. They always have the flexibility to accept the road as it is built. As Mr. Cilimberg indicated ,
they hope that in the future through his committee he can convince them that in certain areas, like urban
areas, it is okay to have slightly different standards. If they do accept and change their standards for
these areas they could come back and request acceptance. However, right now the connection to
Greenbrier Drive could not be possible anyway. The former Comdial Building was probably in the way.
That was what was meant when he said there was no new development being planned. If that building
was proposed for demolition and all new development was contemplated there, the county would
probably require that connection to be built and maybe VDOT would take another look a t it. But until then
this enables us to build the road to the standards that the county wants that are consistent with the
Neighborhood Model in a way that keeps things flexible for the future. Mr. Gallagher will answer Mr.
Morris’ questions about the gutter, drain and the drainage issues. She would be happy to answer any
further questions anyone may have.
Tom Gallagher, with Edens and Avant, reiterated that this is all design driven. So in terms of whether it is
the ownership regarding the right-of-way or the clear zone, what they are trying to accomplish is all
design driven. So it is the street trees and utilities.
- The one comment he would make in respect to one of the members is that it is water and sewer
utilities. However, there are other utilities that would also benefit from being located in the area,
like gas, electric and duct banks, etc.
- With respect to the notes about the curb sections, when they move away from a gutter section
they are not going to a rural section or changing the drainage along the parallel route. It is really
what they call a header curb. If in an urban environment you will notice when you step off the
curb you actually step off onto asphalt. So there is not a gutter pan, per say, but it still drains
according to all of the standards that are in place. That is one element.
- The comment with respect to drains and drainage has to do with VDOT standards. They quite
often will require overkill in terms of under-drains, which are drains that actually take the water
from under the curb section back towards the sidewalk. So there are certain sections where they
are trying to move away from that. Again, that would be subject to the approval of the county
engineer and the rest of staff.
- In terms of the design he thought Mr. Randolph asked about whether the arterial is an issue. The
design as approved by VDOT right now is 25 miles per hour design and 25 miles per hour posted.
They are not changing that at all. The flexibility in terms of the urban design would allow them to
be able to get the street trees up and create the kind of aesthetic environment design that they
want that is more pedestrian friendly. Then it also gives the flexibility to also bring buildings in
ultimately closer. They are not changing these, per say, because they are already further along
in terms of the final site plan. But, it allows them to create the street wall and the street presence
for buildings along the street, which is consistent with the Neighborhood Model District.
Mr. Cilimberg noted on the cross section on the screen it is identified as “urban collector”. That may have
been the classification that was being used in VDOT’s review of this.
Mr. Gallagher agreed that was correct. They are agreeable to reserving the road as designed and
constructed for future dedication. They have no problem with that. There has never been any question
that they have to own it or not own it. From a maintenance standpoint they are happy for VDOT or the
county whomever to take it over in the future. They are agreeable to reserving District Avenue for a future
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
6
dedication. Consistent with that they also have to reserve the c onnection points on the periphery
specifically to the north for a future interconnection to Greenbrier should Comdial ever redevelop.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Ms. Monteith asked since they don’t have drawings that show this , what is happening in this space that
would have previously been part of the roadway that is presumably back of the sidewalk now.
Mr. Gallagher replied that on some of the sections when they moved the trees in so the sidewalks will
basically move in a little bit closer and then on some sections it will be more green space on the
perimeter. In some sections the buildings that are not yet at final site pl an or building they may be able to
move those up a little bit closer and create more of that street wall. There is a benefit.
Ms. Monteith asked how they keep the right-of-way if they move the buildings in.
Mr. Gallagher noted this has been the challenge for them along District Avenue. The right-of-way they
require is based on the clear zone. They wanted 10’ clear as their preference with the 25 miles per hour
zone speed limit. If they design it according to what they proposed, then the right-of-way will be at the
edge of curb. The right-of-way is basically going to be determined by road is constructed. Basically they
would have road, which will have a narrower right-of-way. However, it will still include all of the road
improvements themselves.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that typically VDOT’s right-of-way in urban sections will be to a point behind the
sidewalk. So the width is going to be driven as Mr. Gallagher mentioned by the width of the road, planting
strip, and sidewalk and then the right-of-way falls on the outside of the sidewalk.
