HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 18 1997 PC Minutes11-18-97
NOVEMBER 18, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 18, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice
Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr.
Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, and
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Cilimberg
briefly reviewed actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their November 5th and
12th meetings.
SP 97-49 US Cellular Carter's Bride - Proposal to construct a wireless
telecommunication tower and associated support facilities [10.2.2(6)]. The proposed
location is on Round Top Mountain adjacent to the existing power line crossing the
mountain. The property is described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 17 and consists of 174
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The site is
within the Scottsville Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth
*4 ft" area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-49 be indefinitely
deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-50 US Cellular (Strawberry Hill Farm) - Proposal to construct a wireless
telecommunication tower and associated support facilities [10.2.2(6)]. The proposed
location is on the west side of Route 231 (Gordonsville Road) at the intersection with
Route 615 (Lindsay Rd) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is described as
Tax Map 50, Parcel 45 and consists of 332 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is not located within a designated growth
area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-50 be deferred
indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-51 US Cellular Goodlow Mountain - Proposal to construct a wireless
telecommunication tower and associated support facilities [10.2.2(6)]. The proposed
167
11-18-97 2
location is on Goodlow Mountain in the existing Columbia Gas pipeline easement. This
application will allow for the removal and reconstruction of the existing tower located on
the property. The property is described as Tax Map 36, Parcel 19 and consists of 121
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is
not located within a designated growth area.
Before presenting the staff report, Mr. Fritz distributed to the Commission a copy of a
letter which staff had received after the completion of the staff report. (Mr. Fritz did not
identify the letter but later in the meeting it was determined the letter was from Mr. Paul
Pearce, who spoke during the public hearing.) After having read the letter, Mr.
Loewenstein asked staff if there had been any problems with the posting of the property
for this item. Mr. Fritz said staff had verified that the property was posted properly. Mr.
Kamptner added that the posting of a sign on the property is not required by State Code.
The County provides this service in addition to Code requirements, so even if there had
been an error in posting, it would not have any impact on the review process.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject
to conditions.
Staff response to Commission questions and Commission comments were as follows:
--The existing trees on the site are 70-80 feet tall. This tower will extend
substantially above the tree line. The tower will be most visible from the east and west,
along the cleared pipeline corridor. To the north, the tower may be substantially obscured
by the topography of the mountain. To the south, dwellings are a considerable distance
away from the tower. "But it is clearly going to be visible --it is a tower on top of a
mountain which extends above the trees."
--It is approximately 2 miles from the tower to Rt. 231.
--Columbia Gas may have some ability to replace the existing tower to its original
height (123 feet). The Zoning Administrator would have to make that determination. The
tower is still in use at this time, though it was damaged in 1996 and is presently 75 to 80
feet in height. It could not be replaced to its original height, without approval, after a 2-
year period from the time of "abandonment," if it were to be abandoned. Mr. Fritz said
he discussed this question with the Zoning Administrator and it is her feeling that a new
Columbia Gas tower, of the same height as the one which presently exists but updated
with stronger materials, would be considered an "expansion and intensification of a non-
conforming use, " and would require a special permit.
--Referring to pg. 4 (4th paragraph) of the staff report, Mr. Tice asked that staff
add, for the benefit of the Board's review, an explanation that the Piney Mountain
approval was due, in large part, to the proximity of other existing towers.
--Ms. Huckle asked if the water tower in Gordonsville had been considered as a
possible location site. (Staff deferred to the applicant.)
--Co-location on an existing tower does not require a special permit if it is a tower
which has been reviewed and approved by the County. Co -location on a power line
tower would require a special permit because that would be an expansion of the use,
"unless the Zoning Administrator were to make a determination that the use was
contemplated" when the power line was approved.
11-18-97 3
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Keller. (He was accompanied by Mark
"'" Gartley, Kevin Arnold, Steve Blain, Andy Sipriani and Bruce Cavender.) He displayed
maps showing different service levels. His comments included the following..
