HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 19 2002 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 19, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Vice -Chairman; Rodney
Thomas; William Finley; Pete Craddock, Tracey Hopper, Bill Edgerton, and Jared Loewenstein,
Chairman.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development;
Michael Barnes, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Planner; Stephen Waller, Planner; and Elaine
Echols, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Loewenstein invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, the meeting proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — November 13, 2002
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 13, 2002
as follows:
♦ The Board heard an appeal of the two conditions added by the Planning Commission for the
Pavilion at Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan. The two requirements added were that forty to
fifty trees be added in the area of the buffer and that materials other than riprap be used for
two of the drainage ditches that were out close to the bio-filter. The Board decided that they
would go with the original conditions as recommended by staff. They did not include those
two amendments of the conditions that the Planning Commission had as part of its action.
♦ The Central Telephone Company of Virginia Alltel dish was approved as the Commission
recommended which included the height of the new dish being at the same approximate
height of the existing dish of a similar type.
♦ The Habitat Services special use permits for the garden center and the contractor's storage
were both approved with the conditions as the Commission recommended.
♦ The Crown Orchard new tower for the digital broadcasting of Channel 29 was deferred. There
was a fair amount of discussion regarding requirements to remove the existing 29 tower at
such time that the digital service was in place and the requirements for discontinuing the
current service had been met. Ultimately, the Board decided that they were not going to
require the removal of the existing tower, but did want to defer to look at the feasibility of a
possible co -location of the ECC tower communication equipment to this new tower. That is
something that is going to be investigated and considered again by the Board at its December
4`h meeting.
Mr. Finley arrived at 6:05 p.m.
Consent Agenda
SDP-02-116 Farmington Pump House Critical Slopes Waiver — Request pursuant to Section
4.2.5 to disturb areas of slopes greater than 25% to construct an irrigation pump house.
(Tax Map 060E2, Parcel 1) (Francis MacCall)
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes - October 1, 2002.
523
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) for approval of the minutes of October 1, 2002 and SDP-02-
116 Farmington Pump House Critical Slopes Waiver which was subject to the following condition
as recommended by staff.
Staff recommends approval of the request to disturb the critical slopes as shown on SDP-02-116
dated 10/11/02 with the following condition:
All constructed 2:1 slopes must be stabilized with low maintenance vegetative ground
cover. The vegetative cover must be a variety selected from Table 3.37-C on page III-
391 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or an equal approved by the
Engineering Department.
Deferred Items:
Mr. Loewenstein stated that there were two deferred items on the agenda. He noted that a slight
alteration had been made in the order of the agenda. The first item will be SP-02-12, 4749 Plank
Road driveway which was deferred from the September 17' meeting.
SP-02-12 4749 Plank Road Driveway — Request for special use permit to allow construction of a
driveway in the floodway fringe in accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for landfill in the floodway fringe. The property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 10,
contains 3.65 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Plank Road (Route
# 692) approximately 0.4 miles from the intersection of what Route 692 and US 29. The property
is zoned RA, Rural Area. (Scott Clark) Deferred from the September 17, 2002 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Scott Clark presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) He stated that
this special use permit application is to rectify a violation that was created when the applicant
constructed a 2,900 square foot parking area in the floodway fringe of the South Branch of the
North Fork Hardware River (for access to an existing house). In early December 2001 the
applicant had begun work on a new driveway and parking area. On December 7, 2001 the
applicant was sent a Notice of Official Determination of Violation stating that his work in the
floodway fringe required a special use permit under Section 30.3.05.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for landfill in the floodway fringe. The applicant's home, a former mill, is located
within several feet of Plank Road, and the existing parking area appeared unsafe, both for
entering and exiting the parking area, and for keeping the applicant's child away from the truck
traffic on Plank Road. By adding a new driveway and a parking area away from the road, the
applicant intended to make this situation safer. The Engineering Department has reviewed a plan
showing the area built in the floodway fringe. It was determined that it restricts less than 5 percent
of the floodplain of the less than one foot rise in the footage of the floodplain upstream from the
site. The project will have minimal impacts on the floodplain of the South Branch of the North Fork
Hardware River. The applicant has created a safer parking area. The parking area is unusually
close to a stream. However, no vegetated buffers were lost in the construction, and no significant
changes to flood level are expected as a result of the work. The Planning Department
recommends approval of SP 01-052.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were questions from the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked if construction had not already been done, what would the tolerances have
been if it had been applied for before the construction took place. Also, what is the five- percent?
Mr. Clark stated that it was five percent of the cross sectional area of the flood plain at that point.
524
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Mr. Edgerton asked could a parking area have been built anywhere on this site without being in
the flood plain?
Mr. Clark stated probably not.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not know how the 100-year flood plain relates, but this was Bill
Kelso's old house and the house had been flooded before.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any other questions before he opened the public hearing.
There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to
address the Commission.
Charles Lunsford, applicant, stated that he did not have too much to add other than what was in
the report. He pointed out that the goal of the driveway was to improve an existing back entrance
which the previous owners had been using for safety reasons as their existing driveway really
abuts right up to heavy truck traffic on Plank Road.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were questions for Mr. Lunsford. There being none, he asked if
there was anyone else present who wanted to speak concerning this application. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the application back before the Commission for action.
Mr. Rieley stated that it seems that the only substance issue here is engineering one relative to
the construction of the floodway. Since Engineering said that they would have approved this if it
were an original application, he stated that it was a pretty clearly justifiable request.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for a motion if there was no further discussion.
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP-02-12, 4749 Plank Road Driveway, with no conditions
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) with no conditions as presented.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that SP-02-12 was approved and would go to the Board on December 4`n
ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condos (Sign # 77. 81) - Request to rezone 12.606 acres from
Highway Commercial (HC) to Residential (R-15) to allow 112 units. The property, described as
Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north
side of Fontaine Avenue [Route # 702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of
Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. (Michael Barnes) Deferred from the November 12,
2002 Planning Commission Meeting.
� 525
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Deferred Items:
ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condos (Sinn # 77, 81) - Request to rezone 12.606 acres from
Highway Commercial (HC) to Residential (R-15) to allow 112 units. The property, described as
Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north
side of Fontaine Avenue [Route # 702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of
Fontaine Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6. (Michael Barnes) Deferred from the November 12,
2002 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that staff just handed out some additional comments.