Mr. Randolph said with a private road how are they proposing to set aside funds to cover the repair and
maintenance of this private road.
Mr. Gallagher replied that there are a lot of other roads within the pro ject that will have public access
easements on them. Everything actually is controlled under a master declaration, which includes all of
the various owners. They will be selling some properties, which are subject to the master declaration.
There is a community association that is responsible for the actual maintenance of the road, which is a
requirement of the county that declaration be put in place to ensure exactly what he was voicing a
concern about. Then it varies whether it is on the commercial ten ants or for the hotel. They all make
annual contributions. There is a master association responsible for the maintenance and they collect the
funds from the various operators of the property owners within the district.
Mr. Smith noted the plan shows two 12’ lanes. If they eliminate the gutter pans are they going to have a
2’ of pavement.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the gutter pan was being eliminated on one of the side streets and not on this street.
Mr. Gallagher said the on the proposed cross section reviewed from Hydraulic Road they would lose
some width from the gutter pan but it was not inconsistent with the road designs. The county standards in
terms of road design their default is the VDOT standards. If they went from 12’ to 11’ that would still be
consistent with previous county design standards.
Mr. Smith asked who will do the inspections, and Mr. Cilimberg replied it would be the inspectors from the
county engineer office.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the publ ic hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Franco asked if the applicant was comfortable with the proffer changes that are being proposed and
was comfortable working that out between now and the Board meeting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
7
Mr. Gallagher agreed.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of ZMA -2011-00007
Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment subject to the proffers dated December 5, 2011 as recommended by
staff.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested adding as recommended by staff with the amendments as necessary as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Franco agreed to amend the motion as suggested.
Mr. Loach agreed to the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said that ZMA-2011-00007 Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment would be forwarded to the
Board on a date to be determined with the following recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of ZMA-2011-00007 Albemarle Place Proffer
Amendment subject to the proffers dated December 5, 2011 as recommended by staff with the
amendments as necessary as recommended by staff.
- If the applicant agrees and can address the outstanding proffer issues and provides reservation
for future dedication of District Avenue right-of-way, staff recommends approval of ZMA-2011-
00007 inclusive of revised proffers.
• There are other outstanding technical items relating to the proffers that should be addressed prior
to a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors.
Resolution of Intent for special exemptions:
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Kamptner to provide a background on the proposed resolution of intent.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the resolution of intent is the first step in addressing the St. Clair decision. It is
what they think will likely be a short term fix. What it does is create or add a new section to the zoning
ordinance by which the Board of Supervisors would have the authority to act on all what are now labeled
as waivers, modifications, variations, and substitutions. It would also have the Board of Supervisors act
on all matters such as Tier II wireless applications that are under the current regulations delegated to the
Planning Commission. This has been scheduled because of time and the need to keep applications
moving along to be considered at the Planning Commission’s joint meeting on February 8 for public
hearing. Staff recommends that this resolution of intent be adopted so that they can proceed with the
zoning text amendment. When the Commission does have an opportunity to read his memorandum in
the last part it outlines the other solutions they will be pursuing both at the state level and throughout the
zoning ordinance to get them back on track.
Mr. Morris invited questions for Mr. Kamptner.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded for approval of the resolution of intent as drafted by
staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted the Resolution of Intent for Special Exceptions, was adopted by a vote of 6:0, as drafted
by staff, as follows. The Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors is
scheduled for February 8, 2012.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 03-06-12
8
ADOPTED 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:
ZTA 2010-00005 Sign Ordinance Zoning Text Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing - Proposed Sign Ordinance Zoning Text
Amendment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs: Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Higgins
and Wright; and Ms. McCulley and Ms. Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 14, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Following its September 13, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission took action to recommend to the Board
adoption of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to amend the sign regulations with revisions (Attachment A).