--US Cellular needs to improve existing service in the northeast quadrant of the
County and to establish service where it does not exist. This proposal would serve both
Rt. 20 and Rt. 231. Both corridors are "scenic and historic" and have limited opportunities
for attachment and/or co -location. Both are important connector roads between
significant areas in the four -county area.
--The Columbia Gas facility is about 30 years old. The original tower was
approved and permitted for 123 feet. The applicant proposes a similar style tower at the
same location, with a height of 120 feet. It is hoped that today's technology for a lattice
type structure will allow not only Columbia and US Cellular to use the tower, but other co -
locators as well.
--"Columbia Gas and US Cellular have chosen to cooperate to re -build this facility
in an expeditious manner to their common benefit. The change in character to the area
and the visual impact would be immeasurable, yet the benefits would be substantial."
--He displayed computer models which depicted the visibility of the tower from
three vantage points. He described how the computer imaging was done. He stressed
that the tower will appear as a "fine line" from a distance of 2 miles.
--The existing tower does not extend above the tree line. The tower the applicant
is proposing "would not exceed 4 1/2 feet (in width) on either side above the tree line."
--Access to the site exists. The last 1/2 mile of the access road is not graveled.
. The applicant proposes very limited tree removal to that section of the road, and will add
gravel.
--The site search for this tower began about a year ago. He displayed a map
showing sites which were considered. In answer to Ms. Huckle's earlier question, he said
the Gordonsville water tower is outside US Cellular's jurisdictional area.
--Mr. Loewenstein asked what percentage of improved service level will fall within
Albemarle County. He said the map indicates that most improvement will be in Orange,
Greene and Louisa. Mr. Keller said the proposed service levels on the map will not
accurately reflect the shielding that needs to be added to any facility. It is important that
any spillage of the signal outside of the jurisdictional area be reduced as much as
possible. "While that is a prerequisite of the leasing arrangements of these jurisdictions, it
is also a technology that doesn't recognize lines on the ground. But these will be
sectorized and the intensity of the signal can be fine tuned so that it does not encroach
on another company's jurisdictional area. What you see there is a general propagation
study that is not fine tuned from the tower to respond to the fact that we are near to the
limits of our boundaries.... When a US Cellular customer crosses over into Louisa
County, the service will quickly drop off."
--The applicant considers this to be "a co -location request."
--A new tower will continue to be owned by Columbia. The applicant "will re -build
their tower for them."
--The applicant agrees with all the recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Mark Gartley, representing US Cellular, described how jurisdictional areas work. An
"extension agreement" would be required in order to extend into adjacent counties. If such
09
11-18-97 4
an agreement cannot be obtained, restrictions will have to be placed on the service to
"pull it back to the Albemarle County line." It is difficult to make the signal stop at the
County line, but the applicant is required to do so. Cellular users are not aware of these
aspects of cellular service because when they cross county lines the service is just
shifted from one company to another. All cellular providers have the same restrictions. If
this site is approved, there will be no need to pursue the Strawberry Hill Farm site. He
said a free-standing tower without guy wires is planned, which will reduce the amount of
clearing that is needed.
Mr. Finley asked what happens to service if a tower should fall, i.e. does the tower have
to be rebuilt or is there any way to restore coverage by linking to other sources? Mr.
Gartley said the tower is a support structure for the antennae. If the antennae are
disabled they could possibly be rigged temporarily, on the remaining parts of the tower,
until the tower could be rebuilt. Service would be diminished until the tower could be
repaired or replaced.
Mr. Dotson asked what type of structure was envisioned at Strawberry Hill. Mr. Gartley
explained the plan was to "build a pole in line with the two existing poles to try to negate
visibility, to provide minimal coverage for Rt. 231." But with an agreement with Virginia
Power, the applicant would have to locate on one of the two concrete poles, about 20 or
30 feet lower than planned, with the result being diminished service. The Goodlow
Mountain location will provide coverage not only for Rt. 231 but also for part of Rt. 20.
Public comment was invited.
