Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-25 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 25, 2001 April,. 30, 200i'. 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · David Nidiffer submitted a petition requesting closure of the Ivy Landfill. 5.1 SP-2000-64. Weber (Triton PCS). · APPROVED subject. to 13 conditions. 5.2 Sat public hearing for May 9, 2001, on request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 24A (Roy L. Williams). · SET public hee. dng for May 9, 2001- 543 Appropriation: Community Development Block Grant 00-25 (Whitewood Village project), $25,000 (Form #20064). · APPROVED 5.4 Request by Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League to rename the Lane Baseball Field. · APPROVED renaming the Lane Baseball Field to "Darrell C. Gardner Field at Lane Park". 5.5 AppOintment of Jack Kelsey as Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works. * APPROVED Non-Agenda. Ms. Thomas said a couple of nights ago, she represented the Board at a Salvation ,Nmy dinner. She was proud to see that Jack Jouett'Middle School had won the Golden Can Award. The award, in the category of large public schools, was for the collection of approximately 3, 200 cans of food from a food ddve. Ms. Thomas presented the award to Chds Thomas. 6. SP-2000,34..Spring Hill (Sians #38&39), · APPROVED subject 6 conditions. 7. SP-2000-38. Spring Hill (Sians #61,63&IN). · , APPROVED subject 4 conditions. 8. SP-2000-077., Orrock Property (Triton PCS) ¢Sians ~34&35). o APPROVED subject to 11 conditions. g. SP-2000-82. 'University of Virginia Real Estate Foundati°n (Si;ns #72,73&74). · APPROVED subject to 5 conditions. 10. Public Headng on proposed FY 2001 budgat amendments. · APPROVED. 12. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. · Ms. Humphris mentioned that Albemarle High School's graduation is scheduled on the same night (June 13th) as the Board of Supervisors' meeting. · Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Martin will be meeting with Blake ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman. Alt BOS members present except David Bowerman. Also present was Roxanne White, Greg Kamptner and Ella Carey. Clerk.: Acknowledge comments to Board. clerk.: Sat out conditions in Attachment A. Clerk: Advertise for public headng. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. None. None. None. Clerk: Set out conditiOns in Attachment A. Clerk:. Sat out conditions in Attachment A. Clerk: Set out conditiOns in Attachment A. Clerk: Set out conditions in Attachment Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. None. Caravati and Maudce Cox (City Council members) 'regarding direction given to CHART. She will be happy to forward any feedback from Board members. 12. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. /ewc Attachment A - Conditions of Approval. Attachment A Agenda ~tem No. 5.1 SP-2000-64. Weber (Triton PCS) The top of the pole, as measured Ai3ove Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole shall be a metal pole, dark brown in color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached plan entitled '%~/eber Property Triton PCS" dated (revised) 4/06/01; e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1); g. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level; and h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The pole shall be located as follows: a. The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the affached plan entitled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06101; and b. The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-f'rve (25) feet from the existing access road. Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole; and c. Onlyfl~,~h mounted antennas shall be permitted.. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. Ail construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 thepole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; 10. 11. 12. 13. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and Certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one (1); No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:I unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Outdoor lighting shall' be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary 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 luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary 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; The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials and height shall be restricted as follows: a. The fence shall 'be constructed with barbed wire to match the existing fence adjacent to the subject lease area. A landscaping plan depicting screening landscaping along Route 708 shall be required. A landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his designee prior to the issuance of building permits; A 12' by 14'6" shelter constructed of unpainted rough sawn wood shall be constructed around the ground equipment, as shown on the planS titled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01; and The entrance gate from Route 708 to the site, as located on the plans titled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01, shall be replaced with a solid gate constructed of unpainted rough sawn wood. Agenda Item No. 6...SP-2000-34. Spring Hill {Sians ~38&39}. No further division of the proposed 102-acre parcel allowed by this shall be permitted. No further division of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted without an amendment to SP-81-01 and SP-81-55; The 102-acre parcel shall be created through application for a rural division; If an application for a rural division of Parcel 58-95 is not filed with the Planning Department within eighteen (18) months from the Board approval date, this permit amendment w~ll expire; Only one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted on the 102-acre parcel; Riparian buffer easements extending at least one hundred (100) feet from the bank of each stream shall be placed on all streams on the new 102-acre parcel. The Water Resources Manager shall identify the streams