At the end of the Board of Supervisors November 2, 2011 public hearing, the Board asked staff to return for a work
session to provide more information with more examples and illustrations to clarify the effect of the proposed changes
on selected issues. At the conclusion of its February 1, 2012 work session, the Board requested some further
refinements and directed the sign ZTA be scheduled for a second public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
Window coverage
The revised draft ordinance limits window coverage by window signs to 25%, reduced from the 50% proposed in the
prior draft. In response to the Board’s request, additional examples of window signs will be shown as part of staff’s
presentation on March 14, 2012. Staff was also asked by the Board to obtain information from the Police Department
about window signs blocking visibility and any recommendations they might have for public safety purposes. The
Police Department has advised that it is an advantage to businesses and police officers if a clear, unobstructed view
into their establishments is provided for surveillance or in case a crime is in progress. The Police Department would
prefer a 25% rather than a 50% coverage limitation on window coverage. The draft ordinance now reflects a
maximum 25% window coverage.
Wall street height
With regards to the question concerning criteria for an increased wall sign height, staff previously reported that the
Architectural Review Board made the following statement at its December 5, 2011 meeting: “The architectural design
of some buildings may appropriately accommodate wall signs installed at heights greater than 30’. The forms, details,
scale and location of the architecture, together with the scale, color and Illumination of the proposed sign are all
considerations in determining appropriateness. In no case would a roof-mounted sign or a sign extending above a
parapet or similar architectural feature be appropriate. Likewise, the extension of a structure for the purpose of
providing wall space for a higher sign would not be appropriate.” The Board asked if the underlined qualifiers in this
ARB statement could be codified. Roof signs are currently prohibited by County Code § 18-4.15.7(c)(7). In the case
of an artificial extension of a wall height, the ARB currently has design review authority to control this element in the
entrance corridors. The proposed definition of “cornice line” and corresponding height regulations referencing cornice
line in this ZTA will implement this limitation generally. The permitted height of wall signs in conventional residential
zoning districts will remain unchanged at 20 feet.
Technical changes
Staff also recommends the following two technical changes, both of which are incorporated into the draft ZTA: (1)
amend the definition of “bonus tenant panel” (County Code § 18-4.15.2) to clarify that they may be affixed to a single
freestanding sign; and (2) correct the maximum square footage for a single freestanding sign in the PUD, DCD and
NMD zoning districts (County Code § 18-4.15.11) from 12 to 16 square feet; this change is recommended to
correspond to the increase in the aggregate square footage from 24 to 32 square feet, as similarly provided for in other
provisions in the sign regulations.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2010-00005 Sign Ordinance Zoning Text Amendment
March 14, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
This proposed ZTA is expected to reduce the amount of review time currently required by ARB staff, permit staff, the
Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of Supervisors,
thereby reducing the cost to the County and the applicants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends adoption of the attached proposed ZTA (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Sign ZTA, dated 02/27/12
B – 2/1/12 Board Work Session Executive Summary
C – New Comparison Chart of Sign Ordinance changes
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
1
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1 and CO zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
By Adding:
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
The purpose and intent of this section 4.15 include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The board of supervisors finds that signs are a separate and distinct use of the property upon which they
are located and affect the uses and users of adjacent streets, sidewalks and other areas open to the
public; that signs are an important means of communication for businesses, organizations, individuals
and government; and that the unregulated erection and display of signs constitute a public nuisance
detrimental to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public. Therefore, the purpose
of this section 4.15 is to establish reasonable regulations pertaining to the time, place and manner in
which outdoor signs and window signs may be erected and maintained in order to:
1. Promote the general health, safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and
harmonious environment;
2. Protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets,
highways and other areas open to the public;
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
2
3. Improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of
vision that could otherwise result if such signs were not regulated as provided herein; and
4. Protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as sources of
economic development.
b. The board of supervisors finds that the regulations in this section 4.15 advance the significant
governmental interests identified herein and are the minimum amount of regulation necessary to achieve
them.
c. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., bonus tenant panel),
physical type (e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated
sign). By classifying and regulating signs by their purpose, the board of supervisors does not intend to
regulate their content and, more specifically, any particular viewpoint, but rather intends to create a
reasonable classification by which to regulate the time, place and manner of signs.
cd. The regulations in this section 4.15 shall apply to all outdoor signs and window signs. Each sign subject
to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
d. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., anchor sign), physical type
(e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated sign). Each
sign subject to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.01; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(2) Anchor sign. The term “anchor sign” means a sign that identifies any specific business within a
shopping center.