The following people expressed opposition to the request: Hal Young; Mike Mitchell;
Florence Wilson; Anna Askew; and Paul Pearce. Their reasons were as follows:
--A view of Goodlow Mountain is the first view that some visitors have when
coming into the area. It is the highest point in the Southwest Mountain range.
--There are presently no blinking lights on Goodlow Mountain. (Mr. Young asked
that there be a restriction against lighting if this tower is approved. He also asked there
be a restriction on the lighting of the service building. Staff confirmed that there will be no
FAA requirement for lighting of the tower because it will be less than 200 feet.)
--This is the most historic mountain range in the nation. Three presidents were
born at the foot of the mountain.
--Residents have tried to protect this area through ag-forestal districts and through
permanent scenic easements. Division rights have been eliminated on 10 parcels of land
in an effort to preserve this area. Residents have followed the recommendations of the
Camp Plan to try to protect this area.
--The height of the tower should be limited to 80 feet --the height of the existing
tower.
--Approval would set a precedent and allow more towers on Goodlow Mountain.
--Mr. Mitchell was very concerned about the intrusion on his privacy. (His home is
at the end of the access road.) He said the County "needs to draw a line" or there will
soon be a proliferation of towers.
--Devaluation of property values.
/,f
11-18-97 5
--Ms. Wilson asked the Commission to consider the historic mountain range and to
*Awl keep the tower at 80 feet. She also asked what incentive there is for citizens to put their
land in ag-forestal districts if the County is not going to offer them any protection.
--All potential sites have not yet been exhausted by the applicant.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Young if the Columbia Gas tower was visible prior to its being
damaged (1996). Mr. Young said the tower could be seen.
Mr. Dotson pointed out that if this request is denied, Columbia Gas could possibly restore
their existing tower to its original height and the applicant could also re -activate the
Strawberry Hill request, the result being two towers instead of just one. Mr. Young
agreed that this is a consideration. He said he is concerned about multiple towers.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Gartley how much reduction in service would occur if the
tower were to be no taller than the existing tower. Mr. Gartley said the reduction would
be "dramatic." The only coverage would be in a "thin sliver' in a north-northwest
direction. There would be no coverage anywhere else. Mr. Gartley said the applicant will
paint the tower any color that the County chooses. (Color is covered by condition No. 9.)
Mr. Gartley said the existing trees effectively "blank" the existing tower. In order to get
the desired service, the antennae must be 20 feet above the top of the trees. (Mr. Tice
estimated the trees in this area will grow to a maximum of 80 to 100 feet.)
Regarding the lighting of the maintenance building, the light will be activated by a motion
detector. It is anticipated service will take place once a month. Middle of the night
service is very uncommon.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Gartley: "If these were approved, ultimately, would it make you
forever abandon any Strawberry Hill aspirations?" Mr. Gartley replied: "We would pull
that application."
Mr. Finley again asked staff to review what Columbia Gas can do with the existing tower.
Mr. Fritz explained that only the Zoning Administrator can make that decision. However,
based on his conversations with her about previous non -conforming situations, "they
could reconstruct it to the height that existed prior to the damage --a maximum of 123
feet --and at a design and intensity of use that existed previously." Mr. Finley asked if
another user could co -locate on the tower if it was re -built. Mr. Fritz replied: "Only by
special use permit." Mr. Kamptner added: "We're not saying, in this case, that they
necessarily have the right to reconstruct. They have to meet the standard that the
damage that required the reconstruction/replacement was out of the control of the owner.
That is a determination the Zoning Administrator will have to make. Aside from the
abandonment issue, when you are replacing or reconstructing you have to commence the
repair work within 12 months. That period is passed." He added that the use remains
non -conforming because it has not been "abandoned", i.e. the tower continued to be used
even after it was damaged. Mr. Kamptner reminded the Commission that what Columbia
11-18-97
lJ
may or may not be able to do with the existing tower is not an issue before the
Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said this new technology is here and will be here for a long time. It is
unfortunate that the public did not have a clearer understanding of the licensing process
for these towers and it is that process which is causing the requests for numerous towers.
