HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202000012 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2020-10-16COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434)296-5832
October 16, 2020
513 Stewart Street, Suite E
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP202000012 Scruby Property — Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
Dear Nathan and Lori:
Comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies,
as applicable, are provided below:
Albemarle County Division of Planning Services (Planner) - Christopher Perez
1. [5.1.40(b)(6), 5.1.40(a)6] Screening and Siting to Minimize Visibility. Based upon the balloon test
conducted on Wednesday, July 29th, 2020 the siting of the proposed facility does not minimize
visibility from adjacent parcels and streets. The facility is located on lands adjacent to
conservation easements and shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically
identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The balloon was highly visible and skylit above the treeline from numerous locations including
surrounding conservation easements, protected resources in those easements, and historic
structures and properties in the historic district. The tower was also highly visible and skylit from
portions of Interstate 64, portions of Greenwood Road, portions of Rte. 690 (Greenwood Station
Road) nearest the site, and portions of Rte. 250 nearest Mirador's entrance. Additionally, some of
the other properties in the area that we visited have skylit views of the tower or views of the
tower with mountainous backdrops but high visibility above the tree line.
The visibility presented at the balloon test is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
County's Wireless Policy, or the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these preliminary findings staff
cannot recommend approval of the facility as proposed.
You have requested a deferral to address these issues before moving forward. During this time
you are having the reference tree resurveyed to determine its true height and revising the zoning
drawings accordingly. If the tree turns out to be shorter than originally thought, then you have
agreed to change your request to lower the tower height to be 10' above the reference tree's
correct height and run another balloon test. Rev 1. Staff has not reevaluated this aspect of the
plan at the time of this letter as this review is merely a quick review to help the applicant
correct easily noticed mistakes that were made with their 10-12-20 submittal before
distributing it to the various reviewers for a full review.
2. [5.1.40(a)(9)] Photographic simulations. Photo simulations of the proposed facility will be
required; however, this should be held off until the reference tree is remeasured and it is
determined if a new balloon test will be required. Once this decision is made staff can help
provide guidance on what views/photos to provide photo simulations. Rev 1. Staff has not
reevaluated this aspect of the plan at the time of this letter as this review is merely a quick
review to help the applicant correct easily noticed mistakes that were made with their 10-
12-20 submittal before distributing it to the various reviewers for a full review.
3. [5.1.40(a)(12), 5.1.40(c)2,18.4.2.3b, 18.4.2.5a] Critical Slopes. Hatch and label the areas of
critical slopes (slopes equal to or greater than 25%) on the plan. The proposed gravel
driveway/access road is located on the critical slopes and will require a special exception.
Request a SE for this item and provide justification. Rev 1. Comment not fully addressed. The
critical slopes are not depicted nor labeled on the plan. Hatch and label the SF of the areas
of critical slopes being disturbed and left undisturbed (slopes equal to or greater than 25%)
on the plan. Also, the critical slopes waiver that was submitted is in track changes and
should be resent not to depict track changes. A review of the critical slopes waiver request
has not taken place at this time rather this review is merely to get the application in a place
where it is reviewable.
4. [5.1.40(a)4(d)] Design. Currently the plan does not provide specific information about the design
of each of the arrays (antennas and RRHs). On the plan provide the design, size, height, width
and depth, and configuration of all of the proposed antennas and RRHs and all other equipment
for each of the arrays. Also, provide close up views from the side depicting what the arrays will
look like. Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
5. [5.1.40(a)4(a), 5.1.40(a)4(c), 5.1.40(c)6, 33.40(b), 32.7.5.2] Design. In order to evaluate all of
the impacts potentially created by the proposed facility show the location of all utilities and
support activities for the facility (electricity, phone, fiber etc.) and how they will access the site
(above/underground). Specifically, staff is evaluating how the provision of these items will
impact the visibility of the site. Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
6. [5.1.40(b)11] Color. Each monopole shall be a dark brown. Ensure the plan lists that the
monopole will also be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown. Note #1 on sheet C-2 only
specifies the antennas and RRHs will be painted Java Brown. Revise. Rev 1. Comment not
addressed.
7. [5.1.40(a)(4)(e)] Topography. Provide the topography within two thousand (2,000) feet of the
proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten (10) feet for all lands within Albemarle
County and, in contour intervals shown on United States Geological Survey topographic survey
maps or the best topographic data available. The topography provided on sheet Z-4 doesn't
provide any elevations. Revise to include elevations. Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
8. [5.1.40(a)(4)(g), 5.1.40(c)(3)] Setbacks. Provide the following setback note on the plan:
Setbacks
Rural Areas - 75 feet Front. 25 feet Side. 35 feet Rear.