Mr. Barnes presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) He pointed out
that the Commission reviewed this request on May 7` There were several outstanding issues
that included the central grading plan on the site, how to relegate the parking on the site, the lack
of sidewalks in the site, the desire for pedestrian access and and how to make connectivity to
Charlottesville improved. Those issues were raised in staff report. The Commission raised the
concepts of improving the streetscape along Fontaine Avenue and addressing the needs that the
Buckingham homeowners addressed at that meeting. The owner has worked on the grading plan
and the appearance from Fontaine Avenue. The applicant went through numerous plans to arrive
at the plan that is seen on the left. He apologized for not having a better display pointing out that
Attachment D shows a cross section of the site. The basic intent of what our strategy was for
relegated parking was to bring the buildings closer to Fontaine Avenue. The strategy was to bring
some of the buildings up to the road, retain the garages that were previously proposed along that
road, and add windows to the garages. It would not appear as though one is seeing the rear of
the garage, but a building that interfaces with the street and screens the parking that is internal to
the site. He noted that this does not show the landscaping that the applicant has proffered. Staff
feels that strategy will adequately provide a streetscape, a presence on the street and shield the
majority of the parking. They have gone through trying to provide the relegated parking internally
on the site. What they achieved with that was two large parking bays internal on the site. Staff
feels that this is a good compromise in the street approach from city because the visual impact of
site would be accommodated. Other advantages of this site plan is that it pulls the buildings out of
the flood plains except for the building that is immediately adjacent to Fontaine Avenue and
closest to the eastern side of the site. Approximately about one-third of the building is within the
100-year flood plain buffer. The point of that building is to provide some presence to the road and
to draw the eye to the building as opposed to the parking lots. He referred to the colored plan on
the wall. One of the biggest issues for the Commission, Planning and Engineering was the
conceptual grading plan. The plan was deferred from the 1211 to tonight because the grading
issues were still being worked through with the applicant and the Engineering Department. He
pointed out what he handed out tonight is the comments from the Engineering Department. He
read the circled portion; the latest conceptual grading plan and cross sections indicate that the
proposed grading can meet the standards of the ordinance. Their remaining concern was that the
parking lot to the east of Building 7 was proposed at the grade of 7 percent. They felt that this
could be remedied in the site plan with a 2 to 3 foot retaining wall to the left of sidewalk. The
problems had been that the grades internal to the site were too steep to meet the Ordinance's
required five percent maximum grade for the parking lot. That was the reason primarily that staff
in the recommendations had stated that until the grading issue was resolved, that staff could not
recommend approval. With this information from the Engineering Department, staff is now able to
recommend approval of ZMA-02-01 to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Edgerton asked which attachment that he was recommending approval of
Mr. Barnes noted the following for the benefit of the Commission:
14%W 526
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
• Attachment B was the plan that was submitted to the Commission on May 711
• Attachment C is an immediate plan that staff included to show what happens when you try to
get this much density on this site with all the parking relegated.
• Attachment D is the plan before the Commission.
• Page 6 was the interim plan that is not being considered by the Commission at this time.
• Pages 7 through 10 are the proffered plans that are before the Commission for consideration.
• Page 11 is the proffered elevations.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was discussion with the applicant on the proposal for the rezoning of this
property to consider the mixed -use development to be more in keeping with the Neighborhood
Model.
Mr. Barnes stated that they had discussed it several times. The property was currently zoned
highway commercial. It is the old Route 29 and does not get the same amount of traffic that it
once did. Obviously in a neighborhood center construct this might have the possibility of
becoming the neighborhood center for this portion of Neighborhood 6. However at this time there
is not enough vehicle traffic to have that type of use that would rely on highway commercial uses.
It perhaps could be used for a commercial use or offices with end designation. But for retail
business, staff came to the conclusion that this was not viable in this area at this time. It would
not support that type of mixture of use. Staff determined that the highway commercial uses were
not viable uses because there were not enough people in the area to support the small shops, etc.
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant has met with the residents and discussed the situation
Mr. Barnes stated that he would have the applicant address that. He pointed out that he had
counseled the applicant to do so.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he asked that of the applicant at the last meeting. The staff report
said that the applicant planned to meet with the residents. He noted that he did not see anything
in attachment H that addresses that. He noted that they could ask the applicant.
Mr. Craddock asked what could be done in the flat lots along Buckingham Road? What could
those areas be used for?
Mr. Barnes stated that the upper lots are within the 100-foot buffer and have critical slopes and
the one towards the bottom of the page is within the 100-foot buffer. Therefore, they are not build
able lots and would be part of the open space on the plan.
Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and asked if applicant was present to address the
Commission.
Larry Burnette stated that he had owned this property with Bob Boyle for four and one-half years
and planned to put a hotel on it. After September 11'" it seemed wiser to do something else with
the property. They approached Planning staff and they highly recommended that they make it a
high residential area. They have done about 17 different studies and Planning staff has seen 6 of
them. They have lowered the density from the time that they started. He showed the
Commission what the plan on the lower left that they planned to use. He noted that was what they
would build if they have the permission. The town homes on the sheets were the concepts that
they started .with initially and he did not want to get into the architectural detail until they get the
building locations and arrangements that people are satisfied with. He displayed several
renderings of the proposed development at different scales. He pointed out that with the heavy
landscaping added the site would not be very visible within ten years. The final discretion on the
landscaping has been reserved in the proffer for the Planning staff. This plan is new to the
Commission, but not for the majority of the residents of Buckingham Circle. They have had a web
site up since June and these renderings have been put there. He noted that he has had ongoing
,%me 527
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
email correspondence with the residents of Buckingham Circle and has tried to answer questions
%W as they came up in a way that the Planning staff thought was reasonable. He pointed out the
preferred architectural look for the town homes. He stated that he has canvassed about 35 of the
53 homes in Buckingham Circle. The neighborhood has a newsletter that has the comments from
the Planning staff. Therefore, he felt that the residents of Buckingham Circle have been very well
informed about the development even though there was no formal meeting. He pointed out that
he intended to purchase one of the units. The units would be town homes or condominiums and
not rental units. The units would be relatively affordable. He pointed out that he had been working
with Planning staff for one year and he had tried to address everything. He asked to be able to go
forward with the project. He pointed out that he was willing to proffer to take out the one building
out of the 100-year buffer if that was something that was important to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Finley asked why they reduced the density.