He said he views this request as a reconstruction of a site that has been used for a tower
for many years. He said he drove this road frequently over the years and was not aware
of the existence of the Columbia Gas tower. He said he could understand why the
applicant would not look at other sites once this one was discovered because this site
already has a tower on it. He said even if another site were located the only difference in
public reaction would be the opposition would come from a different group of people. He
said the Columbia tower has existed for 30 years. The applicant does not propose to
change the "scope" of the tower, but will improve it with updated technology. The
applicant has agreed to paint the tower any color the County directs. He did not think this
tower would have any more impact than when it was used by Columbia as a radio tower.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-51 for US Cellular
(Goodlow Mountain) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 120 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All
lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. (To address the
public's concern about the lighting of the maintenance building, this condition was
amended from staffs originally proposed wording. )
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae,
etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae
administratively approved under this section.
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such
that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the
lease area.
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
7. Tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled "Proposed Cellular Antenna
Site" and initialed WDF, November 7, 1997, and on untitled topographic map initialed
WDF, November 7, 1997.
/v
11-18-97 7
8. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of
this snPr_.ial iisp nPrmit PX- nt ns mqv hP atithnri7P(J by staff to nPrmit r_.nnstnirtinn of the
tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities.
9. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration of the Federal
Communire tions Commission; transmission strurtures shall rise rolors such as arav Him --
or green, which reduce their visual impacts.
10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on
the ti)J✓?r and Site nnu shall nrn ide the r—minty, tinon request, verifiahle P__videnrP of
having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith
effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other
nrnviriPrs to Incite nn the nP.rmittPP's tower and site in PxrhanaP for rPrinmral rights on a
tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The
permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating
that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith
with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or
site_
11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than
_10v 1 _ This rPnnrt Shall Mate the r_.ijrrent user status of the tnw?r _ Snarifirally the rennet
shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service.
12. The tower shall be of lattice type construction.
13. Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal
grading necessary to improve travel surface and the application of gravel.
Discussion:
Mr. Finley said there is the possibility, though it may be remote, that there could be a 123
font tower here-, whether this rPmu--,t i.e, annrnvari nr not and a onnnl Bite wnidd him Ingt for
a cellular tower. The cellular tower would then have to be located elsewhere.
Mr. Tice said he feels very strongly about protection of the mountain areas and the areas
idPntifiPd in the Onen gnar_e Plan areas which the Cnrnmission and Rnarrl have
repeatedly made decisions to protect as important not only to the environment, but to the
economy of this area. Given the alternatives, "in the interests of protecting the Southwest
Mni intain niRtrir.t anti mni intain rACni 1rrAC anri other think imnnrtant to thiC area it iC
probably important for us to approve this site as opposed to the alternatives we would
likely be facing." He said he would support the request.
Mr. Loewenstein said he is not as concerned about the alternatives because it is
unknown whether the alternatives would hP nrjrsijPd or if prlrsued, would be approved,
He said he is a cellular user and, living just off of Rt. 20 he is aware of coverage
problems. He concluded: "However, my larger concerns have to do with the protection
16
11-18-97 8
of natural resources, the ecology, the scenic beauty, the historic resource protection. In
the long run, looking down the road, this technology may be dead as well. We have no
way of knowing what the next 10 or 20 years may bring us ... but I think the rapid
expansion of communications technology taking place right now means that it is likely that
some of this technology will change again in the near future rather than the distant future.
Hopefully, that technology will include ways to further minimize visual and other impacts
which are of great concern to a lot of people. We have heard from people who live in the
area and have done an excellent job in terms of stewardship of the property, and who
have been encouraged by the County and other agencies to put their land in various
types of easements. I think the Southwest Mountain Historic District is a gem of a local
resource. I can't think of anything that deserves more protection than this particular area
of the County. In my own judgment, this overrides any concerns I may have about
improvement of existing cellular service in that corridor or the possibility that other
applications may come along. So I am not prepared to support this tonight."