for which the easements shall be established. The easements shall include provisions protecting existing vegetation and a tree planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than one hundred (100) feet from each bank, The final plat creating the new 4 pamel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by, the Planning Department. The ~easements shall be granted t° the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation DiStrict, the County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the County of Albemarle. If no such entity accepts the easements, the applicant shall provide written evidence from such entities declining the easements and this condition shall be null and void; and Land cleadng for this residential development site (including accessory structures such as sheds or pools) shall be limited to no more than two (2) acres (includes 1.05 acres required for the 35,000-square-foot building site and 10,000-square-foot septic site). This condition is not intended to limit agriculture, horticulture or forestry on the parcel. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-200,0-38. Spring Hill (Si_~ns #61,63&64). The applicant shall secure the following approvals before removing vegetation or beginning work on the stream crossing: a. Engineering Department approval of structural computations for the entrance and stream crossing, include structural design computations that demonstrate the bridge can safely carry the vehicles that will access the residence (including all emergency vehicles); b. FEe & Rescue Department approval of the entrance design; c. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.02.2 and 18-30.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. On the plan sheet, indicate the FEMA panel and designation (Commun'~j-Panel # 51'0006 0215 B) and that this section of Ivy Creek is a detailed study area; d. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands; e. if the Engineering Department, after review of the hydraulic computations, finds that the floodplain will be changed, the applicant must obtain a map revision from FEMA; f. Engineering Department approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. [17-203] A water protection (E&$C and SWM) bond must be posted and a pre-construction conference held prior to the issuance of a grading permit; g. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [17-322] Please include planting of trees to widen the Ivy Creek stream buffer, and h. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance design, including provision of adequate sight distance. In order to protect downstream habitat of the endangered James Spiny-mussel, the applicant must adhere to the following conditions recommended by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries: a. In-stream work for constructing either entrance shall not occur from May 15 to July 31 of any year; b. Any cofferdams used in in-stream work for isolating the bridge construction area shall be non-erodible; c. In-stream conStruction work shall block no more than fifty (50) percent of stream flow at any given time; d. Excavated material shall be removed from the floodplain to prevent reentry of that material into Ivy Creek or its tributaries; e. Where they have bean altered*by construction or vegetation removal, the odginal streambed and streambank contours shall be restored; and f. Areas where vegetation has been removed for bddge construCtion shall be replanted with similar species (except in the area occupied by the bridge), or must be included in the tree,planting plan required as a condition of SP-2000-34. The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked upon completion of the new entrance; and The applicant shall grant the County the dght to periodically enter the property for the purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been placed and the stream crossing remains stable. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-077. Orrock Property (Triton PCS) (Signs ~1&35). As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of eighty (80) feet, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 712.8 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled ~rrock (Triton PCS)'; e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall pot exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the apPlicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two (2) trees that have been used to justify the height of the monopole; g. v~rrthin one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); and h. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number one (1) of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled ~Orrock (Triton PCS)"; Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Tdton PCS)'; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; and c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be perrni~ed. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole mere than twelve (12) inches. Pdor to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, develOped by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval: All construction or installations assOciated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment = 10. 11. pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report tothe Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider; No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through 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; The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted; and The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Pdor to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff Shall. review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-200~-82. Univemi~/of Vir.qinia Real Estate Fodndafion (Si.qns, #72,73&74). Approval of this special use permit shall be in general accord with the updated Application Exhibit plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates and dated March 2, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001), (Attachment A). The following conditions (2 through 5) are deemed additional elements to the Application Exhibit and must be included on an approved s'rte plan; The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access in the following locations: a. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the Fitness Center and the planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6,1 of ZMA 95- 04). This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center; b. Pedestrian access shall be provided along the full extent of the unnamed driveway. The driveway is Shown on the plan. between the Quai Choice building and the Fitness Center and connecting Lewis and Clark Drive to the Fitness Center. This pedestrian access shall be completed pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center; c. Pedestrian access shall be provided across the full extent of frontage and completely around the Fitness Center building. The pedestrian access shall provide access from Lewis and Clark Drive to the buildings entrance, which is planned to face the parking tot on the lower level. This pedestrian access Shall be completed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center; d. The final building design shall provide an entrance facing onto Lewis and Clark Drive. This entrance may be closed or used as emergency access while the building is used for the proposed Fitness Center use; and Pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and Town Center shall be provided in a manner that encourages pedestrian traffic in an efficient and inviting manner. This pedestrian access shall be provided either at the time of construction of the F-~ness Center or during the construction of the Town Center's parking areas. The Agent shall approve that this pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and the Town Center meets the intent of condition 2e. The applicant shall provide stream bank stabilization along the remaining exposed, natural stream. Furthermore, this stabilization shall occur in a naturalized manner and shall be supplemented with additional plantings in sUfficient enough quantity to provide protection for the stream. The County's Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met; All reconstructed slopes shall be at 3:1 or 2.5:1 slopes (with the use of 2.5:1 slopes to be restricted to areas where a 3:1 slopes would either necessitate the excessive use of retaining walls or would cause the fill slope toe to encroach into the "No Grading Zone"). These reconstructed slopes shall be designed to allow for the revegetafion of the ~l slopes with a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover. If retaining walls are utilized as part of the fill slope design, preference will be given to a terraced design with series of shorter walls instead of a single, large wall. Special consideration will be given to both Screening the Hike/Bike Trail from the negative aesthetic impacts of the fill slope and/or its retaining walls and to protecting the stream from water quality impacts through the use of the afOrementioned revegetation. The County's Landscape Planner and Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition :is met; and The design of the building and/or site shall accommodate the concems of the Albemarle County Service Authority relative to the proximal waterline and thrustblock. Furthermore, if the building's redesign is significant enough to cause the fill slope's toe to encroach closer than five (5) feet from the "No Grading Zone", which is depicted on the Schematic Grading Plan, prepared by Draper Aden and dated February 28, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001) (see Attachment D), this encroachment shall cause the applicant to seek an amendment to this special use permit. PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE · 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL --Tx / 4 H c, r'n's PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE ' 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued budal of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. VVhereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL ('~'~U PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE CQUNTY of ALBEMARLE' 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately, NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management r:eeds of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL -~"-'"- ~ '~ "- - " ' Z' - ~'~ ~ ' ~ . ,~ . PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE' 1. Whereas the ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. VVhereas continued burial of waste at the ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste budal at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE' 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have .been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL ir PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to 'protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore de mand that no new Permits be issued for waste budal at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL UP THE PETITIONS ON TUESDAY FOR DELIVERY ~b bEQ. Page 2 of 2 ~) Michael Weber mjweber@mindspdng.com 979-0810 www. ivysteer.org <http;//www. ivysteer, org> .PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLO.TTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE ' 1, Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the coun .ty can be met bY utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet !ega! standards for safe operario.n; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL ' '~ E ~ .... ~ - ~. 7 - t~ ' t. 3/15/01 http://www, ivysteer.org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major correcti,Ce action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and T~E COUNTY of 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human 'health and the environment; and 2. 