Mr. Burnette stated because it worked and the neighborhood had an issue with the density. He
noted that he cut the density as much as possible.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for public comment from the sign in sheet.
Donald Day stated that the Buckingham Circle residents have been interested in the development
of this site. He asked that all the residents of Buckingham Circle raise their hands. He pointed out
that they wanted to play a constructive role in the property's development. They wanted to make
sure that the best use was made of the property for a lasting value for the community. He
questioned why the rezoning was being requested. They can see several uses available to this
property under their current Highway Commercial zoning that would be better for the community.
In conclusion, he asked that they deny the rezoning request because there has been no give and
take with the community.
NOW Vincent Dy, resident of 118 Buckingham Circle, stated that he was opposed to the development
as it stands. He noted that from looking at the plans, this was going to be student housing and
would be out of context with the neighborhood. He asked that the neighborhood have more input
into the process.
Paul Root, resident of 103 Buckingham Circle, stated that they appreciated the modification made,
but he was still opposed to the proposal. He noted that it was disturbing that these units would
become university housing. This proposal has not addressed the traffic flow issue which was
already a problem getting in and out of their neighborhood. The increasing flow of traffic will show
a tremendous amount of problems particularly with the very narrow bridge at the bottom of that
area. He stated that he had seen that bridge under water at a foot and a half. He asked that the
Planning Commission continue studying the plan and be thoughtful of the rezoning change.
Bill Goldene supported Mr. Day's comments. He noted concern with the fact that staff would
recommend approval of the request when it goes totally against the DISC and the Neighborhood
Model. He asked that the Commission deny this request.
Barry McClary, resident of 175 Buckingham Circle for 18 years, stated that his understanding of
the Neighborhood Model was to encourage rather than distract from the community. He stated
that in this instance this proposal does not meet the Neighborhood Model. Since his house was
the most affected visually by this development, he asked that the Commission deny the request.
He pointed out that the applicant did not stop by his house during his distribution of materials. He
stated that there has not been any give and take in this process and the density would be the
highest in the area. Fontaine Avenue is the only access to this area, which created many
concerns.
Mary McClary, resident of 175 Buckingham Circle, thanked the applicant for the use of the
property for the barbecue and yard sale. She noted that they wanted to get to know their
528
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
neighbors, but felt that the huge buildings would be very overwhelming. She voiced concerns
about the damage to the environment and the little one-way road that served the development.
She noted her disappointment in the applicant not contacting them. She asked that the
Commission deny the request because it did not fit the Neighborhood Model.
Alana Day, resident of 151 Buckingham Circle, stated that she had submitted an email yesterday.
She noted that she would not repeat many of the concerns that the other neighbors had. She
emphasized that Mr. Burnette has not provided a perspective of what this would look like from the
McClary's house. She stated that there would be about 400 additional people added to the
neighborhood with this development. They would have no bus lines or sidewalks available for
pedestrian access. She asked that the Commission deny this request because Fontaine Avenue
is the entrance into the University and the traffic needs to be able to flow well.
Regina Carlson, resident of 109 Buckingham Circle for 16 years, stated that she supported the
use of this property for residential development, but opposed the proposed high -density level.
She felt that it was out of context with the adjacent neighborhoods. She favored having a mixture
of residential uses with lower density unless some of these other issues could be addressed. She
stated that they already had a problem with the road because it is a dead end road. Fontaine
Avenue becomes very narrow after the bypass. She noted that the University was not going to
extend the bus line to this area. She felt that there should be a formal meeting with the developer
to try to address these issues. She asked that the Commission deny the request, particularly
because of the traffic issues.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was anyone else that wants to speak. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter to the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Thomas asked what the traffic situation was in terms of how many vehicle trips per day.
iyA„ Mr. Barnes stated that he did not have an existing traffic count for that road. He stated that VDOT
made the determination that a traffic study would not be warranted for that. He stated that their
logic was that if a site impacts an intersection by more than 15 percent, then they need to study
that intersection. The amount of traffic that was moving through the intersection of Fontaine is
more than what this site would be generating. He pointed out that it was more of a public issue
than an individual development issue.
Mr. Thomas asked if the narrow bridge would be adequate.
Mr. Barnes stated that the bridge accommodated vehicle traffic, but it certainly was a substandard
bridge. He noted that he could not speak to whether two tractor -trailers could pass on bridge. He
pointed out that one of the supporting factors in this rezoning was the pedestrian bridge that the
applicant was proffering as well as the sidewalk that would take from the site up to the sidewalk
system that ends at Fontaine Avenue Research Park.
Mr. Finley stated that what they were hearing from the present residents came up during the work
session. They had questions to be answered that have not been done.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was not at the work session, but obviously from the minutes there was a
clear direction to the applicant to work with the neighbors in developing the plan.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that was part of this week's staff report as well. He noted that he had
issues with that as well as some other concerns. He stated that in his opinion this particular
request that they had was not fully addressed by the developer. With all due respect for Mr.
Burnette's efforts to get information out, he did not think it was done in a way that encouraged
very much direct feedback from the people that he was asked to meet with. He felt that it was not
fully accomplished.
529
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Mr. Rieley asked that they discuss the major issues. Being familiar with the site, the crux of his
concern about the proposal is that it was a very ordinary request, but the site being a sloping
piece of property next to this stream corridor creates some concern. He agreed with Mr. Day's
four summary points that he made. He noted that Mr. Loewenstein had mentioned the first one.
The second point was that the proposed residential development was inconsistent with the
Neighborhood Model. He stated that rezonings are their best opportunity to get closer to the
Neighborhood Model. The proposal before them had no mixture of uses for the fundamental
Neighborhood Model. It has very in the way of the mixture of housing types. Essentially the same
scale of housing type was being used. The attempts to relegated parking have basically been
unsuccessful. The reason is that this kind of housing type on a narrow piece of property makes it
almost impossible to achieve that. The street cross-section that they have talked about so much
in the evolution of the Neighborhood Model and its capacity to get a humanized scale to a more
urban environment in an enclosed open space at a human scale is completely lacking. This
proposal is inconsistent with the Neighborhood Model. He felt that this was a piece of property
that lends itself enormously to the application of those principles. The third point was the
development's density exceeding that of the surrounding area. That is obviously true because
when you are in the development areas you have to acknowledge that they are going to have
situations in which infill is greater density than the existing development. That is a normal
situation. Nevertheless, it should be harmonious with it even if it is at a greater density. Some
highway departments are using the phrase context sensitive design these days. It is usually used
in pretty strange situations. He noted that it was a good term and that they should be sensitive to
the context. In this case this is a community that surely has a value as it is. The fourth statement
was that clearly the existing zoning allows for the use of the property, which was a true statement.