Ms. Huckle said she is conflicted by this request. She said these roads, Rt. 20 and Rt.
231, are some of the most scenic in Albemarle County, and it is because the residents of
the area have protected their properties and have not sold out to developers. She said
this site is in a mountain protection area and a historic district and there are many scenic
easements in the area. She said a precedent should not be set for ignoring these
characteristics. She agreed that she was concerned that a denial of this request may
result in a tower on some other location, but that is probably going to happen anyway.
She envisioned that cellular companies will one day be consolidated. She concluded
that she could not support this request."
Mr. Dotson said he is leaning to what he considers the "lesser evil." He said he finds the
issue of Columbia's plans, in terms of reconstruction of the tower back to its original
height, very important. Based on Mr. Kamptner's comments earlier, he said it appears
they probably cannot re -build the tower because more than a year has lapsed since the
damage occurred. If they could re -build, he said he would probably support this request
because it would avoid a proliferation of sites. So, in addition to those issues identified by
other Commissioners, there is the question of whether or not the County has an
obligation to see that every single square mile has perfect cellular service. He said: "I
don't think we do, and I think we state in our Comprehensive Plan that people who reside
in rural areas should not expect urban quality service. So there may well be areas of the
County which don't have perfect service. ... I am not convinced that Rt. 231, in particular,
is a road which has a volume of traffic to which the County has an obligation to provide
the best of service. So, based on that concern, I will not support the motion."
Ms. Washington said she was "torn" between support and non-support, but because there
has been a tower on the site for 30 years she said she will support the motion.
The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Finley, Nitchmann, Tice and
Washington voting in favor, and Commissioners Huckle, Dotson and Loewenstein voting
against.
/1
11-18-97
The Commission then took action on the Site Plan Waiver Request.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a site plan waiver request be
approved for SP 97-51, US Cellular (Goodlow Mountain), subject to the following
condition:
1. Provision of one parking space.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-34 Frost Montessori School - Request for a special use permit to establish a
private school [16.2.2.5], on 1.5 acres of land along Stony Point Road. The property,
described as a portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 57, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This property is located on the east side of Stony Point Road [Route 20 North]
approximately 1 mile north of Route 250 East. It is zoned R-6, Residential and the
private school would be constructed to serve approximately 90 preschool and
kindergarten children. The area is designated for Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling
units per acre) in Urban Neighborhood Three in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the road ("at the right hand corner of the circle") is a 50-foot
right-of-way. Ms. Echols said a 50-foot right-of-way is proposed and will be shown on the
subdivision plat.
Referring to the plan on display, Mr. Dotson asked staff what is proposed for the "blank"
area. Ms. Echols said nothing is proposed at this time, except for a detention pond. (Mr.
Driver later explained that it is intended for future development and the developer would
like to reserve the opportunity to provide a type of housing that would accommodate the
market demands at that time. A manor home town home concept is envisioned. Either
would be limited in density because of the topography of the area. That area may be
developed last.)
Ms. Huckle asked if the permanent detention basin will be fenced. (Mr. Driver, one of the
applicant's representatives said the applicant will comply with any required standards.)
Mr. Cilimberg said there had been a lot of discussion about the road remaining as a
residential subdivision road and not becoming a of "parkway."
Regarding vegetation, Ms. Echols said there is considerable vegetation along Rt. 20 and
what is existing will be supplemented. ARB review is not required because the existing
vegetation is such that the building cannot be seen from Rt. 20. Mr. Dotson asked if it is
understood that the existing vegetation is permanent, i.e. that it will not be removed. Mr.
