HomeMy WebLinkAboutSE202000006 Review Comments Waiver, variation or substitution requirement 2021-02-03 (2)M
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434)296-5832
February 3, 2021
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 Monday, January 11, 2021 and the photo simulations developed, the siting of the
proposed facility does not minimize visibility from adjacent parcels (TMP 55-15 and TMP 54-
74E) and streets (Greenwood Road/Rte. 691 and Rockfish Gap Turnpike/Rte. 250). The balloon
was highly visible and skylit above the treeline from numerous locations mentioned above, which
includes surrounding properties in the historic district. 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.
2. [5.1.40(b)(6), 3.1, 5.1.40(c)6,1 Screening and Siting to Minimize Visibility. Virginia Department
of Historic Resources (VDHR) and the County's Historic Preservation Planner have stated that
the level of visibility would have a negative visual impact on the character of the historic district
and the individually designated properties. Consequently, an alternate location and/or reduced
height are recommended. (See their comments below and attached).
3. [5.1.40(b)(6), 5.1.40(c)6, 3-202(D)] Screening and Siting to Minimize Visibility. Agricultural
Forestal District (AFD) Advisory Committee found that the proposal conflicted with the purposes
of the adjacent Yellow Mountain Agricultural Forestal District due to the tower's visual impacts
and the related economic impacts to agricultural uses in the Districts. (See their comments below
and attached).
4. [5.1.40(d)(2), 5.1.40(a)(4)(f)] Trees. The plan depicts grading of the site for the access road to the
lease area. Some of this grading is proposed within the driplines of trees which are slates to
remain onsite. Revise the landscape sheet to depict the grading onsite.
If grading encroaches a minimum of 30% into the dripline of any tree it shall be marked as "to be
removed", as death of that tree is almost guaranteed (see examples below of what 30%
encroachment looks like). Staff believes 10 additional trees are impacted and shall be marked on
the plans as "to be removed", these trees are tree#: 138, 211, 213, 221, 219, 223, 225, 199, 197,
and 134. These trees range from 59' tall to 94' tall. Additional trees may be impacted around the
pad itself.
5. [5.1.40(a)(4)(i)] Trees. On sheet Z-3 revise the note on the plans "Total Trees to be removed:
19 ".
6. [5.1.40(b)(1)(b)] Outdoor Lighting. The facility has been equipped with lighting located slightly
above the ground equipment. Outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during
maintenance periods. On the plan please provide a note to clarify how the lights will function. For
example: "Lighting is to only be used during maintenance periods".
7. [5.1.40(a)(12), 5.1.40(c)2,18.4.2.3b, 18.4.2.5a] Critical Slopes. You have requested a special
exception (SE) to disturb critical slopes onsite. This item shall be acted on by the BOS.
8. [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.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) — Chris Novelli
Having viewed the recently submitted photo simulations, we believe that the proposed tower will have an
effect on the Mirador Farm property, the Seven Oaks Farm property, and the Greenwood -Afton Rural
Historic District -- all of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In order to ensure that
the effect is not adverse, we request that the applicant explore measures to reduce the visual effect of the
proposed tower. These may include reducing the height to the greatest extent possible that still achieves the
desired coverage, finding an alternate location, or employing a stealth design. We need the applicant to
provide coverage maps and an alternatives analysis, demonstrating that they have considered alternatives
to what they are currently proposing. If alternatives are not possible, we need for the applicant to explain
why. (See attached 1-28-21 email from VDHR for full correspondence)
Historic Preservation Planner —Margaret Maliszewski
The Scruby Verizon tower proposal was presented to the Historic Preservation Committee on January 25,
2021. Committee members requested that comments from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
be made available to the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) prior to the PC and
BOS meetings at which this item would be considered, requested that photo -simulations be forwarded to
the County for consideration, and asked if an alternate site had been proposed to avoid impacts to historic
resources.