He reiterated what Mr. Loewenstein previously stated concerning the fact that the applicant has
not availed himself for comments from the members of the community
Mr. Thomas felt that the development was very well suited for this piece of property. He noted
that the density had been brought down from what it was originally set at. Taking that into
consideration, he felt that this piece of property would be difficult to development due to the slope
of the property and the wetlands. He stated that if the project goes forward that the building that
was sitting in the 100-year floodplain does need to be moved back. He stated that the density was
normal for the development area. He felt that the pond separates the high density from the low
density well enough. He felt that the meeting with the developer and the neighbors needs to
occur.
Mr. Finley questioned whether the procedure is working. He asked if the applicant needs to start
over at this point since he had already had a work session and they heard all that they had to say.
He noted that Planning and Engineering were both recommending approval. He asked what else
the applicant has to do?
Mr. Loewenstein stated that some of the goals that they asked the applicant to achieve at the
work session were not, in the opinion of some people, achieved. He noted that was a quick
response to a small part of it.
Ms. Hopper stated that one of the things that came out from the last work session, was that the
applicant needs to hold a meeting with the neighbors. When that did not happen, then that was
her primary reason for having problems with this application. She noted that certainly a work
session was helpful, but their work session directed pulling in comments from the neighbors which
would have been incredibly helpful at the front end of this project. Also, regarding the
Neighborhood Model and the mixture of uses or housing types, she did not think that each
application has to have a mixture of uses and a mixture of housing types. She felt that they
needed to look at the area to make sure that there is a mixture of uses and housing types to make
sure that the Neighborhood Model's principles are met that way. She stated that if the applicant
decides to defer and come before them again, she would like to see that explained to address that
principle more. The main concern is the human scale and the pedestrian friendly so that there is
ate, a place that people want to hang out other than having parties. She pointed out that there were
530
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
cm
no courtyards. She stated that she did not see how the storm water detention pond has been
incorporated into the overall development. She voiced great concern over the one access for the
traffic. She asked for more information on the traffic since she could see that intersection getting
backed up leaving the site. She noted that if the design was more appropriate that the density
could be supported. She asked for more detail about the screening.
Mr. Craddock stated that he sat out at the site for about one-half of an hour today and wondered
where all of the cars were coming from that were turning around. Obviously, he knew the buses
turning around were going to the LaFayette School, but the cars were going to the Chinese
Dragon and just turning around to come back into town. He pointed out that he learned tonight
why they were turning around was because they could not turn left to go into town. He assumed
that the bridge was State approved and safe. He stated that if this was developed as Highway
Commercial, a hotel or gas station/convenience store would not be any worse than what is being
proposed, particularly in crossing that bridge.
Mr. Barnes stated that there was no doubt that the bridge was substandard. He pointed out that
the Engineering Department would look at the difference in the traffic for residential as opposed to
commercial development.
Mr. Loewenstein invited the applicant to come forward for rebuttal.
Mr. Burnette stated that Mike Grimes at VDOT had studied the traffic and he assured him that
there was no reason to write a report from his view as a traffic engineer. He suggested that they
could do a model setup, but it would show that this was well within what they had expected. He
pointed out that they were paying to open up a sidewalk all along there to Fontaine Research Park
and adding a bridge. He noted that they had a deceleration lane coming into the property and
designed it so that it was plenty wide for persons coming in and out of the property. This was per
VDOT's direction. In terms of the rezoning, the Planning Department told him that he could apply
for this as a use with a special use permit and leave the Highway Commercial, but they preferred
that he rezone it. He stated that he has tried to meet every request that has been given to him.
He noted that he had given on every single point. He stated that if he meets with the neighbors
that he was sure that they would ask for things that he could not give. He apologized for not
meeting with the neighbors. He noted that he wanted to make sure that he had something that
the Planning Department could say yes that it was correct. He noted that he hesitated to meet
with the neighbors and give them his ideas that the County had not agreed to. He stated that it
took one year before Engineering and Planning told him that they would recommend approval.
The very next day he went out into the neighborhood and passed our information. They had
discussed bus service very early on, and Ms. Echols stated that there was no chance for bus
service. He noted that they did add the sidewalks and screening along the road. He noted that
they did not plan to just house students because it was not designed as such.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the applicant should have gotten a strong signal from the past work
session that they wanted him to identify their concerns. He felt that the applicant did not schedule
the meeting with the neighbors because he was not interested in changing the scale of his
proposal. Technically, they have to include the entire acreage of this property. About 60 percent
of the property is very sensitive and environmentally challenged and should be respected.
Anything that is done on this site will affect this. The scale of the proposal was overwhelming and
he had a great deal of difficulty with what is proposed. He agreed with Mr. Rieley on the lack of
sensitivity to the surrounding area. He noted that technically it can be done, but it does not mean
that it should be done. He stated that he could not support the application. He felt that it should
be acknowledged in the plan that portions of the property should never be developed. In
reviewing the Neighborhood Model, he could not find where any of the principles have been
supported by the proposed plan. He felt that this was a proposed housing project that was totally
unsympathetic to this neighborhood.
531
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he was unable to support the request. He noted that they have looked
rw a lot at the density issue. Even at a reduced density level on this parcel, the scale is still wrong.
There was an opportunity here to do something about a mixture of housing types that might have
helped to reduce that scale and possibly reduced the density. In this particular case, he might not
have as much trouble if the scale was brought into proportion to what surrounds it. In this
particular location the scale issue is a really important one because of the potential impact. He felt
that the residents would have complaints in the future regarding accessibility. He felt that the
development would end up being student housing and would create an immense difficulty with the
traffic flow and with a great many things. In this case he did not think this was in the interest of
the people in the community.