'Whereas continuedb~riai of 'waste at the ivyLandfiii poses continued threats to-human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste managementneed-s of the ~ount~can be met ~y utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE ' ,/ 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and ' 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL · ,. -,- ..... '-- - i, - -- ~¢'~ ' ' ~,,,~~~ ~.,~ ~ ~~~,~ o~., q. ~, ~ ' PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS / 251 1 JrTM ~¥. ~w: ~ + ~~xv~;vt4 PETITION TO THE DEQ and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILt H ~nd THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: I. Wl~as the Ivy l_andfxll is an Olin dump that must mxlcrgo major corrective ~tion to prot~t hum~ tamtth m~l the ~nvironm~m~; and 2. Whereas confinaeA burial of waste at th~ IW Laad~ poses continued threats to htmaan health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste n~_...~agemmat needs of the eotmty can be met by utiI~ng other largl~ that have be, on o. pp~opfiately sited ami eonstmcimct to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We thereforo derrmal thai no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL kLO/~~' ,o " ' ~,r~-~,~5,/~ ~ ; L~c .... . ........ ~-'7 ..... "' '~'"~' ~ ~ ...... ' .......... ~/ , · . ,._... . ,, ~' page 2 NAME PHONE E-MAIL '2%gY 6 t4c.4~''''-~ ADDRESS ~a~-20-O1 12:37P OCULUS 804-979-3645 P.O1 ~ TO: SUPP()RTERS AND MEMBERS ()F Tile IVY STEERING COMMITTEE PLEASE PRINT OUT THIS PETITION AND OBTAIN SIGNATURES AMONG YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS. CAI,I, OR E-MAIL ME WHEN YOU HAVE DONE TIHS. WE WILL PICK 'tip THE PETITJONS ON TUESDAY FOR DELIVERY TO DEQ. Michael Weber mj weber ~'qni ndsprm g. com 979-0810 www .I v y steer.erg PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of C.H ARLOTTES\:ILLE and THE COILNTY of ALBEMARI .F · l, Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and tlle environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial o£ waste at the Iv), Landfi It poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whm'eas the solid waste management needs of lhe county can be mcr by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to rneet legal standards for safe t)perati on; 4. We thcrcl'brc demand that no new Permits be issued for Waste burial at the lvy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAlvlE ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIl_, '~r-21'-01 0g:27A UVA Biology Dept ¢ PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE. and TIlE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: l. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dt[mp that must undergo major corrective aclion lo protect, human health and the environment; and '2. Whereas continued bm'iai of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county mm be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We fl~ereibre demand that no new Permits be issued for wa.gte burial a~ the Ivy l,andfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ' ZF,'Ofd :' F'LPULLEN FAX PETITION t'O THE DEQ and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an olin dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect hummt health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses eont~ued threats to human health and ~ environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste mmmgement needs of the county em be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constracled to meet legal standards for sate operation; 4. We therefbre demand that no new Pein'fits be issued for waste burial at fl~e Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. N.AM~ PHONE ADDRESS E -MAIL TO: SUPPORTER= PLEASE PRINT OI AND NEIGHBORS THE PETITIONS C Michael Weber m~weber~mind.s, pr. 979-0810 www.ivysteer.org <1 PETITION TO THE ALBEMARLE' 1. Whereas the Ivy human health and t 2. Whereas contim and the ertvimnmel 3, Whereas the sol that have been app 4. We therefore de thorough and reliab NAME AND MEMBERS OF THE IVY STEERING COMMITTEE N TUESDAY FOR DELIVERY TO DEQ. Dg...com lttp://www. Iwstee r, org> DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY .andlill is an open dump that must undergo major correclive actior le environment; and ed burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses coniJnued fllreats to hue and Id waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing c ,opriately sited and ¢ons~-ucted to meet legal standards for safe op, ~and that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the IW Lan~ te corrective action measures be taken immediately. PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS ',,._... to protect ~an health :her landfills ~rafion; Ifill and that 3/16/2001 :,Lg ,Ling http://www.ivysteer.org . PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLO~SVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operatiOn; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL t'{ t · / ! I( t t /{ http ://www.ivysteer. org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARL0~SVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the~environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and Constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL (. ,..r http ://www.ivy steer, org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARL0~SVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and' reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL http://www.iv/steer, org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL http://www.ivysteer.org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of C~0~SVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken mediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL q"7'7- f'"3 http://www.ivysteer.org ~ PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMAi~E: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We. therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL http://www, ivysteer, org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of -~ ALBEMARLE · 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued budal of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the ~envii:onment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county ,can be met by uti!iz_.ing other landfills that have been appropriately sited,and c0n~.t, ructed~' ' to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new.Permits