Dotson said he did not want there to be situations where applicants are proposing rows of
white pines in order to avoid ARB review. Mr. Cilimberg said whether or not ARB
`ov
11-18-97 10
review is required is a determination of the Zoning Administrator. He pointed out that the
determination is made based on the visibility on the site as it presently exists. It would
not take into account "what someone proposed to do with screening." Staff will make
Ms. McCulley aware of Mr. Dotson's concerns.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bruce Wardell. He was accompanied by Steve
Driver. Comments and answers to Commission questions included the following:
--With Rt. 20 having historic designation, development along Rt. 20 is particularly
sensitive. This use is one of the best uses that could happen along the front of a
development. It is consistent with the development which has occurred in this area. The
site is fully screened by the existing vegetation. The applicant met with the ARB on this
issue and the ARB determined, based on a site visit, that the site is not visible from the
Rt. 20 corridor.
--The Frost Montessori School is currently operating under a special permit in
another location.
--The ages of the children served are 3, 4 and 5.
--Regarding the distance of entrance from the Rt. 20 intersection, the applicant
has attempted to provide the most distance possible to address any potential backup
which might occur when students are being picked up. The building is also as remote
from the entrance to the site as possible.
--Mr. Driver explained why the site had been laid out as proposed.
--"in the interest of not causing a delay in the construction of the Montessori
School," Mr. Driver requested a change in the wording to condition No. 3. He asked that
it say: "The final site development plan shall not be approved until a plat creating the
Frost Montessori School parcel is recorded." He explained: "The reason for the change
is we can't control the length of review time by the regulatory agencies with respect to the
Fontana Subdivision and although our intent to submit the two plans concurrently for
review, our concern is that the Fontana Phase I review, being a little more comprehensive
than the site plan, may require additional time for review. Once we would receive
approval on those construction documents, we would still have yet to go through a period
of time which I estimate could be about 2 weeks to get the final plat for Fontana
submitted, revised, and ultimately recorded. We feel this could unnecessarily delay the
construction start-up for the Frost Montessori School."
--Mr. Driver explained the detention facility has been designed to accommodate the
post -development runoff for both Phase I of the Fontana Development and for the
Montessori School. It will be a permanent facility. Mr. Driver said he does not believe
the County will require the facility to be fenced. He described it as a shallow, above-
ground facility which will appear to be a "minor depressed area which will be seeded and
grassed, with a trickle stream through the center." It will only carry water during a rainfall
event. There is very little liability associated with the facility.
Mr. Tice asked if there are plans to use the school facility for community activities. Mr.
Driver said Darden Towe park is close by and will be used for some activities. The
development will also have its own recreational facility, with a clubhouse, elsewhere on
the site. The pedestrian pathway systems are still being "fine tuned" and will be
submitted later this week. The applicant is working with staff but no agreement has yet
l
11-18-97 11
been reached. If there are any problems, staff will bring this aspect of the plan to the
Commission.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Echols commented on the applicant's requested change to condition No. 3. She
explained staffs major concern with the recording of a plat where there are major public
improvements is that those improvements be bonded at least through the first plat, or that
some arrangement as to when those improvements will be constructed and by whom be
worked out. If that can be done, then staff would not object to the change in wording.
"The critical concern is that those improvements are done."
Mr. Cilimberg said if the Commission is willing to make the change requested by the
applicant, staff will develop language, prior to the Board hearing, provided the wording
ensures the applicant will "allovd for and do necessary surety to provide for the public
improvements." There were no Commission objections.
Mr. Dotson suggested an additional condition regarding the existing vegetation. Mr.
Driver said the building location will require a very small portion of the existing vegetation
to be removed. The ARB reviewed the building location and asked the applicant to
provide a double row of evergreen trees as a supplement. It was ultimately decided the
I
ollowing condition would be added: "Existing vegetation shall be maintained or replaced
if removed, except as noted on the site plan."
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 97-34 for Frost Montessori
School, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The building, parking, driveway entrance, sidewalk, and playground areas shall be
located in general accord with the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed
November 10, 1997.
2. The playground shall be fenced and located.as far away from the power lines as
possible.
3. The final site development plan shall not be approved until ....(Staff was to develop
final wording for this condition before the Board's review.)