_' Fall Zone - A zone on the surface of the ground that is a circle whose center is
the proposed personal wireless service facility (the "facility"), where the radius is
measured from the outer surface of the facility's pole or other vertical structure
immediately above its foundation, and where the radius is: (i) for facilities, equal to the
height of the facility.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
9. [5.1.40(a)(4)(1)] Trees. On sheet Z-3 remove the note on the plans "Total Trees to be removed. to
be determined". Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
10. [5.1.40(b)(10)] Monopole Height. The cutsheets depicted on sheet C-2 & sheet C-3 list the
monopole at 117' tall or 107' tall. Also, sheet EE-1 lists it as 107' tall. Revise to correct the
height of the monopole in these cutsheets and all subsequent pages of the plan. Rev 1. Comment
not addressed. Throughout the plan and the project description document the height of the
tower varies and is not consistent. For example: Sheet T-1 of the plan lists the height of the
tower as 94' AGL. Sheet EE-1 of the plan lists the monopole as 107' tall. Sheet C-3 of the
plan lists the proposed monopole at 93'. Page 1 of the project description lists the monopole
as 93' tall. Palle 2 item 2a of the project description lists the antenna arrays to be mounted
at 104' AGL (878' AMSL. Page 4 item 10 of the project description lists the height of the
monopole as 93' tall (882' AMSL) and lists the reference tree as being Oak at 95' (872'
AMSL). Revise the plan so that all reference to the height is consistent.
11. [5.1.40(a)(3)] Ownership. On the plan omit all reference to Mirador Farm. The title of the
proposal has been revised to: SP202000012 Scruby Property — Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF.
Revise. Rev 1. Comment not fully addressed. The project description looter lists "Mirador
Farm — Scruby Property".
12. [5.1.40(b)(1)(b)] Outdoor Lighting. On the plan specify whether or not lighting is proposed.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed. Because a light is proposed please provide a cutsheet for
the tight, provide the location of the light, and provide a note of its use.
13. [5.1.40(a)4(a), 5.1.40(a)4(h), 4.12.16] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan depict,
label, and dimension the location and width of the existing entrance and access drive from
Greenwood Station Road to the tower site. Will the existing access drive be upgraded from the
entrance of Greenwood Station Road? If so, include this information on the plan and label the
surface material. Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
14. [5.1.40(b)2(c), 5.1.40(a)121 Projection. You have requested a special exception (SE) to the flush
mount provisions of the ordinance to allow the closest point of the back of the antenna to be more
than twelve (12") inches from the facility, while maintaining the furthest point of the back of the
antenna no more than eighteen (18") inches from the facility. This item shall be acted on by the
BOS. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
15. [5.1.40(c)6, 3-2020(D), 30.61 This project is adjacent to an AFD district and is located in an EC
overlay district. This project is required to be heard at an ARB meeting and an AFD committee
meeting prior to moving forward to the PC and the BOS public hearings. Currently these
meetings have not been scheduled. Once comment # 1 and #2 is resolved we can begin scheduling
these meetings. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
16. [Recommendation] It is recommended that the applicant provide the heights of the trees being
removed. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Engineering— Matthew Wentland
1. Hatch areas of critical slopes (slopes equal to or greater than 25%) on the plans. The proposed gravel
driveway is located on the critical slopes and will require a waiver (18.4.2.3b, 18.4.2.5a) Rev 1. Staff has
not reevaluated this aspect of the plan at the time of this letter as this review is merely a quick review
to help the applicant correct easily noticed mistakes that were made with their 10-12-20 submittal.
The plan has not been sent to the various reviewers for review at this time.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewskj
Comments will be provided after the ARB meeting.
Rev 1. Staff has not reevaluated this aspect of the plan at the time of this letter as this review is merely
a quick review to help the applicant correct easily noticed mistakes that were made with their 10-12-
20 submittal. The plan has not been sent to the various reviewers for review at this time.
Agricultural Forestal District (AFD) Committee — Scott Clark
Comments will be provided after the AFD meeting.
Rev 1. Staff has not reevaluated this aspect of the plan at the time of this letter as this review is merely
a quick review to help the applicant correct easily noticed mistakes that were made with their 10-12-
20 submittal. The plan has not been sent to the various reviewers for review at this time.
Fire and Rescue - Shawn Maddox
No objection
Inspections - Michael Dellinger
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Building and electrical permits are required for the tower, any structure greater than 150 sgft housing
equipment, and the electrical service.
Other than this note, no objection.
VDOT — Adam Moore
No objection
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner