The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-05-16Laurie Ben,. tley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Laurie Bentley Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:12 AM Andrew Tdvette; Barbara Baker; Bart Svoboda; Brenda Neitz; Chades Martin; Charlotte Humphds; COB-4TH FLOOR; Dan Mahon; David Benish; David Bowerman; DEPARTMENT HEADS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT; Elaine Echols; Elizabeth Gamett; Jan Sprinkle; Janice Farrar; Joan McDowell; John Grady; Juandiego Wade; Kelly Rider; Kevin Castner; Lindsay Dorrier; Richard Wood; Robert Walters; Sally Thomas; Scott Clark; Sharon Bddges; Sharon Taylor; Steven Allshouse; Walter Perkins Mark Spicer; Mark Trank Action letter from 5/16/01 Board of Supervisors Meeting ]~ haw attached the action le~er from 5/16/01 Board of Supervisors A~eeti~. Hard copies of atfachment~ have been forwarded ,o the appropriate persons. Thank you. 051601 act~onletter, doc Laurie Bentley To: Wayne Cilimberg Subject: corrections to action letter P,e: BO5 meetincj of 5/16/0~,. two typogrophicol errors hove been noted ond corrected: 5P-2001-00~ Wood-Arro~heod T.E. Wood (triton PCS) (Siqns ~92&93) (A~ochment ~): Condition ~4 o. wos ~ped twice {conditions should be Iobelied o, b, o~ c; there is no d}. ~hbo~hood Model Com~rehens)ve Plon Amendmen? (Attochmen? F): ~od~fic~?ion ~2 should ~e~d, "~odific~?ion to p~e 88, bulle?s 4 ~nd ~ unde~ the second p~g~ph, ~espectiveJy, ?o ~eod. 'F~ci~i?~tion of ?he es?~blishment of ~ public pa~kin~ cons?~uc?ion o~ ~e~ges'; ~nd 'Coun~ ~acili?~?ion of ?he ~c?ivi?ies involved in cons?~uc?ion o~ pe~kin9 s?~uc?u~es, si?e ~cquisi?ion~ and opera?ion o~ p~king ~cili?ies~'" 1. Call to order. ACTIONS Board of Supervisom Meeting of May 16, 2001 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4. Others Matters Not Usted on the Agenda from the Public. * Mr. Michael Weber told the Board that he opposes the gag order imposed on litigants in the Ivy Landfill suit. 5.1 R~uest to set a public hearing on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers for FY beginning July 1, 2001. SET PUBMC HEARING for 6120101. 5.2 Request to set public headng to approve certain amendments to the County Code, Chapter, 6, involving regulation of fireworks. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 616101, 5.3 Proclamation recognizing May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. ADOPTED_ May 18, 2001 5.4 Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority - Appointment of Alternates. ADOPTED resolution. 5.5 Set public headng to amend the County Code in Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supen/isors. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 616/01. 5.6 Resolution regarding Route 29 Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases tFlll. ADOPTED. 6. SP-2000-72. Crown Orchard CO. (Nextel/Crown Castle) (Sign ~8). APPROVED wi2 conditions). 7. SP-2001-003. Wood-Arrowhead T.E. Wood (Triton PCS) (Signs ~)2&93). APPROVED w/13 conditions. 8. ZMA-2000-07. Mill Creek-Village Homes (Sign ~'/1). APPROVED w/proffers). CONSENSUS to have staff look at odginal capacity of the basin, and its existing capacity, to see if the .basin needs to be dredged. 9. ZTA-2001~05. Height. ADOPTED ordinance. 10. CPA-2001-001. Neighbo~3ood Model. APPROVED the Neighborhood Model ComprehensiVe Plan Amendment, with two modifications, and recommendations for the implementation strategy/phasing for the Model to be presented to the Board at the eadiest opportunity. 11~ From the Board: Matters not Usted on the Agenda. CONSENSUS to cancel the meetings of 6/13/01, 7t5/01, and 7/18/01. In July the Board will'meet on 7/11/01. - Mr. Perkins said he was asked by the SMART organization to examine a sliding scale for land use. He gave a document to Mr. Tucker. Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Martin met with City officials to look at the criteda for CHART projects. She will circulate the new version of the plan to the Board, and asked that they provide comments to Mr. Tucker or her before 5/27/01. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p,m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members )resent. Clerk: Laude Bentley. Clerk: Acknowledge speaker's' comments. Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Clerk: Advertise public headng. Clerk: Forward signed proclamation (attachment A) to Laude McDade. Clerk: Forward signed resolution (attachment B) to Roger Wiley. , . Clerk: Advertise public headng. Clerk: Forward signed resolution (attachment C) to VDOT Resident Engineer, Jim Bryan; CTB representative, Carter Myers; and Joseph Springer, consultant. Cie. rio List conditions in attachment D. Clerk: Ust conditions in attachment D. Clerk: Est proffers in attachment D. Ertl. ineering staff: Examine capacity issue as directed. Clerk: Forward signed ordinance (attachment E) to Marsha Da,vis, Amelia McCulley, and Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: List modifications in attachment F. Piannin,q staff,and Clerk: Notify anyone who should be advised. Planninq staff: Review the dcxxa3~nt and make recommendations. None. Not.slated: Closed ,session. Certify closed session. 1,2. Adjourn atrg:45 Attachment A TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, the consequences of pregnancies to teens (between the ages of 10 and 19) and teen parenthood tend to lead to a greater chance of the mother's dropping out of school, obtaining a poorer job and becoming dependent on welfare; and of poorer health and school performance of the child; and of increasing public expenditures to provide welfare services; and WHEREAS, the 1999 Community Strategic Plan for Preventing Teen Pregnancies and STDs indicated that conservative estimates place the cost to our taxpayers of each teen birth at $37,000 over the lifetime of the mother and child; and WHEREAS, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexually active teen using no contraception over the course of a year has a 90percent chance of pregnancy; and WHEREAS, the teen pregnancy rate in Albemarle County increased by more than 25 percent between 1996 and 1999, which calls for increased support for our community's prevention programs; and WHEREAS, teens sexual activity leads not only to unwanted pregnancies but increasingly to sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS; and WHERFMS, there is an urgent need to increase knowledge and awareness of issues related to teen pregnancy among young people, parents, youth leaders and others; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally IL. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize MA Y, 2001 as TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH and call its importance to the attention of all our citizens. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS Attachment B RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE JAIL AUTHORITY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS Be it Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle: That the Service Agreement for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, as adopted effective November 15, 1995, with amendments effective March 12, 1998, and November 12, 1998, is further amended by adding Section 2.2.1 as follows: Section 2.2.1 Alternate Board Members. Alternate members shall be appointed to the Board. Such alternate members may attend and participate in discussions at all meetings of the board, and, in the absence of their respective principal members, may vote on any matter and be counted for purposes of determining a quorum or a required majority under Section 4.9 of this agreement. Each sheriff of a Member Jurisdiction shall appoint his or her alternate and each governing body of a Member Jurisdiction shall appoint one or more alternates, but not more than one alternate for each principal member appointed by such governing body. The same person may serve as alternate for more than one principal member, but shall only be entitled to vote for one absent member on any issue. Sheriffs' alternates shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing sheriff, and other alternates shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing body. There shall be no alternate for the member appointed jointly by Albemarle and Ch arlottesville. That Roxanne W. White and Thomas C. Foley are appointed to serve as alternate members of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia, on May 16, 2001. Clerk Attachment C RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Combined Phases II and Ill, (State Project No. 6029-963-F01, PE100, From 1-64 To: North Carolina State line) encompasses the counties of Amherst, Nelson, Albemarle, Pittsylvania and Campbell; and WHEREAS, over the past two years the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has held public workshops and received citizen input and comments regarding various concepts developed by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., consultants for this study; and WHEREAS, representatives from the County of Albemarle had an opportunity to review and discuss the Study with VDOT with the consultant and VDOT consultants; and WHEREAS, in a resolution dated February 14, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors provided comments and/or recommendations regarding the Study; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses the following comments regarding the Route 29 Corridor Development project: The area along the Route 29 South Corridor is not in the County's Development area. Data developed by the consultant and verified by the County does not project significant development in this area of the County through the study period. Therefore, the County does not believe controlled access through elimination of all individua access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. The County does support the coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access management recommendation of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South CorriClor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Specifically, this recommendation states, "An Access Management Plan (AMP) should be developed for the corridor in conjunction with the local jurisdiction who would then be responsible for its implementation. The AMP should address modifications to land use as well as physica improvements to US Route 29 and the development of other roadways. The AMP should recognize the local options and needs vary in the study corridor." Albemarle County believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be identified and pursued. The County suggests the Commonwealth Transportation Board encourage VDOT and local governments to facilitate donated and purchased conservation easements as a means to access management and to ensure that the capacity of the corridor is not impacted by potential entrances from by-right subdivisions. Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, without service roads and limited access which should not be used in Albemarle County. Under no scenario should the "Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that signalization of intersections will be necessary in Albemarle County, but in no case is reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County intersections necessary. It is anticipated that certain intersections in Ablemarle County will need upgrades for safety reasons. Remove the term "to extent practical "from any Comprehensive Plan references in the guidelines for developing altematives. The County strongly supports the "Non Location-Specific or Corridor-Wide Transportation Recommendations" outlined in the Study Summary Recommendations. Double-track rail line in corridor to provide increased capacity for freight and passenger service. Support one additional AMTRAK train per day along entire corridor as well as new Trans-Dominion Express service between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Albemarle County does not support localities subsidizing this service. Make sure that references to the Trans-Dominion Express reflect its current status. Include a park and dde facility at the intersection of Routes 29 and 6 in the list of recommended facilities. This would replace the current informal parking that is occurring at this location. Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make these alternatives successful in the corridor. Include transit with ride-share for intemet match systems. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 6 - 0 on February 7, 2001. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Attachment D CONDITIONS SP-2000-72 Crown Orchard, (Nextell/Crown Castel) Approval of this special use permit shall only apply to the building described in the applicant's request and site construction plans entitled "VA-064P-d Patterson Mountain Co-Locate Guyed Tower", dated January 21, 2001; and, None of the related antennaS, nor any future antennas for use by other service providers shall be installed on this tower prior to administrative approval, in accordance with condition number 4 of SP-93-15 which states: Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. SP-2001-003 W00d-Armwhead T.E. Wood (Triton PCS) (Si~lns #92&93). The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed six (6) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-fn/e (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; 2. The facility shall be designed, Constructed and maintained as follows: The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; Guy wires shall not be permitted; No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, e~cept as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled ~Wood-Arrowhead (Tdton PCS)"; A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch (1") diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a Statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two (2) trees that have been used to justify the height the monopole; Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number one (1) of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; 3.The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled '~Nood-Arrowhead (Tdton PCS)"; The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Tdton PCS)"; 4. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled ~/Vood, Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; .No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas .that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches; Pdor to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shell be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community DevelOpment, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within one thousand (1000) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or ut~ity access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; The pole shall be diSassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user Of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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; Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that a!l light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a iuminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to pos'~ion and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; 11. Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of grave, Should installation of the facility require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed; 12. 13. The applicant shall execute an agreement with CFW and the property owner, in order to ensure that all of the responsibilities for maintaining the access road in a condition safe are shared evenly; and, The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. ZMA-2000-O07 Villaqe Homes !1 Proffers are as follows: ZMA-00-007 PROFFERS VILLAGE HOMES II May 16, 2001 TAX MAP PARCELS 90C-D and E 7.17 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 ofthe Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: 1. Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first approved under ZMA-85-29, as mended by subsequent rezoning actions. The Application Plan entitled, Millcreek PUD Overall Plan, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, revised October 11, 2000, last revised May 9, 2001 ("Application Plan") submitted with these proffers reflects the "as-built condition" of the Millcreek PUD as of the date of these proffers, except the shaded area on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site". Development within the 7.17 acre, Village Homes II Site shall be in general accord with the Application Plan; provided however, that adjustments to lot layout and open space boundaries may be necessary to address on-site storm water management in order to comply with applicable ordinances. 3. The maximum allowable residential units in the Millcreek/Foxcroff PUD shall be limited to 466. 4. Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 36 residential units. o Where site grading is performed, Applicant shall minimize construction of slopes steeper than 3:1, subject to approval by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. The Applicant shall install additional low maintenance vegetation to provide stabilization for proposed slopes steeper than 3:1, ifrequired by the County's Landscape Planner. Species, size, and quantity shall be subject to approval by the County's Landscape Planner, as reasonable. Nothing contained in these proffers shall be deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical slope waiver under Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance. The Village Homes II Site road improvements shall be under an urban cross-section (roll top curb, with four-foot (4') wide sidewalks on both sides of the road. An asphalt pedestrian path of no less that five feet (5') shall be located on the Site adjacent to, and parallel with the Southern Parkway across the entire frontage that abuts the Southern Parkway. o Applicant will cause supplemental landscaping and trees for screening to be installed in accordance with the proposal dated November 18, 2000 from Mr. Lee Quillen of Waynesboro Nursery, (attached) with emphasis on locating screening within the areas designated on the Application Plan as Open Space. Except where necessary to install utilities or water quality protection measures, and subject to sound and customary landscaping principles, significant trees (6" in diameter or greater) located within the Open Space shall be preserved. As a condition for final subdivision approval Applicant shall submit for review by the Subdivision Agent, (and record upon such approval) a proposed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which shall encumber the tots within the Village Homes II site and which shall provide for an architectural review and at, oval of improvements, in order to maintain the harmony of the development within Village Homes II and with the already constructed homes in Village Homes I and IV, and Mill Creek North. Similarity betw~ colors and materials shall be established and maintained. If public dedication of the storm water pond located on the adjacent property c~tly owned by the-Mill Creek Home Owners AssocSation requires access over the Site, appIieant will grant a 20 foot access easement to provide for maintenance of the pond. The location of tiffs potential easement will be identified on the final site plan, prior to its approval and will be reserved for dedication on demand of the County on the subdivision plat. Submitted as of the 16th day of May, 2001. by: Ht~TER E. CRAIG COMPANY Hunter E. Craig President Attachment E ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(5) 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: See. 4.10.3.1. Exceptions - excluded from application See. 30.6.8. Appeals Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations See. 4.10.3.1 Exceptions - excluded from application The structures identified below shall be subject to height limitations as follows: a. The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments, transmission towers and cables, smokestacks, water tanks, or radio or television antennas or towers. b, Any structure identified in subsection (a), other than one now or hereafter located on an existing public utility easement, shall not: (I) be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and (2) within a residential district, exceed one hundred (I00) feet in height, except for telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the county, which shall not exceed one hundred fifteen (115) feet in height. The commission may modify or waive either reqff~rement of subsection (b) in an individual case if it determines that the public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver. In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this subsection only as follows: The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of SUpervisors. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection (c). (12-10-80; 12-20-89; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord, 01-18(5), 5-16-01) Article IH. District Regulations Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affnma, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessar~ for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of superwisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the beard of supervisors or any member thereof. (12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(5), 5-16-01) !, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vkginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on May 16, 2001. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman ~ Mr. Dorder __x__ Ms. HumphriS x Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins x Ms. Thomas x David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supe~wisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Sarau~l Mil~' May 21, 2001 Mr. Michael Weber 1855 Westview Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Weber: Thank you for your recent comments concerning the Ivy Landfill. The Board appreciates your comments. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 05-10-01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Al1:52 IN AGENDA TITLE: Request to set Public Hearing on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Housing ChoiCe Voucher Annual Plan for FY beginning July 1, 2001 STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White AGENDA DATE: May 16, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: A'I-rACHMENTS: No / REVIEWED BY: ~/~~ BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for administering public housing assistance programs. Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers makes Albemarle County subject to this requirement. In addition to completing a five-year plan, an Annual Plan must be submitted each year. Prior to submission, the plan must be reviewed by a Resident Advisory Board for comment and input. After receipt of this input, the final plan is presented for adoption at a Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: The initial plan, due to HUD in April 2000, was not submitted until January 2001when the five-year plan and first-year annual plan was submitted to HUD without conducting the public hearing. HUD was anxious to receive the plan without any further delay and approved the plan subject to designation of a Resident Advisory Board and having the Advisory Board review the plan. In March, 2001 and Executive Summary of the plan was mailed to a representative group of tenants who were asked to be Resident Advisory Board members. Comments were received and will be addressed in the submission of the FY2001-02 Annual Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends setting a public hearing on the proposed Annual Plan for the June 20, 2001 Board of Supervisors meeting. 01.104 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request to Advertise for a Public Hearing for approval of Amendments to the County Code involving Regulation of Fireworks. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: BOS authorization to set public hearing to approve certain amendments to Chapter Six of the County Code dealing with regulation of fireworks. Th ese amendments are necessary to specifically address certain requirements involving storage of legal fireworks in locations other than roadside stands or businesses, and to clarify the County's AGENDA DATE: authority to regulate persons or businesses engaging in the sale of legal fireworks within the County. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Trank, Pumphrey, Spicer May 16, 2001 ACTION: DISCUSSION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION.: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amendments REVIEWED BY: The referenced amendments to Article III of Chapter 6 of the County Code ("Fire Protection") involve the regulation of fireworks. For a considerable period of time, the County Fire-Rescue Division has required a permit for in dividuals or businesses wishing to store legal fireworks in connection with the retail sale or distribution of fireworks within the County. However, a recent circuit court decision found that the County had not specifically enacted language requiring a permit for storage at locations other than retail stands or businesses. State law and the statewide fire prevention code authorize the County to regulate the storage of fireworks within its boundaries. Staff believes that the permitting requirement is a reasonable public safety measure, since it requires individuals or businesses that store fireworks at any locations within the County in connection with a retail or other business involving fireworks to comply with adequate storage requirements to minimize the danger of fire or explosion, among other risks to persons or property. Staff would also like to advise the Board that the Fire-Rescue office is currently researching fireworks ordinances in other localities and is working on a proposal that would involve more restrictive regulations involving the use and sale of fireworks in the County. The Fire-Rescue office anticipates that this proposal will be forthcoming in the near future for Board review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a public hearing be set for June 6, 2001 to consider approval of the amendments to Article III of Chapter 6 of the County Code. 01.105 05-10-0t Al1:52 IN ORDINANCE NO. 00-6( ) DRAFT: May 3, 2001 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE III, FIREWORKS, OF CHAPTER 6, FIRE PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article III, Fireworks, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 6-300 (Purpose of article); Section 6-301 (Manufacture, sale, discharge, etc., of certain fireworks prohibited); Section 6-303 (Permits for public displays--Required); Section 6-304 (Permits for public displays-- Application); Section 6-305 (Permits for public displays--Investigation; issuance or refusal; Section 6-306 (Permits for public displays--Conditions); Section 6-307 (Permits for public displays--Liability insurance or bond required): and Section 6-308 (Permits for public displays-- Nontransferable), as follows: CHAPTER 6. FIRE PROTECTION ARTICLE III. FIREWORKS Sec. 6-300 Purpose of article. The purpose of this article is to provide administrative procedures for the regulation of the use, possession, manufacture, discharge, storage and sale of fireworks. (Code 1988, § 9-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) Sec. 6-301 Manufacture, sale, discharge, etc., of certain fireworks prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for any person to transport, manufacture, store, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, buy, use, ignite, possess or explode any firecracker, torpedo, skyrocket or other substance or thing, of whatever form or construction, that contains any explosive or inflammable compound or substance, and is intended, or commonly known, as fireworks, and which explodes, rises into the air or travels laterally, or fires projectiles into the air, other than sparks, and other than those fn'eworks excepted under the provisions of section 6-302. (Code 1967, § 10-4; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, § 9-10; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98) State law reference-Va. Code § 59.1-142. Sec. 6-303 Fireworks pP-ermits fe, r ---~-~:~ ~':o-~ .... ' r ........t--~J ~ -Reqmred. A._q.. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, public displays of fireworks may be given by fair associations, amusement parks or by any organization or group of individuals in accordance with a permit from the fire official. It shall be unlawful for any person to hold, present or give any such public display of fireworks without first having obtained such a permit from the fire official. DRAFT:May3,2001 B. Any person, business, organization or Other enti .ty engaged in the sale, storage, distribution, manufacture or public display of fireworks anywhere in the County of Albemarle must obtain a permit from the fire official and must comply with all terms and conditions imposed by the fire official in connection with the permit prior to enga~ng in any sale, storage. distribution, manufacture or public display of fireworks. The fee for such permit shall be established in the fee schedule maintained by the fire official, as may be amended from time to time. (Code 1967, § 10-6; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, § 9-12; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98) State law reference--For state law as to authority of county to adopt this section, see Va. Code §§ 27-98 and 59.1-1484. Sec. 6-304 Fireworks ptZermits fc.r ""~'~:- r .... a~'.':plays -Application. Any person, business, organization, or other entity. ,~,~o.....~,'~^~:~-~ a pc~it required by section 6- 303 to obtain a permit shall make application to the fire official at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of such fireworks display :or other activity requiring a permit. Such application shall be on forms provided by the fire official. The applicant shall furnish such information as may be required by the fire official, comply with all terms and conditions imposed by the fire official and pay the required fee(s). (Code 1967, § 10-7; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, § 9-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98) Sec. 6-305 Fireworks pt~erm~ts .v. v .... a~[:play:--Investigation; issuance or refusal. Upon filing of an application for a permit required by section 6-303, the fire official shall make an investigation to determine whether the applicant is properly qualified to present a public fireworks display or engage in other activities requiring a fireworks permit and whether such disphag activities can occur within the County of Albemarle bc ~cld without danger to property or person. If the fire official is satisfied with the results of such investigation, and the applicant complies with all requirements imposed by this chapter and any applicable regulations or procedures, the fire official shall issue the permit: If he is not satisfied with the results of such investigation, or if the applicant has not complied with any or all reouirements imnosed by thi~q ordinance and any applicable regulatiOns or procedures, e fire official shall refuse to issue such permit. (Code 1967, § 10-8; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, § 9-14; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98) Sec. 6-306 Fireworks pgermits fez v .....displays--Conditions. The fire official may specify, in any permit issued pursuant to section 6-303, any conditions ........ that he shall deem necessary to protect persons and property. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, the type of fireworks to be used in gueh a fireworks display, the hours when such display may be presented, required fire extinguishing equipment, the presence of trained~Srcmen fire fighters and ~:v,,~,~,~,~ ..... police officers at such display, the DRAFT: May 3, 2001 manner, place or other conditions of storage of firewr~:l~s by anyone required to obtain a permit pursuant to section 6-303 and any other requirement that the fn'e official may deem necessary. (Code 1967, § 10-9: 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, § 9-15; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98) Sec. 6-307 Fireworks pgermits foreuo..~---~":" ~-or-~:a:~" .... ~ -Liability insurance or bond required. Each person, business, organization or other enti .ty required by section 6-303 to apply for and obtain a permit (the "permittee"___ -~nazr t?2:, ~:.c!e, shall file with the fn'e official evidence of a valid policy of liability insurance from ~ liccnc, ca insurance company authoriZed to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Virginia or a bond in an amount deemed adequate by the fn'e official to insure the payment 'of all damages which may be caused either to persons or to property by reason of the permitted display, sale, storage or other activity subject to the requirements of this article and arising from any acts of the permittee or his agentS, employees or subcontractors. (Code 1967, § 10-10; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97;Code 1988, § 9-16; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98) Sec. 6-308 Fireworks pPermits.,,.r- .... ~-,----~":" ---o~,---~a:~' ..... ~ Nontransferable. No permit issued pursuant to section 6-303 shall be transferable. (Code 1967, § 10-11; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, § 9-17 Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) This ordinance shall be effective upon passage. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dottier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors David P. Bowcrman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlo~e Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlotte.wille, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Riwanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller May 18, 2001 Ms. Laurie McDade Martha Jefferson Hospital 459 Locust Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. McDade: At its May 16, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a proclamation proclamining May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. I have enclosed the signed proclamation, Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment Printed on recycled paper 459 Locust Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 982-7000 Hospital www. marthajefferson.org Physician Referral & Prograra Information (804) 982-7009 (888) 652-6663 Toll Free Martha Jefferson Hospital April 10, 2001 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk of Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: As per our phone conversation yesterday afternoon, I've enclosed a request for a County Proclamation for May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. Please let me know if there is anything about the text I've provided that needs to be changed. Can you also let me know the date and time of the Board meeting at which the proclamation will be announced? I can be reached at 982-8268. Thank you so much for your help and information. Teen Pregnancy and STD Prevention Coordinator Enclosure tifetime of ttu~ ~ and cblt~ and cotwse ofa year bas a 901na'twnt ckanee of pregmm~; and WHEREA~ tire teen pregnancy ntte in A~ County htcr~ased by more titan 2~ pervert between 1996 and 1999, wkick calls for increased supporl for ou~ commune's prevention programs; mmsmiaed dlseoses includ~g AIDS; mul ~ NOW, TItEREFORE, ~, $~lly ~. ~om~s, C~, o~ ~atf of ~ A~ ¢v~ty ~ of MAY, 2001 as TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH .ALI~EMARLE BOARD OF COIIN~ $UPERVI~OR$ David R Bowerrnan Rio l..indsay G. Dottier, ,Jr. Seottwille Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Jack Joueit COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 {804} 296-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins Whi~ Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Millmr May 21,2001 Mr. Roger C. Wiley Hefty Wiley, PC 1001 East Broad Street Old City Hall, Suite 230 Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mr. Wiley: At its May 16, 2001 meeting, the Albemarle Board of Coumy Supervisors adopted the attached resolution approving an amendment to the service agreement for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority and providing for the appointment of alternate members to the Jail Authority's Board of Directors. I have attached the resolution. Enclosure Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE JAIL AUTHORITY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS Be it Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle: 1. That the Service Agreement for the Al bemarle-Chadottesville Regional Jail Authority, as adopted effective November 15, 1995, with amendments effective March 12, 1998, and November 12, 1998, is further amended by adding Section 2.2.1 as follows: Section 2.2.1 Alternate Board Members. Altemate members shall be appointed to the Board. Such alternate members may attend and participate in discussions at all meetings of the board, and, in the absence of their respective principal members, may vote on any matter and be counted for purposes of determining a quorum or a required majodty under Sec'don 4.9 of this agreement. Each shedff of a Member Jurisdiction shall appoint his or her alternate, and eaci~goveming body of a Member Jurisdiction shall appoint One or more altemates, but not more than one alternate for each principal member appointed by such governing body. The same person may serve as alternate for more than one principal member, but shall only be entitled to vote for one absent member on any issue. Sheriffs' alternates shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing sheriff, and other alternates shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing body. There shall be no alternate for the member appointed jointly by Albemarle and Charlottesville. 2. That Roxanne W. White and Thomas C. Foley are appointed to serve as alternate members of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail ^uthodty. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia, on May 16, 2001. County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive ~. ~./~ May 16, 2001 f./_~ ~,v / Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority - Appointment of Alternates A member of the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority has requested that our service agreement be amended in order to provide for the appointment of alternate members who may attend jail board meetings and vote in the absence of their principal members. I have attached a copy of a letter from the Jail Authority's attorney, Mr. Roger C. Wiley, and a resolution approving the appointment of alternate members for the Jail Authority's Board of Directors. lam recommending approval of the attached resolution and that the alternates representing the County's appointed directors on the Jail Board be the Assistant County Executives. This gives us flexibility ~n representation should more than one of the directors be absent or should one of the Assistant County Executives be unable to attend a Jail Board meeting. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Humphris or me. RWT,Jr\ 01.035 Attachment Albemarle County Executive's Office 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (804) 296-5841 HEFTY WILEY, P.C. May 3, 2001 WILLIAM H. HEFTY ROGER C. WILEY Attorneys at Law OLD CITY HALL, SUITE 230 lOOI EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA .23219 womb: 804 78o-3x43 FAX: 804 225-8356 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Gary B. O'Connell Charlottesville City Manager P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Stephen A. Carter Nelson County Administrator P.O. Box 336 Lovingston, Virginia 22949 Re: Albemarle-Char!0.ttesville Regional Jail Authority- Appointment of Alternates ..... ~., , .'.~. '} ~':'. c; 3.":.."- As you know, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail: Authority has asked that its Service Agreement with its Member Jurisdictions, which establishes the composition of the Jail Authority's board of directors, be amended to provide for the appointment of alternate members, who may attend board meetings and vote in the absence of their principal members. State law permits the appointment of'such alternates, but the Service Agreement does not currently provide for them. On some recent occasions there has been difficulty in getting a quorum of members to be p?e~e,t. ~ .., and the ....... Authori9~ hopes the use of alternates ',,¢Lt aAeviate gini problem. Enclosed is a reSolution for your governing body to adopt, approving the necessary change in the Service Agreement, and' then designating the person(s)'being appointed as an alternate member. The three, sheriffs who are members :will appoint their own alternate. Nelson County needs to appoint one alternate for. Steve Carter. Albemarle and Charlottesville each have three separately appointed, members and could appoint an, alternate:, for each one, but it might be easier for each locality just to appoint one staff person, who could attend on a regular basis and vote asan for whichever one of the locality's regular appointees happens to be absent. It also seems simpler not to bOther with an alternate for the person jointly appointed by the two localities ~(currently Dick Jennings). -- .. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Gary B. O'Connell Stephen A. Carter May 4, 2001 Page 2 Please ask your clerk to send me a copy of the resolution once your governing body has adopted it, and let me know if there are any questions. Very tr))ly yours, Roge~r~ Enclosure cc: John Isom COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors .--- Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive May 14, 2001 / Board of SuPerv, isors' Cost of Living Increase As you know, the State Code provides that governing bodies can increase their annual salary annually up to five percem after a public hearing regarding the matter has been held. The salary increase cannot be enacted prior to May ia or later than June 30t~. With your approval of this request, under your Consent Agenda, the Clerk's Office will advertise a 4.2 percent increase (which is equal 5o the salary pool for all County employees) for Board of Supervisor member salaries and schedule the public hearing for June 6, 2001. The effective date of the salary increase will be July 1, 2001. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. RWT,Jr/ewc DRAFT: May 15, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 01-2( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 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 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as fo llows: CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors shall ~,~ *~*' *~- ...... ~ ...... ~--,~ ...... · ....... eleven thousand two hundred.thirty dollars and no cents ($!0,777.00) ($11,230.00) for each board member. In addition to the regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). (6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14,95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-I7-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; ord. 00-2(1), 6-%00; Ord. 01-2(2), 5-16-01) This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2001. I, EHa W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of ... to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay David R Bowerma~ Rio Lind~ay G. Dottier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALB~E Office of Bonrd of Supervisors 401 Mclnt~re Ro~d Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX [804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Wh~e Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller May 18, 2001 Mr.' Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Dear Mr. Bryan: At the May 16, 2001 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board adopted a resolution on the Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Combined Phases II and Ill, (State Project No. 6029-963-F01, PE100, From 1-64 to North Caroline State line). I have attached the resolution. Please call me if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Senior Deputy Clerk cc: H. Carter Myers, Ill V. Wayne Cilimberg Attachment Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION WHEREAs, the Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Combined Phases I! and III, (State Project No, 6029-963-F01, PE100, From 1-64 To: North Carolina State line) encompasses the counties of Amherst, Nelson, Albemarle, Pittsylvania and Campbell; and WHEREAS, over the past two years the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has held public workshops and received citizen input and comments regarding vadous concepts developed by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., consultants for this study; and WHEREAS, representatives from the County of Albemarle had an opportunity to review and discuss the Study with VDOT with the consultant and VDOT consultants; and WHEREAS, in a resolution dated February 14, 2001, the Albemade County Board of Supervisors provided comments and/or recommendations regarding the Study; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ~he Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses the following comments regarding the Route 29 Corridor Development project: The area along the Route 29 South Corridor is not in the County's Development area. Data developed by the consultant and vedfied by the County does not project significant development in this area of the County through the study pedod. Therefore, the county does not believe controlled access through elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. The County does support the coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access management recommendation of the Phase I Corddor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South Corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Specifically, this recommendation states, ~An Access Management Plan (AMP) should be developed for the corddor in conjunction with the local jurisdiction who would then be responsible for its implementation. The AMP' should address modifications to land use as well as physical improvements to US Route 29 and the development of other roadways. The AMP should recognize the local options and needs vary in the study corridor." Albemarle County believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be identified and pursued. The County suggests the Commonwealth Transportation Board encourage VDOT and local govemments to facilitate donated and purchased conservation easements as a means to access management and to ensure that the capacity of the corddor is not impacted by potential entrances from by-dght subdivisions. Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemale County, without service roads and limited access which should not be used in Albemarle County. Under no scenario should the "Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle county. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that signalization of interseclJons will be necessary in Albemarle County, but in no case is reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County interseclJons necessary. It is anticipated tha~ certain intersections in Ablemarle County will need upgrades for safebj reasons. Remove the term "to extent practical "from any Comprehensive Plan references in the guidelines for developing altemafives. The County strongly supports the 'Non Location-Specific or Corridor-Wide Transportation Recommendations" outlined in the Study Summary Recommendations. Support one eddiljOi~ AMTRAK tr~n per day along entire corridor as well as new Tmns. Dominion Express service ~ Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Albem~e County does not support localities subsidizing this service. Make sum that references to the Tmns-Dominion Express reflect Include a park and fide facility at the intersection of Routes 29 and 6 in the list of recom~ facilities. This would replace the current infon-nal parking that is occurring at this location. Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make these alternatives .successful in the corridor. Include transit with ride-share for intemet match systems. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 6 -0 on February 7, 2001. Clerk, Bo d~d ~ Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of' Planning & Communi~ _~De~men_t 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 May 10, 2001 Reg Alford 1306 Municipal road Roanoke, VA 24012 RE: SP-00-72 Crown Orchard (Nextel/Crown Castle); Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 Dear Mr. Alford: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of this special use permit shall only apply to the building described in the applicant's request and site construction plans entitled "VA-064P-D Patterson Mountain Co~Locate Guyed Tower" dated January 21, 2001. None of the related antennas, nor any future antennas for use by other service providers shall be installed on this tower prior to administrative approval, in accordance with condition number 4 of SP 93-15 which states: Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 16, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Planner Cc: Ella Carey Steve AIIshouse Amelia McCulley Bob Ball Jack Kelsey Crown Orchard STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER MAY 8, 2001 MAY 16, 2001 SP 00-072 CROWN ORCHARD (NEXTEL/CROWN CASTLE) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to install ground equipment contained within a 9-foot by 16-foot building, ten feet and three-inches tall in height, on a 200 square foot concrete pad in connection with a three (3) sector array of panel antennas, to be placed on an existing 270-foot tall guyed tower. This tower, owned by American Tower Corporation, was approved by special use permit SP 93-15 RAM/BSE Communications. According to the applicant's request, approval of these facilities will enable NEXTEL to extend its service within Albemarle County (Attachment A). The property, described as Tax Map 91/Parcel 28, contains approximately 234 acres zoned RA, lies within the Scottsville Magisterial District and in the area designated as Rural Areas 4 by the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment B). Petition: This reqUest is for a special use permit to allow the addition of a personal wireless communication facility, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers. A special use permit was approved for the construction of the existing tower and two equipment sheds in 1993 with a condition that allows administrative approval for the collocation of additional antennas (Attachment C). HoWever, because those conditions do not allow administrative review for the installation of new ground equipment, the applicant has submitted this request to allow the addition of a 9-foot by 16-foot structure for the ground equipment (Attachment D). Planning and Zoning History: Several towers, satellite dishes and various other communications facilities are currently located within the existing "tower farm" at the top of Carter's Mountain. Staffhas identified that the following actions that have been taken to approve several of those facilities since 1978: SP 78-42 Motorola - On October 4, 1978, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 200-foot tall communication tower. SP 79-76 Jefferson Cable - On January 18, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 5-meter satellite receiving dish. SP 80-02 Shenandoah Valley TV - On March 19, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request allowing the removal of an existing 230-foot tall tower, and replacement with a 186-foot tall television tower. SP 88-14 Central Virginia Educational TV - On May 4, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 293-foot tall television tower. SP 90-74 Charlottesville Cellular- On September 19, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 150-foot tall cellular telephone tower. SP 91-23 Charlottesville Quality Cable - On August 7, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 200-foot tall wireless cable transmission tower. SP 93-10 CroWn Orchard Company (WVIR-TV) - On June 9, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 60-foot tall television reception tower. SP 93-15 RAM/BSE Communications - On July 14, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a multi-purpose tower not to exceed 300-feet in height. The true mounting structure of this tower is 270feet tall, with an attachment at the top that extends up to 297feet. This tower is the subjeqt of the requested collocation in this proposal: SP 94-37 Centel Cellular - On March 13, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 200-foot cellular telephone tower. SP 96-16 Sm-Comm. Inc. - On July 10, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 190-foot multi-purpose tower. SP 00-88 Carter's Mountain Emergency Communication Facility - On April 18, 2001 the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to 'allow a 250-foot tower as part of the area emergency communications system. Character of the Area: This facility site is a "tower farm" located on property owned by Crown Orchard Company, at the top of Carter's Mountain. Several other existing facilities with towers that range between 60 and 300 feet in height are located within the area. The site is accessed from Carter's Mountain Road which begins at the east side of Route 53, just south of Michie Tavern. Although the" outlying area surrounding the tower farm cOnsists of orchards, there are no significantly sized trees within the immediate area. The site is located in the Carter's Mountain resource area which begins at the 700 foot contour on the USGS maps and peaks at an elevation of approximately 1,400 feet above sea-level (ASL). There are no dwellings within 2000 feet of the facility and the nearest public road is more than two miles away from the facility site. RECOMMENDATION Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff notes that the building pad for this proposal is in an area that is already cleared and does not necessitate any significant disturbance. Furthermore, vehicular access is already provided to the site is from the private access road which begins at State Route 53 and extends south to the site. Therefore, staff's review of this request for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan focuses mainly on the possible impacts that could result from the presence of the new ground-based equipment in the proposed location. The Open Space Plan and the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter provide staffwith guidance for the protection of the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and preservation and management of those resources in order to protect the environment and conservation for future use. Staffhas identified Open Space resources that could be affected by this application as the MoUntain Resource Area for Carter's Mountain and the Historic Properties of Monticello and Michie Tavern. The Comprehensive Plan designates mountains as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, staff analysis is focused mainly on the visual impact of proposed facilities from surrotmding properties and roadways. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, wireless facilities should not be located within "Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. This includes the recommendation for implementing structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy, and locating structures so that they are not "skylighted" against the horizon, and do not alter the ridgeline. As a result of the structure heights and the fact that they are situated at the top of a mountain, the towers at this site are already skylighted, and highly visible from several points throughout the County and the City of Charlottesville. However, the existing buildings that house the ground-based equipment are very minor features that are virtually indistinguishable from outside of the lease area. Open Space Concept Map identifies several historic sites that are adjacent to the subject property, including the Nationally Registered Historic Properties of Monticello and Michie Tavern, both of which are located to the north of the site. Due to the presence of vegetation, and the topography of Patterson Mountain which lies between those historic properties and the tower farm, the existing towers and utility structures are not visible from locations north of the facility site. Therefore, staff does not anticipate that the 10-foot tall ground equipment building in this request will have an impact on any of the nearby properties that are identified as having historic significance. Whenever possible, the wireless policy also encourages the utilization of existing structures for new facilities. Because this request wouldallow the applicant to take advantage of a collocation opportunity, it is staff's opinion that approval of this application would not be inconsistent with the policies and guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities and protecting the important resources of Albemarle County. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The existing tower farm is located at the interior of a parcel that comains many acres, and is isolated from the adjacent properties. Staff is of the opimon that the equipment building would not be visible from adjacent properties and public roads; nor would it impose any unfavorable impacts upon the orchards and forests near the site. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The preservation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources are listed as purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district include. Uses allowed by right are either residential, or those related to agriculture and forestal activities. Uses allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district are most often services related to those activities. However, due to the existing uses at this site, the proposed facility alone would not be have the effect of changing the character of the area. and that such use will be in h~rmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated Sections 1,4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to Sections 10, 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. In Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance the limited delivery of services is listed as one of the intents for the Rural Areas District. The existing facilities on Carter's Mountain clearly provide a wide range of services throughout the area; this includes television, radio, emergency and personal wireless communications. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." Because an oppommity for collocation on an existing structure is proposed with this request, it is staffs opinion that approval of this proposal would result in promoting a more convenient and,attractive community. Therefore, staffs opinion is that this request complies with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to utilities. with the uses permitted by right in the district, As demonstrated with the continued use of the orchards in the presence of the existing facilities within the tower farm, it is apparent that a new facility of the scale proposed with this application would not have the effect of restricting any of the current use on the subject parcel, or by-right uses on any other property within the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet all of the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement adequately protects the public health and safety. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Currently, there are no provisions that act to prohibit the establishment of personal wireless services, and review of this request has been based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan is specific to this site alone. As a component of the. Comprehensive Plan, the Personal Wireless Communication Facilities Policy provides the guidehnes for siting wireless facilities within the County of Albemarle. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permit process or the denial of this particular application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Information provided by the applicant has not demonstrated that no other locations within the proposed area of service are available for construction of a new facility, and alternate sites for the construction of a new facility for this service area have not been proposed or discussed. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The ground equipment subject to this special use permit will not restrict any of the uses permitted by-right or impose any additional impacts on adjacent properties. The new building would not be visible from areas outside of the facility. No clearing or other disturbance is necessary for the placement of the facility. The ground equipment supports an antenna array to be placed on an existing tower that provides a collocation opportunity. Staffhas identified no unfavorable factors that would result from the approval of this request. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: The existing tower was constructed for the purpose of allowing multiple carders on one structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit subject to the with conditions: (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: 5 In order to comply with the provisiOns of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruCtion to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action,) Recommended conditions of approval: Approval of this special use permit shall only apply to the building described in the applicant's request, site construction plans entitled "VA-064P-D Patterson Mountain Co- Locate Guyed rowe , dated January 21, 2001. None of the related antennas, nor any furore'antennas for use by other service providers shall be installed on this tower prior to administrative approval, in accordance with condition number 4 of SP 93-15 which states: Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. ATTACHMENTS: B, C- D- Application and Request for Special Use Permit Tax Map Approval Letter for SP 93-15 (Dated July 21, 1993) Site Information and Construction Drawings 6 · / ~,. ~CountY of Albemarle -;- ' Department of Building Code ay, ATTACHMENT ~/'~??" j': ~, "O~'~c~ u~: ONLY_ .... PAGE 1 Application for Special Use PerMt Project Name~ao~ ~o~a ~ ~t~ ~ ~p¢i~ao~~ ' t ~ _ ~ .... ~ ~-~~ ~ ~ ~~- / ~~ ln ~ ~ [ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ [*E~sfingUse~ ~ ~'[~ Proposed Use (~ ~[~~ ~~ ~ ~ Zoning Dist~ct ~. Zoning Ordinance S~~er requited (*staff will ~sist you wi~ thee items) Number of acr~ to be covered by Special Use Permit (ir~ ~i~ m~t ~ delin~t~ on p~l) ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ]~ ~is an amendment to an ex~fing Special Use Pe~t? ~s~ No Are you submitting a ~te developmeat plan ~ ~is appli~tion? ~~ No Contact Person IWhom should we can/write concerning this projectT): P---~-~ /Z~'~""~ /~_.~ ~..- Address ~ ~~~ ~. City ~~ State Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): Daytime Phone (~[ ) 2~~' City ~~WJ(~--, State E-mail. Applicant (Who is the contact person representing? Who is requestiag thc special use?): ~.~ ~; _~"~ Address L ~(z~ ~3%-~c~c~ ~_.a~. City Daytime Phone (~_~) ~(~--/~/~ Fax # E-mail __ Tax map and p. a.,rcei _Nk" 4[ Physical Address CfassignecO Location of property (landmarks intersections, orother) Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers OFFICE USE ONLY ~ ~0.~..~ /C.A.O~g'~ C~[j~ Feeam;untS '~'3.00 DatePaid I]~t~OO Check~ ]q~ History ~p~ial ~m~ -S e-- ~ -~ ~ ZM As and Proffers- Concu~ent review of Site Development Plan? Letter of Authorization Yes 0 No 7 401 Mclntire Road 4° Charlottesville, VA 22902 4° Voice: 296-5832 4° Fax: 972-412~ ATTACHMENT A , -' PAGE 2 '~Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The boara o~ hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all spegial use permits permitted hereunder. Specihl use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will_not_be_changed-thereby-and-that-such-use.-x'ei!! beach harmony with t_h_e_purpo~s_e__a_nd i~te~nLof_thi~s ....... ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensiye Plan designation for this property? [~"~ ~:p-~.~~ zJv-r~ Howwilltheproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentproperty? AJ/P( ~ ?a25~?5~e-) How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? t~]~ , How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 'T-t9 Lo~(f .~~-~ How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? K) [/~ How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community*~.-~4 · _ 8 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 3 Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the nu invo~'ved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: " ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED. provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document accepfable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I oWn the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this appli~cation¢ I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my Signature Date Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory % '" ~ ~' ~'~ ~" I~ c~r,:.:.~' . '~ ~,~ ~ / ~%~ .... ~ ............ e~.~d?~.,~. ... V'~ .' ~ ~ ~*~' ~ PLAT SHOWING EXISTING RO~ L~ATI~ PARCEL 28 PRO~SED R~ REL~ATI~ ;~: ~.us~ . AND ~W S~N~ E~E,%fENT U~ ~'P.~'~"~,r ~ ON THE MOUNTAWTOP LA~ TRUST PRO,~ERTY ~ LOCATED CN C~TER3 MT. ~* ALBEMARLE COUNTY, WRGINIA ;--,,~ ,~ SCALE ' I". 200' DATE: 09'06'85 FOR ATTACHMENT A PAGE 7 SITE SKETCH FOR VA064P-D MICROWAVE DISH SHELTER AREA FOR NEXTEL SHELTER TOWER o SHELTER GENERATOR O O II 13 _> N 33°OdOg'E ACCORDING TO PLAT PLAT SHOWING A SURVEY OF' 234.16~ ACRES IN D.B. 142 P 138 ,~ DESCRIPTION I~i D.B. 159P 359 SHOWN AS PARCEL 28 TAX MAP 91 LOCATED ON CARTER'S MOUNTAIN NEAR CHARLOTTESVILLE --ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINI& DECEUBER IS. 191'5 $CA~[ IN FEET ATTACHMENT A PAGE 8 14 A~BEMARLE COUNTY .SP 00-072 CROWN ORCHARD {NEXTEL/CROWN CA$¥~'E) 77 ATTACHMENT B 'e'C"C"^Gi3.1(;L~LTURAL & FOI'~E. STALOI~TI"~ICT SC~I.E IN FEET I03 SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT 2:1 c 15 SECTION . ATTACHMENT D m m CALL 1-800-552-7001 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY DIGGING MAP / ¢ I ; LOCAL MAP SCALE: 1' ,' 2000' mm----m NR CONOITIONINO ADJUSTABLE ~80V[ RNISH R.OOR .~ePROXlMAIELY AUER~CAN $oc(IY FOR TESTING N~O AUERlCAN WIRE GAUG[ BLOG BUIL0tNO BLK BLOO( BUR BASE UOBI~ P~IO B/S BUIU~HG ST~OARD CIG CEIJNG coflc CONCRL'1( CONST CONSfRUCI~ON CONT CONI~IO~ ~ OOUSIr DIA d OL~EI'ER DIMENSION 01L OLrn. OD/aL OWG OP, AW1NG E F,,Asr EL ELEV ELEVAnON ELECT EUECTRIC~ EO EQUAL [OUIP EQUIPMENT LrW EAC~ WAr EXIST EXISTING EXT EXITu~IOR FIN FINISH FLUOR FLUORESCENT FT FOOT GA GAUGE O~.V GALVN4~ZE(O) GC (~31[RAL CONTRACTOR G~iO &qOUNO ~YP BO GYt~JU 8OARO HO~Z HORIZONTAL HR FLOUR HT HEJ~HI' HVAC HEATING, W. N11NG & AIR CON01TIONING I0 INSIOE OIA. IN INCH INFO INFORUAllO~ INSUL INSULAIqON ~OUNO(S) IMX MAYJMUU UECH UECHNtICAL MGR I,~E~ MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCEUJ~EOUS N NA Nor N~PUCABLE NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NTS NOT TO SCALE oc. o/c ON ~ OPG OPENING OPP OPPOSER PL~ PLYWI3OO PR PNR PROP PROPERLY Pi' PRES~JRE 1REA~..D REQ'O RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING S SOUm SPEC S~EClFlCAnON SO SOUARE SS STNHLESS STILL SUSPEHDEO mRU "tHROUGH INND TINNED TOE TOP OF CONCRETE TOu TOP OF MASONRY UBC UNFORM BUll nlNO CODE UNO U~ NO1[D O'[HBtV~SE VERT W:RllCM. VIF V[R~'Y IN REiD VT V~N'YL ~ W w/ em WIN WINOOW w/o wm~m wP WATERPROO~ & NlCt. E & ANO CDF~cR UNE PROPERqY UNE o AT NUUBER ~ KE'Y NOI~ E]..EVATION REFERENCE ABBREVATIONS ANB SYMBOLS NEXTEL SITE NAME: PATTERSON MOUNTAIN NEXTEL SITE #: VA-064P.D CARTERS MOUNTAIN TRAIL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 RRCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING: CLARK NEXSEN 6160 KEMPSVILLE CIR, SUITE-2OOA NORFOLK, VA 235O2 RON ROUSE, P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER PHONE: (757) 455-5800 FAX: (757) 455-5638 SURVEYOR TECHNICAL AND EIWIRONMENTAL SEI~CES (T.E.S.) 5625 PROVIDENCE ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, 23464 PHONE: (757) 420-4462 FAX: (757) 420-4463 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: CLARK NEXSEN 6160 KEMPSVILLE CIR, SUITE-2OOA NORFOLK, VA 23502 PHONE: (757) 455-5800 FAX: (757) 455-5638 CONSULTANT TEAM THE PROJECT INCLUDES: INSTALLATION OF 9' x 16° SHELTER ON A 10' x 20' CONCRETE PAD. INSTALLATION OF 3 SECTORS: (3) ANTENNAS SECTOR A (3) ANTENNAS SECTOR B (3) ANTENNAS S.ECTOR C ANTENNAS TO BE MOUNTED AT 200' AGL ON EXISTING 270' GUYED TOWER PROJECT DESCRIPTION TAKE 581 N TO 81 N TO 64 E TO ROUTE 20 SOUTH. PROCEED TO ROUTE 53 AND TURN LEFT. PROCEED TO CARTERS MOUNTNN TRAIL AND TURN RIGHT. SITE IS ON THE LEFT AT THE TOP OF THE MOUNTNN. SITE DIRECTIONS PROJECT MANAGER: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: NETWORK OPERATIONS MANAGER:_ NATIONAL DIRECTOR IdANAGER: APPROVED BY SHEET NUMBER O[SCRIPTION T-1 TITLE SHEET C-1 SITE PLAN C-2 ELEVATION VIEW C-3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS S-I FOUNDATION PLAN AND DETAILS S-2 STRUCTURAL DETAILS E-1 ELECTRICAL NOTES AND LEGEND E-2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN E-3 GROUNDING SITE PLAN E-4 ELECTRICAL GROUNDING DIAGRAM AND DETAILS E-5 ELECTRICAL UTILIIY DIAGRAM AND DETAILS SHEETINDEX THESE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO CLARK-NEXSEN BY NEXTEL AND THE TOWER OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL LIABILI1Y FOR ALL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, INTEGRII~ AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS OF AND TO THE EXISTING TOWERS, EXISTING STRUCTURES AND EXISTING SUPPORTS. GENERAL INFORMATION PAGE 1 1506 MUNICIPAL ~ N.W. RO~OKE, V& 24O12 I ~ (,lOl} ZON FN~ ,301) 9.11-2524 Architecture & Engln~ring 6160 Kempsvtlle CirCle, Sutte 2OOA IVooeol~, Vir~n~.~ 23502 757/455-58OO F~.~ 757/455-568 btt~://u.