be issued for waste burial at the IW Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL Michael Weber m~weber~mindsprin.q.com 979-0810 www. ivysteer, or,q <http://www. ivysteer, or,q> PETITION TO THE DEQ, and THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE' 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health'and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the I,~y Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL Anabei and Harry Bowen (804) 979-8622 2958 Newcomb Mountain Lane Charlottesville, E-Mail bowenh~email, msn.com VA 22903 PETITION TO THE DEQ, and. THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE ' 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that-no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL http://www.ivysteer.org PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste management needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL http://www.ivysteer.org .. PETITION TO THE DEQ, THE CITY of CHARLOTTESVILLE and THE COUNTY of ALBEMARLE: 1. Whereas the Ivy Landfill is an open dump that must undergo major corrective action to protect human health and the environment; and 2. Whereas continued burial of waste at the Ivy Landfill poses continued threats to human health and the environment; and 3. Whereas the solid waste managemem needs of the county can be met by utilizing other landfills that have been appropriately sited and constructed to meet legal standards for safe operation; 4. We therefore demand that no new Permits be issued for waste burial at the Ivy Landfill and that thorough and reliable corrective action measures be taken immediately. NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-64 Weber/Triton Communication Tower SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Board of Supervisors request to the applicant to explore the feasibility of co-locating the ground equipment with AIItel or storing the equipment in a rural-type building so as to minimize its visual impact. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Cilimberg, Ms. McDowell AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Background: On February 14, 2001, the Board of Supervisors requested that Triton PCS explore alternatives regarding the ground equipment for a communication facility to mitigate its visual impact from Route 708. The visual impact of the tower base and ground equipment was the primary reason staff recommended disapproval of the application. The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the application. On April 4, 2001, the Board deferred action on the proposed revisions to the conditions of approval, due to the timing of the submittal. The revised conditions of approval reflect the changes discussed at the April 4 meeting. The new conditions are underlined, for reference. SP 00-64 David Weber (Triton PCS) Revised Conditions of Approval The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole shall be a wccdc,q metal pole, dark brown in color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached plan entitled "Weber Property Triton PCS" dated (revised) 4/06/01. e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. g. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-64 Weber/Triton Communication Tower AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 Page 2 o 10. 11. The pole shall be located as follows: a. The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated ('revised) 4/06/01. b. The proposed facility shall be located not more than 25 feet from the existing access road. Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled '"'Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01. b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole. c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the m~mmum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 equ~'pment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes ~s discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary 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 luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminaries 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. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials and height shall be restricted as follows: · the fence shall be constructed with barbed wire to match the existing fence adjacent to the subject lease area. Around the perimeter of the lease area, inside the fence to avoid damage from grazing animals, a landscaping buffer utilizing a variety of plant materials, with a majority of the materials consisting of evergreen materials, shall be installed by the applicant. ^ ,~-,~ AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-64 Weber/Triton CommunicatiOn Tower AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 Page 3 12. A-I Landscaping plan depicting screening landscaping along Rt. 708 shall be required, cheil !,qcludc m!,qlmum !2' ~'~"~' ~'~ ..... '~ '"~'~*"' "; ..... '~ ~;~ .... '~' ~'~'"~' "~'"'~"'~""'" .... Thc plan A landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director or designee prior to the issuance of buildinq permits. 13. A 20' by 19' shelter constructed of unpainted rough sawn wood shall be constructed around the qround equipment, as shown on the plans titled Weber Property Triton PCS and dated (revised 4/06/01. 14. The entrance gate from Route 708 to the site, as located on the plans titled Weber Property Triton PCS and date~l (revised 4/06/01 shall be replaced with a solid .qate constructed of unpainted rou.qh sawn wood. ATTACHMENT: A Letter and sketches from Valerie Long, dated March 29, 2001 B Plans labeled Weber Property Triton PCS dated April 6, 2001 (revised) 01.091 McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300 RO. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 www. mcguirewoods, com Valerie W. Long D ire~ct:fl~t4~977.25-45- McGUIR EVVC DS RECEI[VED PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DL:VE~ ~]1~Tr~ewoo ds .co m .