(8.1) Bonus tenant panel: The term “bonus tenant panel” means an additional sign permitted for individual
tenants in shopping centers or planned developments when added to one freestanding sign for the
shopping center or planned development.
. . .
(14.1) Cornice line. The term “cornice line” means the location of a cornice along the top of a wall; or, for a
wall that has no cornice, the corresponding horizontal line along the top of a wall where a cornice would
traditionally be located. In all cases, the “cornice line” applies to the main walls of a building and does
not apply to features that extend above the top of the main walls of a building.
. . .
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
3
(16) Electric message sign. The term “electric message sign” means a sign on which the copy can be
changed or altered by electric, electro-mechanical or electronic means.
. . .
(35) Off-site sign. The term “off-site sign” means: (i) within a zoning district other than a planned
development, a sign that is not located on the same lot with the use to which it pertains, but does not
include a sign located in a public right-of-way; or (ii) within a planned development zoning district, a
sign that is not located within the area depicted on the application plan approved for the planned
development, but does not include a sign located in a public right-of-way.
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord. 10-
18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Except as provided in sections 4.15.6 (exempt signs) and 4.15.24 (nonconforming signs) Except for temporary
signs subject to the permitting requirements of section 4.15.4A, signs exempt from this section under section
4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24, a sign permit shall be required for each sign erected
on the same lot with the principal use to which it pertains, prior to its erection, alteration, replacement or
relocation, as provided herein:
a. Application. An application for a sign permit shall be submitted to the department of building code and
zoning services community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application
pursuant to section 35.0 35.1 of this chapter. A complete application shall consist of the following:
1. A fully completed application form, provided to the applicant by the zoning administrator;
2. A schematic legibly drawn to scale and sufficiently detailed showing the location and dimen-
sions of the sign; and
3. Any plans, specifications and details pertaining to, among other things, the sign materials, the
methods of illumination, methods of support, components, and the condition and age of the
sign, as determined by the zoning administrator to be necessary for the review of the
application.
b. Application review and permit issuance. A sign permit application shall be reviewed and acted upon by
the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Timing of application. An application for a sign permit may be filed at any time, and if a
special use permit for the sign is required under section 4.15.5 or a certificate of appropriateness
for the sign is required under section 4.15.15 and section 30.6 of this chapter, the application
may be filed with or any time after the application for the special use permit or certificate of
appropriateness is filed.
12. Action on application. Within thirty (30) days of the after receipt of a complete sign permit
application, or within seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a
temporary sign, the zoning administrator shall review the application and either: (i) approve the
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
4
application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the application to the applicant for more
information as may be required by subsection 4.15.4(Aa)(3); (iv) refer the application to the
board of zoning appeals because the applicant must obtain a special use permit pursuant to
section 4.15.5; and/or (v) refer the application to the architectural review board because the
proposed sign will be located within the entrance corridor overlay district and a certificate of
appropriateness is required. An application shall be denied only if the proposed sign is a
prohibited sign, or does not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15 or, a
required special use permit or certificate of appropriateness for the sign was not grant ed. If the
application is denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
23. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein
within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete sign permit application, or within seven (7) days
of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign, the permit shall be deemed
approved as received.
c. Administration, generally. Except for permits issued for temporary signs, which are subject to the
regulations in subsection (D), the following regulations shall apply to the administration of sign permits:
1. A sign permit shall become null and void if the use to which the sign permit pertains is not
commenced within six (6) months after the date the sign permit, special use permit or certificate
of appropriateness is issued, whichever is later or, if the sign contains exclusively
noncommercial copy, the sign is not erected within six (6) months after the date the sign permit
is issued. Upon written request by the permittee and upon good cause shown, the zoning
administrator may grant an extension of the six (6)-month period.
2. The zoning administrator shall revoke a sign permit if the sign does not comply with any
applicable regulation of this section 4.15.
d. Administration, permits for temporary signs. The following regulations shall apply to the
administration of sign permits issued for temporary signs:
1. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as not to pose a danger to public
safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator shall approve the method of
stabilization.