~.c~rA'ne~erL com SUBMITrAL DESCRIPTION RRAL CONSI~UCTION DWGS SITE NUMBER: 'VA-O64P-D PATTERSON ~OUNIAIN CO-kOOkIE GUYED TOWER SITE AOORESS: CARTERS MOUNTAIN 1P, AIL . CHARLO'rTESVILLE, VA. 22902 SITE NAME GENERAL INFORMATION PATTERSON MOUNTNN LAT.: 37' 59' 06" N LONG.: 78' 28' 48" W ~IT[ NUMBER VA-O64P-D PARCEL NUMBER 09100-00-00-02800 SffE ADDRESS CARTERS MOUNTNN TRAIL DEED BOOK & PAGE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 853, PG 656' 22902 TOWER OWNER/ CONTACT SHAW CAI P.O. BOX 299 BATESVILLE, VA. (504) 819--1058 APPLICANT NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC. PROJECT SUMMARY ZONING JURISOICT[ON ALBERIdARLE COUNI~ FNMA FLOOD PLAIN ZONE 'C' POWER COMPA~ AEP (800) 95~-4237 TELEPHONE COMPANY VERIZON (800) 825-2355 DRAWN BY: JAW CHECKED BY: FAH DATE DRAWN: 1/1/i I COMM NO; 1488.2(J) SHEET ~ TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER: 1P. 2P. & 3P A/C AFF A.M.S.L APPROX. ASTM AWG A. OR AMP. BLDG. BLK. BMR C.O~ CB. 121<1'. CLG DA. DIM. DN DTL, DETL DWG. DEF E EA, EL, ELEV ELECT EQUIP. EXIST./EX. EXT EMT. RGB FIN. FLOUR. FLR FT. GRC. G. OR GRD. GA. GALV GC GWB GYP. BD. HARD'WD HORIZ. HR HT. HVAC I.D. IN. INFO INSUL. INT. KW. LS(S) MAX, MECH MET, MTL MFR. MGR MIN. MISC MGB MTD. SINGLE POLE, 1~VO POLE, & THREE POLES AIR CONDITIONING ADJUSTABLE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL APPROXIMATELY AMERICAN SoCIETY"FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS AMERICAN WIRE CAffGE AMPERE BUILDING BLOCK BASE MOBILE RADIO BUll/DING STANDARD COPPER CONDUIT ONLY CONDUIT SIZE AS NOTED CIRCUIT BREAKER CIRCUIT CcONSTRUCTION QNTINubus CONTRACTOR FURNISHED CONTRACTOR INSTALLED DOUBLE DIAMETER DIAGONAL DIMENSION DOWN DETAIL DRAWING DUAL ELEMENT FUSES EAST EACH ELEVATION ELECTRICAL EQUAL EQUIPMENT EACH WAY EXISTING EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING (THIN WALL) ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT.GROUND BUS FINISH FLUORESCENT FLOOR FOOT GALVANIZED RIGID CONDUIT GROUND GAUGE GALVANIZE(D) GENERAL CONTRACTOR GYPSUM WALL BOARD GYPSUM BOARD HARDWOOD HORIZONTAL HOUR HEIGHT HEATING, VENTING AND AIR CONDITIONING INSIDE DIA. INCH INFORMATION INSULATION INTERIOR KILOWA1TS POUND(S) MAXIMUM MECHANICAL METAL MANUFACTURER MANAGER MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MAiN GROUND BUS MOUNTED NEUT. N NA NIC. NTS- O.F.C.I. DC. o/c OD OPG, OPP OHT/OHP OHP OHT PVC, PLYWD. PR PROJ PROP PT RECPT, REQ'D RM R.O~ S SW. SPIT SIM. SPEC. SQ. SS STL STRUCT. SUSP. S.V. THRU TNND T.O.C. T.O.M. U.O.N. UBC UGP UGT VERT. VIF W w/ WIN W/O W. XFMR NEUTRAL NORTH NOT APPLICABLE NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OPENING gPvE PoSITE RHEAD TELEPHONE/OVERHEAD POWER OVERHEAD POWER OVERHEAD TELEPHONE SCHEDULE 40 PLASTIC CONDUIT. PLYWOOD PAIR PROJECT PROPERTY PRESSURE TREATED RECEPTACLE REQUIRED ROOM ' . ROUGH OPENING souTH SWITCH SHEET SIMILAR SPECIFICATION SQUARE STNNLESS STEEL STEEL STRUCTURAL SUSPENDED SHEET VINYL THROUGH TINNED TOP OF CONCRETE TOP OF MASONRY TYPICAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED UNIFORM BUILDING COOE UNDERGROUND POWER UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE VERTICAL VERIFY IN FIELD VINYL TILE WEST WITH WINDOW WITHOUT WATfS WEATHERPROOF TRANSFORMER ANGLE AND CENTER LINE PROPERTY UNB NUMBER = REVISION = KEY NOTES ELEVATION REFERENCE ~ I = SECTION DETAIL REFERENCE REFERENCE ~ ROOM NUMBER t = NORTH ARROW I KEYED NOTES ABBREVIATIONS &:: SYMBOLS LIST E] · .£0£ "- CONCRETE PROPERTY UNE POWER POLE TELEPHONE/FIBEROPTIC PEDESTAL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC ASPHALT SILT- FENCE EASEMENT/LEASE AREA CENTERMNE OF DITCH/SWALE TOP OF DITCH/SWALE SLOPE TREEUNE FENCE LEGEND PAGE 2 Regional off'~e 1306 MUNICIPAL ROAD N,W. ROANOKE, VA. 24012 TEL: (301) 931-9266 F~X pm) g3~-~24 ZONING,/f~RUIT11N~ (540) 3~4--ag74 SUBMflTAL DESCRIPTION FINAL CONSTRUCTION OWGS SiTE NUMBER: VA-064P-D PATTERSON MOUNTAIN CO-LOCATE. GUYED TOWER S/IE ADDRESS: CARTERS UOUNTNN TRAIL CHARLOTrESVILLE, VA 22902 J 5702 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DAlE DRAWN: LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS SHEET NUUBER: 1-2 19 ATTACHMENT D SITE PLAN SCALE: 1'= ! O' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ PROPOSED ~ / UTILITY STAND ~ ii / -.. / / / / / / \, / NEXTEL / LEASE AREA PROPOSED NEXTEL 9'X16' CELLXlON SHELTER PROPOSED 5'X5' CONCRETE PIERS ('h'P. OF 4) ICE GENERAL NOTES: i. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON DETERMINED FROM SURFACE EVIDENCE. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE LOCATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ALL SITE WORK. CALL LOCAL UTILrPI' A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PLANNED ACTIVITIES. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WORK PROCEEDING IN A SAFE AND ORDERLY MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPUCABLE CODES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. ALL CONTRACTORS AND/OR THEIR EMPLOYEES MUST IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER OF ANY UNSAFE CONDITIONS DURING COURSE OF WORK. _ 3. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE AT THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND CHECKED PERIODICALLY TO ENSURE THEY ARE FUNCTIONING AS INDICATED WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. 4. THE STOCKPIENG OF EXCESS MATERIAL ON SITE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 5. ANY VEGETATED AREA DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TOPSOILED AND SEEDED TO RESTORE A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER. 6. THE DIRECTION OF TRUE NORTH WILL HAVE TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. THE MAGNETIC DECUNATION INDICATED IS CALCULATED BASEO ON THE LATITUOE AND LONGIUOINAL COORIDINATE GIVEN BY NEXTEL. EXISTING TOWER DATA LATITUDE: ............... 37' 59 06' N LONGITUDE: ............. 78' 28' 48' W NOTE: I SEE SHEET 'E-2' FOR ROUTING OF 'ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE CONDUITS. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5' 10' 20' 1 '= 1 O' 40' I PAGE 3 Rag;onal office 1506 MUNICIPAL ROAD N.W. ROANOKE, VA 24O12 ~ I g31-g255 FAX 931-2524 (54o) 314-.e974 Architecture ~ Engineering e Circle, Suite 200A Norfolk, Vt~fl~ 23502 757/455-~ F~ 7571~5-5~a ~://~.c~r~~m SUBMITTAL DESCRIFI]ON FINAL CONS"~UCTiON SiTE NUMBER: VA-O64P-D SITE I, IN~E: PATTERSON MOUNTAIN ¢O-I_OCAIE GUYED TOWER CARTERS MOUNTNN TRAIL CHARLOTTES'VILLE. VA. 22902 COl, tM NO: SHEET 11TLR: SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: 2O PAGE 4 · Negiofl,',l office 1.106 MUNICIPAL ROAD N.W. RON,10KF.. VA. 24012 ' 1EL: (301) g31-g2~8 . ' ' FAX (301) g,1~-2,124 Z0~III~/PI~WTI]NG (,540) 314-~74 · NOTE: '" ALI_ TOWER/ANTENNA DESCRIPTIONS AND ELEVATIONS ' STATED ON THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITHOUT A · ' TOWER AS-BUILT DRAWING AND MUST BE FIELD .VERIFIED .euc~r~,~..~m.~,at PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION: · , . 757/~5-~ / [ ~ ~ BO~OM OF EXISTINO ANTENNA / / / uf ~ ~ ~ ~ [~,T,O. - [=~'*] ~ VA-064P'-D ~msTm.~ *.T[..~ / / / t ~ ~ ~ TOe OF EXmST~.O *.TE..* PATTERSON / / / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ .o.o. o¢ ~X,ST~.~ ~.T...~ ~ ' MOUNTAIN [~[~ N}~J~ ~[~NAS / / / / ~ ~~~ ~ ' EL~ATION =[~,.'-o',1 ~ GUYEDTOWER / / / t ~ ~ ~. TOP OF PROPOSED ~TENNA / / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~T,O. - [~o.'.] ~L C~LO~, V~ 22902 / / ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ BO'OU OF ~I~NO DISH ~[N~ EL~AnON = [27'-0'*] ~ D~WN CHECKEO I I LJ g' x 16' CEL~ION SHELTER SH~ ELEVATION , VIEW NOT TO S~LE ' SH~ NUMBER: ATTACHMENT C PAGE 1 July 21, 1993 COUNTY OF ALBE~4ARLE Dept. of Plannin~ & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Vir~linia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 RAM/BSE Communications Limited Partnership dba RAM Facilities Management 10 Woodbridge Center Dr Woodbridge, NJ 07095 RE: SP-93-15.RAM/BSE Communications Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 14, 1993, approved the above-noted request for to allow an approximately 300 foot tower to be located on Carter's Mountain. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 300 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. In the event that lighting is required, only red lighting shall be used for nighttime obstruction marking. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. 16 RAM/BSE Communications Page 2 July 21, 1993 ATTACHMENT C PAGE 2 Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Babette Thorpe at 296-5975. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Development wc/jcw cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Crown Orchard Company Terry L. Wright 17 ATTACHMENT D c-1 TOWER MOUNTED STANDOFF c-2 ¢~3 ~ MECHANICAL DOWN11LT B~CET (~m. 9) SECTOR I ANTENNA MOUNT C~ NOT TO SCALE TOWER ROD (TYP) ANTENNA MOUNT NOT SHOWN ROTATED TO TRUE NORTH. SEE SITE PLAN SHEET C-1. NOTE: SEE fiNAL RF SITE BUILO SPEClRCATION SHEET. EXISTING LATTICE 0' MECHANICAL DOWNTILT TOWER BRACKET (TYP OF g) / r-~ ARTENNAS R 80015. DIN PANEL ANTENNA (TYP OF 9) ELEVATION PLATFORM NOT TO SCALE ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE ANTENNA SECTOR ANTENNA COAX CABLE AZIMUTH RAD COAXIAL COAXIAL MIN BENE TMA COLOR TRX ANTENNA MECHANICAL MARK FEED LOC CENTER CABLE LENGTH CABLE RADIUS TYPE CODE CONFIG DOWNTILT A-1 1 RWA 80015, DiN CR50 '187 OPE BOI'rOM O' 200' 220' 5" N/A ' R Rx3 O' (96.5'xll.6"xC,3") · 1 5/8' COMMSCOPE RWA 80015,'DIN CRSO i87 OPE 5" N/A B Tx2/Rx2 O' A-2 I (96.5-xll.6-x6.3-) Bol-rou O' 200' 220' 1 5/8' COMMSCOPE · RWA 80015, DIN BOTTOM O' 200' 220' CRSO 187 OPE A-3 1 (g6.5'x11.6"x6.3") 1 5/8" COMMSCOPE 5= N/A ~G Txl/Rxl O' RWA 80015, DIN CRSO 187 OPE 5" N/A R(2X) Rx3 O' B-I 2 (96.5'xll.6"xC.3") BOTTOM 100' 200' 220' 1 5/8" COMMSCOPE RWA 80015, DIN CR50 187 OPE B-2 2' (96.5'xll.6"x6,3") BOTTOM 100" 200' 220' 1 5/8" COMMSCOPE 5" N/A B(2X) Tx2/Rx2 O' RWA 80015. DIN CR50 187 OPE 5# N/A ~(2X) Txl/Rxl O' B-3 2 (96.5'xl 1;6"x6.3") BOTrOU 100' 200' 220' 1 5/8' COMMSCOPE RWA 80015, DIN CRSO 187 OPE; C- 1 3 BOTfOM 255" 200' 220' 5' N/A R(3X) Rx3 O' (96.5'x11.6'x6.3") 1' 5/8' COMMSCOPE RWA 80015, DIN CRSO 187 OPE C- 1 3 BOI'rOM 255' 200' 220' 5" N/A · B(3X) Tx2/Rx2 O' (96,5"xl 1.6"x6.3") 5/8" COMMSCOPE RWA 8001s. O,N ~87 oPE C-2 3 (96.5"x11.S"x6.3") BOI~OM 255' 200' 220' . 5%R~5"OcoMMSCOPE/o 5" N/A G(3X) Txl/Rxl O' TOWER MEMBER SNAP-IN CABLE --~ HANGER COAXIAL CABLE WAVEGUIDE LADDER TOWER MFR.) CABLE MOUNTING DETAIL COAX CABLE CABLE HANGER CABLE-CABu MAX HANGEF ANDREW NO. SIZE ANDREW NC SPACING (D) SPACING (Y) LDF4=50A 1/2' 206706-1 1/2' 3'-0' LDF7-50A 1 5/8' 206706-4- 1/2' 3'-0' CABLES FROM ANOTHER'MANUFACTURER ARE -'_ AS A SUBSTITUTE TO ANDREW MANUFACTURED CABLES AND ACCESSORIES. CROSS REFERENCE THE USTED MODEL NUMBERS TO ENSURE COMPATABIUTY. CABLES SUPPORT ON ANTENNA TOWER NOT TO SCALE fOPS ANTENNA &: MOUNTING BASE (FURNISHED BY NEXTEL) INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR) /--3"X3"X 1/4' ALUMINIUM /' ANGLE //-(2) 3/8' DIA HOLES FOR MOUNTING TO SHELTER WALL GPS ANTENNA INSTALLATION NOT TO SCALE LPAGE 6 eglonal office 1.306 UUNIClPN. RON) N.W. ROANOKE, VA. 24O12 ZONING/PERUITIING (540) 314--8974 Architecture & Engineering 6160 Kempsvllle Circle, Suite 200A Norfollt, Wr~n~ 2350~ 757/455-5800 Fax 757/455-5638 bttp:llunuw, clar~_y~e~com SUBMITrAL lDESCRtP'flON ~NN. CONSTRUC~CN DWGS SITE NUIdBE~: VA-Of4P-D PATTERSON MOUNTAIN CO-LOCATE GUYED TOWER CARTERS MOUNTAIN TRAIL CHARLO'I'FES'VILLE, VA. 22902 DRAWN BY: ' M.A,.A. CHECKED BY: F.A.H. OAT[ DRAWN: 1/t/il COMU NO: i~ea.H(J) SHEET Trn.~ CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: I FOUNDATION PLAN COLUMI~ (~) 5/~" ,~ Aa. 12' LONG wrlTI 3' HOOK FINISH IASEPLATE THIS SHEET iii3 TIES AT 12' O.C. 1 '-O"x 1 '-0" CONCRETE P~ER ~5 t-0xl2' THICK FOOTING ' 6 T.O.F. = [-6-10 3/1 '] ,~ -- (5) ~14 BARS EQUALLY SPACED EACH WAY COMPACTED STONE 1'-0" DP 500X STABIUZATION FABRIC OR EQUAL FOOTING DETAIL SCALE: 1' = 1'-0' (~) 5/s" ,~ A.B 12" LONG WITH ~ ~ i~3 TIES AT 12' O.C. 3" HOOK, ~ I 1'-0'x1'-0" FINISH '-'~ ~3~ ~ ~i'/ CONCRETE PIER · 0 [J;~"'" ,~ ' '~=i'-OxS'-Ox12"T. ~ICK FOOTING . .:.1:: o.r. ~ [-~'-~ ~/~ ~ ¢ , - - - - : l ~ABlU~nON (~) FOOTING DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-O' 3/16 V' % F3/4' e · I + ~ o I o ,~ I , 5' ~ ,5' [ 1/2 BASEPLATE DETAIL SCALE: 3' = 1'-0' GRAPHIC SCALE 1/2'= 0 6? 1 ' 2' 3" 1" = 1'-0" ~ , 3' ,= 1'-0" ~---- 12' PAGE 7 1306 UUNICIPN. RON) N.W. RO~Ok% Vk 2~012 1TI.: (301) e31-g255 , .FAX (30~) ~1-2324 ZONING/laE~ufrI1NG (~) 314--~e74 SffE NUMBE~: VA-O64P:-,'-D PATIERSON MOUNTAIN CO-LOCATE GUYED TOWEE S~ ~: ~S MOU~NN ~L C~LO~, V~ 22902 SHEEr FOUNDATION PLAN SHEET NUMBER: S-2 _) ELECTRICAL SITE SCALE: I \ ~0~ 'b? SLOPE '\ \ \ \ / _ .--EX/STING / GR ELj ' EXISTING \ BUILDING \ EXISTING GUY WIRES ~ I EXISTING GUYED TOWER I I ~' 8UILDINO I _ r EXISDNO ~ / I I / I I I / l PL6N FPROPOSED NEXTEL 9'X16' C~ION BUILDING I I I /, / / I / / / / / / / / / \, ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN NOTES POWER SERVlCE FEEDER. RUN -~0" BELOW GRADE. PROV1DE 3j~5/0 & 1~6 GND IN 2' PVC CONDUIT (SCHEDULE 40). TELEPHONE SERVICE FEEDER. PROV1DE 2' PVC CONDUIT (SCHEDULE 40) WITH PULL STRING. UTIUTY METER. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND PROVISION OF METER WiTH LmuTY COUPANY. SERVICE DISCONNECT. SEE DETNL 1, SHEET E-5. TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX. SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET E-5. 3' PVC CONDUIT (SCHEDULE 40) FOR INCOMING POWER SERVICE. RUN 30' BELOW GRADE AND .STUB UP OUTSIDE COMPOUND. COORDINATE INSTALLATION WITH UTIUTY COMPANY. 3' PVC CONDUIT ~SCHEDULE .40) FOR INCOMING TELEPHONE SERVICE. RUN 30" BELOW GRADE AND STUB UP OUTSIDE COMPOUND. COORDINATE INSTALLATION WITH TELEPHONE COMPANY. SERVICE STAND. SEE DETNL.'I, SHEET E-5. GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1'=I0' (FOR 11' X 17' PLOT) SCALE.- 1",-5' (FOR 24' X 36" PLOT) ATTACHMENT D PAGE 8 Regional 1306 k(UNICIP~L ROAD N.W, ROANOKE. VA. 24012 I ~ (301~ 931-g266 . FAX (3O0.31-~2~. ZONING~ERMIT~NG (540) 314-ag74 11~ ~VaLL ~Z3~llIJl~ p~aA FIC~ LV~Dt~ Or SUBMITTAL. DESCRIPTION fiNAL CONSTRUCTION OWOS SITE NUMBE~: VA-O64P.-D PATTERSON MOUNTAIN CO-LOCATE GUYED TOWER CARTERS MOUNTNN TRNL CHARLOTTES~qLLE, VA COUM NO: 1486.2(J) U ELECTRICAL 2o' ~£ PItH 16'-4" [196"] 16'-0" [192"] R E SEE NOTE SEE NOTE 1 , 100" '1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A NOTES: 1. CADWELD #2 (TINNED) SOLID WIRE TO THE EXTERIOR GROUND BAR AND CONNECT TO THE WAVEGUIDE ENTRY PORT WITH A 2- HOLE MECHANICAL LUG. 2. #2 AWG WELDING CABLE TO BE USED TO GROUND THE EXTERIOR DOOR CANOPY BRACKET TO THE DOOR FRAIv{E USING 2-HOLE CRIMP TYPE LUGS. ,3. ALL PENETRATIONS TO EXTERIOR MUST BE WEATHER TIGHT BEFORE SHIPPING. 4, ITEM 4- CUSTOMER SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED. /'~t F . · 'q A F · · .'1 SERVI FUTURE[27). I Or,~r~r,I FUTURE[27). I r'V~r~l SEE NOTE~ SEE NOTE~ ~.~ ~2 FOR 1/," BLOWER PENETRATIONDISCONNECT '~~ ' 'iiJ~' ' ~i' '- ' ACESS PANEL 9'-4" [112"] - 9'-O, [~O8"] ' ' 2" EXTERIOR ELEVATION B ----22~"-- -- t~ 54" - EXTERIOR ELEVATION C CONFIDENTIAL AUG 2 ~ 2000 EXTERIOR ELEVATION D I J I CTF 15/09/001 C~GED ITEM t ~2 /HI SM 13/14/00 I CHANGED GENERATOR RECEPTACLE BRANDS S H E L T E R D R AFT ! N G ~"~ BY I DATE I DESCR,P~OH IVGH 15/09/00I VGH APP.BYI DAlE I PAGE 9 THIS DRAWING IS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CONTAINS TRADE SECRETS OF CELLXlON, LLC. ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY CELLXlON. LLC. IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANYONE RECEMNG OR OTHERWISE OBTAINING POSSESSION OF IT WILL BE EXPRESSLY NOTIFIED OF ITS CONFIDENTIAL NATURE. CUSTOMER: NEXTEL PARTNERS PROJECT: 9'-0" X 16'-0" EQUIPMENT SHELTER EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FILENAME: NxTO3\NXTO3i-O ~CALE: 5/16' = I'-0' )RWN. BY: ¢. gLLIOTT CHK. BY: V. HASSELL ENG. BY: K. BARNETT APP. BY: J. HOOD SHEET NO.: 1-0 DRAWING NO.: NXTO$ TOLERANCE: DATE: 8/1,!/99 DATE= DATE: DATE: PART NO.: J25 _J GENERAL NOTES: 1.) ALL STEEL FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL AND AWS D1,1 SPECIFICATIONS. 2.) ALL WELDING SHALL BE MIG TYPE WITH THE FOLLOWING OPERATING SETTINGS. WIRE SIZE 0.55 WIRE FEED SPEED (in/mln) --5 VOLTAGE, DC (+) ........ 18.5 AMPERAGE. DC ......... 140 TRAVEL SPEED (in/mJn) -10-12 SHIELDING GAS .75/25 5.) STRUCTURAL STEEL SPECIFICATIONS: STEEL DECK AND COLD FORMED SHAPES ASTM A446 GRADE D STRUCTURAL SHAPES ASTM A36 HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS. ASTM A525 OTHER BOLTS. SAN J429 GRADE 5 STRUCTURAL TUBING ASTM AS00 GRADE B ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL CONFORM TO AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (A.C,I.) BUILDING CODES .318 & 211. AND ASTM STANDARDS C-172. C-51, C-.39, AND PROVISIONS OF C-94. _ 5.) ALL PRECAST STRUCTURAL UGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSNE STRENGTH OF 5000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. 6.) ALL REINFORCING STEEL BARS SHALL BE DOMESTIC, NEW BILLET STEEL CONFORMING TO ASTM A-615 GRADE 60 SPECIFICATIONS. 7.) CONCRETE COVERAGE OVER ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8.) ALL REBAR SHALL BE TIRO 100~. AT THE PERIMETER, AND 50~. ELSEWHERE. 9.) ALL REBAR WIRE TIES TO BE 16 OUAGE. 10.) FIBROUS REINFORCED UGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE MAY BE USED IN THE ROOF AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 5000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. FIBER REINFORCEMENT MAY BE USED IN THE FLOOR IF' DESIRED. IN ORDER TO MAKE BATCHING OPERATION MORE EFFICIENT. 11.) CELLXION CONCRETE EQUIPMENT SHELTERS ARE DESIGNED TO CONTAIN COMMUNICATION EOUlPMENT AND ARE INTENDED TO BE UNMANNED. 12.) WELD PLATE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SPACED AT 4'-B" MAXIMUM ON THE FLOOR AND ROOF PANELS. THiS DIMENSION SHALL BE MAINTNNED EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE OPENINGS PROHIBIT. 15.) TOLERANCES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: PANEL THICKNESS - +1/8' PANEL SIZE - +1/16" PANEL SQUARENESS - 4.1/8" AGREEMENT ON DIAGONALS LOCATION OF BLOCKOUTS z, PVC'S - +1/4" BLOCKOUT DIMENSIONS - +1/4", -0" PVC SIZE - USE TRADE SIZE AS LISTED ON PROJECT DRAWINGS 14.) SECTIONS & DETAII.,S MAY BE FOUND ON THE FOLLOWING SHEETS. GENERAL: ROOF PANEL: WALL PANEL: WALL OPENNINGS: FLOOR: WELD PLATES : THESE REBAR SIZES AND SPACINGS REPRESENT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT FOR ALL CASTING PLANS. PROJECT DRAWINGS MAY REQUIRE REINFORCEMENT IN ADDITION TO CELLXlON STANDARDS. i~4 (SHORT AXIS) t:~" D.C. AND ~4 (LONG AXIS) AT 18' D.C, ~4 AT PERIMETER AND 4x4-WCxW4 MESH THROUGHOUT. SEE DETNL P &: Q (SHEET NO. 6) (2)-~6 (SHORT AXIS) Ea~CH RIB. i~6 (LONG AXIS) EACH RIB AND AT PERIMETER. DECK: 4x4-W4xW4 MESH, 1/4'xS"xS", A36 STEEL. STEP I. STEP 2. STEP 3. STEP SEALANT APPLICATION_ URETI-IANE SEALANT REQUIRED ON ALL JOINTS. ROOF MEMBRANE APPLY SEALERTO ROOF PER MFG. DIRECTIONS. USE I GALLON PER 70 SQ. FEET. APPLY AGGREGATE SEALER TO EXTERIOR WALLS. USE 1 GALLON PER 200 SQ. FEET. USE TEXTURED SEALER ON ALL SMOOTH EXPOSED SURFACES. USE CEMENTITOUS GRAY PNNT. ISOMETRIC VIEW ATTACHMENT D PAGE 10 THIS DRAWING IS THE CONFIDENTIA PROPERTY AND CONTAINS TRADE SECRETS OF CELLXlON, LLC. ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY CELLXlON, LLC. IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANYONE qECEN1NG OR OTHERWISE OBTAININ POSSESSION OF IT WILL BE EXPRESSLY NOTIFIED OF ITS CONFIDENTIAL NATURE. CUSTOMER: NEXTEL PARTNERS PROJECT: 9'-0" X 16'-0" EQUIPMENT SHELTER STRUCTURAL SPEClFICATIONS SCALE: TOLERANCE: N. r.S. ORWN. BY: G. ELLIOTT CHK. BY: v. H~SSELL ENG. BY: DATE: K. ~,4RNETT APP. BY: DATE: B. ROGERS SHEET NO.: PART NO.: SO-O DRAWING NO.: NXT03 26 Alford Consulting, Inc. 4900 E. 98th Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617 (813) 985-3843 Cell: (813) 340-3272 March 9,2001 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk of Board of Supervisors Albermarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Public Headng Request Dear Ms. Carey, During a phone conversation last week, Mr. Wayne Cilimberg suggested that I send a letter requesting that the Board of Supervisors grant the request as follows. First of all, I will be appearing before the Planning. Commission on May 8, 2001 regarding the issue below, and would greatly appreciate the Board of Supervisors would grant me an audience as soon as possible after the May 8, 2001 date. My client, Nextel Partners/Crown Castle International, would like to collocate on an existing ATC tower located on the top of Brown's Mountain, which is Carter Mountain Road, property owned by Crown Orchards. In order for us to attach our equipment to the existing structure we must receive a Special Use Permit, which we originally applied and paid for back in October of 2000. We submitted ali the required documents, except for the letter of permission from the landowner, which the County requires. We were informed by the tower owner that a copy of the lease would suffice due to the collocation permission in perpetuity clauses throughout the lease. So, we sent the County a copy of the lease, but they informed us a letter was still needed. Having to rely on the tower owner to request the letter from the landowner, it subsequently took four months to receive the letter. Consequently, our Special Permit package was not processed until February 26, 2001. At this point, we are unable to proceed and meet our critical launch date, therefore again request, that the Board of Supervisors here our request as soon as possible since this was originally submitted in October of last year. As it currently stands, this site will not make the launch date of April 15, 2001, which will have a tremendous financial impact on this project. I would greatly appreciate a response from you as soon as possible. The Roanoke, VA address: 1306 Municipal Road, Roanoke, VA 24012; Phone 813- 34O-3272. Reg Alford COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o f Planni_ng_& Com_.m_u_nity _D_ev_elo- p_ment ~ 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 05-10-01 Al1:41 IN May 9, 2001 Valerie W. Long, Esq McGuire Woods LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2001-03 T. E. Wood (Triton PCS); Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 2001, 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: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed six (6) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted: c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole. except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein: d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall noi' exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two trees that have been used to justify the height the monopole; Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)" Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood- Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; b. No satellite or m~crowave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior t~ beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst, specifying tree protection methbds and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and oUtside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within one thousand (1000) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are stee per than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the lumina~re. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required 11. Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of grave. Should installation of the facility require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed_ 12. The applicant shall execute an agreement with CFW and the property owner, in order to ensure that all of the responsibilities for maintaining the access road in a condition safe are shared evenly. 13. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May '16, 200'1. Any new or additional information regarding your .application musLbe_submitted/Q/he Clerk~f~Lhe B_o_ard_c)f Su pe~i_sor_s_at least_s.e~enday~_pdpr to yg_u_r scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved, by a vote of 6-0, a request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; The applicant shall provide adequate area for one parking space; The applicant shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Planner SW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER MAY 1, 2001 MAY 16, 2001 SP 01-003 WOOD, T.E. (TRITON PCS) Note: The recommendation of the Planning Commissions was made with a condition that incorrectly indicates that the monopole proposed with this facility will be made of metal. However, the rest of the report correctly refers to a wooden monopole, as requested by the applicant. Therefore, condition 2a has been corrected in this report to read: "The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; "for the Board ~ Consideration. Applicant's Proposal: The proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility which would implement a self-supporting wooden monopole, at a height of six (6) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. Three flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4 feet in height, and a lighming rod would be attached at the top of the pole. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a brown metal cabinet, six feet - nine inches in height, to be placed on an 8.5-foot by 10-foot concrete pad. According to the applicant's request, approval of this facility would help to increase wireless coverage along U.S. 29, south of Charlottesville, in order to assist Triton PCS with maintaining a wireless communications system that in accordance with the requirements of it's FCC issued license, by preventing the occurrence of a "gap" in the network (Attachment A). Petition: As part of a system that is intended to provide wireless communications coverage throughout the area the applicant, Triton PCS, Inc., maintains several facilities in the County of Albemarle. In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a new personal wireless services facihty for increased coverage (Attachment B). The applicant's petition cites the presence of a 90-foot tall tree, located approximately 23 feet away and with a top elevation of 853 feet Above Sea Level (ASL), as the basis for requesting a monopole with a height of 98 feet. The property, described as Tax Map 88/Parcel 26, contains approximately 71.34 acres that are zoned RA, Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (Attachment C). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. Planning and Zoning History_: SP 98-009 CFW Wireless (Arrowhead) - At its June 9, 1999 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to allow a wireless facility employing a wooden monopole with a maximum height of not more than six (6) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet (Attachment D) Character of the Area: The site of the proposed facility site is a 400 square feet wooded lease area, situated below and west of Dudley Mountain's ridgeline. The lease area, situated at an elev. ation that ranges between 762 and 765 feet ASL, is indicated on a topographic map in Attachment C. Access to the facility would be taken from an existing gravel road within a 20-foot wide private access easement that begins at the south side of Arrowhead Vfill~yRo~id (Route 745), approximately 1/4 mile east of the intersection with Route 29. The gravel driveway would be extended approximately 215 feet east over an existing dirt road and then 58 feet north to connect with the lease area, All areas surrounding the facility site are heavily wooded and vegetated with a mixture of large, mature trees and dense underbrush. An existing wireless facility (operated by CFW) is located on the subject parcel approximately 160 feet west of the proposed monopole. The nearest dwelling is located approximately 1100 feet north of the facility site on an adjacent parcel. The closest property line, which is the bonndary shared with Tax Map 88/Parcel 20, is 98 feet south of the proposed monopole location. With an exception of the adjoining property located at the northwestern tip of the subject parcel (Tax Map 88/Parcel 26A) which is zoned LI, Light Industrial, all other adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. Letters from two owners of nearby properties, in opposition of this request are attached along with a copy of a petition that was submitted in opposition of the special use permit for the existing CFW wireless facility (Attachment E). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff notes that construction of the proposed facility and its service road extension would not require a substantial amount of clearing. Therefore, staff's review of this request for compliance with the recommendations, of the Comprehensive Plan focuses mainly on the possible impacts that would result from the presence of the monopole and ground-based equipment in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy provides guidelines for the siting and review of wireless facility proposals. In accordance with the wireless policy, visibility is considered to be the most important factor of staff's review for possible impacts. Entrance Corridor: The proposed facility site is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for Route 29. As stated in the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is, in part, "to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism." The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impacts of all development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. While traveling in the southbound lane of Route 29 at a low speed, and stopping at short intervals, staff estimated that a red balloon floating at the proposed height of the monopole could be seen slightly above the treetops for an approximate distance of 150 feet. Because the balloon was either invisible or could only be spotted below the ridgeline from all other points, it is anticipated that the monopole itself would have minimal visibility. This is largely a result of, both, its design and its location within a stand of trees that are similar in height. Furthermore, staff observed that the existing wooden monopole was not easily identifiable while traveling on Route 29 at the posted speed limit. Therefore, the ARB has reviewed and approved this proposal with conditions that are consistent with those that were established with the approval of the existing monopole on this property (Attachment F). Note: The existing CFW facility was approved with conditions restricting the monopole to a height of 6 feet above the tallest tree within 25feet and increasing the "tree 2 preservation area" up to a radius of l OOO feet. Open Space plan: Part IV of the Open Space Plan, entitled Protection Techniques, sets forth several of the mechanisms that can be used to protect open space resources; this includes, but is not limited to, the implementation of conservation or open space easements, and Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Parts of Arrowhead Farm properties located directly to the south and west of the subject parcel (Tax Map 88/Parcel 20), are currently held in a conservation easements, dedicated to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). Although the County of Albemarle is not a party to the easements, the owner of these properties must agree to incorporate various provisions that are set by the VOF for accepting and holding this type of negotiated agreement, including restrictions on certain levels of development. Some portions of Arrowhead Farm, as well as several nearby properties mostly located on the west side of Route 29, are also included in the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District. The establishment of Agricultural and Forestal Districts places certain controls on the location of public utility facilities to landowners who agree to limit development for the purpose of protecting the agricultural and forestal use of the property. Although the proposed facility is adjacent to Arrowhead'Farm, the subject parcel 'is under separate ownership and is not subject to any of those governing agreements. Therefore, approval of this proposal would not compromise the ability of those properties to qualify for incorporation into the Agricultural/Forestal programs in which they are enrolled. Because this proposal is adjacent to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, this special use permit request was also referred to the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee, along with the photos that were taken during the balloon test, for additional review and comment. The Committee's action on whether or not the proposed wireless facility would be incompatible with the Agricultural and Forestal District resulted in a split vote; four members were against the facility and four members believed that the facility would impose no significant impact (Attachment G). Another one of the open space resources that is present on the subject parcel, and that could be impacted by this application, is the forest surrounding the site. Staff recognizes that when existing structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy favor the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where the monopoles and ground equipment can be designed to blend well into the natural surroundings. Because a limited amount of disturbance would be necessary to establish this facility, it is staff's opinion that approval .of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any of the nearby properties within the area. Additionally, one of the standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities requires the establishment of a tree conservation area in which no trees within a certain distance of the facility can be removed prior to approval by the Director of Planning and CommUnity Development. Natural Resources and Cultural Assets: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets specific goals for managing those resources and preserving the environment for furore use. Mountains are designated as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. Staff notes that although this site is adjacent to DUdley McV~t~il~, it is located completely below and outside of the Mountain Resource Area. Furthermore, as demonstrated with the pole for the existing CFW facility, the forested mountainside between the lease area and the mountain's ridgeline would provide an effective backdrop for the proposed monopole from most viewpoints. Arrowhead Farm also contains a historic site, consisting of a residence and outbuildings which are included on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed facility would impose any adverse impacts upon the historic structures, because they are situated at the western portion of the Arrowhead property, closer to Route 29. Furthermore, due to the presenc.e of the trees on the incline of the mountain behind the lease area, the brown monopole and other equipment within the'lease area would be obscured from areas located to the south, this includes the view toward the facility site from the Arrowhead property. This is also supported by limited visibility of the existing monopole on the subject property, even in the absence of leaves. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The wireless policy defines "Avoidance Areas" as areas that have significant resources and those that would be unwise for the siting of wireless facilities. Mountains, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Historic Districts and Conservation Easements are all considered to be Avoidance Areas. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, these facilities should not be located within or adjacent to Avoidance Areas. Staff analysis is focused largely on the visual impact of the proposed facility from surrounding properties and roadways. By virtue of the standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities, all monopoles and related equipment are required to either be made of wood or painted brown. Due to its design and location in an area where the top of the monopole structure would be at a height that is comparable to the tops of the trees, staff anticipates that the visual impact of the proposed facihty would be minimal. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that approval of this application would not be inconsistent with the policies and guidelines that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities and protecting the important resources of Albemarle County. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4A of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and, Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance - waiver of the site plan requirements 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right-to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of SupervisOrs that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Based on the observation of a balloon height test, staff anticipates that the proposed monopole would be visible for a short distance while traveling Route 29 south. However, because the balloon only extended slightly above the tops of the trees, it is staff's opinion that the monopole would not compromise the distant ridgeline of Dudley Mountain. As a result of the dense coverage from the existing tall trees that surround the site and the backdrop provided by the mountain, visibility of the structures lOcated within' the lease area would be adequately obscured from the adjacent properties, to such an extent that it not would be an obtrusive feature that draws attention to the facility. Furthermore, because this proposal would not necessitate the removal of any of the larger trees that are intended to assist in obscuring its view, it is staff's opinion that the facility would not impose any significant physical disturbance on the subject parcel or adjacent properties. The existing service road was constructed to a standard that was approved with conditions that are intended to ensure that minimal disturbance would be imposed upon the natural landscape of the site. The applicant's request indicates that Triton service personnel would normally travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather or other unexpected factors. Once the proposed facility has been constructed and is fully operational, the sum of regularly scheduled site visits for both facilities combined would equal two per month, this is much less thanthe number of vehicular trips projected for conventional residential development. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this level of traffic utilizing a single entrance would not impose a significant increase in activity or vehicular traffic within the area. With consideration for the above-cited factors, staff finds that the proposed facility would not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The Zoning Ordinance includes preservation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources as intents of the Rural Areas. Uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas zoning district are limited either to rural scale residential development, or those uses related to agriculture and forestal activities. The uses that are most often allowed by special use permit are for services related to those by-right activities. However, staff recognizes that the presence of various utilities within the Rural Areas is not uncommon. Aside from the existing wireless facility located on this property, other examples of utilities within the area include the standard types of wooden utility poles for overhead lines that provide electrical power and conventional phone-services. Although those utilities usually employ structures that are much smaller than monopoles for wireless facilities, they are most often placed in locations where they are more Visible, such as road sides and large easements that cut through wooded areas. The key purpose of the County's Wireless Design Policy is to site wireless facilities in locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the surrounding area. This facility would be located within a wooded area and accessed by extending an existing private driveway, 5 both of which have be favored approaches in the County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they have limited visual impact. The A~ulmral and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee's review of this proposal for it's impact on the adjacent Hardware AG/FOR District resulted in a tied vote. With the exception of a distant point in the southbotmd lane of Route 29 where the top portion of the monopole would be visible above.the tops of some surrounding trees, the proposed facility would be effectively obscured fi'om viewpoints that are located outside of the lease area. Therefore, staff's opinion is that approval this facility will not result in a changing in the character of the Rural Areas district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff review of this request is made in consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to 1.4, 1.4.4, 1.5. In some way, all of these sections address the provision of public services. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service. Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. The establishment of wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the goals of the wireless policy are intended to ensure that equipment employed in those facilities are not responsible for diminishing the value of the important resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Therefore, it is staff's opinion is that this request is in harmony with the Purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Section 10.1 of Zoning Ordinance lists limited delivery of services as one of the intents for the Rural Areas zoning district. It is understood that approval of this request would act to increase the level of services that are provided in the Rural Areas. However, when established compliance with .the guidelines for wireless service facilities, the anticipated increase in services has notbe deemed to conflict with any of the agricultural and forestal, or the other rural objectives set forth for the RA district. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed facility would not restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or on the by-right uses of other properties within the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the eVent of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet all of the FCC guidelines for-radio frequency emissions. This requirement adequately protects the public health and safety. 6 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or'local government or instrumentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Currently, there are no provisions that act to prohibit the establishment of personal wireless services, and review of this request has been based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan is specific to this site alone. As a component of the Comprehensive Plan, the Personal Wireless Communication Facilities Policy provides the guidelines for siting wireless facilities within the County of Albemarle. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permit pro~ess or the denial of this particular application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Information provided by the applicant has not demonstrated that no other locations within the proposed area of service are available for construction of a new facility, and alternate sites for the construction of a new facility for this service area have not been proposed or discussed. 3; Request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with Section 32.3.10, the Planning Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of personal wireless communication facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area that is normally impacted by these uses and the ability to obtain the required information through the erosion and sediment control plans and the building permits. In this case the construction of the proposed facility will require activity related to construction of the service road extension, connection of electrical utilities which are currently on site, and the placement of the monopole and ground equipment. Because of the minimal activity that is necessary for installation, staff is unable to identify any purpose that would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan that is in full compliance with the provisions of Section 32 (Site Plans). Therefore, staff recommends approval of a site plan waiver for the wireless facility proposed in SP 01-003, subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit;, The applicant shall provide adequate area for one p~king space; The applicant shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in-the final revisions of the construction plans. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The facility would provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties; C 3. The design and siting of the facility is such that it would have a limited visual impact on adjacent property and public roads; ~: 4. The vegetation on the side of Dudley mountain would provide an effective backdrop for the proposed monopole, and, 5. Access to the facility will be provided by extending an existing driveway and placing gravel over an existing dirt path. Staffhas identified the following factor that may deemed as unfavorable to this request: The site of the proposed facility is surrounded by properties that are considered to be Avoidance Areas. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: Approval of this proposal would introduce a second wireless facility on the subject parcel, and, There are existing reasonable by-right use that could be established on the subject property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff's opinion is that while this site is located within the Rural Areas, and adjacent to properties within an AgficulturaFForestal District and conservation easement the eXisting trees and terrain surrounding the site would help to reduce the visual impacts to such an extent that approval of this proposal would be consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit, subject to conditions. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to remm to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed six (6) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed o o o o at the top of the pole. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two trees that have been used to justify the height the monOpole; Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)" Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood- Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out fi:om the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and. lease area shall'be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or inStallation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within one thousand (1000) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed fi:om the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with constructiOn of the pole 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. 9 o Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods o£maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required. 11. Access rOad improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of grave. Should installation of the facility require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements 'shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed. 12. The applicant shall execute an agreement with CFW and the property owner, in order to ensure that all of the responsibilities for maintaining the access road in a condition safe are-shared evenly. 13. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- E- F- G- Application and Request for Special Use Permit Site Information and Construction Drawings Tax Map/Location and Topographic Maps Board Approval Letter for SP 98-09 Correspondence from Neighboring Property Owners ARB Approval Letter Agricultural/Forestal Districts Committee Action and Minutes 10 ~ounty o[ AIDeme-'e .¢ -;- Department of Buildi' -' Code and ATTACHMENT A L .OFFICS USE ONLY_ ~-, _ -- .... ~. Staff arc AppliCation for Special Use Permit -Pr~ject'Nam~(~.;.~=~-~,;~,?} Wood-~o~ahead-(Triton tK:S CVR 384B) ~ "Existing Usc Residential & Agricultural ' Wireless Telecomudriications Facility Proposed Usc, *Zoning District .. PA. 'Zoning Ordinance Section number requested 10.2.2.6 (*staff will aasist you with theme item) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (~r · ~nu. u ~,~ ~ ~,~.,,~., ~,-,) 7/. 3 ~/iZ~'~ $ Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a site development plan with this application? Q Yemt~ No 121 Yes~ No tCOntact Person (Whomshouid w¢""lUwfim¢on~ing~hpmj¢~?): Valerie w. Long, Esq., McGui weWcrx!s T,r,¢ Address P.O. Box 1288 City C~wl°ttesvi!le' State VA Zip 22902 / Daytime Phone ( 804 ) 977-2545 Fax #. (804) 980-2265 E-maiivl°ngt~rncguixew°°ds.con~ Owner of land (A~ listed in th: County's m~:ords): Address 322 Dover Avenue T. E. ~od Daytime Phone (804 ) 973-6757 Fax # CityCharlottes'ville S tale VA E-mail Zip __ Applicant(whoisthccontact pe-'~onrepw.~enting?Whoisrequeafingfl,csiw, d-.du~c?): . Triton PCS, Inc. Address 9211 Arboretm~ Parkway City Ric. hzrmnd State VA Zip23236 jaymar.joseph~americantower.com Daytime Phone { 804 ) '323-9500 Fax# (804) 323-4058 Ermail. Tax map and parcel Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 PhysicalAddreas(ifa~,ig.¢d) Locafionofproperty(la~dmatka. i,,cnec, loa,.0romcr) 50 Bypass west until it turns into Rt. 29 south of 1-64. Pass one sign for SR 745, then 1.5 miles furt~her south, turn l~.ft at second sign for SR 745 (Arrowhead Valley). After crossing railroad tracks, make I~ooe u%C~w~ate t ~n tn lye w~tl~ a ate ~o£ ow ct to Lease a'~ ~ ncr ofe~'~ro~etr~7 ow~n~orC~mCe any ownei's~,p tnicrd~ ,[n'~ a~yra~autting ~rope~? air'aec, pl~e list those tax map and parcel numbers --I Check OFFICE USE ONLY 40l McIntire Road -:- Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 -:- Fax: 9724126 '~'-' .... ~-~' ..... ATTACHMENT A C PAGE 2 Section 31.2.4.1, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The b~ hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all speeia[~,use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will n~Lhe~hanged_t_her~by_~t!d_that such~_use, will be__inharmony with _t.h_e purpose and inte0[ of~this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? See attached. See attached. How will the proposed special usc affect thc character of the district surrounding the property? See attached. How is thc use in harmony with the purpose and intent of thc Zoning Ordinance? See attached. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? See attached. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?. See attached. How will this use promote thc public health, safety, and general welfare of thc community?. See attached. ATTACHMENT A Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbe PAGE 3 involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: See attac ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen.t acce. ptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information prOvided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. / Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory 13 Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS - CVR 384B) ATTACHMENT A PAGE 4 What is the comprehensiVe plan designation for this property? Rural/Agricultural How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed 97-foot monopole will not adversely affect adjacent property, as the pole and antennas will be just over the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the centerline of the pole. and the facility will be only minimally visible from adjacent property. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The proposed facility is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area, because it will be only minimally visible from adjacent properties and roadways, will not generate additional traffic or development, and preserves the character of the area. Because of the upward slope of the parcel, the proposed pole and antenna will be sited within a grove of tall trees, with additional trees remaining behind the facility to enhance the blending of the facility among the existing trees on the property_ This enables the facility to be only minimally visible. Therefore, the character of the district surrounding the property will not be affected. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The proposed facilitv is consistent with the County's preference for monopole structures, which extend slightly above the treetops as discussed in the County's wireless design manual. In addition, wireless telecommunications services provide a public service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community." consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the district? The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available at this property or by-right uses on any other property. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance apply to this use? Section 5.1.12, which outlines public utility structures and uses. How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of this community? The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications services to this portion of Albemarle County, especially emergency communications, and will increase overall communication services. ATTACHMENT A PAGE 5 Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and unique features of the use: Triton PCS, Inc. ("Triton") requests a special use permit to construct, maintain and manage a wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by T.E Wood, identified as tax map parcel 88-26 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Triton also requests a waiver of the site plan requirement for this application, in accord with section _32.2.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The facility would be comprised of a wooden monopole with flush-mounted antennas, along with the necessary transmitting and receiving equipment The antennas and ground equipment would be painted a flat, dark brown color. Triton operates a Personal Communications Service (PCS) system, providing the most technologically advanced wireless communications throughout Southeastern United States. Triton and AT&T Digital PCS have undertaken a joint venture to expand the AT&T digital PCS network.to over 11 million people in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Triton is a member of the AT&T Digital Wireless Network, licensed to cover more than eighty percent 0fthe United States. AT&T Digital PCS provides convenient and secure mobile communications, combining voice, messaging and paging communications in a single phone. Triton has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for a 20-foot by 20-foot lease area with the facility located entirely within this area. The area surrounding the lease area is heavily wooded with numerous mature trees. An existing wireless telecommunications facility is located on the same parcel 160 feet northwest of the proposed location of the Triton facility. The facility will be accessed by an existing gravel driveway and dirt path. The dirt path will be upgraded, improved and extended to reach the lease area. The location of the extension of the access was carefully designed to minimize the tree removal needed to facilitate access, and to take advantage of the existing access as much as possible. In addition, the lease area itself is within an existing small clearing within the wooded area. The lease area was carefully selected to provide room for installation of the facility without damaging any of the nearby trees or their roots. The facility will emit no noise, odoror glare. Nor will it interfere with television or radio reception in the surrounding areas. The facility will not be lit, unless required by the FAA. To develop its network, Triton has divided the Basic Trading Area region into small geographic sections ("cells"). Each "cell" site holds the ¢quipment that provide .the air interface to the subscriber units and must be precisely located relative to other "cells" to create a reliable communications grid system. This grid system must reflect the topography and traffic (use population and building density) ofthe "cells" as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable transmission area. ATTACH MENT A PAGE 6 Triton's FCC license requires it tO operate ~iig~ystem in a defined service region using designated radio frequencies. Each site must be precisely located relative to other facilities Within the network to ensure that Triton complies with the terms of its license. The network requires a facility at this location to avoid a gap in service to this portion of Albemarle County. Triton carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that provides adequate height and range of coverage, while meeting the goals of the community by minimizing the visibility and thus the impact of the proposed facility on adjacent or nearby properties. Location of the facjlity on this parcel will enable Triton to construct the facility with only a minimal amount of grading and clearing. The subject parcel is zoned Rural/Agricultural. The surrounding properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility are primarily used for rural residential and agricultural purposes. Included with our application is a large copy of the topographical map of the property. On this topographical map we have drawn a 2000-foot radius around the centerline of the proposed pole. The tract of land on which the site is located contains 71.34 acres. The attached plans show that a surveyor has measured the tallest tree within 25 feet of the centerline of the proposed pole to be 90 feet. This tree is located at a base (,~VISL) elevation of 761.8 feet, and has a top elevation of 852 feet. The base elevation of the proposed pole is 763.7 feet. At 97 feet, the top elevation of the pole would be 860.7 feet. Thus, the top elevation of the proposed pole would be 8.7 feet higher than the top elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the centerline of the proposed pole. The heights, locations, base elevations and top elevations of numerous other trees within 25 and 50 feet of the centerline of the proposed pole are shown on the enclosed plans. Triton requests a 97-foot pole to enable the signal from the antenna to extend over and beyond these trees. As demonstrated by the enclosed photographs from a balloon test conducted in mid-December, this facility will onlv be minimally visible from the Entrance Corridor and surrounding properties. An existing visibility will be mitigated by the siting, design and location of the facility, which enables it to blend in with the numerous mature trees on the property. This lease area is ideally situated for a wireless telecommunications facility, as the mature trees surrounding the pole and located elsewhere on the heavily wooded property will provide excellent screening and backdrop for the pole when viewed from Route 29, Route 745 and other surrounding properties. To demonstrate the limited visibility of the proposed facility, and thus the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area and the Entrance Corridor. Triton conducted a balloon test using a large balloon (2 feet in diameter) raised to a height of 97 feet. _At this height the balloon was minimally visible along the northbound and southbound lanes of the Entrance Corridor. Included with the application package are photographs of the balloon test from the Entrance Corridor, which demonstrate that even with limited foliage remaining on the trees, the facility will be only minimally visible. ATTACH ME NT A PAGE 8 LIMITED AUTHORIZATION TO ACT AS APPLICANT AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUMIT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS T.E. Wood does hereby authorize Valerie W. Long, American Tower Management Inc., Triton PCS, Incorporated, and / or representatives thereof, to represent _T.E. Wood before any municipal or County Government for the sole purpose of obtaining land use permits and / or variances' as may ~be required for American Tower Management Inc and / or Triton PCS, Incorporated to place telecommunications towers, antennas, transmission lines, mounting devices and other related equipment on the property of T.E. Wood located at Arrowhead Road, Tax Map # 88-26. This authorization shall specifically include the right to submit land use applications for special use permits, certificates of appropriateness, and variances. WITNESS the following signature: ]:)ate 18 ALBF..MAt~ L~ 87 6E Hardware AG/FOR District · / --' '/ { ~4 / / ./ /- 42 oo SAMUEL MILLER (,;(JUN I Y · zOF DISTRICT /- 36 SECTION 22 / / \ /' 37 /? / / 25 / / / / 6O ATTACHMENT PAGE 1 ,/ ~ iol SCOTTSVILLE SAMUEL MILLER AND DISTRICTS SECTION 89 90 30 ATTACHMENT B 0 10 20 40 60 / / / ] ~-/ 97' WOODEN POLE (BASE EL 763.7' - TOP EL 860.T) 20'x20 TRITON ~ AREA 'IRITON PROV1DED EQUIPI~ENT CARINET ~D ICEBRIDGE HEW comouR (Tm.) EXISTINg CONTOUR ('IYP.) NEW 10' GRAVEl. ACCESS RO.~ EXISTING DIRT RO,~ TO BE GRAVel. ED EXISTING Dim' ROAD TRUE NORTH ./ PAGE 11 Regional office 921.l ARBOflE1Ut,4 PARKWAY, SU.[ 4~O RIC~kIOND, VA 232~6 ~ (804) ~23-~5oo r~x (~o4) ~23-4o~ architects e ngi ne e r~ R~ISION NO, DESCRIP~ON ~ CWR-384 ~ S~ ~E WOOD- ~ROWH~ (m~ON PCS) ~ No. 32~ SUBMISSION: Z~l~ SHE~ ~E: G~DING SHE~ NUMBE 1":?fl' ~g)ABIkl~ PI /. /- ,,/ 9T WOODEN UAS'T EASE EL 763.7' + 97.0' TOP EL, 860.7' TRITON PROVIDED EQUIPMENT C~BINEr NqD ICEBRIDGE 12'15'DOUBLE ASH 84' BASE 758,7 TOP 843 63' ~5' CHERRY 86' BASE 758.1 TOP 844 59' FROM Ilk,ST / 6' RED kIAPLE 60' BASE 759.7 TOP 820 4.2' FROM MAST © 5' R~ M~,PLE 47' BASE 759.9 24' POPLAR 101' BASE 758.4. To,, 859 59 FROM~ / 6' RED MAPLE 50' ~ BASE 759.0 Z ) ToP 809 / ",---/ 40' FROM MAST ..~6' RED MN'U[ 52' BASE 759.0 TOP 811 41' FROM MAST ./ 7' POPlaR 56' BASE 760.1 TOP 816 28' FROM MAST ../ TOP 807 48' FROM MAST 4" RED MkpLE 4.6' SASE 759.9 TOP 806 34' FROM ~ 9' SASSAFRAS 65' BASE 759,6 TOP 825 45' FROM MAST / / / 22' RED MAPLE 90' / / BASE 761.8 / / TOP 852 , ./ D~ · ~ING ~E 76~.5 4' mO~ ~ FO 1. TREE HEIGHTS DETERMINED BY HORIZONTAL AND ~R~CAL ANGLE INTERSECllONS DEC, 5, 2000 FOR TREES WffHIN 25' OF PROPOSED MAST AND FOR THE TALLEST TREES IN THE VICINflY, . 2, ESllMATED PRECISION OF HEIGHTS IS GENERALLY + 2 FT, BUT MAY BE MORE FOR TREES WfTH LARGE - ROUNDED CROWNS OR THOSE OBSCURED IN UNDERSTORY GROill'l. 5. ADDmONAL UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHTS MEASURED DEC. 20, 2000. 4. DISTANCE FROM MAST IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY TO CENl-b~ OF TRUNK AT GROUND LEVEL 5. VERTICN. DA1UM IS NAVD86, BASED ON NA~]ONN. OEODE~C SURVEY MONUMENT "ARROW'. B~SE 785.4. /TOP 844 5~' FROM MAST / / / \ × / ~ / 6' 5ASSAFI~ 5o' \ BASE 765.8 ~ / TOP 816 6' ~ 49' / 31' ~OM lOP 814 RED ~ ~0' 16' ~OM ~T ~ } ~E 767.2 / ~ / / ~ TOP 827 // / / 36' ~0~ // / ~ TOP 870 / (~6' RED I~,PLE 58' BASE 760.9 TOP B19 32' FROM IdAST 20'x20 TRITON LEASE AR,EA ~ / / / / / / 8" AILANTHUS 62' ~/ '/ / / / / / / / / 5' SASS.~q~,S 44' BASE 765.6 TOP 810 14.' FROM MAST / / / / t / BASE 761,9 / / / , . TOP 824 / / / / / PRO,OSED,EM,O" TREE \ / FRoM/ / , ,/ PROTECTION FENCE (TYP.) ---._ ~/ ~/ / / / / ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~.~. / // ' ~ ~ - Z ~ / , / ~ -- ~E 765.9 / / / ~, ~/ ~ / / / i~ ,~7 / / / , N~ IO'G~L~CESS R~ ~ ~ / ~ / -- q /// ~ ( ~ --- / / / , / ~E 7e6o ~ / X,/ 1~ LOCUS5' ~ / / ~ / // / / A TOP 825 ~ D~ / ~ . h / /~ /( / ~2~'mo~ X ~E76~.o / / ~/~/ ~ /Y ~ ~ I ~ / ~ TOP 808 ' / ~/ / / / i - / ~ ' // / / 9 PINE 47 %~;'FRo.~ /' // ~ u . , . ' ' % ~ x / / ' /~ / I , / D~ ~ ~ NG : ~ / / P/ ~ // ' RED' ~ 45' / ~ ~E 7682 ~ / - 10'~CK GUM , // 5 ~ / [/ J TOP ~15' ~ / ( ~ TOP 822 ~ t/ /~ur ~u / ~ ~ ~45' ~0~ ~ ) // ~ ~8' ~0~ ~ / ' d [ / / TOP 840 TOP 816 / / / / / / / / / / TRUE NORTH ATTACHMENT B PAGE 10 Regional office 9211 ARBOREI1JM P~RK~AY, SUflE 400 RK~HMOND, VA 23236 'EL: (804) 323-9500 FAX (804) 323-4058 &ilo ~ISUAL CON~ACT trim IHB4 architects e ngi ne e ~s 5659 COU.It/BIA pIKE, SLIIE I01 FALLS ~, VA 22(M1-2868 FAX: (703) REVISION NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE SITE NUMBER: CV-R-384 B SITE NN~IE WOOD~- ARROWHEAD (TRITON PCS)".- SITE ADDRESS: ARROWI'IF.N) VALLEY ROAD' No. 32984 : DATE D~A~N~'~ ' ' 12-28-~ SUBMISSION: SH~ ~: SITE DETAIL PLAN SHEET NUMBE A-6 28 1"=10' ] SITE DETAIL PLAN I1 · CONDUff , MICROFLECT B1133 LUC-S ON BOTH ENDS . / -MOUNT GROUND 12' _ ~ / /~ ICE BRI[X~E END CkoS 2 PER CONNECRON ICEBRIDC, E i | i,/' ~ TO ICEBRI~E / / / ADVANCE UGNTING P.N~ ~ 2162-1. FOR CFL 10'-0' / '1~ ~o~x:'/r ,,u,p~%~_. L_~,,y~ ~ ~, I N.T.S.' I CONCRETE PAD LAYOUT DIAGRAM 12 RING~ / MIN ~i: -3'-9' TO CONC. SLAB ~ / 5'-0" O.C. MAX. ORANGE UViRESlSTANT HIGH 5'-0' L~ ~x 'i-~SILE STRENGqH POLY - -- - 8~RRICABE FABRIC · Q C] O C3 O O O O C] O O D O D E3 D O O D C3 D [3 i-! ' ' NI EQUIPMENT SHAU. BE Oooooooao~oooo~Doooooooon ODDODDOODOODDODODOODODDDDDOD~C~ NO~: ~, ~KO~O~ OF ~IDNg K~BA~ON: N ~[ ~T O~ g~lNg I~L~Ng ~E LOWERINg OF ~1~ g~[ ~OUND A ~E[ OR ~IPPING OF T~L. A C~, S~P, 0~ ~OSDN C~ M~UR~ ~E IN~. ~E ~ PRO~C~ON ~CING S~ BE ~ST~ ON ~E SIDE OF ~E C~ F~ AWAY ~OM ~ ~UNK ~D S~ R~N ~ ~ U~L ~ CON~U~ON IN ~ClN~ OF ~E ~EES IS COMPS. NO ~E ~ ~, R~ OR EQUIPM~ ~D NO ~P~ING S~ BE ~0~ ~IN ~E ~N~ ~ ~E PRO~C~ Z ~CT~ TO I~ AT A ~IUS E~& TO 1' ~/1" D~ OF ~EE TO REIN. NTR I ~flP~F RFRTI~N WffH ~R~IIMBINR Il UTC J Tnrr ATTACHMENT B PAGE 9 Tfiton Reglonal office 9211 /~O~UM P, ARI~Ay. ~ ~ RICHMOflD, VA 23238 architects engineers F~ ~ VA ~1-~ R~{SION NO. DESCRI~ON BY DA~ ~-R-384 ~ WOOD- ~ROWH~' CS) HRISTOPHER O. MORIN ~ No. 329~ ~h I. Io. o~~ DA~ D~W~:~ ' SUBMISSION: ZONING SHE~ ~ D~AILS ~ 9211 , SUilE 400I ~ RI~.~D, VA 23236 / NO~: · ~c~Jtec ts engi nee ~s NO. DESCRIP~ON 1/4":1'-0"I INST~D ~ ~TOR ~ . ~ · SU R "0 C ~ B~OND S~ ~DR~S: I ~ 3; ~ DIMENSIONS HxWxD = ~4,7'xG.3"x2.7" _ · .' ~ OA~'~ ~ ' !2-2e-~ 4. ~ING ROD S~ BE NO T~ ~ 2' HIGH ~ A ~E D~R OF 1', ~ . . SUBMisSION: Z~ING . T~ERING TO k POI~ AT ~E TOP 5. ~N~ ~D MOU~NG EQUIPME~ S~ BE PN~ BROWN C~ F~NG NO~: ' ~ EOUIPU~ ~ BE PN~D BRO~ MIN, ' MIN. SHE~ NUMBER: 26 N.T.S.I, TRI-B~CK~ Mg.U.NT DDAIL 12 N,T,S, I T~PEEZE D~AIL " 13 ATTACHMENT B Z 0 I / 8 ONV V SWOI03S $ W31N33 aw .0-,/6 Regional office 9211 N~L~ PARKWAY, SLIt1[ 400 RICHI, IOND, VA 232~ 1~ ~XCLUSt~ F'ROPERIY OF lRm~ p~ I~, PUSUC&110~ BY ,q,~' I~Zl1.10~ archit ~ c t ~ e ngi ne e r, F~ (~) e71-~ R~SION HO, D~CRI~ION ~ ~ NUMBER: CV-R-384 B WOO~- ~ROWH~ (m OU CS) SUBMISSION: ZONING SHE~ ~: EL~ATION 25 .O-,gl LEGEND CHAIN LINK FENCE LEASE AREA OVERHEAD TELEPHONE & OVERHEAD POWER PROPERTY LINE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES UTILITY EASEMENT DHP/DHT GHP/DHT SCALE IN FEET 0 2.5 5 10 TRITON PROVIDED EQUIPMENT CA~INET N, ID ICEBRIDGE PNI'IT'ED BROWN 20'x20'TRITON LEASE ARE~ NE~ C, RAV~I. WITH GEOTEX~IF F~RIC (C.F.C.L) REMOVE & GRUB ~ LOW-L'flNG VEGETATION Ya~HIN ~ ~ PROVIDE 100~ GEOTEX'IILE FADRIC AND ~57 STONE ~IiHIN FENCED TRITON 1-TENANT MEIER PEDESTAL 15 / / / / / - TR~O~ ~EMmS 0'~. o~ 2) AND MICROFIECT TRI-BRACKET PN~ ~Bt828 OR EQU~ NEW 9T woo~ POlE (1~.~ EL. 763.7' TOP EL. 860.T) '~-- POYC~R STUB-UP ENLARGED SITE PLAN -- 8'-6'x 10'-0' COliC. EQUIPMENT SIN~ 11NED EARTH 'lONE (EL 765.T) ~--- 10' WIDE srrE ACCESS ROAD NEW 20'-0' WIDE ACCESS/LmuTf EASEMENT TRUE-NORTH PAGE 6 IrltonPLL Regional office 9211 ~ PARKWAY. SUITE 4.00 RIQtMOND. VA 23236 _~ ~ (~) ~2~ CONTACT ~ATH 'tHEM architects engineers 5659 COU~ P'I<~ ~1[ I01 FNIS ~ VA 221~11-28¢~ REVISION NO. DESCRIPTIONBY DATE l' - CV-R-384 B WOOD' ARROWHEAD (TRITON PCS) SITE AOI~ESS: SHEET '111LE: ENLARGED SITE PLAN SHEET NUME A-2 24 LEGEND NEW FENCE = = EXIST. FENCE -- X X SETBACK EASEMENT LEASE PROPERTY LINE EXIST. CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR TYP. BUILDING [------1 TYP. ROAD EX, GRAVEL DRIV EX, DIRT DRIVE SCALE IN FEET 0 150 300 6OO TMP 88-26A PUFF, INC. DB 876, p.409 ZONING: U / / 2' / / / / CFW POLE -.. / SPRINT PEDESTAL / 'IMP 88-20 ARROWHE.~ CORP. OF AMERICA DB '1385, p.595 ZONING: RA 900 TMP 88-26C DB 1024,, p.668 ZONIflG: P~ VEPCO POVCER POLE LEASE ~EA P,N)IUS TOWER BEIBACK IMP 88-27 CLARE E. HOWARD DB 1545. p. lO1 ZONING: RA 'I~P 88-26 T. E. WOOD AREA = 71.3~0 Ac. (BY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS) DB B80, p.461 ZONING: RA TMP 89-7B DONALD D. & MARY BETH DB 1642, p.106 ll~P 89-15 MONTGOMERY BIRD WOOOS & WlLUAM $, D. WOODS, JR DB 1406, p.718 ZONING: RA NOLO: ~ EXCEPT AS MAY BE EXPRESSLY NO1ED TO CONTRARY ~ HEREIN, NO TREES OR SIGNIFICANT VEC-L-1AllON IS TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 200' OF THE CENTERUNE OF THE TRUE NORTH ATTACHMENT B PAGE 5 Tr'"d:onP[ Reg~ona( off~ 9211 AR~OREIUM PARKWAY, R~D, VA 2~2~ ~ (~) ~ ~ ~/m ~ ~P~ a r e.h i t e c t s e n gi ne e r~ 5~9 ~ ~'~ R~ISION NO. DESCRIP~ON BY CWR-384 S~ ~E WOOD- ROWH (m OU CS) S~ ~RE~: ~R0~ V~ BmPH/R D. MORJ~ No. 329~ SUBMISSION: ZONI~ SH~ ~E: SITE P~N. SHE~ NUMBER: I A-1' 1"=300' I p, ROUDA~.USH, GALE g= ASSOC., INC. A I:,R(:~:*E~OHAL, COI~PORA'TION Legal ~e$c=ip~ion of A~cQS~s Ail the= certain lot, ir=ct or parcel ef ianU situate, lylng an~ being in Albemarle County V~=ginia, being ~ portion of the pro~e=ty known and aesi~nated 9arcel ~6 cf Ta~ Ma~ 85 and b~in~ more described as follows: An access easement 20 feet wide lying 10 ~eet on each side of %he ~ollo~ing described cancer line: Commencing at a nail set in sou=hem lisa of the SoUthern ~ai~road right of way and in =he center of State Route 745; thence South 58'07'19" East, a distance cf 12.55 fee= ~o a 9oint in the cen~er o~ S~ace Route 745; can=er of State ~autz 745, being ~ha Point of Beginning of the can=er li~e of said acces~ easement; thence South 39°21'33" West, a distance of 33.38 feet =o a point in the cen~er of an existing gravel driveway; =hence South 53"3§'58" West, a dis~anca of 41.76 fee~ =o a poin~ in the center of said driveway; thence Sou~h 27°56'44" West, a distance of ~69.72 feet to a point in ~he center of said driveway, the beginning of a curve tangent to =hence southwesterly, southerly and ~ou=heasterly an arc dis=ante of 53.84 feet along the curv~ concave =o the eas~, having a radius of 35.00 feet and a central angle of 88~08'22'' and beinq subtended by chord bearing South 16:07'27" Zest 48.69 feet to a point in ~he center of said driveway: thence South 60°11'38'' East tangent =o said curve, a ~istance cf 174.56 feet to a poin~ in ~h~ center of said driveway; thence leaving said existing driveway South 61'04'42" Rast, a distance of 214.33 feet to a point; thence Nur~h 28'48'22" Ea$~, a distance of 53.23 feet termina~ing at a point in the southwes~ edge of th~ 20 foo~ by 20 fcc= lease area, sai~ poin~ also being ~he Point of ~eginnin~ of =he lease area be$in a~ the canner ~ine of State Rou~e 745 and to ~e~ina~ a~ the southwest llne of =aid 20 foot by 20 foot lease area. ~OUGLA$ R. BRU~-E. AIIACHMENT B PAGE 4 ENGU~-.~Rg ROUDABUSH, GALE k ASSOC., INC. A pROF"F.,,~$1ON,a,L. CORPOR,~TION Legal Desk. Tip:ion of lease area ~OUGL,,k~ Ro BRUCE. t-S, All that certain lot, =race or parcel o~ land si:ua:e, lying and being in Albemerle County virginia, being a portion of the prcper=Y kno~rn and designated ~arcal 26 of Ta~ Map 88 and being more pa=:icularly describe~ as follow~: R~i-~4ng at :he terminus of the access easement center lane, as specified in the ~receding des=rip:ion of the access easement; thence North 61°11'~8'' Nest, a distance of 15.00 fee~ to an iron pin; thence North 28'48'22" East, a dis:ante of 20.00 ~ee= ~o an iron pin; thence South 61°11'3~'' East, a distance of 20.00 fee= to an iron pin; thence South 28:48'22" West, a dls:ance of 20.00 feet to an icon pin; thence North 61:11'38" West, a distance of 5.00 feet to the Point o~ Beginning of ~he lea~e area. Containing 400 square fast or 0.0092 Acres, more or less, Douglas R. Bruce -, l..ic No. 00235_2 ~ _) 22 TMP 8B-25C HOLLIS T. FITCH DB 1024, p. B68/ ZONING: RA ! WOODEN BRIDGE III OVERHEADT TELEPHONE '/ I ! 1 I I ! ! ~~-~-~'-'-~-'-~"-'---ovERHEAD poWER LINE VEPCO POWER POLE #BB3-2 ?o \ _._~-~'"'-'--' VEPCO POWER POLE #B63-3 CHORD 33.49' 4~.76' ~69.72' 48.69' ~74.56' 2~4.33' 58.23' ~5.00' 20.00' 20. O0 l 20.00' 5.00' EX. MAST CONC PAD: 751.6 TOP ELEV: 8£8. B HT -- 77. £ SPRINT PEDESTAL #JEEB-3A ATTACHMENT B PAGE 3 CHORD BEARING S39'2~ 33"W S53'35 58"W S27'56 44"H S~6'07 27"E RADIUS 35.00' DELTA ARC TANGENT 88 22 53 84 33.88 '08' " . ' ' S60'~ 38"E S6~'04 42"E N28'48 22"E N6J-j-~'38"H N28'48'22"E S6~'~'38"E S28'48'22"H N6~'~'38"N STAKE SET ON ~ TRUE NORTH BEARING FROM PROPOSED MAST AT ~£0 FT. \ \ NA VDBB ELEV = 759. O0 ' \ ...~, ~-,,. ',~ \ ~ '88-80 °0 ZONING: RA P: hTHPROdh80~4h,80~4,pro o 40 SCALE J." = 40' 20 0 40 SCALE: SCALE IN FEET '1 "=40 ' 8O 21 SHE[ ATTACHMENT B PIPE FOUND V ~'o ! TMP 88-27 . OlBENdAMIN B. PEELER'x~ co ,_: l DB .~ 942, p . 57 .o ~_, t,, ZONING: RA EASEMENT ..~ PROPOSED .. £0'x20' ~. LEASE SITE TMP 8B-20 AMERICA '~''~ ARROWHEAD CORP. OF DB JSB$, 0.595 ZONING: RA ROUDABUSH, GALE AND ASSOCIATES ,4 PROFESSIONAL CORPORA TION SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, ENGINEERS 9.f4 MONTICELLO ROAO CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 300 t50 .. or+J ',,%/ TNP BO-26 T. E. WOOD OB 880, p,46.~ AREA = 7.~.340 Ac. (BY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS) TMP Bg-7B 0. & MARY BETH BELLAH DB 1642, p.106 ZON£NG: RA / ! S41 '23' 11/E 32. oo/ / S16"23 1t"E ~ . 66. oo' \./ S26 '23' 89. l0 TMP B9-15 MONTGOMERY BIRD HOODS HILLZAM S. O. WOODS. UR DB ~406. p. 7~8 ZONING: RA S45 "J3'31"W t74.38' , PAGE 2 S49 "33 ' 55"W / 453.03' ,' S39 "51 ' 25"W / 273.21 7' · S59 "06'O0"W/ 377.45 LOCUST STUMP ON LINE SCALE ]." = 300' o 300 6OO SCALE IN FEET CROSS CHISELED IN ROCK NOTES: ~) THIS PLAT CONSISTS OF A COMPILATION OF RECORD PLATS. PLATS HAVE BEEN ROTATED TO TRUE NORTH AND UNEVENLY SCALED TO FIT THE FIELD EVIDENCE FOUND AND INDICATED HEREON. THIS DOES NOT COMPRISE A BOUNDARY SURVEY AS DEFINED IN tB MAC t0-20-370. 2) NO TITLE REPORT PROVIDED. 3) SUBJECT PARCEL LIES IN ZONE 'C', "AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING" AS SHOWN ON FIRM COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBERS~O006 0330 B, EFFECTIVE DATE DECEMBER 16. 1980. ,4) VERTICAL DATUM: NAVDBB. 5) HORIZONTAL DATUM: NADB3. ~ 0 Douglas R. Bruce ¢' =. "' Lic. No. 002352 ~ DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2000 REVISIONS: DEC. 20, 2000 (LEASE AREA, SITE NAME, RT 745) COMPILATION PLAT AND SITE SURVEY PERFORMED FOR BC ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS WOOD-ARROWHEAD I SITE NUMBER: CVR 384 B SITE NAME: SITE ADDRESS: ARROWHEAD VALLEY RD, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PARCEL: PARCEL 26 OF TAX MAP 88, ALBEMARLE CO. PROPERTY OWNER: T. E. WOOD 322 DOVER RB CHARLOTTESVILLE, (804) 973-6757 SCALE: 1"=300' PROPOSED MAST LOCATION: N37"58'56.9" W78"35'21.4" 763.7' (GROUND) NAD83 LAT: NAD83 LONG: NAVD88 ELEV: VA 22901 _~ 20 SHEET p:\TMPROJ\80~4\8014.pro TFrtonPCS ATTACHMENT B SITE NAME: WOOD-A ROWH D (TRITON SITE NUMBER: CV-R-384 B PCS) SITE VICINITY MAP ~ 1' = 50 MILES LOCAL MAP DIRECTIONS TO SITE: GO SOUTHWEST ON MclNTIRE ROAD, "IURN RIGH[ ONTO W. ~ S1REET/US 250 AND~ GO 2.5 MILES. 'IURN LEFT ONTO ROUTE t~29 AND GO SOUTH 6.4 MILES TO THE SECOND SIGN OF ROUTE t745 (~ROWHF..AD VAIJl~' ROAD). TURN LEFT THITO ME~i~'q CUT ONTO ROUTE 11745 (ARROWHEAD VNIEY ROAD) AND GO ~PROX. lOGO FEET ACROSS RAILROAD AND T,~N~E AN IMME])IAIE RIGHT. THERE IS A LI:X~K~ GAT[. FOLLOW EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD ,APPROX. 1000 FEET TQ.~TOWER SI~E. Triton PCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED WOODEN POLE IN A RAW LAND LEASE AREA DIG ALERT: CALL FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO DIGGING EMERGENCY: 1 CALL 911 APPROVAL OWNER'S ~ APPROVAL :~NARIRE PttcHE NUUBE~ DATE ^TC ceNs?l~mlcH CO0~mT~ S~,~'IU~E I:'.O~E NUI, IB~ I)A~ ATC APPROVAL SENATIJRE: PHONE HUMBER DA'IE DESCRIPTION BY DATE DESCRIPTION BY DATE REV.' NO, REV. NO, N~CHffECT AND ELECTRC_d~_ ENGINEER: 5~59 (:~UM~& ~ ~ 101 FN. LS CHURCH, VA 22041 SURVEYOR: 914 MON]K;OJ.O RO~D CHN~OT{TSVILE, VA 22902 F~' {80~1296-5220293-425{ CCHT~"E S~L ENGINE'E?-; STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BC ,4RCHIIECTS EN(~NEERS, PLC 5659 COLUMBIA PIKE, SUflt 101 FALLS ClAJRCH, VA 22041 FAX: ~70,T1671-6°°° 671 POWER COMPAkrf: CONTACT: CHSTOME~ SER~CE FAX: ~HONE COMPANY: COMPANY ~ ~ CONTACT: CHRIS MORIN PROJECT CONSULTING TEAM SITE NAME.' PROPERTY OWNER: WOOD-/~ROME~ CNA'~OUESVlLL~ VA 22901 SITE NUMBER: ~ (804) 97~-6757 CV-R-384 B N~ROV~IEN) VALLEY 'J '~ DmLm G ~NFO. 9211 N~BORETUM P~&Yo SUITE 400 RICHMOND, VA 232~6 'lEb (80~) 32~-9500 CONTACT: KAl'HERIN HOU.OWELL FAX: (80q ~2~-4058 ~ (804) ~2]-9500 EXT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ ~I/ANN~ R,~O TELECO~I,I~lloNS COAt,lNG OF A 97 FI. ~ POi.[ IN A RAW U, ND LEASE ~ ADA COMPLIANCE: FA¢_dt. I1Y IS UNMANHED AND NOT FOR HUkIAN FIAGffATIOH PROJECT DATA: ZONING: Rk T/,X PARCEL NUMBER: 8e-26 GEOGRN:'NIC COORDIRAT[~: I. AlII1JDE: ;]7' 5~' 56 LONG[IUOE: 'TT ~5' 21.45' 2C GROUND ELEVATION: 763.7' t, IACIST'ER~ DISTRICT: Sq, IUEL MILLER SHEEI' NUMBER; DESCRtP]loN: T-1 I~E SHEET, ~N~IY ~ N4D GENERAL INFORi/A'IICH k--2 ENI.~RCEI) SITE ~ A.-4 DETNLS A-5 DE"T/gLS A-6 ~ DETNL PI_~I SHE.~ INDEX PAGt:: 1 Reg~o~.l offic~ 9211 ARBORL-RJM PARKWAY, SUf][ 400 RICHMOflD, VA 2x256 ~ (~04) =2~-~00 PR[JUOt~ ~ I~SU~ C~flTAC~ ~ IH~ kCCEFi'~C[ OF ~ ~ arc hit e c t~ e ngi nee r~ ~9 ~ ~ S~ lO1 r~ (~) R~SION NO. ~CRI~ON ~ DA~ ~~--., CV-~-384 ~ WOOD- ~ROWH~ (m OU PCS) S~ ~ESS: ~R~ Y~ ~ CHRISTOPHER E ~0~ ~ No. 3299~ ' ~ SUBMISSION: ZONING SHE~ ~: T~LE SHE~, VlClNI~ MAP .AND GENE~L INFORMATION SHE~ NUMBER: Rr' T-1 600 SCALE IN FEET 0 600 1200 ,/} / / ATTACHMENT C'"t1 PAGE 2 31 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 1 June 18, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972- 4035 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless P. O: Box 1328 Waynesboro, VA 22980-0909 RE: SP 98-09 CFW Wireless (Arrowhead) Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on $une 9, 1999, unanimously approved the above-noted request. Please note thai this approval is sUbject to the following conditions: '- The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed six (6) feet above the elevation of thetop of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the elevation of the tallest tree. A lightning rod may extend two (2) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter; 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: The tower shall be wood; Guy wires shall not be permitted; The tower shall have no lighting; and The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color; The tower shall be located on the site as follows: The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Survey of a Lease Parcel & Ingress Egress Easement for CFW Wireless on the Land ofT. E. Wood, May 14, 1999" and initialed SET, 5/17/99. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: (1) The tower shall be located so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the parcel containing the lease area; 32 Page 2 June 18, 1999 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 2 o 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower onlY as folI'ows: ao Antenna shall be limited to two (2) panel type metal antenna mounted to the wooden pole such that they do not extend above the pole, and such antenna shall match the color of the pole; and Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: ao The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize the antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these Conditions: (0 (2) Prior to approval ora final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider Within Albemarle County; [The use of this facility by additional telecommunications providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.] Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding feature. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the 'lamps, and to --connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance; Prior to beginning construction or installatior~ of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the owner or the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may'be removed for such construction or in stallation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, neither the permittee nor the owner shall remove existing trees within one thousand(I000) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; 33 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 3 Page 3 Sune 18, 1999 10. 11.. 12. 13. 13. 15. 16. 17. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the applicatiOn of gravel. Should installation of the tower requii'e provision of greater access .improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed; The access road shall be gated; The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service; The tower shall be disassembled and removed fi.om the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be forty (40) feet; No slopes associated with construction of the tower 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; The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section; and 18. The utilities going to the pole shall be underground. In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years fi.om the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year. 34 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 4 Page 4 June 18, 1999 Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, · aynq~Zilimber~A _' l Director o~Planning~.~nity Development VWC/jcf Cc: Amelia McCulley Jack Kel sey Tex Weaver Steve Allshouse T. E. Wood 35 ATTACH MENT E PAGE I ARROWHEAD CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA March 30, 2001 rt 1 box 253 charlottesville, va 22903 804 971 7945 Mr. Stephen Waller County of Albemarle Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia Re: SP 2001- 03 T. E. Wood ( Triton PCS ) Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 DEAR MR. WALLER: Thank you for revising the title of the proposed wireless tower. In the presentation to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors there are several things that should be noted: 1) The adjacent property ( Tax Map 88, Parcel 20 ) is under a conservation easement placed there by the eight members of the Woods family ( The Arrowhead Corp. of Virginia.) 2) Property owned by the Woods family not under this easement is joined to the existing Agricultural District. ( Parcels 20 F, 20 C, 20 A, 20 B and 20 D Tax Map 88. ) 3) The Arrowhead Farm owned by Mr. & Mrs. T.K. Woods, jr. ( Parcel 20 A ) is a Registered Virginia Historic Landmark. 4) The memorandum to the Planning Commission from Susan Thomas dated May 4, 1999, in reference to SP 98-09, CFW Wireless ( Arrowhead ) should be reviewed at the presentation to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors. 5) Restrictions placed on the existing tower on Parcel 26 should be upheld. Please note letter dated April 5, 1999, to Susan Thomas from the property owner T.E. Wood. Please note Paragraph 7, Page 11, "The permittee shall not remove existing trees within 200 feet of the tower." Another Tower on the same site erodes even further the Zoning and Community Standards of the established Residential ! Farm area. cc: Supervisor Sally Thomas / David M. Van Roijen RECEIVED PLANNING ANg- COMMUNITY OEVELOPMEN'~ 36 MR. D^vm M. v^H P. o. Box 7544 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22906 Albemarle County Planning Co mmission 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ATTACHMENT E PAGE 2 Re:SP 2001-03 T.E. Wood ...................... .~ANNtN..= AND ¢OMMUNFP, f DEVELOPMENT April 4,2001 RECEIVED ! , ,{! ! PLANNING AND COMMUNf'pf' DEVELOPMENT Dear Planning Commission; The neighbors of the proposed tower have spoken out in opposition to approval of the placement of towers on this property many times (see copy of petition). Despite our opposition approval was given for a tower about a year ago. Everyone believed that the worst had occurred, because the county had publicly stated that they didn't want to create tower farms. This special exception appears to be just that, or is this a new breed of evil, a mini-tower farm? The placement ora second tower on this property in the proposed location would violate the original restrictions on the first tower with regard to the cutting of trees within 1000 feet. The county would be granting special exceptions to special exceptions. When is enough enough? When this first tower was proposed I suggested that no further structures be allowed on a 21 acre parcel surrounding it. Clearly, that might have precluded this new application. In addition, the placement of a second tower on this parcel would clearly violate the county's stated intention to protect Agricultural Districts. This application is not a by right application and as such should be turned down if you truly want to encourage Agricultural Districtg. As I have stated previously, there is no reason why the cellular companies can't get easements and place such poles along the power and telephone rights of way where they would blend in with the existing poles. Examples of this were given by the county's cellular consultant! Please vote to deny this application and send a clear message as to the county's attitude toward tower farms and the protection of Agricultural Districts. Thank you. Most Sincerely, /--% ATTACHMENT E PAGE 3 We the undersigned residents ,and lando%mer~'oppose SP 98-.09 and SP 9~]-03., the proposed cellular towers/poles .~ior,~j the R,oute/2~ South en/rance corridor. .,... · . ,-~ ....,.-...:_....., . ~,~¢.,...~A..,~. · :, ..,~~,,,, . ~,:--:---, .... ...,.__.~ .... (.\ :'- -,-"_,._,"" .zs ~ / ' ]. o . -(Z~¢== ~z?'-'C.~-"fZ"-=,-:/~ ................ --" ._~ ~ ~~ ' , ~; ' . . z'~ .-.a .... ?'j_O~.I_T._:.__L~d_L/Z1.A=~_X._ ......... ,~a,ll.,,'f'~, %. '2"> ,h'~" /~ ~ '-7r-,,z-~.--~ ..~ ATTACHMENT F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development ..................................... 401 M~Intir¢_Road,Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4_596 (804) 296 - $823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 February 28, 2001 Valede W. Long, Esquire McGuire, Woods, LLP P O Bo x1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB-P(BP)-2001-02 Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS CVR-348B) Tax Map 88; Parcel 26 Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Tuesday, February 20, 2001. The Board approved, by a vote of 3 to 1, a final Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the following conditions to be approved by staff: 1. The height of the pole shall not exceed 6' above the height of the tallest tree within 25' of the pole. 2. No cutting of trees shall occur within 1000' of the proposed pole location. Please provide revised drawings or other information addressing these conditions at your earliest conven ence. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met. a Certificate of Appropriateness may be ~ssued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner MM/jcf Cc: File Steve Waller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT G MEMO Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Chaflottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 TO.' From: Re: Date: Stephen Waller, Planner Scott Clark Agricultural & Forestal Districts Committee Meeting - SP 01-03 Wood April 12, 2001 On April 9, 2001, the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Committee voted on a motion to fred SP 01-03, proposed for a parcel adjancent to the Hardware Agficultural/Forestal District, incompatible with that district. The vote was evenly split for and against the motion (4-4). Please see the minutes of that meeting for details o£the committee's discussion. 4O McGuireWood~ LIP r~,rt Squa~ Building ~Stteet N.E., Suite 300 ~r? ~-O. 8OX ~288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 -'~"~w. mcgu i rewoods.com Valerie W. Long D~rect: 804.977.2545 McGU1REW DODS 05-10-01 Al1:41 viong@mcguirewoods.corn Direct Fax: 804._98_0.2265 May 9, 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Stephen Waller Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Boulevard Charlottesville, VA 22901 RECEIVED HAY 0 .~ 2001 PLANNING AND $OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: SP 01-03 T.E. Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS - CVR 384B) Dear Stephen: Enclosed for your review and for delivery to the members of the Board of Supervisors in connection with the above-referenced special use permit application are seven (7) sets of revised plans incorporating the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission. You will note that the height of the pole has been revised to be six (6) feet over the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed facility. At this site, the tree with the tallest top elevation within this radius is the 87-foot poplar just south of the pole, which has a top elevation of 853 feet AMSL. You will note that the plans now show the top of the pole at 859.0 AMSL, which corresponds to a height of 95.3 feet. In addition, the note on sheet A-1. has been revised to increase the tree conservation area to 1000 feet. it is my understanding from our conversation late last week that you will suggest that condition 2(a) be modified to reference a wooden pole rather than a steel pole. As you know, Triton would prefer to use steel poles for a variety of reasons, but can use wood if that is the preference of the Board. At this height, the diameter of a steel pole would be approximately 16 inches at the top and 30 inches at the bottom. By comparison, a wood pole at this height would be 30 inches or more both at the top.and at the bottom. Other benefits of a steel pole are that steel poles can be engineered to have a relatively small fall-zone radius, transporting them to sites has a much smaller impact on the community, as wood poles often require streets to be shut down during transportation of the pole to the lease area, and steel poles do not ~equire the destruction of a mature tree. For example, for a 95.3-foot facility, Triton must purchase a tree with a total length of 110.3 feet to accommodate the 15 feet that is necessary to be built below ground. You may be interested to know that steel poles are actually more expensive than wooden poles, so this is not an issue of cost savings for our client. If there were an instance where a wood pole would have a smaller diameter than a steeJ pole, it would seem to me that such a distinction would be less relevant in light of these factors. Finally, it is also my understanding that these plans will be included in the package of materials to be forwarded to the Board members. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 977-2545 MAY'9, 2001 Page 2 should you have any questions regarding the plans or require any additional information in connection with the application. I appreciate your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Valerie W. Long Enclosures cc: Frank Shortall, Triton PCS, Inc. Carol Murphy, Triton PCS, Inc. Jason Peery, American Tower Corporation T onPCS .'r onP 9211 ARBOREfUM PARKWAY, SIJ~E 400 WOOD-ARROWHEAD (TRITON PCS) SITE NUMBER: CV R 384 B CALL FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO DIGGING APPROVAL "~ P~) ~-~ ,, R~ISION NO. DESCRI~ON R~. NO. D[5~RIPTION BY DATE R~. NO. DES~RIPTION BY DATE CV-R-384 .~ CHANGED POLE HEIGHT TB 5-8-01 ~ s~ S~ NU~: ~ (~) 97~6757 12-28~ D~WN: ' ~ ~ ~ PLANNIN~ AND SHE~ PR~ECT DATN ' OOggUNl~ OgVgLOP~NT SHEg LOCAL M AP ~ ~ ~ ~:...- ~D GENE~L DIRECTIONS TO S~: ~ - ~ ~ SHE~ NUMBER: ~D ~ SO~ 6.~ MIES TO ~E SECO~ ~ OF ~ ~745 (~ROWH~ V~ ~). ~RN ~ ~RU M~ C~ 0~0 CONSULTING T~M PROJECT SUMMARY SHE~ INDEX ' T PIPE FOUND 2o ~. LEASE SITE TMP 88-26 T. E. WOOD DB 880, p.46~ AREA = 7.~.340 Ac. (BY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS) / ,TMP 89-7B )ONALD D. & MARY BETH BELLAH DB :1642 P. J06 ZONING: RA / ! / S16"23' tI"E [ / 66.00' S26 '23 1t" TMP 88-20 O' ~,o'~,,,"~,,. ARROWHEAD CORP. OF AMERICA DB J383, p. 595 "~,, ZONING: RA · 89. J.O' TMP 39-:~5 WILLIAM S. D. WOODS. dR DB t406. p. 7t8 LO ~ ZONING: RA ~,~, ~ CROSS S45 't3'31"W ,~CHISELED · t74.38' ' IN ROCK S49 '33' 55" W 453.03' ,' NOTES: t) THIS PLAT CONSISTS OF A COMPILATION OF ~CO~ PLATS. PLATS HAVE BEEN ROTATED TO TRUE NORTH A~ ~EVENLY ~ALED TO FIT THE FIELD EV[DEN~ FOUND AND INDICATED HEREON. THIS DOES NOT COHPR[SE A BOUNDARY SURLY AS DEFINED IN t8 VAC t0-20-370. 2) ~ TITLE REPORT ~OVIDED. 3) SUBJECT PARCEL LIES IN ZONE 'C', "AREAS OF H[NIHAL FLOODING" AS SHOWN ON FIRM CONHUN[TY PANEL ~NBER510006 0330 B. EFFECTIVE DATE DECE~ER t~ t980. 4) VERTICAL DATUM: NARD88. 5) HOR[ZONTAL DATUH: NAD83. kic. No. O02352 DATE: DECEMBER ~A, 2000 REVISIONS: DEC. 20. 2000 (LEASE AREA, SITE NAME. RT 745) '~OUDABUSH, GALE AND ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA TION SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, ENGINEERS 914 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA S39 "5~ ' 25"W, X, 273.2t/' COMPILATION PLAT AND SITE SURVEY · PERFORMED FOR BC ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS s59 'os'oo"w/ i 377.45'/" SITE NAME: WOOD-ARROWHEAD SITE NUMBER: CVR 384 B "~,v,·'/ SITE ADDRESS: ARROWHEAD VALLEY RD, CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA LOCUST STUMP PARCEL: PARCEL 26 OF TAX HAP 88, ALBEMARLE CO. ON LINE PROPOSED HAST LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: T. E. WOOD SCALE ]" = 300' NAD83 LAT: N37"58'56.9" 322 DOVER RD o ado red NAD83 LONG: ~78'35'21.4" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2290~ NAVB88 ELEV: 763.7'(GROUNB) (804) 973-6757 ~A~ ZHFEET p:\TMPROJ\80~4\80~4.pro SCALE: ~"=300' SHEET ~/2 WOODEN OYERHEADT T_ELEPHONE II TNP 88-26C HOLLIS T. FITCH ZONING: RA // VEPCO POWER POLE #B63-2 i --4 0 ovERHEAD poNER LINE ~-~----'-' VEPCO .__-..--~'~-"- POWER POLE #B63-3 CHORD 33.49' CHORD BEARING S39o21'33"W 41.76' S53"35'58"H t69.72' S27"56'44"H 48.69 174.56 214.33 58.23 15.00 20.00 20.00' 20.00' SJ6"O7'27"E S60'JI'38"E S6J"O4'42"E N28'48'22"E N6~'J~'38"N N28"48'22"E RADIUS 35.00' 5.00' S61'JJ'38"E S28'48'22"N N61 tt 38"N EX. HAST CONC PAD: TOP ELEV: HT = 77.2 SPRZNT ' PEDESTAL #JEE$-3A 751.6 8£8.8 \ x \ \ ' \ STAKE SET ON ~ TRUE NORTH BEARING FROH PROPOSED HAST AT ~20 FT. SITE BENCHHARK~ NAIL IN 24" POPLAR NA VD88 ELEV = 759.00' \ \ ', " '>.-. ' ' ' ,~, 40 '~RR~HEAD CORP. OF AMERICA ~ DB ~383, p.595 ZONING: RA P: XTHPROJX8'O]AX80]A.pPo DELTA ARC TANGENT 88 "08'22" 53.84' 33.88' Douglas R. Bruce Lic. No. 0023.5,2 SCALE ~" = 40' o 40 BO SOALE IN FEET SCALE: 1"=40' SHEET 2/2 _) LEGEND NEW FENCE "-' : EXIST. FENCE X SETBACK EASEMENT LEASE PROPERTY LINE EXIST. CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR TYP. BUILDING ~ TYP. ROAD o 0 150 300 J 1":300' 'TMP 88-26A PUFF, INC, DB 876, p.409 ZONINg: U / Y / / / / 75'-0' TEL POLE ~JEE6-1 ~"/~ TMP88-26 / TaP 88-20C'~"'"'// ANNE WOODS GUZ7J~DI / DB 1127, p.§29 ZONING: PA / SPRINT PED[ST~/ EXlSTII~ CFW POLE EX, DIRT DRIVE ~ SPRINT PEDESTAL POLE t~-2 'IMP 88-20 ARROWHEAD CORP. OF/~IE~ICA DB 1383, p.595 ZONING: PA SCALE IN FEET 600 90O 1UP 88-2~ THURSTON DB 1024, p.668 ZONING: PA ~B83-3 SEIBACK LEASE ANEA TMP 88-26 T, E WOOD AREA = 71.340 ~. (BY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS) DB 880, p.401 ZONING: PA SITE PLAN 75'-0' / / / / / / / DB 1642, p.106 ZONING: PA / / / / 1UP 89-15 MONTGOMERY BIRD WOODS WOODS, JR OB 1406, p.718 ZONING: TRUE NORTH T onPCS Regional office 9211 ,,~RBOREIUM P/~RI(WAY, SUITE 400 RICHMOND. VA 2323e TEL: (804) 323-9500 FAX (~o~) 323-4o5s architects engineers 565g COLUM9~ PIKE, SLqTE 101 FN.!.S ~ VA 22041-2868 FAX: (703) 671-6,t00 REVISION NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE SflE NUMBER: CV-R-384 B WOOD- ARROWHEAD (mlTON PCS) SIE ADDRESS: ARROWHEAD VALLEY ROAD SHEET TI~.E: SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A-1 . . TrltonPC Reglonal offlee LEGEND ~2n ~o~'n~ p~^x. s~ ~ ~CHM~D; VA 232~ ~ (~) 32~-~ ~ O~RHEAD POWER , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PROPERTY LINE ~ ~ ~ ~, a~.m a UNDERGROUND U~LI~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m LINES ~ ~ mo/m ~ ~ UTtLI~ EASEMENT ' '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / P~ ~B1828 ~ EQU~ ~ ' e ~g ~ ~ee rs J R~ISION ~ ~- ~ DA~ ~ O~D PO~ HBg~ ~ 5--8--01 ~ ~o,~ (~ ~.~') CV-R-384 B WOOD- ~ROWH~ ~o,,~o,~ ~ ~- ~- ..__ POS AC~/~ ~ DA~ D~W~:r 1~-2~ SUBUISSION: SHE~ ~: EN~RGED i~ S~E P~N SCALE IN FE~ 0 2.5 5 ~0 15 TRUE NORTH ~.~ ....~.: .~. ~ A-2 1=" 5' J EN~GED SIE P~N 1 n..-,. z I 1 8 aNY V S~t0103S.~S~ ~I31N3O OV8 .O-,g L architects e nginee ts F~L~ CIIIRC8. ~ ~$-28~ FAX: (70~) ~-~ R~ISION NO. D~t~N ~ DA~ SITE NUI~BER: CV-R-384 B WOOD- ARROWHEAD (miTON PCS) SFff AODI~SS: SHEET NUMBER: I REV. 3,-3 ' NOTES; 1. StAB 'fO BE LEV~ +1/~-' AND llNTED BRO~I~I. 2. * = FOOTING TO EXTEND A MINIWUW 12' BELOW UNDISTURBED SOIL AND FROST UNE. 3. RNAL SITE DESIGN kS THE] RESPUNSIBILiIY OF TIlE SllE CONTRACTOR. ~-. SL~B FOUNDAlluN DESIGNED ASSUMING ALLOW~I.[ SOIL BEARING PRESSURE OF 2000 PSF. 5. SLAB FOUNDATION DESIGNED ASSUMING MAXIMUM SOIL PLAST1CIIY INDEX OF 27. EQUIP. CAB. CONCRETE PAD DETAIL AND SECTION T onPC Regional office g211 A~BORE'~JB PARKWAY, SUP~ 400 ~O, VA 23236 ~ (~) ~2~9~ F~ (~) 323-~ i~EJUDtOE NeD ~ISU~L CONTACT Wlll~ '11t~ ACCE~AflQ~ OF ~ ~ architects engineers 5659 COL~ Rg~ S~E 101 FALLS CI~JRCR, VA 2_--~41-28~8 Ta.: ~) ~1-~ REVISION D~CRIP'rlON ~ DATE MICROFLECT I~I-BRACKEr PART t 8'1828 OR EQUAL PANEL ANTENNA. DAPA MECHANIC~. DOWN11LT BRACKET FMICROFLECT PIPE MOUNq PART J 81882 GE EQUAL 12.MAX. 1. CON]?,A~ SHALL VERIFY SIZE OF BRACKET REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSIRUCllOH 2, PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE FLUSH MOUN1ED TO WOODEN POLE 3. N~ DIMENSIONS HxWxD: 44.7'x6.3"x2.7' 4. HGHINING ROD SHALL BE NO TALLER THAN 2' HIGH WITH A BASE DI/~ETER OF 1', TARERiN~ TO k POINT AT THE TOP 5. NJ_ ANTENNAS AND MOUNTING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED BROWN ANIENNA, SEE RNAL RF BUILDII~ SHEET FOR N.T.S. TRI-BRACKET MOUNT DETAIL ANTENNN SEE ? SCH~LE MICROFLEC]' 'IEI-I~KE[ PANT ~81828 OR EQUAL MICROFLECT PIPE MOUNT P~T t 81882 OR EQUAL PROV1DED BY OWNEN AND INSTALLED BY CON1RACTOR GR-1 3 1/2"~ METAL POSTS EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE INSTALLED PER MANUFAClllRER'S INSTRUCTIONS BL-1 ~blWl-RX ~---5/B' COAXIAL ~ LOF4.~-50A O~P, TO MW) STAGGERED ICE BRIDGE POST BEYOND TRAPEEZE DETAIL SITE NUMBER: C¥-R-384 B SiTE HAME: WOOD- ARROWHEAD (mlTON PCS) SITE ADDRESS: ARROWH y ~N.LEY RO~) CHRISTOPHER D. ~ORIN No. 32984 SUBMISSION: I ZOfilNQ SHEET lilLE: DETNLS SHEET NUMBER: ^-4 woo~/ POLE~ N.T.S. MtCROFLECT Bl133 BRII~E CHANNEL EXTENSION KIT /--J 2 JACKEED, STR~DED .~COPPER WIRE TO ~ HOLE LUGS ON BOTH ENDS. GREEN BONDING JUMPER 4'-O":E GROUND TRAPEZE THREE DUPLEXERS MOUNTED BENEATH ICEBRIDGE BY OTHERS 2'x2' HOT DIPPEO OALVANIZED ANGLE IRON ICE BRIDGE END C.q~S 2 PER CONNECTION N)VANGE UOHTING PART ~ 2162-1. iNSTALL B/~K TO BAOK TRAY BY ALLEN DICK AND CO. POLL.IS, NH, 0~0¢9 PART JKFB06 3' TO PANEL BOX 3'-9" TO CONC. SLAB SUPPORT SEE DETNL ERICSSON CABINET NOTE: ALL EQUIPMB~T SHALL BE PNNTE~ BROWN SECTION WITH GROUNDING I CONG. PN) TINTED EARTH TONE ICERRII~E ~ 2" POWER CONDUIT ~ CONDUIT---' TOWER / CONCREE / 10'-0" CLPAD ~ . N.T.S. J CONCRE1E PAD LAYOUT DIAGRAM FENCE POSTS MAY BE / PINE OR 2'~ OAK / ~7 ORANGE UV-RESISTANI' HIGH 5'-0" O.C. MAX. / TENSILE STRENGTH POLY ~" BARRICADE FABRIC / j Lj u u u La ~_l u ij u i.j gl LJ U u LJ U ~J gJ U L~ LJ U g' NOTES: 1. PROTEC~I'ION OF EXiS11NG VEC, EI'AllON: AT THE STN:~T OF 9RADII~ INVOLVING THE LOWERING OF EXiS'I1NG GRADE AROUND A TREE OR STRIPMNG OF TOPSOIL. A CL.EVI, SHARP. VEKI1CAL CUT SHALL BE I,P~DE AT THE EDGE OF THE TREE SA~ AREA AT THE SANE TIME AS OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ~ INSTALLED. THE ~ PRO1ECTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTNIED ON TH[ SIDE OF THE CUT FARTHEST AWAY FROM TREE TRUNK AND SHALL RB/AIN IN PLACE UNTIL AIL CONSTRUCTION iN VIOINIIY OF THE TREES IS COMPLLqL NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, FILL, OR EQUIPMENT AND NO TRESPASSING SHNJ- BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE 80UNI)ARY OF THE PRO~CTED 2. ~J~cTOR TO INSTALL AT A RADIUS E(~JAL TO 1' RADIOS/I' DIN~ OF TREE TO EEMNN. N.T.S. TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAILS T onFCS Reg'~l office 9211 ~RBORETUM PARKWAY, SUITE 400 RICHMOND, VA 232,t6 architects engineers 5659 COLUMB~ ~ ~ I01 REVISION NO. DESCRIPTION ~ DATE WOOD- ARROWHEAD (mlTON PCS) SITE ADDRESS' DATE DI~J~WN: SUBMISSION: SHEET ~ SHEET NUMBER: DETAILS _) O c-,t / 1"=10' 95.3' WOODEN ~ -- BASE EL 765.7' + 95.5' TRITON PROVIDED EQUIPMENT CA~NET AND iCEBRIDGE 20'x20 TRITON LF_ASE ~EA PROPOSED TI~IPORABY TREE P~OTEC'nON ~CE (m.) NEW 10' GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 5 10 SCALE IN FEET / T5' CHE~ 88' / BASE 758.1 / 'top ~M / 59' FROM MAST / / / / / / 12'IS'DOUBLE ASH 84' BASE 758.7 TOP 843 6.3' .~- FROM UAST 6' RED M~PLE 60' / ~ ~ 759.7 lOP 820 24' POP[AR 101' TOP 859 59' FROM MAST / / / 6" RED ~tE 50' _/ BASE 759.0 ,..(~6" RED MAPLE 52' J ~" EASE 759.0 TOP 811 4-I' FROM MAST 4' RED MAPLE 46' DASE 759.9 806 34' FROM MAST / ./ / / 5' RED MAPLE 47' ~.-6" RED MAP~ ~E 759.9 ~I~,SE 760.9 TOP' 807 ~ TOP 819 48' FR~ I,~LST J 32' FROM MAST / / / / 8' A~US 62' /' BASE 761.9 / TOP 824 / 38' FROM MAST / / 7' POPLAR 56' BASE 760.1 TOP 816 26' FROM MAST / /- LOCUST / DEAD & LEANING BASE 76.3.5 4' FRo~ U~'T (TO BE RE~3VED) 9'.~ 65' BASE 759.6 TOP 825 45' FROM I/AST / / 22' RED I,~,PLE 90' BASE 761.8 // TOP 852 / 24' FROM MAST / / / BASE 7~.7 TOP 814 / ./ / / ,/ 5' ~ I / / i ~ 765.6 ' / ' / 1 FROM ~ / ,/ / / / / / // / 1. TREE HBGNTS BETERMI~ BY HORIZONTAL AND VERTIC,,~. ~G~ I~C~ONS DEC. 5, 2000 FOR TREES WITHIN 25' OF PROPOSED I/AS1' ~D FOR THE TALLEST TREES IN 1HE V1CINrFf. 2. ESllMATED pRECISIOR OF HBGI.ES IS GENERALLY + 2 IT, BU[ UAY BE LARGE - ROUNDED CROWNS OR THOSE OBSCURED IN UNDERSTORY ORO~TH. 3. ADD~IOhtAL UNDERSTORY TREE HBOHTS MEASURED DEC. 20, 2000. 4. DISTANCE FROM ~ IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY TO CENTER OF TRUNK Al GROUND LEVEL / OEODE'~C SURVEY MONUUENT / × / / \ / 18' RED MAPLE 79' / / 20 30 / / /. / 8' ~ 51' / / // / _× / ~ 7~5.9 / / / / / / TOP 817 / ~/ / / / . . / / / · ~ ~ L~ ~ / / /~ /~ / ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ // / , / ~ ~E 7~.2 ~ // 5" ~ ~E 45 , ~' ) TOP 815 ~ /d ~E 765.2 / ~ '"' ~OM ~ /)// ~ ~ ~ ~ / / .'// ¢ /, / / II A5'R~ , ~-~-- ' / I/ /~ ~.~ I ~o~'~ / T~ 8~ / T~ BASE 765.4 /TOP 844 / 53' FROU UAST mE 765.8 TOP 816 31' ~ ~ /~ ff. ~ ~ 767.2 ~ T~ 827 / 10"10"24" ~IP~ POP~ I01' / ~ ~ 769.5 ~ T~ 870 ~ ~' ~OM ~ / / // / / / / / TRUE SITE DETAIL PLAN NORTH T onPCS Regl~nal office 9211 N~BOREIUM pN~KWAY, SUI1E 400 R{CHMOND, VA 23~ F~ (~) N4D THBR USE ~30 PUBI~ATION SS~U- architects engineers 5659 C(~UM~ P'~E, $~11[ 101 F~: (~) 671-~ REVISION NO. DESCRIPTION BY SITE CV-R-384 B WOOD- ARROWHEAD (TRITON PCS) SIE ADDRESS: ARROWHEAD VALLEY ROAD i i SITE DETAIL .... PLAN ISHEET NUMBER: A-6 .) 'F 20'x20 TRITON / / I EXIStiNG DI~T ROAD z SCALE IN FEET / / TRUE NORTH ~ 0 10 2O 4O 6O ~ GRADING PLAN ~ 1~=20' T onPCSt Reg'mnal office 921i .~gORE~JM PARKWAY, SUITE 400 RIC, H~OND, VA 232.36 T~ (~04) ~2~-9500 FAX (804) 523-4058 PkU, IS ~ I~C~T SY ~ I~111RITON PCS, INC WI~ ~NT~CT W~H 'f~EN architects engineers FN. t5 CHURCH, VA 22O41- REVISION NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE ~ ~ POLE HEIGHT TB 5-8-0' S{TE HUYBER: CV-R-384 B S~ ti/NE WOOD- ~ROWHF_AD (mffON PCS) SITE ADDRESS: -IRiST~N No, 32984 12-28-00 DATE DRAWN: I I ZONINO SUBMISSION: SHEET mTfLE: GRADING PLAN SHEET NUMBER: (;-1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY o5- o-o POS: t N AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 00-007 - Village Homes II SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone 7.1 acres to amend the existing Mill Creek PUD to increase the allowed number of dwelling units. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Echols AGENDA DATE: May 16, 2001 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBERS: IN FORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY.~~~ ! BACKGROUND: On March 13, 2001, the Albemarle County Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning subject to minor proffer changes and clarifications, especially as they relate to pedestrian paths. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary site plan subject to the rezoning and resolution of stormwater issues. They also approved the critical slopes waiver requested. DISCUSSION: One of the main items discussed at the Planning Commission meeting was the use by the applicant of the stormwater facility that is currently owned by the Mill Creek Homeowner's Association. The stormwater facility was created for earlier phases of the planned development and turned over to the Homeowner's Association. The stormwater facility is now heavily silted in and the homeowners have asked the developer to dredge the facility before allowing more stormwater to go to it. The applicant has indicated that this is not a legal requirement and that the facility can accommodate his runoff without the need to dredge it. At the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked the homeowners if they had asked the County to consider taking over the stormwater facility for public maintenance. The homeowners subsequently made a request to the Albemarle County Engineering Department who inspected the facility. Engineering staff said that, with past acceptances, the County has required the current owners to dredge and clean out the ponds. The County therefore does not have to spend taxpayer dollars up front to make these facilities function properly. Another consideration is whether or not the pond has a water quality component. As a "wet" pond, the Mil Creek stormwater facility is designed to provide water quality also. The Engineering Department has said that, with the current level of siltation, the water quality function of the pond is greatly reduced. Engineering believes that accepting this pond with a restored water quality component is in the public interest. However, the applicant is not willing to contribute to the cost of dredging so Engineering believes that this situation reduces the possible public benefit from the County accepting the pond. Although staff believes that resolution of the stormwater issues would be preferable prior to the Board's public hearing, such resolution is not necessary for the Board's action on the rezOning. The County Engineering Department will not approve the preliminary site plan until the issue related to use of the stormwater facility is resolved. If the stormwater facility on the Homeowner's Association property cannot be used legally, then the applicant will have to provide on-site detention. If on-site detention is provided, the site plan will need to be modified. Major modifications to the site plan would req uire a subsequent rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the attached proffers. 01.106 ZMA-00-007 PROFFERS VILLAGE HOMES II 05-]0-0] P05:23 IN TAX MAP PARCELS 90C-D and E 7.17 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first approved under ZMA-85-29, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions. The Application Plan entitled, Millcreek PUD Overall Plan, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, revised October 1 I, 2000, last revised May 9, 2001 ("Application Plan") submitted with these proffers reflects the "as-built condition" of the Millcreek PUD as of the date of these proffers, except the shaded area on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site". Development within the 7.17 acre, Village Homes II Site shall be in general accord with the Application Plan; provided however, that adjustments to lot layout and open space boundaries may be necessary to address on-site storm water management in order to comply with applicable ordinances. 