On January 28, 2021, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) commented on the recently
received photo -simulations. VDHR determined that the proposal would have a negative impact on the
Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District and on the individually designated Mirador Farm and Seven Oaks
properties and asked for additional information. The text of the VDHR comment is copied below.
Historic Preservation staff viewed the balloon test conducted on January 11, 2021. Available views of the
balloon indicated that the proposed monopole would appear well above the trees and would be skylit from
various vantage points within the Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District and from individually
designated properties including Mirador Farm and Seven Oaks. Staff agrees with VDHR that the level of
visibility would have a negative visual impact on the character of the historic district and the individually
designated properties. Consequently, an alternate location and/or reduced height are recommended.
Having viewed the recently submitted photo simulations, we believe that the proposed tower will have an
effect on the Mirador Farm property, the Seven Oaks Farm property, and the Greenwood -Afton Rural
Historic District -- all of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In order to ensure
that the effect is not adverse, we request that the applicant explore measures to reduce the visual effect of
the proposed tower. These may include reducing the height to the greatest extentpossible that still achieves
the desired coverage, finding an alternate location, or employing a stealth design. We need the applicant
to provide coverage maps and an alternatives analysis, demonstrating that they have considered
alternatives to what they are currently proposing. If alternatives are not possible, we need for the applicant
to explain why. Thanks, Chris Novella Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources. (See attached 1-29-21 memo
for full correspondence)
Agricultural Forestal District (AFD) Advisory Committee meeting 2-1-21
The committee voted 7:1 to find that the proposal conflicted with the purposes of the Districts due to its
visual impacts and the related economic impacts to agricultural uses in the Districts.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) 2-1-21 meeting
By a vote of 4:0 the ARB finds that the proposed location will sufficiently minimize the visibility of the
monopole from the I-64 Entrance Corridor.
By a vote of 4:0 the ARB recommends to the agent that the plan be revised to eliminate grading from within
the driplines of trees to remain.
Engineering — Matthew Wentland
1. SE202000006 (critical slopes waiver will need to be approved prior to or with Special Use Permit
approval).
Fire and Rescue - Shawn Maddox
No objection
Inspections — Betty Slough
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
Christopher Perez
Subject: FW: Section 106 Notification of SHPO/THPO Request for Information- Email ID #
5496275
From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.Rov <towernotifyinfo@fcc.Rov>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 20219:45 AM
To: Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Subject: Section 106 Notification of SHPO/THPO Request for Information- Email ID #5496275
This is to notify you that the Lead SHPO/THPO has requested additional information on the following filing:
Source: Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Date of Action: 01/28/2021
Comment Text: Having viewed the recently submitted photo simulations, we believe that the proposed tower will have
an effect on the Mirador Farm property, the Seven Oaks Farm property, and the Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District
-- all of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In order to ensure that the effect is not adverse, we
request that the applicant explore measures to reduce the visual effect of the proposed tower. These may include
reducing the height to the greatest extent possible that still achieves the desired coverage, finding an alternate location,
or employing a stealth design. We need the applicant to provide coverage maps and an alternatives analysis,
demonstrating that they have considered alternatives to what they are currently proposing. If alternatives are not
possible, we need for the applicant to explain why.
Thanks,
Chris Novelli
Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources
File Number: 0009116351
TCNS Number: 207116
Purpose: New Tower Submission Packet
Notification Date: 7AM EST 06/17/2020
Applicant: Verizon Wireless
Consultant: Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc., on behalf of Trileaf Corporation
Positive Train Control Filing Subject to Expedited Treatment Under Program Comment: No
Site Name: MIRADOR FARM - A
Site Address: Greenwood Station Road
Detailed Description of Project: Our client proposes to install a Monopole Communications Tower at the referenced
location. Ground -based equipment will be stored in a 20-foot by 30-foot (600 square feet) compound within a 40-foot
by 40-foot (1,600 square -foot) lease area.
Site Coordinates: 38-2-39.0 N, 78-45-4.8 W
City: Greenwood
County: ALBEMARLE
State:VA
Lead SHPO/THPO: Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Please note that you must respond to this request within 60 days or this filing will be at risk of closure. To ensure that
your response to this request is accurately recorded, your response must be uploaded as a document of type'Response
to SHPO/THPO Request for Information'.
NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT USE OF SYSTEM, ABUSE OF PASSWORD AND RELATED MISUSE
Use of the Section 106 system is intended to facilitate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure
under applicable laws. Any person having access to Section 106 information shall use it only for its intended purpose.
Appropriate action will be taken with respect to any misuse of the system.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Perez
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: SP2020-12: Sruby Verizon Wireless Tier III
DATE: January 29, 2021
The Scruby Verizon tower proposal was presented to the Historic Preservation Committee on January
25, 2021. Committee members requested that comments from the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources be made available to the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) prior to
the PC and BOS meetings at which this item would be considered, requested that photo -simulations be
forwarded to the County for consideration, and asked if an alternate site had been proposed to avoid
impacts to historic resources.
On January 28, 2021, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) commented on the recently
received photo -simulations. VDHR determined that the proposal would have a negative impact on the
Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District and on the individually designated Mirador Farm and Seven
Oaks properties and asked for additional information. The text of the VDHR comment is copied below.
Historic Preservation staff viewed the balloon test conducted on January 11, 2021. Available views of the
balloon indicated that the proposed monopole would appear well above the trees and would be skylit
from various vantage points within the Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District and from individually
designated properties including Mirador Farm and Seven Oaks. Staff agrees with VDHR that the level of
visibility would have a negative visual impact on the character of the historic district and the individually
designated properties. Consequently, an alternate location and/or reduced height are recommended.
Email received 1/28/2021:
This is to notify you that the Lead SHPO/THPO has requested additional information on the
following filing:
Source: Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Date of Action: 01/28/2021
Comment Text: Having viewed the recently submitted photo simulations, we believe that the
proposed tower will have an effect on the Mirador Farm property, the Seven Oaks Farm
property, and the Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District -- all of which are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. In order to ensure that the effect is not adverse, we request
that the applicant explore measures to reduce the visual effect of the proposed tower. These
may include reducing the height to the greatest extent possible that still achieves the desired
coverage, finding an alternate location, or employing a stealth design. We need the applicant to
provide coverage maps and an alternatives analysis, demonstrating that they have considered
alternatives to what they are currently proposing. If alternatives are not possible, we need for
the applicant to explain why.
Thanks,
Chris Novelli
Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources
Christopher Perez
From: Scott Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:33 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Khristopher Taggart; Charles Rapp
Subject: SP 20-12 Scruby - AFD Update
Hi, Chris —
Just to update you on last evening's AFD Advisory Committee meeting —the committee voted 7:1 to find that the
proposal conflicted with the purposes of the Districts due to its visual impacts and the related economic impacts to
agricultural uses in the Districts.
I'll send a copy of the minutes once they're drafted.
--Scott
Scott Clark (he/him)
Albemarle County
Community Development Department - Senior Planner (Rural Areas) - Secretary, Albemarle Conservation Easement Authority
sclark@albemarle.org
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228, Charlottesville, VA 22902
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
DRAFT ARB ACTION MEMO
Date: February 1, 2021
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Virtual Meeting
Members:
Frank Stoner: Present (arrived at 1:30 pm)
Frank Hancock: Present
Fred Missal, Vice -Chair: Present
Chris Henningsen: Present
Dade Van Der Werf, Chair: Present
RMIJ
Margaret Maliszewski
Khris Taggart
Carolyn Shaffer
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Van Der Werf called the meeting to order at 12:59 p.m. and established a quorum.
DISCLOSURES
Mr. Hancock disclosed that he received an email from Valerie Long regarding the
phasing of the Rio Hill redevelopment project.
Mr. Henningsen disclosed that he also received an email from Valerie Long regarding
the phasing of the Rio Hill redevelopment project and that he would recuse himself from
the Sleep Number review.