2. No more than four (4) permits for temporary signs shall be issued by the zoning administrator to
the same establishment in any calendar year.
3. Each permit for a temporary sign shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15)
consecutive days after the erection of the sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, §§ 4.15.09, 4.15.09.1, 4.15.09.2, 4.15.09.3; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
A permit shall be required for each temporary sign (hereinafter, a “temporary sign permit”), prior to its erection,
alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided herein:
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
5
a. Application. An application for a temporary sign permit shall be submitted to the department of
community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application pursuant to
section 35.1 of this chapter, and comply with the application requirements of subsection 4.15.4(a).
b. Application review and permit issuance. A temporary sign permit application shall be reviewed and
acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Action on application. Within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete application, the zoning
administrator shall either: (i) approve the application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the
application to the applicant for more information as may be required by section 4.15.4(a)(3).
An application shall be denied only if the proposed temporary sign is a prohibited sign or does
not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15. If the application is denied, the
reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described
herein within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign,
the permit shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration. The following regulations shall apply to the administration of temporary sign permits:
1. Number of permits. No more than six (6) temporary sign permits shall be issued by the zoning
administrator to the same establishment in any calendar year.
2. Period of validity. Each temporary sign permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen
(15) consecutive days after the erection of the sign, provided that a temporary sign permit issued
while a permanent sign is being made may be valid for longer than fifteen (15) days until the
permanent sign is erected.
3. Aggregate duration for temporary signs in calendar year. Temporary signs shall not be erected
at an establishment for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar year.
4. Portable signs; stabilization. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as
not to pose a danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator
shall approve the method of stabilization.
d. Exemptions. A temporary sign permit is not required for a sign exempt from the sign permit requirement
under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24.
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in to obtain a sign permit under
section 4.15.4 and a temporary sign permit under section 4.15.4A, provided that they comply with the
regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:. A sign exempt from the
requirements to obtain permits under sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.4A is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a
special use permit under section 4.15.5 if required.
. . .
(7) Home occupation class B or major home occupation sign. A home occupation class B or major home
occupation sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
. . .
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
6
(18) Window sign. A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all window signs
on each window or door does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window and
or door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a structure within the entrance
corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an entrance corridor overlay street, that the
aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine (9) square feet per business and that a
certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is obtained as provided in section 4.15.15. (Amended
3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
. . .
b. Signs with characteristics that create a safety hazard or are contrary to the general welfare. Signs
whose construction, design, location or other physical characteristic create a safety hazard or are
contrary to the general welfare, as follows:
. . .
7. Sign that obstructs vision. A sign that obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes a safety
hazard for vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic due to its location, shape, illumination or
color; and window signs whose aggregate area on a window or door exceed twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total area of the window or door. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and Residential (R-1 and R-2)
zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage, plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
square feet
10 feet 10 5 feet
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
7
on its frontage
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
10 5 feet
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
40 square feet, aggregated
in the RA zoning district;
20 square feet, aggregated,
in other zoning districts
20 feet
Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Residential (R-4 and R-6) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
square feet
10 feet 10 5 feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
20 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
10 5 feet
Wall As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20 20 square feet, aggregated 20 feet
Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.2; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Downtown Crozet (DCD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning
districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot 24 32 square feet, 12 feet 5 feet
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
8
Freestanding
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
aggregated, plus bonus
tenant panels as provided
in section 4.15.16(b); if
more than 1 sign at an
entrance, no single sign
shall exceed 12 16 square
feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if
residential wall sign;
or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 32
square feet if residential
wall sign, or 100 square
feet if nonresidential wall
sign
20 feet, if residential
wall sign; or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign
Not to exceed the
cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
Within the DCD, oOne (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the following: (1)
the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign
face; (2) if the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide; (3) the
sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement, alley or fire lane;
(4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business hours; and (6) if the sign
is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign the owner shall agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from the placement of the sign, and the agreement
shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the county attorney. Sandwich board signs shall be exempt
from review and approval under section 30.6 subject to the requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 10-18(1), 1-13-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, and CO and HC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Commercial (C-1), and Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
9
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 100
square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign. If the establishment has both such signs,
the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not
exceed thirty-two (32) square feet).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Highway Commercial (HC), Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) and Planned Development-Mixed
Commercial (PD-MC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 16 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 200 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign. If the establishment has both such signs,
the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not
exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.