3. The maximum allowable residential units in the Millcreek/Foxcroft PUD shall be limited to 466. o Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 36 residential units. Where site grading is performed, Applicant shall minimize construction of slopes steeper than 3:1, subject to approval by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. The Applicant shall install additional low maintenance vegetation to provide stabilization for proposed slopes steeper than 3:1, if required by the County's Landscape Planner. Species, size, and quantity shall be subject to approval by the County's Landscape Planner, as reasonable. Nothing contained in these proffers shall be deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical slOpe waiver under Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance. The Village Homes II Site road improvements shall be under an urban cross-section (roll top curb, with four-foot (4') wide sidewalks on both sides of the road. An asphalt pedestrian path of no less that five feet (5') shall be located on the Site adjacent to, and parallel with the Southern Parkway across the entire frontage that abuts the Southern Parkway. Applicant will cause supplemental landscaping and trees for screening to be installed in accordance with the proposal dated November 18, 2000 from Mr. Lee Quillen of Waynesboro Nursery, (attached) with emphasis on locating screening within the areas desi_ 'gr~a~ t_hez2~pp~ca~orr__ ~--~r- -~as-- ©l:~n-~Spacer-E~eept~. :ker~neeessav~smtl utilities or water quality protection measures, and subject to sound and customary landscaping principles, significant trees (6" in diameter or greater) located within the Open Space shall be preserved. As a condition for final subdivision approval, Applicant shall submit for review by the Subdivision Agent, (and record upon such approval) a proposed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which shall encumber the lots within the Village Homes II site and which shall provide for an architectural review and approval of improvements, in order to maintain the harmony of the development within Village Homes II and with the already constructed homes in Village Homes I and IV, and Mill Creek North. Similarity between colors and materials shall be established and maintained. If public dedication of the storm water pond located on the adjacent property currently owned by the Mill Creek Home Owners Association requires access over the Site, applicant will grant a 20 foot access easement to provide for maintenance of the pond. The location o£this potential easement will be identified on the final site plan, prior to its approval and will be reserved for dedication on demand of the County on the subdivision plat. Submitted as of the 16th day of May, 2001, by: HUNTER E. CRAIG COMPANY iffunter E. Craig President ' ~, ~ ~<," . ,. (:'_:_%:-.: ~... .,,, , . ~ ~. ..... ~ ... ............. .:..~-......'. .....~ ~,:"~" 1 :.L..'::.:'. ~.. ~' .' ~ ' ~ ' r-."'-. ~ 'I~ -'...:.'...... ." . ', ' , :-:... :" .:...:.-......," ~:~.~:.,~> :':'>' :.:. ,.,.., -..: ... ,... ,,?',, ~ ...... ~ ~.~ ... ~..., .... ,, , ._,. ...... ~ , ., · , · ~,.~: .... - . ~-.~ .. · .,~. ...... .,7,.,... ~.,'. - .... .~..'~'.-.. ~. >. ~' .... ~ . [~.:... ...... ~ . ,.,.,..,...,~,~:..?... ......... x' ~ '( ~', - ~ ~ , ~- .... ~ . ~ , ,,.,, . .....~ ~.~ ... ..... -- . .. -~.. ,, ~ , . -- ~ , . :. :: . ~ ....... . . .,~..., . .,,.., ~ - . . . ~ i ~.,~ ~~ , ~ i ~ .~. : .~., ..... ~..~, ...~...::~,, :~ :~: . .. _ .,. ,,.., ,, .._~., :.....~=- : . ... ,~,.,,~ ..... .,, ,- , .....~ ~:.~;~. ,,. ~ ...... ..~,~ , ~,,~ , ~ ~,, I. · .- ',~'~'~.~- ',V~' ~,,~ / : . -..': .",I · . . . ~ . . , ~ n- ,,.:~., %.: . ~ ~.. , ... '. ~ ............. ~.. : . .... ,.,., , :.. ,'~ F'" .-." .'. '-.'::.'~:~:- :_.0,,,?',-"1 ~ · ..' ..... ~ ~' .'~ :. '~:.'~- .~::.~.,...,. r,, J ' '. ' L "" .... :~ .......~ '" >' '~'' ~ ' "h"...:,. ..:'.. '-'L'. '::.".: :-' :. '::: "'~':: ~' / ' " -' - ,.,.: ......,.. _.-- . .- , '"'.... · . . -. -: : :.... . ','.:,~',,~'.' ' -~ Jl , ~ ..-'~'"' '" ,,,, ,,~,,,,, , ,...: _ :.- .-, . ,~ . ~, . ~ -. ,-.~..~:,::. ~ :: .... ~ '~t,~ / I;I' :" 2~.. ': "~' ; ~;" i : '. ~,' ...... ,.- ,~ ........ ,,.,,,,,,,,., Q .'~ ~ ~ ...... . ,... , ....... .' ,,,,,,,', ,~", : :.': ~.. .... - ~ -:: :L ':: ~ ~2 ...' ....... ~' ~ , -' '- ' ,~x,/ ~', / v ~' ~ ~ ~ ~"~','-'~':'::1 ,,. '~; :.:'..: ~ . . ,//, ,, . ., ~ ..... ., / ,'/" ,,',../., !// ,t ~ i ~ C'.,. I ~ ' z .-' ,' , '/ ,',' , · / / z, ~. i ,: ~ "-':~. - . .. ...." - , ......... ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ -.-.~ ~,, , / ~ ~,..'. .... .~ ......... ~h.Z,',~ ~ - ~,,j~ ~',~' ~"".,~:~ ' ' "'"" ~ ''" ~""" / ~ ~ ~ ~ .... /?~" " Z~ ".~ ',~ ~:' .~-"~m~ ~ "~ ~ ,~ ,~ ' , ~ ' '~ ~'','' '~/ .,"'"'"'"'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /4"~'F"--" ~ ~,j~,/f::'~ ~. .., A ~, . , ,,~ ~ .... ..... ,, ' .:..-:~:~:~:.:.::-:..:...,,~,~, , ,. ,,.,,,.,,,,],,,,, ~-.,.:-~..'~ , ~ ,. ~ ~ ~--_ .... ~'~=~ .... ~ ~ .... ~,~ ~ ~ ' '.,' ~. ,,~ ~ ~ ~ ,~' .. "~'.~ . - .... ~ ~ '~j,~. ' ....... "~'" ' ' - ~h,..-.'- ~,~,. .... .,~,, .,. .... ...,,. . ,. .... ., ........ ~-, :~. , .-:.'-...:-.::::.:.,~.:~ , ~.~ , .+~,..~.,..~ ...... ~.,..... ~, · ,,... , ~... ,.~ ........ ~,~ , , ~~'~ ~, '.:.~.'.._:,.,~ .=.-::. -,.? ,.,,~,~z/ zz%...,~ ../...' z:, , ~ ..,X ..... - ._. ~,.-,~ ~.-~ I _. .~.- ~L~~: .............. , ~, · ... ~ . .~ -~ -,~ :'" ~~.. .._,... ~..-..-- ~-...' i .~x. . .'. . ,./, , ~, , · · v~. x .'- .,~ .... ~ .... ~~ ..... L? ~'-' .... ' , ' '--" .' ' ..... ' '" " " ~ ' - ~ . ' ~ "" ~V' .." .. ... ~' ' ' ~ ..... ' ." ." '~ ' ~ ~ ~ . . -- -' -'L ~" 'i~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ .. '. ~ ~, .. ' ' .' ~-~..~. ~ ." ~ ~ ~ /" .... . '.. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ . - --. '~ ......'~.. .- ,Z lZ / ~. '. ~ .. .- H~, .... · . ~ bK~. .'~ . ' "" ,~ Fn ~ '-''~..'- -':-."~----.'..,'C/ '"~',' ..... ~ '" '~ .'.. . ' .~/-' '~.~Q.~'~ '- .', ~ ~ - · ' ~ .---'-- -~' { ..... ,Z, · .',. J~, .... '-'--".~' ~ ' "'.. '." ,,: ...... :~: =::z ,' ................ : SIDE SFTBACKS: ~ (REDUCED TO lO'IN ACCORD WITH SECTION March 21, 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Steve W. Blaine LeClair Ryan 8th Floor 123 East Main St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-2000-007 Mill Creek North - Village Homes II - Tax Map 90C, Parcels D & E Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its me ' .recommended approval of the _ .. .et~n_g on March 13, 2001, unanimously tnat this approval i.~ -~, ,hi.r, ab_o_v_e_, noted pet~bo.n to the Board of Su erv' :.,- o o-~j,.,.t to the proffers, ame P ~sors. Please note proffers w~ll be nrovid ,,,.;,,. ,~ ,,._ ,, _ .nded at the March 13th meetina ,- ed ~,, ,,.,, Lu u~e ,-,oa rd meeting o. Revised Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 16, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved th e request for critical slopes waiver and private road, with the following condition: 1. Site grading will be as shown on the preliminary site development plan. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols Principal Planner EKE/jcl Amelia McCulley Bob Ball Jack Kelsey aynesboro November 1 S, 2000 · ~Va.vn~ooro, V~. 22980 · ~ s4~ 942-46~ · 540/942-~L94 Poet-it~ ~ax No~e 7671 '"hOi~JO # . Mill Creek Vi//ag~ l-Iom~ II Waynesboro Lenchc,,-e Evergn:cns-Wh:.- .,,? - ~'~'~ proposes to t'umish and: ,=rme (sunny locations) u._,__,. ,.,.,~ .u~u,an even m/xpjm oflOt/ 4/5' ar Mi//Cm~ V/lJage I-/nns~s II. ~ - ' '. . and ,-.,.~u~;~ (snaay lo~a~ons) for screening · pr~ inQlude~ pla~ts, J~bor, mulch, staking. £~':/iiz~-, soil =ondi~/oner and/n/t/al war~g. All trees ere guanm~ed ~r 1 be $3 75.00 per vis/r_ ~lieu°faplanIatrongJyr~con~nend year. that b~ce~ trees be loca~-d construction to achieve meximum scr~cnir, g and so as not ~n conflict with any existing vegctaUon. The locations wcu/d be chosen/n conjunction wkh ~hc Home Owners Assochn'on. Should you have any questions pleese do no~ hodte~ tn c~ntacr me. Le~ Quillen £Q:ph cc: Mill Creek Horn~ Owners .A.~octation N UR~E¥~EN':~ A..I~Q,~ jATioN TOTAL March 21,2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Steve W. Blaine LeClair Ryan 8t' Floor 123 East Main St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-2000-007 Mill Creek North - Village Homes II - Tax Map 90C, Parcels D & E Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the proffers, amended at the March 13th meeting. Revised proffers will be provided prior to the Board meeting. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 16, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved the request for critical slopes waiver and private road, with the following condition: 1. Site grading will be as shown on the preliminary site development plan. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols Principal Planner EKE/jcl Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Planning Commission MEMORANDUM Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner Additional Information for.ZMA 2000-007 Village Homes II, and SDP 2000-111 Village Homes II, Request for Critical Slopes Waiver, and Request for Private Road Approval DATE: March 5, 2001 At the Planning Commission meeting held January 23, 2001, several outstanding issues prevented the Planning Commission from taking action on the rezoning, preliminary site plan, and critical slopes waiver. Included in these issues were the need for information on slope reconstruction, critical slopes, open space, architectural controls, private road approval, tree preservation, stormwater management, a revised site plan, and revised proffers. This report will begin with the revised site plan (AttaChment C - full-size copy) and end with revised proffers (Attachment A). Revised Preliminary Site Plan - A revised preliminary site plan, dated March 2, 2001 is attached to this staff report. It shows several changes including additional open space which comes from formerly odd-shaped lots, grading around the house pads that is less steep than previously shown, and preservation of existing tree stands in the open space. Each of these issues is discussed below: Open Space - A portion of (old) Lots 11, 18, 24, 32, 34, and 36 is now included as open space on the plan. This additional area, approximately two acres, makes u~able open space available at the perimeter of the development. The configuration of the open space increases opporttmities for use by future residents as picnic areas or places for nature walks. Because the open space is now larger and encircles the site, it can include the necessary area for screening trees. To deal with setback concerns from the open space, the applicant is now proffering a reduced rear setback of 6 feet where the rear of the lot abuts open space. The minimum width of open space at any location on the site plan is 15 feet. r Slope Reconstruction - The revised preliminary site plan shows improved grading around the building pads and minimizes use of 2:1 slopes. Staff is pleased to see the effort made in this regard and agrees that use of 2:l slopes in two places would be difficult to avoid. Proffers are made to minimize use of slopes steeper than 3:1 and provide stabilization to the satisfaction of the County's Landscape Planner for proposed slopes steeper than 3: i. Tree Preservation - The revised site plan shows areas for tree preservation where grading will not remove these trees. A proffer is made to preserve trees in the open space that are larger than 6 inches in diameter. This proffer, in addition to the increased area of open space, should help to diminish concerns of adjacent property owners. The supplemental screening will help to establish yards for double fronted lots. Critical Slopes Waiver - The County Engineer has reviewed the critical slopes waiver request and recommends approval with the pro ffers relating to site grading. The site grading shown on the preliminary site plan meets this proffer. Engineering's comments, as well as other site plan comments, are included in Attachment B. Architectural Controls - At the Planning Commission meeting, the adjoining property owners were concerned about the need for consistency of architectural style throughout the Village Homes'section of the Millcreek PUD. The applicant said the owner would consider architectural covenants and is now proffering that architectural restrictions will be provided through covenants for the development. The proffer is provided to maintain harmony of architectural styles within the development as well as within the Millcreek/Foxcroft PUD. Private Road Approval - As indicated in the earlier staff report, a private road is proposed for the development. Private roads are generally approved with subdivision plats, rather than w/th site plans. The exception to this rule exists with housing forms that use common walls as lot lines, such as townhouse and attached housing developments. Under Section 14-232A.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission can authorize the use of a private road for a residential subdivision developed with other than single-family detached units. The subdivision ordinance says the following: In considering the request, the commission is to consider that private roads are intended to be the exception to the construction and dedication of public streets and are intended to promote sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the land and to encourage the subdivision of land in a manner that is consistent and harmonious with surrounding development. [Section 14- 234 B} The Commission may authorize one or more private roads to be constructed if it finds that: · Theprivate road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision; · The Comprehensive Plan does notprovidefor a public street in the approximate location of the proposed private road; 2 · The fee oftheprivate road will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the r.o.w, thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the roa& · Except where required by the commission to serve a specificpublicpurpose, theprivate road will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location [Section 14~234 C]. The road requested is a 34 foot private access easement. Within it is a proposed section of 20 feet of pavement, 3 feet of curb and gutter on each side, and a 4-foot sidewalk on each side. The profile with sidewalk is proffered and staff believes that this urban section is appropriate to the development. The width meets minimum VDOT standards for travel if a 3rd off-street parking space is provided on each of the lots. Using this road profile, there is not adequate width for any on-street parking; however, the size and shape of the lots permits a 3rd parking space on the lots. Engineering will require that a 3rd off-street space be shown on the final site plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not show a public road in this location and the private road will only intersect with the public road in one place. The r.o.w, will be dedicated to the homeowners' association on the subdivision plat that corresponds to the site plan. The only remaining item to review, in this case, is whether a public road would be more appropriate at this location. Because other phases of Village Homes have used a private road system' and becahse of parking areas being so close to the road without the benefit of driveways, staff believes that the use of a private road in this development is appropriate. Stormwater Management The final concern relative to this site planand rezoning has been with the proposed use of off-site stormwater facilities. The applicant is providing for water quality measures on-site, but is proposing to use a stormwater facility used in a previous phase of the development to satisfy detention requirements. At this juncture, permission of the applicant to use the stormwater facility has not been established. This issue must be satisfied prior to preliminary site plan approval. Revised Proffers - The revised proffers clarify the relationship with the previously approved rezoning, provide standards for site grading, ensure an urban cross-section with sidewalk, provide for supplemental landscaping, and provide for architectural controls. Minor changes to the proffered Application Plan should be made to make sure that the open space acreage is included in the table. Either the proffers orthe Application Plan should reflect the commitment made to the pedestrian path parallel to the Southem Parkway. Recommendation - The applicant has worked diligently to resolve issues of architectural controls and tree preservation and to address, in a positive way, the outstanding design and grading issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting. As a result of the modifications to the proffers and plans, the following recommendations are made: ZMA 00-007 - Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with minor changes to proffers to include the open space acreage and the pedestrian path parallel to the Southern Parkway. SDP -00-111 - Staff recommends approval of the site plan, including the critical slopes waiver, with the following conditions: · Applicant willprovide evidence ofpermissionfor use of the off-site stormwater facility. · Site grading will be as shown on the preliminary site development plan. Approval of Private Road -Staff recommends approval of the private road as proffered. Attachment A - Revised Proffers dated March 6, 2001 Attachment B - Engineering Comments Attachment C - Revised Application Plan and Site Plan dated March 2, 2001 4 ATTACHMENT A R~CH~ON0 OFFICE: (804) 755-2003 (540}961-2762 ~7) 82~1454 ALEXANDRIA OFFICE: L .Ct Am RYAN A Paa~ss~ ATro~r~-s AT LAw POST OFFICE BOX 2017 123 EAST MAIN STREET EIGHTH FLOOR ~HARLO~E~VILL~, VIRGINIA 22902-2017 TEL~HONE: (804) VIA FACSIMII,E 804.972,.4012 March 6, 2001 Ms. Elaine tC Echola AICP, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: ZMA 2000-007; SDP 2000-111; Village Homes II Dear Elaine: A_~__ached please find the latest version of the proffers for ZMA 2000-007, including your most recent suggested changes. My client is prepared to execute the proffers in the attached form on or before the close of the public hearing before theB/~ of Supervisors. 71y truly % , /dwp Mr. Thomas M. Mnncaster Mr. Hunter E. Craig Enclosure 5 ATTACHMENT A [March 6, 2001 version] ZMA-00-007 PROFFERS VILLAGE HOMES II May 16, 2001 TAX MAP PARCELS 90C-D and E 7.17 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first approved under ZMA-85-29, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions. The Application Plan entitled, Millcreek PUD Overall Plan, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, revised October 11, '2000, last revised March 2, 2001, ("Application Plan") submitted with these proffers reflects the "as-built condition" 0fthe Millcreek PUD as of the date of these proffers, except the shaded area on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site". Development within the 7.17 acre, Village Homes II Site shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The maximum allowable residential units in the Millcreek/Foxcroft PUD shall be limited to 466. Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 36 residential units. Where site grading is performed, Applicant shall minimize use of slopes steeper than 3:1, subject to approval by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. The Applicant shall install additional low maintenance vegetation to provide stabilization for proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 as approved by the County's Landscape Planner. Nothing contained in these proffers shall be deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical slope waiver under Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance. The Village Homes II Site road improvements shall be under an urban cross-section (roll top curb, with four-foot (4') wide sidewalks on both sides of the road. Applicant will cause supplemental landscaping and trees for screening to be installed in accordance with the proposal dated November 18, 2000 from Mr. Lee Quillen of Waynesboro Nursery, (attached) with emphasis on locating screening within the areas designated on the Application Plan as Open Space. Except where necessary to install utilities or water quality protection measures, and subject to sound and customary ATTACHMENT A landscaping principles, significant trees (6" in diameter or greater) located within the Open Space shall be preserved. As a condition for final subdivision approval, Applicant shall submit for review by the Subdivision Agent, (and record upon such approval) a proposed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which shall encumber the lots within the Village Homes II site and which shall provide for an architectural review and approval of improvements, in order to maintain the harmony of the development within Village Homes II and with the already constructed homes in Village Homes I and IV, and Mill Creek North. Similarity between colors and materials shall be established and maintained. Submitted as of the 16th day of May, 2001, by: HUNTER E. CRAIG COMPANY By: Hunter E. Craig President 2 ynesbo/ ATTACHMENT A P. O. ]Box 717 · 2032 Wear M~n_ IBtreot · Waynmsboro, V~ 22980 · Phane: $40/942-4646 · 540/942-5L94 November 18, 2000 Htmtm' E, Craig Co. PO Ban 5509 Charlottr.~illc, VA Post-it' Fax Note 7671 Date ~'~'U f Phono 8 p~ Mill Creek Village Hom~s II Waynesboro LanSzcapc $~ri~ propo~ to f~sh ~d in~l ~ ~ m~ of 108 4/5' Ev~ens-~ ~e (~ ~fio~) ~ H~o~k (s~ l~o~) ~r screen~g p~o~s at Mill Cm~ Viila~ ~m~ H. ~s ~ ~c~ pl~, labor, mulch, s~n~ f~li~, ~il condi~oner ~d ~ wa~ AU ~ ~ ~ed ~r I ~, ~difion~ ~~ would be $375.00 p~ ~s~. ~ li~ ofapi~ 1 ~on~y ~~d ~at ~ ~ be loc~d in ~ field veg~on. ~a J~tions wo~d be c~ ~ c~j~ion wi~ ~e Home O~e~ ~oci~on. Should you have any queztions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Lee Quillen ~: Mill Cre~k Home Own, ers A.~ooiation AMEI~I¢6N A$80~IAI'iON OF NUR~YM~N, MAR 05 20~1 12:26 VIROlNI& NUR~Y'M~'N'~ A$1~OI;IATION, INC. TOT~qL TOT~L PAGE. 8 ATTACHMENT B Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2000-111 SPIN Submission and Comments Village Homes II Preliminary Engineering preliminary site plan (5) revision 6 reviewer received rewewed decision Jeff Thomas 2/21/01 2/27/01 requested changes ZMA Plan The ZMA plan received on February 21, 2001 has been reviewed. With this submittal, the applicant is proposing an on-site biofilter and has revised some of the proposed grading. The Engineering Department has the following comment that we feel must be addressed pdor to our recommendation of ZMA approval. 1. We feet the applicant's proposed concept of on-site water quality/E&SC control and off-site detention is adequate. The existing off-site pond is owned by the Mill Creek Homeowners Association. However, the applicant must submit documentation to the Albemarle County Attorney's Office and the Engineering Department indicating he can legally use this pond for stormwater detention. If this is not possible, then on-site detention must be provided. Preliminary Site Plan At the applicant's request, we have also reviewed the ZMA plan as a preliminary site plan. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the preliminary site plan with the following condition. 1. The applicant must indicate, on the final site plan, a third off-street parking space for each unit in accordance with the preliminary site plan note. Critical Slopes Waiver The critical slope waiver request received on December 8, 2000 hasalso been reviewed. Based on the preliminary site plan received February 21, 2001, the proposed site has an area of 7.1 acres. This includes a critical slope area of 0.97 acres, which is approximately 13.7% of the site. Approximately 26% (0.25 acres) of critical slope area on the subject property will be disturbed during construction. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following concerns must be addressed before any critical slope, waiver is granted. 1. "movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. Some 3:1 slopes are now proposed on lots 7-10, 15-16, 21-22, and 35-36. These slopes were 2:1 on the December 8, 2000 submittal. Some 2:1 reconstructed slopes remain with this plan. 2. "excessive stormwater runofF' The proposed storm sewer consists of curb and gutter, inlets and underground pipe. A stormwater management plan must submitted with the final plans for approval. The applicant plans to utilize the existing pond along Southern Parkway for stormwater detention only. Water quality will be provided with an on-site biofilter. 3. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction that meets state erosion control standards. Proposed stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource" 3/6/01 08:20 AM Page I of 2 9 ATTACHMENT B Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2000-111 SPIN Submission and Comments Village Homes II Preliminary Engineering preliminary site plan (5) revision 6 reviewer received reviewed decision Jeff Thomas 2/21/01 2/27/01 requested changes Some aesthetic loss is expected from tree removal. This will be partially offset by landscaping on the site. 5. "septic effluent" This is not a concern, as this site will be served by public water and sewer. Based on the review above, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver with the following conditions. 1. All reconstructed slopes steeper than 3:1 must be stabilized with low maintenance vegetation. The specifications (species, installation procedure, etc.) for this vegetation must be included with the final site plan and is subject to approval by the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Department of Engineenng and Public Works. 2. Stormwater detention must be provided as stated in our ZMA comments above. Final Site Plan Items The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review by the Engineering. Department. A. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. [18-32.7.4.3, 17-203] B. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] C. A stormwater managementJBMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] D. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] E. Road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations. [18-32.6.6e, 18-32.7.3, 18-32.7.4, Policy] F. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5 feet in height. [Policy]- VDOT approval will also be required for final site plans which affect right-of-way. Please contact.me if you have any questions or comments. 3/6/01 08:20 AM Page 2 of 2 10 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AIC? FEBRUARY 14, 2001 ZMA 2000-007 VILLAGE HOMES II, and SDP 2000-111 VILLAGE HOMES SITE PLAN With Requested CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the original PUD zoning for the Mill Creek PUD to increase the allowed number of dwelling units. The owner desires to complete the Mill Creek PUD with 36 attached units on the two remaining parcels in the development. A revised application plan, that shows this area for the rezoning, is proffered with the rezoning (See Attachment A). A site plan shows how the land would be developed in a way that is in keeping with the design shown on the revised application plan. A reduced copy of the plan is attached, as are proffers (Attachments B &C). The existing PUD designation allows for 435 dwelling units; the applicant would like to increase that number by 31 for a total of 466 dwelling units. Petition for Rezoning: The petition is a request to rezone 7.1 acres to amend the existing Mill Creek PUD to increase the allowed number of dwelling units. The property, described as Tax Map 90C Parcels D&E, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Stoney Ridge Road on the south side of the Southern Parkway. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density, recommended for 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood 4. Character of the Area: The area surrounding the property is residential, commercial, and industrial. The proposed development would be similar in lot size, arrangement, and housing types of adjacent properties. Zoning and Subdivision History: The Mill Creek PUD was originally approved in 1986 (ZMA 85-29). The 1986 PUD plan laid out 3 distinct areas: the commercial/industrial Area along Stoney Ridge Road with 43 acres of land (including 14.8 acres ofunbuildable open space); 10 acres of multi-family land; and 175 acres of single family land. Of this 175 acres of land designated for single family use, 80 acres were designated as open space and 43 acres of the 80 Was shown as "useable" open space. A maximum of 315 dwellings was approved. The total acreage, including acreage for proffered roads, was 236 acres. In 1990, the Board approved ZMA 89-22, which modified the required buffer around a portion of the industrial area. In 1995, the Foxcroft development was rezoned as Mill Creek West (ZMA 94-25), adding approximately 80 acres. Approximately 20 acres of the original industrial area of the PUD was rezoned as residential. Foxcrofi increased the maximum number of dwelling units from 315 to 435. A set of development regulations for Foxcroft was approved specifically. The total acreage increased to 316 acres. In 1996, an additional 23.6 acres of industrially zoned land was added to the Mill Creek PUD as commercial and industrial space (ZMA 95-19). This land, along Stoney Ridge Road, allowed for a day care use. The maximum number of dwellings in the PUD did not change. The total acreage increased to 339 acres. In 1997, the Board of Supervisors modified the application plan and approved a special use permit to allow for a private school in the development (ZMA 96-21 and SP 96-46). The PUD appears at this time as three distinct areas: the Foxcroft single family homes, the Mill Creek and Village Homes section, and the commercial/industrial section. The total number of approved units is 435. The applicant built more units in the Foxcrofi section than he originally intended. Approved lots equal 397. Foxcroft Phase IV revised is under review for an additional 31 lots. The Village Homes II section could only provide for 7 units. In 1993, a prehminary site plan for Village Homes II was approved that was essentially the same as the site plan under review. It expired and the applicant would like to have the Board of Supervisors approve this amendment to the Mill Creek PUD and have the Planning Commission approve the site plan. By-right Use of the Property: By right, the property could be developed with 7 single- family dwellings, per the rezoning of Mill Creek PUD. Specifics on the Proposal: The site plan shows the road, lot, and grading layout for 36 attached houses. Attached-housing developments, like townhouses, are reviewed and approved as site plans; common walls establish the lots so that subdivision plats follow the site plan. The site plan includes two private roads designed~ as an urban cross-section with sidewalks; these roads are cul-de-sacs as are many of the roads in the rest of the PUD. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has said, "the rezoning serves to meet the market demand of housing in this area (either affordable attached homes or rental units)". RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and'cannot recommend approval at this time. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be neighborhood density of 3- 6 dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood 4. Staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. For informational purposes, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, it is assessing development proposals for relationships with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model that were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows: · Pedestrian Orientation · Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths · Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks · Parks and Open Space · Neighborhood Centers · Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale · Relegated Parking · Mixture of Uses · Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability · Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment · Site Planning that Respects Terrain · Clear Edges Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22) Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain) Environmental features on the property include small areas of steep slopes and wooded areas. These features are not highlighted on the County's Open Space Plan. Open space isshown on the application plan submitted with this proposal; however, open space for this development consists of the area acting as a buffer between the proposed lots and the Southern Parkway. More meaningful open space could easily be created along the perimeter of the parcel, especially at the rear of Lots 33 - 36 and Lot 11. No access is provided to large wooded areas shown as environmental features on the site plan nor is access provided to the open space adjoining Lots 33 - 36. A critical slopes waiver has been requested for the development which neither Engineering nor Planning can recommend for approval at this time. (See Attachment F.) Limiting access points should minimize the impact of development on major roads. The site plan shows a single access point at Stoney Ridge Road and the Southern Parkway. Traffic impacts will be minimal on the Southern Parkway. A sense of community should be maximized byproviding connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks) Staff asked the applicant to consider connecting to the surrounding roads in Mill Creek in order to provide for better connections. The two opportunities explored were a connection to Mill Creek Drive and a connection to Copperstone Drive. The connection to Copperstone Drive was met with resistance by the residents along Copperstone Drive. Of more importance, though, was the likelihood that industrial and commercial traffic might use the road through Village Homes II as a short-cut to the hght at Mill Creek Drive. Another connection through Village Homes II to Creekside Drive was considered; however, the grade differential of 50 feet appeared to be too difficult to overcome by the developer and was not supported by Engineering. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the private roads. A pedestrian path is proposed along the Southern Parkway. Underground utilities should be provided ' ~:~ : ' in new dOvelopments. Underground utilities are required. Features to pr. event impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. The applicant's engineer has submitted stormwater computations for the existing stormwater pond from 1988; however, staffhas several times during the past year with the Mill Creek homeowners' association regarding the condition of this pond. This pond is silted and may not have the capacity as modeled in the 1988 routing calculations. It is viewed that Village Homes will contribute additional sediment to a heavily silted pond. Contributing to an existing problem is not a desirable effect of development. The Mill Creek homeowners' association currentlY owns this pond. Staff believes that the applicant should dredge the pond to its original designed state and make repairs to the outlet structure to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Engineering believes that, with this dredging, the pond will have sufficient capacity and may be used for detention and water quality for this site. (See Attachment F.) If the applicant does not wish to dredge the pond, staff believes a survey of the existing condition of the pond should be required. New routing computations taking into account the siltation of the pond will also be required. The pond must have sufficient capacity to provide water quality and detention for this site and still provide detention for the remainder of Mill Creek. Ifthe pond is not adequate, then on-site detention and/or BMP measures must be provided in lieu of the applicant dredging the facility. Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated Parking): Houses will be oriented to the public streets; parking areas will be located in front of buildings. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used. No information on lighting is provided; no lighting is generally provided with single-family residential development. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. No historic buildings exist on the property. The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. Water and sewer service is available to serve this development. Overall development density should be as high a level as is practical. Density proposed in within the recommended range of development. The integrity of adjacent residential areas should be maintained through use of buffering, screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses. The property is surrounded by similar residential uses. Developments should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. (Buildings and spaces of Human Scale). 4 An intemal orientation is provided with all houses fronting on internal streets. The form of the development; however, is a conventional type. Provisions shouM be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Affordability with Dignity)Housing constructed as attached units generally reduces the cost of construction for a single-family product. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or counteract those features. (Site Planning that Respects Terrain) The proposed grading for the site results in 2:1 and 3:1 slopes adjacent to the dwelhngs. The grading shown on the plan reflects a grading out of pads for houses; however, the grading doesn't reflect the real- life needs of residents for yard areas that are usable or easily vegetated. A proffer has been provided that, on areas of disturbed critical slopes, junipers will be planted in accordance with a landscaping plan approved by the County. Also, the proffer says that reconstruction of the slopes will occur at no greater than 2:1 and retaining walls with slopes of 3:l may also be used. Staff believes that no benefit in slope reconstruction results from this proffer and cannot support the proffer as a means to reconstruct slopes in more stable, attractive, and usable fashion. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses; Residential Development Design, pp. 22- In rezoning deliberations, the county should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within the designated Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density ranges should be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments. This development proposes housing that is within the density range proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. Amending the PUD with additional units is considered advantageous to the County's growth management plan that favors land development in the Development 'Areas over land development in the rural areas. Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas should be accomplished using buffering, screening, and physical separation of adjacent nonresidential uses. (Mixture of Uses) The proposed rezoning does not need to separate residential uses one from another; there are no mixed Uses proposed in the development. For larger developments, layout and design should provide for varying building orientation and setback, dwelling unit type, faqade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitiveness. Open space should be employed as a design feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas within the larger developments. The PRD/PUD approach is particularly applicable for larger developments. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Parks and Open Space) The Mill Creek development as a whole provided for varying building orientation and setback, different unit types, and fagade treatments over the whole development. Within phases, there is similarity of unit type and fagade ~tment. It is unknown whether or not this development will have different fagade treatments, although it appears that there will be variation in setback. Open space is not employed as a design feature in this development. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district -- The purpose and intent of the PUD Planned Unit Development is to serve as neighborhoods or mini-neighborhoods within designated communities and the urban area. They are intended to encourage a community function with appropriate commercial and industrial uses. They are also intended to provide for flexibility in residential development, including a mix of residential uses, appropriate nonresidential uses, alternative forms of housing, flexibility in internal relationships of design elements, and, in appropriate cases, increases in gross residential densities over, that provided in conventional districts. The Mill Creek PUD has commercial and industrial uses as well as several different housing types. Although the commercial and industrial uses do not relate well to the residential uses, in terms of providing retail uses that primarily support the neighborhoods, they do provide needed commercial and industrial uses in the County. The Mill Creek PUD reflects Albemarle County's philosophy for mixed-use development from the late 1980's. The proposed section of Village Homes continues the previously approVed form of development as the last section to be built-out in the PUD and appears to help the PUD meet the goals of the Zoning Ordinance. Public need for the change in zoning classification This request meets the needs of the County 'for additional density in the designated Development Areas. Additional attention needs to be paid to the creation of slopes around the houses. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Transportation - No impacts are anticipated on the County's transportation network. Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are adequate to serve the development. Zoning has noted that reduced setbacks need approval from the Fire Official. This approval has not yet been received. SchoOls - Thirteen new students would be added to the school system as a result of this development. Schools affected would be Cale Elementary (8 new students), Walton Middle School (1 student), and Monticello High School (4 students). Stormwater Management - Issues of stormwater management are unresolved at this time. The applicant has been requested to provide adequate information on the ability to manage nmoff. To date, the concerns of the Engineering Department have not been satisfied. Fiscal impact to public facilities - A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment G. As with all residential rezonings, thc fiscal impact is greater than the revenue generated to pay for services Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - Impacts to steep slopes have been described above. No impacts to streams are expected. Wooded areas are shown in some areas for preservation and in other areas for removal. There are no known cultural or historic resources on the property. Anticipated Impacts on Nearby and Adjacent Properties - Attachment G is a letter from the Mill Creek Homeowner's Association discussing their concerns with the development. Staff anticipates minimal impact on adjacent properties. Requested Changes by Zoning Department to the Application Plan - In its review of previous ~ezonings and lot tabulations, the Zoning Department has found errors on the statistical table of the Application Plan relative to open space. More open space has been platted than is indicated on the table. Additionally, staff would like to see a more accurate depiction of approved and constructed lots, to date. SUMMARY Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The rezoning Would increase denSity in the Development Areas in a place that has adequate roads and utilities in place. 2. The density is within the range recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pedestrian access is provided throughout and on the exterior of the development. 4. Attached housing is provided which represents an innovative and potentially more affordable form of housing in the Development Areas. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request 1. Stormwater issues .are not resolved to ensure adequacy of stormwater protection. 2. Reconstruction of slopes after grading results in many 2:1 slopes around building pads; proffers do not adequately address issues of stability, maintenance, and aesthetics. 3. Open space is not accessible from the development; large, unusually shaped lots could provide additional open space.for the neighborhood. 4. Screening of the exterior of the development is usually more reliably maintained if owned by a Homeowner's Association than on individual lots. 5. Statistics shown on the application plan are in error and/or misleading and should modified. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff believes that if the applicant addresses the issues raised above, a neighbOrhood could be created that is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Because of the.number of items unresolved, and especially because of the issues relating to slope reconstruction, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning, the site plan or critical slopes waiver at this time. ATTACHMENTS: A - Reduced Application Plan B - Reduced Site Plan C - Draft Proffers D - Tax Map E - Vicinity Map F - Engineering Comments G - Fiscal Impact Analysis H - Letter from Mill Creek Homeowner's Association .- '~Lb ~Ct=LEEK' ,SECTII~'N' 4 . ,. ___:~ ..... , -; E~tSIZN EXISTING MILL CREEK- S.EcT~(~z D ~ILL §TR~[AI~ / FOXEROF T / / MILL CREEK '-%. / ATrACHMENT A / ~' / \' 3OYdS N]dO 9NIISIX3 iN~Ftd(.)'!3A3CI A UUU/, 6 ~ ,N~[NG AI4L: ~ DEVELOPMEN 5 ASDHAL] ~ALK ATT ACHMENT B 11 ATTACHMENT C [DRAFT: December 10, 2000] ZMA-00-007 PROFFERS VILLAGE HOMES II December 19, 2000 TAX MAP PARCELS 90C-D and E 7.17 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County, Virginia Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: Residential, commercial/service and industrial areas with their attendant open space areas, including pedestrian trails, shall be located in general accord with the Millcreek PUD Overall Plan, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, revised October 11, 2000, last revised December ,2000 ("Application Plan") submitted with these proffers. 2. Development within the 7.17 acre, Village Homes II, (shaded area on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site") shall adhere substantially to the Application Plan. Overall development also shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first approved under ZMA-85-29, as mended by subsequent rezoning actions, ZMA-00-007 and these proffers. 4. The maximum allowable residential units in the Millcreek/Foxcroft PUD shall be limited to 466. o Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 36 residential units. Site areas in which slopes of 25% or greater are to be disturbed, as shown on Applicant's Final Site Plan, shall be planted with junipers or similar ground cover pursuant to a landscaping plan approved by the County. After finished Site improvements, the disturbed 25 % slope areas must meet a 2:1 grade. The purpose of this proffer is to provide a reduced-maintenance stabilizer upon completion of grading and Site improvements. The owner also may satisfy this proffer by installing retaining walls where slopes of 25% or greater are disturbed so long as a 3:1 finished grade is achieved. Nothing contained in these proffers shall be deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical slope waiver under Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance. ATTACHMENT C Submitted as of the th day of 2000 by: HUNTER E. CRAIG COMPANY By: Hunter E. Craig President [DRAFT: December 10, 2000]. ZMA-00-007 PROFFERS VILLAGE HOMES II December 19, 2000 TAX MAP PARCELS 90C-D and E -7.17 Acres 2 13 ATTACHMENT D ALBEMARLE COUNTY MILL CREEK VILLAGE HOMES (~D. B, SEE INDIVIDUAL LOTS Al .ZMA-2000-007 Mill Creek North - Village Homes !1 (Sign #71) - \ · MILL CREEK 14 SOOTTSV! LLE DISTRICT SECTION ' VICINITY ,,MAP FOR VILLAGE HOMES 1: 7200 0 200 400 600 800 ~000 F~T ~ Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources ATTACHMENT F Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comments Engineering ZMA/PSP ZMA-2000-007 Village Homes II revision 4 reviewer received reviewed decision Jeff Thomas 12/8/00 12/11/00 requested changes The ZMA plan received on December 8, 2000 has been reviewed. The ZMA plan is essentially a redrawing of a final site plan that was previously approved in July 1992. The Engineering Department has the following concems that we feel must be addressed prior to our reCommendation of ZMA approval. 1. Mr. Tom Muncaster, the applicant's engineer, has submitted stormwater computations for the existing stormwater pond from 1988. However, we have had meetings during the past year with the Mill Creek homeowners' association regarding the condition of this pond. This pond is silted and may not have the capacity as modeled in the 1988 routing calculations. This development will contribute additional sediment to a heavily silted pond. Contributing to an existing problem is not a desirable effect of development. This pond is currently owned by the Mill Creek homeowners' association. We feel the best option is the ap pi icant agreeing to dredge the pond to its original designed state and make repairs to the outlet structure to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. In this case, we feel the pond will have sufficient capacity and may be used for detention and water quality for this site. If the applicant does not wish to dredge the pond, we feel a survey of the existing condition of the pond will be required. New routing computations taking into account the siltation of the pond will also be required. The pond must have sufficient capacity to provide water quality and detention for this site and still provide detention for the remainder of Mill Creek. If the pond is not adequate, then on,site detention and/or BMP measures must be provided in lieu of the applicant dredging the facility. 2. If the applicant wishes to use this pond for erosion control, then it must be dredged to its original designed configuration at the end of construction. Otherwise, on-site E&SC measures must De provided. At the applicant's request, we have also reviewed the ZMA plan as a preliminary site plan. We feel the applicant has addressed our previous preliminary site plan comments. The critical slope waiver request received on December 8, 2000 has also been reviewed. Based on the preliminary site plan received December 8, 2000, the proposed site has an area of 7.1 acres. This includes a critical slope area of 0.97 acres, which is approximately 13.7% of the site. Approximately 26% (0.25 acres) of critical slope araa on the sub.iect property will be disturbed during construction. As stated in Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following concerns must be addressed before any critical slope waiver is granted. 1. "movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. The reconstructed slopes on this site are almost exclusively 2:1. The applicant has proposed a proffer indicating "junipers or other suitable ground covers" in "site areas in which slopes of 25% or greater are to be disturbed, as shown on Applicant's Final Site Plan." We are concerned that other areas of proposed 2:1 slopes that are not in or are immediately adjacent to critical slope areas will not be suitably stabilized. Implementation of this proposed proffer may also be difficult given that several builders will be associated with this site. 2. "excessive stormwater runoff" The proposed storm sewer consists of curb and gutter, inlets and underground pipe. A stormwater 12/12/00 09:29 AM Page I nf 9 16 ATTACHMENT F Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comments Engineering ZMA/PSP ZMA-2000-007 Village Homes II revision 4 reviewer received reviewed decision Jeff Thomas 12/8/00 12/11/00 requested changes management plan must submitted with the final plans for approval. The applicant plans to utilize the existing retention pond along Southern Parkway for detention and water quality. As stated above, we have concerns regarding the use of this facility that must be addressed prior to our recommendation of ZMA approval. The existing pond is located off-site and will not affect critical slopes on the subject property. 3. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction that meets state erosion control standards. Proposed stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. "loss of aeSthetic resource" Some aesthetic loss is expected from tree removal. This will ~)e partially offset by landscaping on the site. 5. "septic effluent" This is not a concern, as this site will be served by public water and sewer. Based on the review above, the Engineering Department cannot recommend approval of the until our concerns have been adequately addressed. The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review by the Engineering Department. A. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. [18-32.7.4.3, 17-203] B. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] C. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17.-304] D. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] E. Road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations. [18-32.6.6e, 18-32.7.3, 18-32.7.4, Policy] VDOT approval will also be required for final site plans which affect right-of-way. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. 12/12/00 09:29 AM Page 2 of 2 17 COUNTY MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT G TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner /t/ox December 12, 2000 ZMA 00-07 (Village Homes) I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property m question. The first scenario involved the -maximum development that could take place under existing zomg, while the second scenario involved the proposed development of this piece ofland. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Summary: Proposed Development" documents. In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that seven single family detached residences would be built in year one. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal hnpact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes $6,000 Other Revenues 12,000 Total Revenues $18,000 School Expenditures ($31,000) County Govt. Expenditures (4,000) Total Expenditures ($35,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($17,000) ZMA 00-07 December 12, 2000 Page Two ATTACHMENT G CIP Impact -- Current Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) ($16,000) ($16,000) ($o) ($o) ($o) ($16,000) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. .(The $16,000 m capital costs is part of the $35,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures resulting from the development of seven single family units). These CIP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that wouM be associated with such development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 36 single family attached units on the property. I assumed the development would be completed in roughly equal increments during each year of the five year build-out. CRIM estimates that, aRer build-out, this project would have the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Development Property Taxes $24,000 Other Revenues 47,000 Total Revenues $71,000 School Expenditures ($101,000) County Govt. Expenditures ($20,000) Total Expenditures ($121,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($50,000) 19 ZMA 00-07 December 12, 2000 Page Three ATTACHMENT G As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact - Proposed Development Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Sohools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cry. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact (so) ($37,000) ($37,000) ($o) (so) (so) (ssT,oeo) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $121,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 00-07, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $50,000 - $17,000 = $23,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $23,000 worse off approving ZMA 00-07 than denying the proposal. This statement assumes that, in the event of denial, the proposed development,s growth would not take place someplace else in Albemarle County. Note: (1) Although my analysis suggests that approval of the proposed develop~nent would result in a greater net annual fiscal drain to the County than would denying the proposed development, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that the proposal should be denied, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might generate a revenue-neutral outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve the proposal, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this development would likely take place somewhere else in the County; and O) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle might wish to take into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues would include, but would not necessarily be limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and environmental well- being. SAA/saa 2¢ Budget Summary--Current Zoning (Values in $O00's) PROP TAXES Year => 1999 Average Cost Model i 2 2000 2001 Average Costs 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Residential Real $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 Nonresidential Real $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Res Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nonres Personal Prop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other (Agricultural) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal: Property Taxes $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 1 Public Service Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Pars Prop Tax*Resid $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 3 Pars Prop Tax. Nonres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 Mach & Tools Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Sales & Use Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Cons Util Tax. Resid $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 7 Cons Util Tax. Nonres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 BPOL Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 · $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 Util Co Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10 Motor Vehicle Licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Permits& Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Fines & Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Charges for Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 State Aid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 15 Categorical Aid - Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 Delinquent RE/Pealties $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 18 State Aid to Schools $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 19 20 ANNUAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 21 SF Detached $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 SF Attached/TH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Multifamily $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 24 Mobile Homes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER Subtotal: Other Revenues $14 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $20 $19 $19 $19 $19 $'19 $19 $19 $19 $19 TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXP~NSF,$ SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT. TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: Operating Costs $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 Staff Costs $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 CF Pay. As. You-Go $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS $33 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 Operating Costs $4 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Staff Costs $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 CF Pay. As.You. Go $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL, COUNTY $11 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $.4... ANNUAL COSTS: $44 $36 '$36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $3~, IMPACT Annual Cumulative ~O007AY __) ($24) ($17't ($17') f$17) f$17') ($17') ($17} ($17~ ($17') ($17) ($24) · ($41) ($58) ($74) ($91) ($108) ($124) ($141) ($158) ($175) CRIM Proprietar' ~%vare 12/12/2000 12/12/200001:4~ ~) Page. Udget Summary--Proposed Zoning Year => 'alues in $O00's) 1999 PROP Residential Real TAXES Nonresidential Real Res Personal Prop Nonres Personal Prop Other (Agricultural) Subtotah Property Taxes OTHER I Public Service Tax 2 Pers Prop Tax-Resid 3 Pers Prop Tax-Nonres 4 Mach & Tools Tax 5 Sales & Use Tax 6 Cons Util Tax-Resid 7 Cons Util Tax-Nonres 8 BPOL Taxes 9 Util Co Licenses 10 Motor Vehicle Licenses 11 Permits & Fees 12 Fines & Forfeitures 13 Charges for Services 14 State Aid 15 Categorical Aid- Federal 16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax 17 Delinquent RE/Pealties 18 State Aid to Schools 19 20 ANNUAL REVENUES 21 SF Detached 22 SF Attached/TH 23 Multifamily 24 Mobile Homes Subtotal: Other Revenues TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES: EXPENSES SCHOOLS Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay-As-You-Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS COUNTY GOVT, Operating Costs Staff Costs CF Pay-As.You. Go CF Debt Service SUBTOTAL, COUNTY TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: NEF FISCAL IMPACT Annual Cumulative Average Cost Model I 2 2000 200] 3 4 5 6 7 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average Costs 8 9 10 2007- 2008 2009 $5 $10 $15 $19 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o -$o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $10 $15 $19 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $7 $10 $13 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $! $1 $2 $3 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $I $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $5 $9 $13 $17 $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $20 $29 $38 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $17 $30 $44 $58 $71 $71 $71 $71 $71 $71 $7 $12 $18 $24 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $5 $12 $20 $27 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $16 $21 $31 $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 $19 $42 $61 $84 $103 $101 $101 $101 $101 $101 $4 $7 $10 $13 $16 $15 $15 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $4 $5 $4 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $10 $13 '$17 $21 $25 $20 $20 $29 $55 $78 $105 $128 $121 $121 ($12) ($25) ('$34) ($48) ($56) ($12) ($37) ($71) ($119) ($175) ($226) ($277) $15 $15 $15 $5 $5 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20 $20 $20 $121 $121 $121 ($513 ($51) ($51) ($51) ($51) ($328) ($379) ($429) CRIM Proprietary Software 12/12/2000 12/12/200001:42 PM Page 1 ATTACHMENT H MILL CREEK mOMEOWNER'S ASSQC AT ON · P.O BOX 3903 · CHARLOTTESV-LLE VIRGir,,,, ~ 22902 November 13, 2000 RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN] Elaine Echols Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Echols: On behalf of the residents of the Mill Creek North subdivision, the Board of Directors of the Mill Creek Homeowner's Association (the Board) would like to formally outline its concerns regarding the proposed rezoning application (CMA-007) for Village Homes II (Tax Map 90C Parcels D&E) as submitted by Mr. Hunter Craig. This letter addresses five key issues: the new entrance proposed by the County for Village Homes II at Mill Creek Drive; vegetative screening for double-fronted lots and between existing Mill Creek homes; proposed addition of sidewalks; timing/phasing of development; and location of construction equipment during construction. It is our understanding that the County is recommending that the proposed development be modified to include an additional entrance at Mill Creek Drive in the northern portion of the site; the development is currently proposed to be accessed from Southern Parkway only. Our community is in unanimous opposition to this change for a number of reasons. As a Planned Unit Development (PUD), current homeowners purchased their properties under good faith that the development would be completed as originally approved by the County. If you review the original approved PUD for Mill Creek, you will see that it is essentially identical (with respect to access) to that which is submitted by Hunter Craig as CMA-007. Now that Hunter Craig has begun the final phase of development, it is totally inappropriate for the County to request that the neighborhood be fundamentally changed from the design we all envisioned the community would have at build-out: Frankly, there are some homeowners that may not have invested in this neighborhood had they known that a connection at Mill Creek Drive was planned. The reasoning behind this request by the County is to perpetuate the ideas and goals of the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DISC), specifically, the idea of interconnected neighborhoods. While interconnectedness makes sense as a general design principle, it is a design principle that must be applied practically and With much thought relative to the affected neighborhood(s), in this case, Mill Creek North, Creekside, Village Homes I, and proposed Village Homes II. The question we all ask is, what good would it do for the overall community? We cannot find a good answer in favor of the proposed change. But here are the 23 ATTACHMENT H C adverse impacts: First, it would provide an easy cut through between Southern Parkway and Mill Creek Drive across Avon Street towards Southside Shopping Center and Monticello High School. Mill Creek Drive would receive traffic increases in both directions, as would proposed Village Homes II as vehicles use the streets to more easily access Mill Creek Drive across Avon Street. Clearly this is an adverse impact to all the adjacent neighborhoods and the impacts would increase significantly once Southern Parkway is connected to 5th Street and widened, and as more development takes place in the surrounding area. Second, it would remove vegetative screening along Mill Creek Drive (northern view) that is valued by the entire neighborhood by providing a sense of open space. Three, it would require significantly more earth moving, engineering, and grading to be feasible given the slope of the parcel in that particular area. The County argues that the entrance would "split" vehicle trips from Village Homes II between Southern Parkway and Mill Creek Drive, as opposed to having all access be at Southern Parkway. In addition, the County would argue that the entrance would allow for more than one entranceway into the development for emergencies. If these are so important to warrant requesting a second entrance, then why weren't the), required originally? Furthermore, why doesn't Creekside and Village Homes I have two entrances? They were buik long after Mill Creek North homes were built? The bottom line is that the request for an additional entrance for Village Homes II just doesn't make sense in this instance and isn't good planning no matter how you look at it. The significant adverse impacts associated with cut through traffic that is directly attributable to an additional entrance far outweighs any conceivable benefits. There is not one member of Village Homes I, Creekside, or Mill Creek North that is in favor of this additional entrance, and we could find no good and sound reason for it. For the sake of our community, we plead that you not require this additional entrance. Our second major concern involves vegetative screening for double-fronted lots as well as for existing adjacent Mill Creek homes. The Board is working with Hunter Craig to develop a landscaping plan for the proposed development that provides vegetative screening in the form of large, mature evergreen trees and other appropriate plantings throughout the site. Areas of particular concern are the double-fronted lots along the Copperstone Drive cul-de-sac, existing adjacent homes off of Copperstone Drive and Stone Mill Court, the northernmost point of the site adjacent to Mill Creek Drive, and the double-fronted lots along Southern Parkway. Once the Board and Hunter Craig have agreed to the landscaping plan, we would like to have it proffered. It is our hope that the County would encourage extensive landscaping throughout the site, particularly considering the number of double-fronted lots that are proposed. In addition to screening, the Board would very much like to see that extra care be taken on the part of the developer/builder to save as many hardwoods as possible. One of the nicest attributes of Mill Creek is the care that was taken when building sites were developed to retain existing trees. In order to maintain continuity with Mill Creek, we would like to see that' continue in Village Homes II. The Board would prefer that sidewalks not be required in Village Homes II in order to retain continuity of design with Mill Creek. Having no sidewalks would allow for more setback between the road and each home, providing more yard area for children to play in. Thus, it would help to minimize the potential for children to play in the street--a situation we want to avoid. 24 ATTACHMENT H Prolonged increases in noise levels is an inevkable nuisance associated with construction. However, it is possible' to minimize the adverse impacts associated with increased noise by restricting time of day for construction-related activities and phasing the development such that noise levels are not prolonged unnecessarily. Given the close proximity of existing homes, we would like to see the use of heavy equipment be restricted to Monday through Friday and not before 7:30 A.M. We want construction equipment to be restricted to the Village Homes II-site only. No equipment of any kind should be parked or staged within existing Mill Creek, Village Homes I, or Creekside. In conclusion, we hOpe that both the County and Planning Commissioners give much thought to the concerns outlined above. Mill Creek is an established and vibrant neighborhood of 219 homes, and each homeowner deserves to see the neighborhood completely developed as they believed it would be when they purchased their homes. Members of the Board look forward to the public hearing on this matter currently scheduled for November 28, 2000. Kevin J. Martin, AICP Vice President, Board of Directors, Mill Creek Homeowner's Association William B. Craddock, Planning Commissioner, Scottsville District Lindsey G. Dorrier, Jr., Board of Supervisors, Scottsville District Hunter Craig, Developer, Village Homes II Tom Robinson, Foxcroft Homeowner's Association Sharon Petro, Village Homes I Homeowner's Association 25 MILL CREEK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ~. P.O. BOX ~-903 ~. CHARLOTT'"SVILLE,-?T'R~A~~ May 8,2001 Steve Blaine, Esq. LeClaire Ryan P.C. PO Box 2017 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2000-07 Village Homes II Dear Mr. Blaine, I am writing to make certain that a few points are clear related to the most recent discussions surrounding the Planning Commission's meeting. It is our belief that the developer needs the permission of the Mill Creek Homeowners Association prior to utihzing the pond as part of the water quality plan for the proposed Village Homes II development. We have not yet granted that permission and have no immediate ptans to do so. We are convinced that the use of the pond for additional storm water detention will have an impact on the life of the pond. Currently we are singularly responsible for maintaining that pond's ability to retain storm water. We do not believe the current proposal to be unworkable, As you are aware, we are trying to engage the County in discussions about taking over the maintenance of this pond. If the responsibility for the pond's maintenance changes such that we are not solely responsible, it will have a significant and positive impact on our outlook toward the proposed use of the pond. We are doing all we can to learn about the County's approach to maintaining such ponds and to get that process moving, If the County were to take over the responsibility of the pond maintenance, the additional storm water from a new development will be much less significant. So long as the Mill Creek HOA remains singularly responsible, however, for maintaining a pond that benefits numerous other developments. we are disinclined to grant permission to increase that burden. Sincerely, Paco Hope. President Mill Creek Homeowners Association cc: Elaine Echols. Department of Planning RECE qAY 1 1 200 PLANNING ANC COMMUNITY DEVELOP~¥id,~,q 05-11-01 AtO:O? IN -~.