Mr. Thomas stated that the property was zoned highway commercial and the development of that
would be more intense.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he did not see this site supporting those kind of uses, particularly with
the limited access.
Mr. Finley asked what would be feasible and what would happen next.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they had to take some type of action unless the applicant was
interested in a deferral to do further work based on the Commission's comments and the adjacent
neighborhood.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that he believed Mr. Burnette that he did not intend to have student
housing. The difficulty was that the land use permits run with the land and not with people.
Therefore, they had to make a decision based on what this zoning change will allow without any
regard to who owns it at any given time.
Ms. Hopper asked if the applicant was interested in requesting deferral.
Mr. Burnette asked to be able to see if he understand that correctly. He stated that he could say
yes that he would like a deferral and then go back and study this some more and make some
decisions about what was doable. He stated that he could say no, let's have a vote, and then it
would be approved or denied and allows him to go forward to the Board of Supervisors. He asked
if this work session would count as the formal meeting with the residents.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that this was a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The
applicant's presentation is to be to the Commission and not the audience. In his opinion, this does
not constitute an open meeting to allow an open dialogue with the public.
Mr. Burnette asked for indefinite deferral of the request.
Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for an indefinite deferral.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Loewenstein stated that this matter would not go to the Board of Supervisors on December
11'h as originally scheduled.
Public Hearing Item:
SP-02-051 Violet Mawyer Mill Mountain (Nextel) — Request for special use permit to allow the
construction of a personal wireless service facility, with a 105 foot tall wooded monopole, in
v,,,W accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for microwave
532
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
transmission towers and their appurtenances by special use permit. The property, described as
Tax Map 98, Parcel 22, contains 48.83 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District on Rt. 804 (Thackers Lane) approximately 400 feet east of the intersection with Rt. 29S
(Monacan Trail Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Areas 4. (Stephen Waller).
Stephen Waller presented the staff report as follows.
SP 02-051 VIOLET MAWYER (MILL MOUNTAIN/NEXTEL)
Applicant's Proposal:
This proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include a
wood monopole, approximately 105 feet tall; with a top elevation that is approximately 940 feet
Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This would result in a monopole that is approximately
only one foot higher in AMSL elevation than a 25-inch diameter, 91-foot tall Poplar tree, which is
located approximately 10 feet east of the facility (Attachment B). The monopole would be
equipped with two 1-foot by 8-foot, flush -mounted panel antennas and a one -inch lightning rod at
the top. Ground -based equipment would be contained within in a 10-foot by 20-foot utility building
on a concrete pad. The applicant's request also includes an 800 square foot area around the
facility, which would be enclosed within a chain -link fence that would be fitted with wooden
stockade fencing on its exterior. The property, described as Tax Map 98 - Parcel 22, contains
48.83 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Thackers Lane [State
Route 804] approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of with Monacan Trail Road [U.S.
Route 29 South] (Attachment C). The parcel is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive
Plan designates this property Rural Areas 4.
Petition:
As part of a system that is intended to provide wireless service coverage throughout the area the
applicant, Nextel, maintains several personal wireless facilities in the County of Albemarle. The
purpose of this petition is to enable Nextel to extend its coverage along the Route 29 corridor,
south of the City of Charlottesville. This request is being made in accordance with Section
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows radio wave transmission and relay towers, and
their appurtenances, by special use permit.
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 98-007 Cook Mountain (CV 144) - At its meeting on May 20, 1998, the Board of Supervisors
approved a request to allow CFW Wireless to construct the existing personal wireless service
facility on the subject property (Attachment D). This allowed the construction of a facility utilizing a
wooden monopole that was not to extend any higher than the tallest tree within 25 feet, with
attachment of not more than six whip antennas that were allowed to extend an additional 7 feet
above the tower.
SP 99-041 Cook Mountain (CV 144) - At it's meeting on August 18, 1999, the Board of
Supervisors granted approval of a request to amend the previous special use permit allowing
CFW to replace existing whip antennas with panel antennas that currently extend 7 feet above the
tallest tree within 25 feet. This action was taken at the same time that special use permits for five
other CFW sites were also amended.
Character of the Area:
The approximate location of the proposed facility site has been indicated on the topographic map
*low in Attachment B. The site of the proposed facility is a wooded lease area that is 2500 square feet
533
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
in area and situated at an elevation between 834 and 848 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) on
the side of Cook Mountain, which peaks at an elevation approximately 1225 feet AMSL. The
application plans show that the proposed location of the monopole is situated at the 844 contour
line, and would be graded down to approximately 835 feet, resulting in a monopole with a top
height of approximately 940 feet AMSL. A 25-inch diameter, 91-foot tall Poplar tree at a base
elevation of approximately 848 feet and with a top height of 939 feet AMSL is located
approximately 10 feet east from the proposed location of the monopole. Another 97-foot tall
Poplar tree with a top elevation of 946 feet AMSL is located approximately 21 feet northeast of the
pole location.
The nearest property line is located approximately 412 feet south of the proposed lease area for
this site and is the shared boundary with property identified as Tax Map 98/Parcel 23. The lease
area for the existing personal wireless service facility, which was constructed in 1998, is located
on the subject parcel approximately 140 feet to the west of the proposed facility site. The nearest
dwelling is located approximately 420 feet west of the facility site and is also located on the same
parcel that is subject to this request. The nearest dwelling on an adjacent parcel is nearly 800
feet away from the site. All of the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas.
The site is surrounded on all sides by a variety of large hardwoods that continue up the incline of
Cook Mountain. Access to the lease area for the new facility would be provided by extending the
existing driveway gravel access road approximately 238 feet east, from the entrance of the
existing lease area, through a largely cleared area of an old road bed and into the wooded lease
area. During a field visit, staff observed that a red balloon floated at the height of the proposed
monopole appeared to extend slightly above the treetops when viewed from a location near the
edge of the tree line on the subject parcel (Attachment E). The balloon was visible below the
ridgeline from the driveway for the neighboring parcel to the south. The balloon could only be
seen from the public road right-of-way for U.S. Route 29 through a row of evergreen trees along
the frontage of an adjacent parcel property, while standing in place, and it appeared to be well
below the ridgeline.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Because the largest portion of the proposed road extension passes over an existing clearing, the
amount of clearing necessary for access and electrical services from the existing facility would be
minimal. Therefore, this request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan that mainly focus on the impacts that could result from the presence of
the tower and new ground -based equipment in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless
Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides specific
guidelines for the siting and review of wireless facilities. Both the Open Space Plan and Chapter 2
of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provide staff with
guidance for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the
preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future
use.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy:
The guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on
reducing the visual impacts of wireless facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The
Wireless Policy recommends the implementation of a three -tiered approval system to address
criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the
development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing
structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that can be
designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts.