Mr. Van Der Werf disclosed that he and Mr. Stoner metwith the Rio Hill redevelopment
applicants.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
DRAFTAction Memo February 1,2021
1
CONSENT AGENDA
a. ARB-2020-130: Rivers Edge Initial (TMP: 03200-00-00-005A0, 03200-00-00-005A1)
Location: On the east side of Rt. 29 at River's Edge Lane, approximately 1000' north of the Rt.
29/Lewis and Clark Drive intersection.
Proposal: To construct 100 multi -family residential units and associated site improvements on
approximately 32.53 acres.
Staff Contact: Khris Taggart
Representative for Project: Justin Shimp / Rachel Moon
Prior to taking action on the consent agenda, Mr. Van Der Werf asked if ARB members thought
the final submittal forthis project could be reviewed by staff. It was the consensus of the ARB
membersthat staff level review of the final application would be appropriate.
Motion: Mr. Missel moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations
outlined in the staff report forthe Initial Site Plan to the Agent forthe Site Review Committee, as
follows:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5)
and recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
o Prior to Initial Plan approval the following items shall be resolved to the satisfaction of
the ARB: None. The ARB recommends approval of the Initial Plan without conditions.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The following
items and all items on the ARB Final Site Plan Checklist must be addressed:
1. Provide architectural designs with the next submittal.
2. Provide site sections to clarify the visibility of the proposed development from the EC
street.
3. Update the plans to include information on accessory structures and equipment.
4. Include the standard mechanical equipment note on the architectural plans.
5. Provide a lighting plan with the next submittal.
6. Provide landscaping that helps integrate the site entrance into the EC, taking into
consideration any future signage that will be needed.
7. Identify trees that are to remain that meetthe landscaping requirements for interior
roads.
8. Revise the landscape plan to provide additional pedestrian way trees and show all
trees at 2'/2" caliper at time of planting.
9. Revise the landscape plan to provide large shade trees 40' on center along the
perimeters of the 38-space parking lot and the curved perimeter of the 24-space lot.
10. Revise the landscape plan to show all exterior and interior parking lot trees at 2'/2
caliper at planting.
11. Show tree protection fencing on, and coordinated throughout, the grading,
landscaping, and erosion and sediment control plans.
Mr. Hancock seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 4:0. (Stoner absent)
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
DRAFTAction Memo February 1,2021
2
Regular Review Items
a. ARB-2020-129: Scruby Property— Verizon Tier 3 PWSF (TMP: 05400-00-00-072A0)
Location: East side of Greenwood Station Road, just south of 1-64 (See Figure 1)
Proposal: To construct a telecommunications facility consisting of a 94' monopole tower with
associated structures and equipment.
Staff Contact: Margaret Maliszewski and Khris Taggart
Representative for Project: Nathan Holland
Regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness for the ground equipment and base station:
Motion: Mr. Missel moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the ground
equipment and base station as proposed.
Mr. Hancock seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 4:0.
Regarding visibility of the monopole:
Motion: Mr. Hancock moved to forward the following recommendation to the Agent:
The ARB finds that the proposed location will sufficiently minimize the visibility of the
monopole from the 1-64 Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Henningsen seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 4:0
Regarding the Special Exception:
Motion: Mr. Missel moved to forward the following recommendation to the Agent:
Revise the plan to eliminate grading from within the driplines of trees to remain.
Mr. Van Der Werf seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 4:0.
b. ARB-2020-135: Rio Hill Redevelopment (TMP:04500-00-00-094A0)
Location: West of Rt. 29, East of Berkmar Drive, south of Woodbrook Drive
Proposal: To renovate a majority of the existing Rio Hill Shopping Center (excluding the
Kroger store and the southeast corner of the center), removing portions of the existing canopies
and store entries to update the current fagade.
Staff Contact: Khris Taggart
Representative for Project: David Timmerman
Mr. Stoner joined the meeting during the presentation of this item.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
CRAFTAction Memo February 1,2021
3
Motion: Mr. Stoner moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for
ARB-2020-135: Rio Hill Redevelopment with the conditions listed in the staff report:
Regarding the site plan and architectural design for TJ Maxx and Sierra.