-,i .. '-~- "-' ~' ' ~. . ,-:X 3903 ~ ~b~/VRLOTTES~LLE. VI-: i' - : __ May 8, 2001 Mr. Paul Muhlberger Environm entat Programs Coordinator Coumy of Albemarle Department of Engineering and Public Works 410 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Muhlberger, I am writing on behalf of the Mill Creek Homeowners Association, at the suggestion of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. We would like to explore the possibility of having Albemarle County assume responsibility for the maintenance of a stormwater detention and erosion control pond in our neighborhood. The pond is located off Southern Parkway. at the foot of the parkway on the south side of the street. The pond and the land around it belong to the Mill Creek Homeowners Association, having been deeded to us by the developer in the early 1990s. Thus, we are solely responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. Three developments currently direct their stormwa~er and runoff to this pond: Mit1 Creek, Creekside, and Village Homes W. Additionally, many residents believe that the nearby development of Lake Reynovia also had an adverse impact on our pond when it was built, though it was not planned to do so. The Albemarle County Planning Commission recently approved a prdiminary site plan and rezoning petition for "Village Homes II" (ZMA-2000-07. Mill Creek-Village Homes [Sign #711), a proposed'new development of 36 units in 18 duplex buildings. The site of this proposed development is directly above our pond on a steep hill. The. developer's pians indicate Fnat this new development will utilize the pond in Mill Creek for stormwater detention as part of their overall water quality plan. Their plans a/so call for the denuding of most of the existing seven acres in order to accommodate their design. We fear that this new development represents a substantial threat to the health of our pond and the surrounding environment. As we participated in the deliberations of the Planning Commission and Planning Staff, our homeowners association became aware that the pond suffers from siltation. We believe that the cost of keeping the pond in good working order exceeds the financial ability of our singIe homeowner's association With three neighborhoods draining into the pon~d, and a fourth proposed, it also seems illogical and unfair that the maintenance responsiR~:'sfi~0~ one neighborhood. '' "'~"'~"~--""J~/'~ ~ PLANNING AN£~ GOMMUNI~z DEVELOPs/tEN y The pond represents a beautiful and tranquil environment and is home to a variety of wildlife. It could serve as a possible recreational resource for the surrounding neighborhoods, not just Mill Creek. This area is a desirable part of the County in which to live, and the pond is an important natural resource that is worth preserving. The County's Ptanning Commission and their staff were unammous in recommendinkrtha[ we contact the County Engineering department to discuss this issue. We are told that the County has undertaken similar works in the past, and that there are several relevant precedents. We would like to meet as soon as is practical to explore this issue. The development's preliminary site plan and rezoning is on the Board of Supervisor's agenda for their May 16, 2001 meeting. Please contact us, by mail or phone, to arrange a time. If there is more information I can provide or questions I can answer, I can be reached at (804) 242-6728. Sincerely, Mill Creek Homeowners Association CC: Greg Kamptner, County Attorney Elaine Echols, Department of Planning Lindsay Dorrier, Scottsville District, Board of Supervisors Sally Thomas, Chairman, Board of Supervisors MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: Amelia McCuiley, Zoning Administrator Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning and Deve~ent Laurel Bentley, CMO, Senior Deputy Clerk Board Meeting of May 16, 2001 May 18, 2001 i've attached the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, ZTA-2001-05, pertaining to § 4.10.3.1 (Height) and § 30.6.8 (Appeals), and which was adopted by the Board at its May 16, 2001 meeting. By copy of this memorandum, I've advised the County Attorney that it should be included in the next update of the County Code. Thank you. Cc: Marsha Davis Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 01-18($) 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 HI, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 4.10.3.1. Exceptions - excluded from application Sec. 30.6.8. Appeals Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.103.1 Exceptions- excluded from application The structures identified below shall be subject to height limitations as follows: The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments, transmission towers and cables, smokestacks, water tanks, or radio or television antennas or towers. Any structure identified in subsection (a), other than one now or hereafter located on an existing public utility easement, shall not: (1) be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and (2) within a residential district, exceed one hundred (100) feet in height, except for telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the county, which shall not exceed one hundred fifteen (115) feet in height. The commission may modify or waive either requirement of subsection (b) in an individual case if it determines that the public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver. In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. d. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this subsection only as follows: 1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14- 226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A modif'mation or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or waiver basedupon the finding set forth in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection (c). (12-10-80; 12-20-89; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 01-18(5), 5-16-01) Article IH. District Regulations See. 30,6.8 Appeals The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the archit: ectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. (12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(5), 5-16-01) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of SUpervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held onMay 16, 2001. Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dottier .__x Ms. Humphris x Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins x Ms. Thomas COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804/972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, County Executive - ¢ V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development[},-).. ('-~ May 9, 2001 ZTA-2001-05 Amend Zoning Ordinance §4.10.3.1 (Height limitation-exceptiOns- excluded from application) and § 30.6.8 (Appeals) The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 2001, unanimously approved an amendment to Section 4.10.3.1--Height limitation-exceptions-excluded from application with the establishment of a height limit of 115 feet. The Commission also approved an amendment to Section 30.6.8--Appeals to clarify that the Board of Supervisors may issue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review this amendment at their May 16, 2001 meeting. Attached please find a staff report, which outlines this amendment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ATTACHMENT vvvc/jcf 05-10-01 A11:41 IN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-2001-05 - Amend Zoning Ordinance §4.10.3.1 (Height limitation-exceptions-excluded from application) and § 30.6.8 (Appeals). SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 to allow telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding 100 feet; and to amend Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8 to clarify that the Board of Supervisors may ~ssue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, McCulley, Kam ptner AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission - May 1, 2001 Board of Supervisors - May 16, 2001 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 prohibits structures, including telecommunications facilities, from exceeding one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. Zoning Ordinance § 30.6 requires that projects within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District obtain certificates of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board ("ARB"). Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to consider appeals from decision s of the ARB. On April 4, 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution of intent to provide for amendment to the aforementioned sections. (Attachment A) DISCUSSION: The 800 MHz emergency communications system will include two facilities on University properties that are in residential zoning districts. The heights of the proposed facilities are 105 feet (Klockner Stadium) and 110 feet (ECC site) and are, therefore, prohibited by Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1. Although taller facilities could be allowed by variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals if a legal hardship is demonstrated, staff recommends that a zoning text amendment is the more appropriate means to address this issue. The proposed amendment would allow telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding 100 feet. Such facilities would continue to require a special use permit. The ECC site is also within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and the proposed 800 MHz facility must obtain a certificate of appropria:teness from the ARB under Zoning Ordinance § 30.6. The ARB issues certificates of appropriateness after it determines that a proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The ARB's decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors under Zoning Ordinance §30.6.8. Although section 30.6.8 does not expressly so state, it is implied that the scope of the Board's review on appeal is similar to that of the ARB - whether the proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines. It may not be possible for a telecommunications facility such as a tower to clearly meet these guidelines. The proposed amendment would expressly provide that, u pon appeal from the ARB, the Board of Supervisors may issue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity. While it is acknowleaged that, from a land use impact standpoint, a public communications system facility may have similar impacts to a private system facility, it is also recognized that a public facility is intended to provide for the public health, safety and welfare and may not be able to meet the County's desired siting standards. The County's recently adopted Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy makes distinction in the following language: "The personal wireless service facilities policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing personal wireless service. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible." (page 4) Given that the proposed BOO MHz facility is an essential element of a vital public safety telecommunications network, staff believes the above referenced amendments are justified based on public necessity. RECOMMENDATIO~I: ~ Adopt the attached zoning text amendments. (Attachment B) ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 provides in part that certain structures, including telecommunications facilities, may not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district; and WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to consider appeals from decisions of the Architectural Review Board arising from applications for certificates of appropriateness, and its scope of review is limited to determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted for projects within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. WHEREAS, certain public projects located on publicly owned property may be of such paramount public importance that the restrictions of Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 and the limited scope of review implied in Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8, both identified above, should not apply. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 to allow public safety telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding one hundred (100) feet; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8 to authorize the Board of Supervisors, on an appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board, to issue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. 2 ATTACHMENT,B Draft: 04/25/01 ORDINANCE NO. 01-18( ) 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. 4.10.3.1. Exceptions - excluded from application Sec. 30.6.8. Appeals Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.10.3.1 ExceptiOns - excluded from application The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles,.monuments, o~ transmission towers and cables,: smokestacks, water tanks, or radio or television antenna_s o~ towers, provided that except as otherwise permi~ed by the commission ina specific case, no such structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure, except for telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the county, shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on dxisting public utility easements. (Amended 12-20-89) Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration ofthis section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When considering an appeal pertainin~ to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In se ~e!ng ATTACHMENT B Draft: 04/25/01 considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered~by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay. Mr: Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas 4 ATTACHMENT B Draft: 05/10/01 ORDINANCE NO. 01-18( ) 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. 4.10.3.1. Exceptions - excluded from application Sec. 30.6.8. Appeals Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.10.3.1. Exceptions - excluded from application The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, sp~res, flag poles, monuments: o~ transrmss~on towers and cables~ ~ smokestack_s, water tanks, or radio o.r t. elevision antenn~ o£ towers, provided that except as otherwise permit, ed by the comm~smon in a specific case, no such structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that .... ..~..~ ~"'"a'~a r~,~ nm~ ~c~+ ..~;" hzig~2 in a residential ~is~ic;t, within a residential district, such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height, except for telecommunications facilitie:: owned or operated in whole or in part by the county, which shall not exceed one hundred fiftee,, (115) feet in height. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements. (Amended 12-20-89) Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When consi~ertainin~c safe_-- fac'ti - the.board may 1 5 ATTACHMENT B Draft: 05/10/01 issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity In sa deing considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 2 6 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Public Hearing on the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment as Proposed by the Planning Commission and Amended by the Board of Supervisors. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Ms. Catlin, Echols AGENDA DATE: May 16, 2001 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: .~~"'"'"'"'~ ? BACKGROUND: The Board of Superwsors concluded its review of the Neighborhood Model and set a public hearing for comment prior to taking action on the amendment. DISCUSSION: In response to comments made by Board of Supervisors members during their work sessions, several changes have been made to the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment as follows: 1) 2) Modification to page 24, to insert this sentence into the last paragraph. New development in the Development Areas will need to be sensitive to existing development in the rural areas. Modification to page 88, bullets 4 and 5 under the second paragraph, to read "Facilitation of the establishment of a public parking authority to finance, operate, and profit from the cc nstruction of garages"; and "County facilitation of the activities invo Ived in construction of parking structures, site acquisition and operation of parking facilities." After some discussion distinguishing between "firm boundaries" and "boundaries cast in concrete" with regard to the Development Area boundaries, the Board determined that prior to any action on boundaries that may happen during implementation of the Neighborhood Model, they will continue to consider boundary line adjustments of the rural and urban boundary as is their current practice. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Board of Supervisors take action regarding the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with recc mmendations for the implementation strategy/phasing for the Model to be presented to the Board at the earliest opportunity. 01.107 05-11-01 ^09:24 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL; BUILDING BLOCK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to 1996 Land Use Plan (This doc~Jment is available on-line at www. albemarle.org/planning/DISC_modei, htm.) EARL A Community Association Earlysville Area Residents' League P. O. Box 684 Earlysville VA 22936 May 13, 2001 Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Members of the Board: It is with great confidence that the Earlysville Area Residents' League supports the Neighborhood Model of the DISC Report. I commend the members of this large and diverse committee for their determination and success at achieving a consensus. In the winter, 2001, EARL survey of issues, our members also achieved agreement on many issues addressed by the Neighborhood Model. 89% of our respondents favored natural beauty and rural landscape as the most important feature in their community. 58% included small town environment, and 22% featured farming. The Neighborhood Model provides an avenue to preserve these features. 38% want to enhance the rural aspects and support County policies such as the ACE program to bring this about, while 38% want Earlysville to grow at a slow and controlled pace. The Neighborhood Model is a perfect example of planned growth preserving hard edges with rural areas nearby. Concerning expenditures of tax funds, the two leading recipients were public schools (65%) and preservation of open space (33%.) In order to achieve tax funds to adequately support our choices, the County needs to encourage growth in ways that will provide neighborhood schools. More efficient provision of County services such as transportation, water, and sewer is also needed. 73% of members are concerned about the water supply and quality. Neighborhood amenities such as sidewalks and nearby open spaces will create a sense of community and enhance the enjoyment of residents. In order for the CouXtty to achieve adequate funds for the presevation of open space, the everyday expenses must be met first. But preservation of open space through land use assessment and the purchase of development rights will save money in the long run, and protection of farmland for the production of locally grown foodstuffs is already important to our health. As new businesses move into the Earlysville area, our members support businesses which do not require heavy trucking on our narrow country roads. The Neighborhood Model will help to provide commercial spaces where properly designed roadways and support services will be available. Recreation areas in the Neighborhood Model also address an issue of EARL. 57% of respondents want Earlysville to remain rural without significant development of commercial recreation facilities, but bike pathS, walking and jogging trails, and open space areas are supported. We urge your support and implementation of the Neighborhood Model of the DISC report. / Sincerely, A n H Mallek . , Chair, Conservation Committee 05-14-01 P04:15 IN Juno e-mail printed Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:49:56, page 1 From: kmgaivin To: sthomas~albemarle.org Subject: Distinction of DISC Dear Sally, I am sorry that it has taken so long to respond to your question about DISC. i have mulled over the significance and distinctiveness of this initiative many times since your query. It's just very hard to put three and half years of '~oil and trouble" into a few words. NATIONAL AND LOCAL "PARADIGM SHIFT." First of all, the issues raised by DISC are surfacing ali across the country. In that sense, the fact that DISC was initiated is not surprising. What is surprising is the fact that it was initiated in Albemarle County by a few grass roots organizations and incorporated into the comp plan in ONLY three and one-half years. It didn't remain a "fringe" movement for decades before becoming a land use reform championed by developers and environmentalists alike. ! can't help but think that a lot of this was due to the fact that Albemarle County had '~n place," a far-sighted comprehensive plan which only lacked detail. DISC provided the detai! necessary to make the development areas viable repositories for future growth and underlined the need to "flesh out" corresponding rural area policy. PRACTICAL HANDBOOK. Second, unlike many studies of conVentional development practice which remain academic critiques and/or primarily catalog negative consequences, the DISC Final Report offers detailed prescriptions for beth master planning a development area (i.e. a tract of land greater than 10sq. mi.) and site planning a parcel. It is a handbook which gives considerable discretion to local developers without losing sight of the need for local officials and planners to, anticipate major infrastructure investments. ~' ~-~.,'~k IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES. Third, the DISC provided County staff and elected officials with plausible guidelines for transforming the DISC report from a visionary statement to 1.) master plans capable of guiding infrastructure investment decisions and 2.) ordinances capable of changing the "character" of development. To conclude, DISC is not just an articulation of a new paradigm for growth. It is not just a manual of good urban design for developers. It is not just a new planning process to determine appropriate land use. It is not just a list of strategies to change current development practice. It attempts to do all four things by comprehensively addressing urban design, development, planning and ![ovemance simultaneously, it is 1 .) a new paradigm for development, 2.) ~new criteri~for design, 3.) a new process for making integrated land use (and hopefully transportation) decisions at multiple scales (i.e. at the development area level and the parcel level) and 4.) an implementation strategy. Please let me know if this somewhat "wordy" summary helps or not. Your questions may help to winnow it down to its "essence." I'll try to respond sooner next time. Thanks so very much for your commitment. Sincerely, Kathy Galvin The Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative Statement before the Board of Supervisors May 16, 2001 Good evening, I'm Tony Vanderwarker, Co-Chairman of the Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative. We're a new group dedicated to promoting the principles of Smart Growth in Albemarle County. We see the Smart Growth principles embodied in the DISC proposal as the answer to the problem of how to have growth without losing our rural character. For too long, pro-growth and anti-growth interests in our county have squared-off against each other. And the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors has regularly found themselves in the middle. Forced to adjudicate and compromise between the two sides, the result being that no one gets what they want, Growth Area development often uses land inefficiently and it ends up not contributing to or even becoming part of the community, open space is eaten up, and more sprawl is created--not to mention the animosity and rancor that's frequently a by-product. Smart Growth principles as represented in the Neighborhood Model enable us to have an urban area that supports our economic vitality while retaining the small town rural character that attracts people in the first place. We can have our cake, in a sense, and eat it too. Our mission is to support you as you include the DISC proposal in the Comprehensive Plan and begin to implement it. The Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative will support you politically and through paid media, we'll aid the citizens of Albemarle in appreciating how Smart Growth can benefit our county. We'll also work with real estate interests, builders, architects and developers to help them get behind, implement and dimensionalize this exciting new direction for Albemarle County. According to DISC documents, there are over 4,500 developable acres within the Growth Area. Couple this land with any currently underused acreage and the vacant and underutilized land within the City and University, and we have sufficient acreage to accommodate growth for the next generation or more. We're going to be adamant that you strictly adhere to the Comprehensive Plan because we know that it is feasible and we know what the benefits are if we do. So any proposals to implement the Neighborhood Model but only on large parcels in the rural area will not be acceptable to us. And Growth Area projects that masquerade as Smart Growth when they are no more than low- density suburban sprawl are not going to cut it with us either. We have a rare opportunity here. A chance to bring formerly opposed interests together under a common banner, to incorporate growth intelligently, to promote economic vitality, to build neighborhoods that will attract people while at the same time preserving our rural, small town character. We urge you to adopt the Neighborhood Model and want you to know that if you do, the Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative will be here to help. Piedmont Environmental Council Promoting and protecting the ~iedrnont's rural economy, natural resourccs~ history and bcauty Proposed Amendment to the County Land Use Plan -The Neighborhood Model Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors - May 16, 2001 I am Jeff Werner and I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. The PEC was created in 1972 to promote and protect the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty. Since 1996, the PEC has participated in DISC. While this proposal comes to you in text form, it represents more than a narrative about change. What is before you is the decision to make a commitment to a process. The PEC strongly supports this document and the process. We hope that the importance of this process is clear above all else. We will all become stakeholders in this process and with adoption of this Model we all must accept responsibility to become participants. In some recent reading, I found the following, which is extraordinarily germane: "A city is not designed by making pictures of how it should look. [A design] can become a reality only through incremental steps. Cities are designed and redesigned continuously. To shape the city, [we] must understand and learn to change how these actions take place. The path to a designed city can only be through these thousands of individual design decisions.''1 "[A] plan itself does not do the job. It is naYve to assume that a single document can answer all questions or solve all problems. Conditions change, [and it becomes] necessary to revise, adapt, and update the plan. The point of a plan is to focus on the process--to create a basis for debate, discussion, and conflict resolution. Planning must be continuous [and] designed to produce the best possible decisions [for] the community.''2 The Model offers planners, developers and citizens a means to work together to meet Growth Area infill objectives with projects, uses and a physical form that will create viable new neighborhoods, enhance existing neighborhoods and protect our rural areas. The Model suggests a development pattern that permits a diversity of options for living, working, learning, shopping and even playing. On both the national and international stage, applications of smart growth principles have proven a social, ecological and environmental benefit. Interestingly, these principles have also shown a fiscal benefit. Applying the Model will require time, patience and perseverance. The results will not appear over night nor will success hinge on a single project. We must be modest against high and immediate expectations and be honest with each other and ourselves as we move forward. I am optimistic, as many County residents have expressed to me enthusiasm for the Model. In fact, this is not limited to just local interest. Many in the Commonwealth recognize Albemarle as a leader in land-use policy and this effort is being watched with a genuine hope that it is fruitful. Finally, it ss important to stress that the Model is neither slow-growth nor anti-growth. It is a continuation of the County's longstanding policy to channel growth into the Growth Area, not to suppress it. The Piedmont Environmental Council enthusiastically supports the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and we look forward to participating in its implementation. We urge you as representatives of the County's citizens and as part of the public process to stay the course and, as we move forward, to keep your eye on the larger picture that is represented in the pages and in the process of the Neighborhood Model. Thank you/~ ~ Bametl, J. Urban Design. "The Practice of Local Government Planning." 2~d Edition, 1988 2 Hollander, E., L.Pollock, J. Reckinger, F.Beal. General 540-349-9003 804-977-6306 540-672-6265 Local Government Plannino Editors Published for the Frank S. So ICMA Training American Planning Institute Association By the International City/County Judith Getzels Management American Planning AssocJ atlon Association Barnett, J. Urban Design.'Page 175 Not until the mid-1960s were the entire city and metropolitan region again perceived as appropriate' subjects for urban design, and this shift was accom- panied by a fundamental change in emphasis. The search for principles that would shape all city design decisions', a search that had characterized both the City Beautiful movement and modernist architecture, was replaced by an aware- ness that a city is not designed by making pictures of how it should look at some indefinite point in the future. Although a coherent design concept is important; it can become a reality only through incremental steps that make design part of daily decision making. Cities are designed and redesigned continuously by the actions of real estate entrepreneurs and government agencies. To shape the city, urban designers must understand, and then learn to change, how these actions thke place. It is of critical importance that urban designers participate in impor- tant decisions that shape the design of cities, as a failure to understand the design implications of their decisions does not absolve investors or public authorities of responsibility for the results. The path to a designed city can only be through these thousands of individual design decisions; and the ultimate goal may change many times, in keeping with the pace and pattern of urban change. Hollander, E., L.Pollock, J. Reckinger, F.Beal. General Development Plans. Page 73. How, one might ask, can a single document fulfill such broad and coml: functions? The answer is that the plan document by itself does not do the j The value is derived from the process of preparing!the plan and the use of plan after its preparation. When planners point out that planning is a process, they mean that it is n~ to assume thata single document can answer all questions or solve all proble~ Conditions change, .resources are shifted, and goals are altered, making it f essary to revise, adapt, and update the plan. The point of a plan is to fo attention on the process to create a basis for debate, discussion, and corn resolution. Planning must be a continuous and continuing activity designeci produce the best possible decisions about the future of the community. The/~ represents a periodic~bringing together of the activities of planning. The esse of a plan is that it is a statement of policy, an expression of community intend and aspirations. When recognized as a statement of policy, the plan can h tremendous influence; but that influence is realized only within the contexi a total planning program. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Neighborhood Model 5-16-2001 On 06-05-96 you finalized The Land Use Portion of the Comprehensive Plan Review. Your major action was to freeze the current growth area boundaries and stress an infill strategy which ultimately became DISC - a part of which, The Neighborhood Model, you are considering tonight. In addition to making the Neighborhood Model a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, I am recommending you take 3 other actions as rapidly as possible. 1. Appropriate the necessary funds to start the master planning process immediately. 2. Developers and builders are attempting to abide by the DISC Guiding Principles but cannot' do so in totality at the present time. It should be made very clear that their projects are not to be held hostage until further actions are taken. 3. Please instruct the responsible departments to tackle the necessary policy and regulatory changes now. That process will conservatively take a minimum of one_year, probably two. Consequently it will have been about 12 years since any land was added, to the Growth area and any meaningful regulatory change was initiated. If the County is going to have an effective infill policy, and implement the DISC recommendations, we need to develop a sense of urgency now. If not, 50% of the single family homes will continue to be built in the rural area counter to the basic objectives outlined in the Land Use Plan. Considering it's importance the entire process is taking entirely too long. Respectfully Submitted, ~ 3. 'Watson Government Affairs Director Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition ~1A¥ I O, 2001 CLOSED SESSION MOTION i MOVE tHAT tHE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PUrSUaNt to SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of ThE CODe Of virGINia · UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING ~.-;::-'-~"_' ' ":~:.--.~ i-_-:~ SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUES REOUIRINO LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO THE IVY LANDFILL.