The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown,
treetop monopoles that are no more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related
ground equipment that is painted brown.
534
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Open Space Plan and Chapter 2:
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 the
goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use.
The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the
critical resources are present throughout the County. Some of the resources that have been
identified as potentially being impacted by this request are mountains, the entrance corridor and
forests.
With consideration for the other relevant components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Wireless
Policy has also identified various "Avoidance Areas" which are locations where the unwise siting
of personal wireless facilities could result in adversely impacting important resources. 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. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their
impacts upon the natural landscape, personal wireless facilities should not be located within
"Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. Although this site is located on the side of Cook Mountain,
the proposed facility site is located below the Mountain Resource Area, which begins at the 900-
foot contour.
The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance 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."
Although this property is accessed from Route 29, it is not directly adjacent to it and the proposed
facility site is located more than 500 feet away from the right-of-way. Therefore, this special use
permit request is not subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (Attachment F). Based
on the observation of balloon tests, and the fact that the existing tower is not visible when
traveling on Route 29, it is staffs opinion that the proposed facility would not impose any
discernible impacts upon the entrance corridor.
The forests surrounding the proposed site of this facility are another resource that is recognized
by the Open Space Plan as being present on the subject parcel. 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 monopoles and ground equipment
can be designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. This includes the preference for using
structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are not "skylighted" against
the horizon so as to alter the ridgelines. Because of the limited amount of disturbance for the
installation of this facility, and its distance from property lines, it is staffs opinion that approval of
this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any of
the neighboring properties within the area. Additionally, the applicant has already followed
through on the standard condition of approval for wireless facilities requiring the establishment of
a tree conservation plan by a certified arborist, which has been submitted prior to approval of the
special use permit.
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 some amendments to the standard conditions
of approval, and omission of the fencing proposed by the applicant.
STAFF COMMENT:
535
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections:
1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
2. Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(1)(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 progerty,
Staff notes that a concern for the proliferation of multiple wireless facilities within the same vicinity
has been brought forth in the review of past proposals. The existing facility, with its monopole that
extends slightly above the tops of the trees, is not an obtrusive feature that draws attention to the
facility, nor does it impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. This is both a result of
its location within a wooded area where its mounting structure would be similar in height to the
nearby trees and its distance from surrounding properties. Although the monopole for the facility
that is being proposed would be taller than the existing one, by observing the balloon test, staff
has determined that both of the wooden monopoles would only be visible above the trees from
locations that are within the boundaries of the subject property. Staff also observed that the visual
impact of the existing facility and the balloon were reduced from distances that are farther away
due to the backdrop that is provided by the vegetation on the incline of Cook Mountain.
Therefore, a facility employing a monopole at the requested height would not introduce an
objectionable feature in the ridgeline and draw additional attention to another facility that already
exists on the subject parcel.
Once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that the
,. scheduled site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. The
applicant's request indicates that Nextel service personnel would only have to travel to the
unmanned site once a month for routine maintenance visits. It is anticipated that some
unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site has been
interrupted by weather or other unexpected occurrences.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district include preservation of the agricultural and
forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources. Uses
allowed by right in the in the Rural Areas are residential, and those related to agriculture and
forestal activities, while uses allowed by special use permit are most often those that provide
services in support of the by -right activities. Staff recognizes that support of locating facilities that
comply with the Wireless Policy in the Rural Areas zoning district is not uncommon. This is
because the key purpose of the County's Wireless Design Policy is to site tower facilities in
locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the surrounding areas.
Although the building that is needed to hold the ground based equipment in this proposal is much
larger than the equipment cabinets that have been implemented by other service providers, the
standard conditions of approval require that all ground -based equipment be painted brown. This
should assist with obscuring the facility from views outside of the lease area. However, the
proposed fencing of the facility is not consistent with the natural character of the forests within the
Rural Areas district, and would give the appearance of a larger building. The applicant has
submitted information indicating that the proposed equipment building is resistant to bullets,
vandalism and fire. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the applicant's proposal for containing the
facility within a large fenced area would require an amount of disturbance exceeding what is
necessary for establishing the personal wireless services. Furthermore, staff notes that a majority
536
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
of the personal wireless service facilities throughout the Rural Areas have been established
without any fencing, this includes the existing one on the subject property.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5.
Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community," as an intent of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in
use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service, and the establishment of wireless service
facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of
wireless phone technology. In the event of emergencies, the increased access to wireless
communication opportunities is clearly consistent with the accepted principles of public health,
safety and general welfare. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the
visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless Policy are intended to
ensure that equipment for those facilities are not responsible for intruding upon the important
resources that promote the attractiveness of the community.
Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands
which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable
consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the
suitability of property for various use, and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of
agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the
encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County." It has not been
demonstrated that these types of uses conflict with any of the other agricultural and forestal
objectives that are set forth for the Rural Areas, when they are designed and sited properly.
The introduction of the second wireless facility within the immediate area by approving this
request would clearly increase the level of services that are available in the Rural Areas.
However, it is also staffs opinion that if it is approved with the recommended conditions this
request could be approved in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
Aside for restrictions on tree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this
proposal would not act to restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or by -right uses
allowed on any other property within the Rural Areas district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance and with the public
health, safety and general welfare.
Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures
in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the
community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development
of the same." The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set forth in the
Telecommunications act address the most significant concerns for public health and safety
regarding personal wireless services. Staff has attempted to address the concerns for possible
impacts upon neighboring properties in the area throughout this staff report and in the
recommended conditions.
The Ordinance also contains section 5.1.40, which sets the requirements for the submittal, review
and approval of applications for personal wireless service facilities. When those regulations are
combined with the standard conditions of approval that are applied to personal wireless service
facilities, it is staffs opinion that this special use permit can be issued in compliance with the
provisions for public health, safety and general welfare.