One (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the requirements of section
4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.6; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
10
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Heavy Industry (HI), Light Industry (LI) and Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts.
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory
1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregate,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
1216 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 200 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign. If the establishment has both such signs,
the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting si gn (which may not
exceed thirty-two (32) square feet).
Within the PD-IP zoning district, one (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the
requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.7; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the
entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an
entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the
owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness
for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5(d).
b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority
and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set
forth in section 30.6.
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
11
c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque
background.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.16 Regulations applicable to certain sign types
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations apply to the sign types
identified herein:
. . .
b. Anchor signs Bonus tenant panels. In each shopping center exceeding one hundred thousand (100,000)
fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area: (i) one (1) freestanding anchor sign bonus tenant
panel shall be permitted for each one hundred thousand (100,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in
gross floor area, not to exceed four (4) anchor signs bonus tenant panels at the shopping center; and (ii)
each anchor sign no bonus tenant panel shall not exceed six (6) eight (8) square feet in sign area.
. . .
i. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
Sandwich board signs. Sandwich board signs shall be subject to the following: (1) the sign shall not
exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign face; (2) if
the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide;
(3) the sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement,
alley or fire lane; (4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business
hours; and (6) if the sign is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign, the
owner shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from
the placement of the sign, and the agreement shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the
county attorney.
j. Signs using rare gas illumination. Signs using exposed rare gas illumination, and signs within the
entrance corridor overlay district visible from an entrance corridor overlay street that use rare gas
illumination covered by a transparent material, shall not have a brightness that exceeds thirty (30)
milliamps. Brightness shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider information
provided by the sign manufacturer, the rated size of the sign’s transformer, and any other relevant
information deemed appropriate. (Added 3-16-05)
k. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
12
. . .
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits
or a single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a
comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness may
be issued for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to the
applicable design criteria and procedures, as follows:
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible for
county-wide certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural elements shall be eligible for county-wide
certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC street that
are not more than five (5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that fronts an
EC street as viewed from the EC street, where the rear structure is no more than
twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures having a single occupant Signs.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the design of the addition to the structure or
improvement is consistent with the architectural design approved with the
certificate of appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site lighting.
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50) percent or
less of the altered elevation of an existing structure.
11. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not otherwise
exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
ATTACHMENT A
Draft: 02/27/12
13
. . .
(§ 30.6.4, 10-3-90; § 30.6.4.1, 10-3-90; 5-18-94; § 30.6.4.2, 10-3-90; §30.6.5(formerly § 30.6.3.2, 7-8-92; Ord.
01-18(3), 5-9-01); § 30.6.4, Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
. . .
d. Agricultural product signs, political signs, public signs, sandwich board signs, temporary signs, and
sandwich board signs window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section
4.15.6.
. . .
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord. 10-
18(5), 5-12-10)
(Formerly SIGNS, Now see 30.6.4, 5-12-10)
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2010-00005 Sign Ordinance Zoning Text
Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work Session - Proposed Sign Ordinance Zoning Text
Amendments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs: Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Higgins
and Wright; and Ms. McCulley and Ms. Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 1, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At their public hearing on September 13, 2011 the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to amend the sign regulations (Attachment A). At the end of your November 2, 2011
Public Hearing you asked staff to come back to you for a work session in order to: provide more detailed explanation
of the proposals with options; provide more examples and illustrations to better educate the Board about current and
proposed allowances , and; further explore the implications of adopting the changes.
DISCUSSION:
The September 13, 2011 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B) provides some detailed information about
the background and the specifics of the proposed changes that were before the Board on November 2, 2011.
During your discussion various questions came up regarding the impacts of the proposed changes as noted in the
Comparison Chart provided (Attachment C). One of the basic sign provisions in our sign regulations that we should
note is that freestanding signage is PER PARCEL while the wall signage is PER ESTABLISHMENT. In addition, the
following questions/decision points are offered for your consideration:
-What is the implication if “site” is redefined for Planned Developments and Shopping Centers? The
proposal is to define the site as the entire area of the original development, thus not requiring a special
permit for an “off-site” sign in such developments. This change does not permit additional signs or sign area
than the regulations currently allow.
-How many freestanding signs could be allowed now and with the proposed changes? Currently, 1
freestanding sign is allowed per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, for lots with 100’ or more of continuous
frontage, plus one additional freestanding sign if the site is four acres or more. If 2 sign are provided at an
entrance, then each sign is limited to half of maximum area. Under the proposed changes no additional signs
would be allowed.
-Should there be a trade-off of freestanding signs when a larger development sign is permitted? The
proposed regulations eliminate freestanding anchor signs for tenants which are presently allowed by the sign
ordinance.
-How many “64 sq. ft. signs” would be possible under the new changes? Only one PER
DEVELOPMENT would be possible under the proposed ordinance.
-Is there an example of a wall sign that would be an improvement if higher than 30’? The ARB
suggested the BBandT Bank on Route 29 next to Fashion Square is such a case. They took the following
action at their December 5, 2011 meeting: “The architectural design of some buildings may
appropriately accommodate wall signs installed at heights greater than 30’. The forms, details, scale and
ATTACHMENT B
location of the architecture, together with the scale, color and Illumination of the proposed sign are all
considerations in determining appropriateness. In no case would a roof-mounted sign or a sign extending
above a parapet or similar architectural feature be appropriate. Likewise, the extension of a structure for the
purpose of providing wall space for a higher sign would not be appropriate.”
-Should the maximum coverage for a window sign be 50% or 25%? The current limit is 25%, with an
aggregate maximum of 9 sq. ft. per business if visible from an Entrance Corridor. This requirement is
problematic because 9 sq. ft. is restrictive and most businesses are not aware of or may not be complying
with it. The proposal is for a 50% maximum window coverage for any window sign. Less than this amount
may be difficult for some businesses that rely on window specials advertising, such as fast food and grocery
stores. Ooption the Board can consider is establishing a maximum window sign area other than the
current 9 sq. ft. or keeping with the maximum coverage per window of 25%.
-Should sandwich board signs be allowed on Entrance Corridor (EC) roads? Staff recommends that
they be allowed with proper anchoring. These types of signs are common in an urban form of development,
such as within a town center.
-Should this limit those visible from the EC or should such signs be prohibited on any part of a
property in the EC? Staff recommends that sandwich board signs visible from the EC not be allowed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The proposed changes are expected to reduce the amount of review time currently required by staff, the Planning
Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the Board of Supervisors, thereby reducing the cost to the County
and the applicants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff will incorporate Board guidance and comments into the draft Ordinance. We propose the Board set a public
hearing for the March 14, 2012 night meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Proposed Ordinance to amend the sign regulations .
B. Staff Executive Summary for the September 13, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
D. New Comparisons Chart of Sign Ordinance changes.
C. Board of Supervisors May 12, 2010 Resolution of Intent.
Return to exec summary
Subject Area Current requirements Proposed requirements
Planned Dev &
Shopping Center “site”
for off-site sign/Process
Each Parcel/Special
Permit from BZA
Original Pl. Dev. or
Shopping Center area/
No Special Permit
Shopping Center Fr. St.
sign size
32 sq. ft. max or 24 sq. ft.
max in some districts
64 sq. ft. possible w/4
tenant panels
Anchor Signs Up to 4 allowed @ 6 sq.
ft. ea., freestanding.
None allowed. Only
bonus tenant signs once
Fr. St. Sign setbacks 10 feet or 5 feet All 5 feet
Wall Signs: Max area
Max Height
1.5 or 1 sq. ft./1 linear ft.
30 feet
1.5 sq. ft./1 lin. ft., all
Not to exceed cornice
line on any building.
Temp Signs: Max.#/year
Length of time, each
Length of time/year
4
15 days
60 days
6
15 days
60 days
Window Signs: Review/
Permit/Max Coverage
ARB in EC/no
permit/25%
No ARB review/no
permit/25%
Sandwich Board Signs In DCD only In all Planned Dev. Dist.