1. Provide samples for all materials and colors that confirm the use of warm tones.
2. If any new mechanical equipment is proposed, show how it will be screened from view
from the EC.
3. Provide the standard mechanical equipment note on the architectural drawings.
4. Provide a lighting plan for review. Over -illumination of the building is not appropriate for
the EC.
5. Identify the species proposed forthe green screens on the site plan.
Regarding the site plan and the overall architectural design.
1. Provide samples for all materials and colors that confirm the use of warm tones.
2. If any new mechanical equipment is proposed, show how it will be screened from view
from the EC.
3. Provide the standard mechanical equipment note on the architectural drawings.
4. Provide a lighting plan for review. Over -illumination of the building is not appropriate for
the EC.
5. Identify the species proposed forthe green screens on the site plan.
6. If the architectural designs proposed for TJ Maxx and Sierra receive approval prior to the
design of the overall shopping center, coordinate the overall design with TJ Maxx and
Sierra.
Regarding the CSP and the signs for TJ Maxx and Sierra.
1. Revise the CSP to include the following detail regarding graphics colors: "no limit to
graphics colors as long as the total is limited to three, plus black and white."
2. All raceways must be painted or replaced so that the raceway color matches the color of
the wall to which it is attached.
3. The signs for TJ Maxx and Sierra are approved as proposed.
Mr. Henningsen seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 5:0.
c. ARB-2020-132: Albemarle Business Campus Block 5 (TMP: 07600-00-00-046A0
and 07600-00-00-05400 and 07600-00-00-046FO (part)
Location: Rt. 631 at Rt. 780 (See Figure 1)
Proposal: To construct a self -storage building as part of a larger mixed -use development.
Staff Contact: Margaret Maliszewski
Representative for Project: Justin Shimp
Motion: Mr. Missel moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for
ARB-2020-132: Albemarle Business Campus Block 5 with the conditions listed in the staff
report, amended as follows:
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
CRAFTAction Memo February 1,2021
4
1. Adjust utilities to allow for large trees, 2'/2" caliper at planting, along both sides the full
length of the travelway located south of the Block B building.
2. Add the standard lighting note to the plan. "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp
that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be
arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half
footcandle."
3- Eliminate the visibility of rooftop equipment. Use of the raised parapet is appropriate.
4. Provide manufacturer's names and color names/numbers for each proposed material.
Mr. Hancock seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 5:0.
WORK SESSIONS
a. ARB-2020-69: Sleep Number (TMP: 06100-00-00-134A0)
Location: Fashion Square Mall
Proposal: To revise the metal panels to Master Wall Stucco panels with the same color and
joint pattern.
Staff Contact: Margaret Maliszewski
Representative for Project: Mark Kestner
The ARB held a work session on Sleep Number to revise the metal panels to Master Wall
stucco panels with the same color and joint pattern.
Motion: Mr. Hancock moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for revised materials
as presented in the meeting.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 5:0.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. EC Guidelines Discussion
Mr. Stoner gave a PowerPoint presentation describing the Rt. 151 Entrance Corridor and
identifying buildings, structures, landscape features, and other important characteristics along
its length. He discussed the overall rural character of the corridor, the presence of 4-board
fencing, suburban style residences, commercial development near the Nelson line. The
members noted the important mountain view, enhancing the natural resources along the
corridor, the types of development that would come to the ARB for review, and the possible
benefits of scenic highway designation.
b. Minutes Approval: January 19, 2021
Motion: Mr. Stoner moved for approval of the minutes from the January 19, 2021 ARB
meeting.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
DRAFTAction Memo February 1,2021
5
Mr. Henningsen seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by a vote of 5:0.
c. Next ARB Meeting: February 15, 2021
Mr. Hancock stated that he would not be able to attend the February 15 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. to the next Virtual ARB meeting on Monday, February
15, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
CRAFTAction Memo February 1,2021
6