537
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(1)(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.
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 the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These
requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal
wireless service. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design of
personal wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the
availability, or lack thereof, of alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with the
new antennas at this site. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the denial of this application would
not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The monopole at the facility would only be skylighted above the tree tops from points
within the property;
2. When viewing a balloon flown at the proposed height of the monopole from U.S. Route
29, this site was provided with adequate backdrop without skylighting from the vegetation
and topography of Cook Mountain;
3. This site is located in a wooded area that is more than 400 feet from the nearest property
line; and,
4. The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties.
Staff has identified the following factor, which is unfavorable to this request:
The applicant is proposing to enclose the facility within a large fenced area.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
1. There is an existing personal wireless facility on the subject parcel, within 200
feet of the proposed facility;
2. There are existing and reasonable by -right uses that could be established on the
subject property; and,
3. The applicant has already submitted a tree conservation plan prepared by a
certified arborist and has begun to incorporate those recommendations in the
construction plans.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. As a result of the complications
in enforcement that have been experienced with some past special use permits for personal
wireless service facilities, staff has reorganized the format for the general conditions of approval.
The language for a majority of the conditions is exactly as it has appeared in past conditions, with
538
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
the exception that they have been grouped according to the point of time when they are most
relevant. The most significant changes are reflected in the way that the height requirements are
being stated.
(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
return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
Recommended conditions of approval:
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas
shall be sized, located and built as shown on the application plan entitled, "Nextel
Partners, Inc. /Mill Mountain", dated August 22, 2002.
2. The pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above
the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed one
foot above the top of the 25-inch, 91-foot tall Poplar Tree identified in the application
plans, which has a top elevation of 939 feet AMSL. In no case shall the pole exceed 105
feet in height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this
special use permit or personal wireless facility permit.
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color.
5. The ground equipment building, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the
pole shall be a color that closely matches that of the pole and shall be no larger than the
specifications set forth in the application plans.
6. 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 distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas
be more than 12 inches.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above
the top of the pole.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted.
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
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 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.
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following requirements shall be met:
12. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been
used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
13. Submittal of a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree
protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the
site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. 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
**W Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
539
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. 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.
14. With the Building Permit Application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site
plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall
review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit
have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above sea -level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
16. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above
the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one -inch, shall be provided to the
Zoning Administrator.
17. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper
than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
18. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless
service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on
both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider.
19. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Special Use Permit Application and Information Packet
B - Application Plans
C - Location Map and Topographic Map
D - Approval Letter for the Existing Facility
E - Balloon Test Photos
F - Letter from the ARB Design Planner
Mr. Waller asked to modify and add to the recommended conditions of approval. The additional
amount of disturbance for the fencing is not appropriate for a largely wooded area. The first is in
condition # 8, which states that no antenna with the exception of a grounding rod shall be located
above the top of the pole. Staff recommends changing the word grounding to lighting so it would
be the lighting rod could be located above the top of the pole. Staff recommends adding an
additional sentence to that condition which states that the lighting rod shall not exceed more than
two feet above the top of the monopole and the monopole shall not exceed one inch in diameter.
For condition # 15 where the condition speaks to the elevation above sea level, that should be
So%,,,,, elevation above means sea level as stated in the rest of the conditions. For condition # 16, staff
540
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
recommends changing the word tower to monopole and the word grounding rod should be a
lighting road. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Rieley stated that when the balloon test was done, he gathered that it was possible that the
site would be visible from a distance as one travels south on Route 29. He asked if he observed
that correctly.
Mr. Waller stated that when traveling south on Route 29 the visibility was blocked by a row of tall
trees in the median. Therefore, the view of the site from the balloon was not visible from Route 29
from the southbound lane.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were other questions for the staff. There being none, he opened
the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Ed Givens, of Nextel Partners, stated that he could not improve on this document, and
therefore was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for Mr. Givens.
Mr. Edgerton stated that one of the conditions was not to allow the proposed fencing. He asked if
he was comfortable with that.
Mr. Givens stated that was acceptable.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if anyone else was present to speak on this item.
Daniel Thacker, an adjacent property owner, stated that he wanted to be assured that since this
was a microwave tower that it would be safe because it was very close to his residence. He
asked if it would be required to have a right-of-way for the main phone line through his properties.
He pointed out that the main phone lines run parallel to Route 29. He pointed out that his property
was between Ms. Mawyer's and Route 29.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they would ask the applicant to respond to both of those questions.
He asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak.
Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that he did not have any
comment on the visibility. He noted that he was glad that the tower followed the policy. He
wanted to remind the Planning Commission and get this on record that the County, University and
the City were investing millions in a new 800-megahertz public safety radio system. The single
source for interference for 800-megahertz systems throughout the Country is Nextel
communications. He noted that this was an issue that was pending before the FCC. He asked to
throw it into the mix that the County once again needed to be aware of this. This is a tower going
on Route 29 near where the 800-megahertz tower is going on Fan Mountain. Sooner or later
either Nextel is going to have to add towers or the County is going to have to add more towers.
Sooner or later someone in the County government ought to bring this issue up and determine
what is going to happen.
Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing and asked if Mr. Givens would like to come back and
speak to the two technical matters that were raised. For the record, he felt it would be an
interesting thing to have the applicant's direct response.
Mr. Givens stated that in regards to the easement issues, they were not aware of any easements
needed other that what they already had. In regards to the safety issues, there will be no
microwave equipment on this pole. There will be antennas that he could not speak to the safety
541
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
issues. He pointed out that he could provide a contact for the gentleman to speak with who can
explain everything that is going on there. In the past they have done an analysis of sites much
larger than this and the results were positive for the respect of safety. The 800-megahertz system
that the County proposes is something that they can address. Currently their safety department
has been working with Wayne Campagna. They have an ongoing analysis of the system. He
noted that Nextel Partners was a part of Nextel Communications, but was a separate entity that
covers a smaller market. Recently, they have had a lot of safety people come to us and say that
we are the demons because they were all over their frequency. He pointed out that they all
operated under the 800-megahertz frequency. He pointed out that usually it was just the result of
poor planning right up front. They have another site proposed in Albemarle County, where the
building permit has been held up until they have resolved this issue. The site was in Shadwell and
was a co -location on an existing American tower permit. He noted that he has pages and pages of
correspondence between Mr. Campagna and our department, which he felt, would be best,
addressed with whomever the Commission designated. He stated that he was certain that they
would be able to address these concerns. What will happen is as we operate we will define areas
of interference that they will be required by the FCC to go in and clean up. He stated that they
would be glad to send someone up for this discussion. He noted that they would be happy to
cooperate in any way that they can. The last thing that they wanted to do was to interfere with the
emergency frequency. They would be willing to do whatever they can to clear this issue up.
There is going to be a letter forthcoming from Mr. Campagna that will state that we have
addressed all of the issues and that they are satisfied. The Board of Supervisors has given them
a list of tasks that they need to be addressed, which will be completed within the next fifteen days.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that he would appreciate it if Mr. Givens would speak with Mr. Thacker and
give him some reassurance on the safety issues.
Mr. Givens stated that he would be happy to take care of that.
Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission for
action.
Ms. Hopper stated that she believed that this application purports with the wireless policy and she
was ready to make a motion. She made a motion for approval of SP-2002-051, Violet Mawyer
(Mill Mountain/Nextel), subject to the conditions as modified by staff.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there was a condition that staff used for the Shadwell tower that had to
do with the interference issue. He pointed out that condition was not included in this action. He
stated that if the Planning Commission wanted that to be considered by the Board, then they could
certainly include that.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that regarding the personal wireless 800-megahertz interference issue,
either the courts or the FCC have said that localities are preempted from regulating the
interference issue.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would look into this issue rather than putting it in the conditions.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) subject to the following conditions as modified:
The facility shall be designed constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas
shall be sized, located and built as shown on the application plan entitled, "Nextel
Partners, Inc. /Mill Mountain", dated August 22, 2002.
2. The pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above
the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
542
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed one
foot above the top of the 25-inch, 91-foot tall Poplar Tree identified in the application
plans, which has a top elevation of 939 feet AMSL. In no case shall the pole exceed 105
feet in height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this
special use permit or personal wireless facility permit.
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color.
5. The ground equipment building, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the
pole shall be a color that closely matches that of the pole and shall be no larger than the
specifications set forth in the application plans.
6. 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 distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas
be more than 12 inches.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a lightning rod, shall be located above
the top of the pole. The lightning rod shall not exceed more than 2 feet above the top of
the monopole and shall not exceed 1 inch in diameter.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted.
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
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 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.
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
12. With the Building Permit Application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been
used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
13. Submittal of a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree
protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the
site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. 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 two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. 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.
14. Plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall
review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit
have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above mean sea -level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
543
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
16. Certification confirming that the lightning rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above
the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one -inch, shall be provided to
the Zoning Administrator.
17. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper
than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
18. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless
service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on
both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider.
19. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the request would go to the Board of Supervisors on December 41h
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:10 p.m.
The meeting convened at 8:20 p.m.
Work Session:
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they would take the 29 North Corridor first due to the number of
people here to hear it.
North 29 Corridor — Traffic Issues - Transportation Issues Within the Route 29 Corridor North of
the Rivanna River (Michael Barnes)
Staff provided an overview of the transportation issues facing the County as it tries to coordinate
future development in the Route 29 North Corridor. The Commission held a discussion on the
traffic issues on the North 29 Corridor and examined some of the potential solutions. The
consensus of the Commission was for the staff to explore the proposed options. They asked that
staff provide the Commission with a map that included the numbers. The Planning Commission
took no formal action.
ZTA-01-08 Neighborhood Model District - Request to modify Section 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance related to Planned Districts Generally and other related sections, and to add Section
20A to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a Neighborhood Model District. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. She pointed out that the Commission had the most up to
date version of the Neighborhood Model at this time. Staff wants to make sure the Commission is
comfortable with the draft. She noted that staff has outlined six questions to see if the Commission
544
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
agrees to what we have done. She asked for the Commission's comments and if they preferred to
go through each the ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the alternative motive was to get this to public hearing. He suggested
that they move forward if the Commission was comfortable with this.
Ms. Hopper agreed that they should move forward.
Mr. Lowenstein suggested that intensity might need to be identified on the first page the third
paragraph down. He noted that he had no complaints about what you have here as the
recommended issues in the text. He asked if they wanted to add anything further.
Mr. Edgerton stated that on question three, he could not help but be excited by them actually
setting some architectural standards. He questioned how the building permit process would work
noting that they would probably hear a lot of public comment on that.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that was because of the subjective nature.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that it was time to invite the public in to make comments.
Mr. Lowewnstein stated that it was a good produce and felt that they should move forward on the
adoption of the Neighborhood Model.
Ms. Echols stated that it would be heard on either December 10`h or the 17ch.
She pointed out that North Pointe would be heard on December 101h because the applicants have
asked that the request come straight to the public hearing. She noted that was part of the reason
for this discussion was to talk about the context of the Neighborhood Model that would be most
helpful for the North Pointe hearing.
Mr. Kamptner ascertained that there was time to submit the legal ad for the 10`h to the Daily
Progress.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that it was unfortunate that North Pointe would be heard at the same time
or ahead of the Neighborhood Model. He stated that it would be nice to separate them or to hear
the Neighorhood Model first.
Ms. Hopper asked if they could change the date of the North Pointe hearing in order to hear this
first?
Mr. Craddock stated that North Pointe would get a better hearing if the Neighborhood Model was
heard first.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Commission preferred that the Neighborhood Model hearing
come first and that the two hearings be on different nights.
The Commission held a work session on ZTA-01-08, Neighborhood Model District. In consensus,
the Planning Commission supports ZTA-01-08, Neighborhood Model District, and asked that staff
schedule the public hearing on December 10`h. The Commission asked that this hearing be held
prior to the North Pointe rezoning hearing if possible.
New Business
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he had received a statement made by League of Women Voters to
Mayor Cox and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Board asking the City Counsel to take formal action
545
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002
on the latest version of the water supply plan. He noted that he did not believe that this has
happened. He asked staff to distribute copies to the Commission for further discussion.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the UNJAM Round Two Workshop at
the Senior Center and the Rural Areas Meeting at Red Hill on 7:00 p.m. on November 20`h.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
546
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 19, 2002