4. The school shall be restricted to 90 students and shall be for year-round use.
5. Building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any public street right-of-way.
No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than ten feet to any public
street right-of-way.
6. Existing vegetation shall be maintained or replaced if removed., except as noted on
site plan.
1210
11-18-97
The motion passed unanimously.
12
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the two-way circulation
requirement of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance be waived for Frost Montessori
School, subject to the following condition:
1. One-way circulation shall be provided as shown generally on the preliminary site
development plan dated and initialed November 10, 1997, to ensure safe and convenient
access for pedestrians and children being dropped off directly from the cars.
The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Washington left the meeting at 9:35
WORK SESSIONS
Six Year Secondary Road Plan
Commission questions and comments were as follows:
--Mr. Dotson asked for a map showing location of projects.
--Ms. Huckle asked for more information on "spot" improvements. She was
particularly interested in the Rt. 743 project from the Rivanna River to Rt. 643. (#27)
--Mr. Finley asked about project #56, Rt. 667. He recalled from previous
discussions that staff was supposed to look into this project. He could see no change in
the project as had been discussed. He said the right-of-way is available but for some
reason that last mile of Rt. 667 can't get on the list. (Mr. Benish thought that the mile
referred to by Mr. Finley was added, but the list had not been updated to reflect that
addition.)
--Mr. Finley said there appears to be more inequity in the rural areas unpaved road
improvements. He asked why the growth area "always gets the tax dollar when it comes
to transportation." Mr. Cilimberg again referred to the Comp Plan which states that rural
areas should not expect the same level of service that growth areas receive. That
statement has been in the Plan since 1989, and growth areas take priority throughout the
Plan.
--Referring to #4, Mr. Finley said the only one in the criteria which is effected by
existing right-of-way is unpaved road improvements. He said: "Basically what you are
requiring is that rural people buy the road.... This is considerable output by landowners of
their pastures, forests, etc., but this is still criteria before the road can be paved." Staff
said this is the policy established by the Board of Supervisors and it has been reaffirmed
several times since passed in 1989.
--Mr. Finley said: "Growth areas get the roads, they get the fire protection, they
get the water. Rural areas get nothing. We get no more for our tax dollar today than
when I was 10 years old. No police protection, no garbage collection, no sewage service,
1-0l
11-18-97 13
nIftw o water, no anything, but taxes have increased 1000% with no difference in benefits, not
even a paved road."
--Mr. Dotson said the criteria might be revised to reflect the findings of the
Development Area Initiatives.
Mr. Tice suggested that the newly improved intersection of Rt. 743 at the Rock Store
would work better if there were two right turning lanes (from Rt. 743 onto Hydraulic
Road).
Another work session on the Six Year Road Plan will be scheduled after the first of the
year.
Capital Improvements Program
Staff and Mr. Nitchmann explained how the Committee had looked at the projects.
There was a brief discussion about the changes in the School Division's part in the
process.
Commission comments and questions were as follows:
--Mr. Dotson asked about the status of the hiring of a Fiscal Impact Planner. Mr.
Cilimberg said the position was advertised but was not filled. He said he will check on
the current status.
--Referring to page 77, and the new high school, Mr. Tice asked about the project
to "construct two multi -purpose fields." He asked if these were in addition to what was
approved on the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the fields were shown on the original site
plan.
--Mr. Tice asked about the status of landscaping for Rt. 250 east. Mr. Benish said
a consultant has been hired to re -do design work.
--Ms. Huckle was surprised at the amount for the Rivanna Greenway ($620,000).
She was under the impression a lot of the work would be done by volunteers. Mr.
Cilimberg said communities which have done this type of project have not found them to
be in expensive. Ms. Huckle asked if a survey has ever been done to determine if the
majority of County citizens favor the project.
Because the Commission had had little time to review the CIP, it was decided another
brief work session would be held December 2, 1997, at which time the Commission will
make its recommendation to the Board.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30.
M:
V. Way a Cilimberg, cretary
LT
0� 1:;R