~e_c~a~ ~0_4~2~5 March 29, 2001 The Honorable Sally H. Thomas Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 889 Leigh Way Chadottesville, VA 22901 Re: SP 00-64 Weber (Triton PCS CVR 347D) Dear Ms. Thomas: Enclosed for your review is a copy of correspondence I sent to Joan McDowell in the Planning Department regarding SP 00-64 Weber for our client Tdton PCS. The letter is in reference to the shelter Tdton is proposing in response to your request to more effectively screen the ground equipment in connection with the wireless telecommunications facility at this property. A rough sketch of the shelter was included with my March 28 letter to Ms. McDowell on Wednesday morning, and in response to comments I received from her later that aftemoon, a separate copy of the sketch showing additional requested information was sent to her and is also enclosed for your review. For your additiOnal information, I have also enclosed a copy of my e-mail to Ms. McDowell in which I responded to her request for additional information regarding the sketch. Due to the shod timeframe involved, the request for additional information regarding the sketch was not included in the package of material sent to the Board for the April 4 hearing. Therefore, I wanted to take the opportunity to send this information to you separately for your review and consideration prior to the headng. As noted on the revised sketch, the dimensions of the proposed shelter are approximate and may change slightly based on recommendations of the architect and/or the project engineer who will be preparing renderings of the structure for discussion at the April 4 hearing, but the renderings will be in general accord with this sketch. You will note that the approximate dimensions of the shelter are 20' x 19,' that it will be made of rough hewn siding (which is made of unpainted wood), and will have a metal roof painted a flat, dark brown color. The open side of the structure will be odented away from the road for maximum screening of the equipment. I have certainly appreciated your thoughts and suggestions on this issue in the past weeks, and am hopeful the proposed structure is consistent with your intent that it to be architecturally compatible with this rural agricultural area. I would welcome any questions or comments you may have regarding the proposal, and I will look forward to discussing this issue in more detail at the Board hearing on Apdl 4. Very truly yours, Valerie W. Long VVVL/hll Enclosures March 29, 2001 Page 2 cc: oJ0~-'McDo~/~1,17-Albe-niade CoUhtyPlanning and Community Development (with enclosures) Frank Shortall, Tdton PCS, Inc. (with enclosures) James Baran, Triton PCS, Inc. (with enclosures) Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications, Inc. (with enclosures) \\REAL56444, l Long, Valerie W. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Long, Valerie W. Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:02 PM 'Joan McDowell'  l~ga.re_t. M_ali_szewski (_E-mail); 'dale.finocchi@crowncastle.com' : Weber (SP 00-64) ('T-~i~'PCSc~R 347~)- Importance: High Joan, Thanks for your comments and feedback. I've faxed you a letter with some additional information (which probably arrived just before or just after you sent your email). In addition to the information in the letter, I can address some of your questions, and will be working with my client on the others. 1. The view in the top right comer is a side elevation. You will see from my letter that the lattice wall is 4 feet high and the open area is 4 feet high. The height of the roof ranges as shown on the sketch and then slopes down toward the open side of the structure. 2. Regarding the size of the building, it will be approximately 21 feet by 19 feet. The first length is based on the 12 foot length of the concrete pad, 4 feet on either side of it, and then approximately another 1 foot for the width of the wall on each side, for a total of 21 feet. The other side is based on the 10 feet in width of the pad, plus 4 feet to the wall, roughly 4 additional feet towards the open side, and then half a foot for the width of the wall on each end, for a total of 19 feet. However, in my cover letter to you I explained that the architect and/or engineer may recommend slight adjustments to the dimensions of the structure if necessary for proper air circulation, for proper placement of the equipment, or for some other technical reason, but that the renderings the architect will prepare will be in general accord with the sketch. I will fax you another copy of the sketch with these dimensions marked, along with additional clarifying information. 3. As forthe orientation in the lease area, we have been thinking about the same thing. To protect the trees and effectively screen the equipment from the road, the structure may have to extend slightly beyond the boundaries of the lease area. Triton is working now with its construction and engineering staff to determine the appropriate orientation. I will fax you a sketch or a marked up page of the site detail plan showing the proposed location as soon as it is available. 4. Yes, the rough hewn siding will be made of unpainted wood. 5. Triton will paint the roof a flat dark brown. I believe this answers all of your questions. I will be in my office the rest of the day and would be happy to provide additional information if necessary. Thanks again for your feedback. Valerie Long ..... Original Message ..... From: Joan McDowell [mailto:jmcdowell@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, MarCh 28, 2001 2:38 PM To: 'Valede Long' Subject: Weber Valerie, Margaret and I believe the drawing you handed me last night is on the right track. However, we would like to see side elevations, the size of the building, and its orientation on the lease area. Also, we assume that the "rough hewn siding" is made of unpainted wood, but a note to that effect may provide assurances to the Board. We believe that the seamed metal roof should be an dull metal color or painted a flat dark brown. 7..1' McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building ~310 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300 P.O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 www. rncguirewoods.corn Yalerie W. Lon§ Dire~ McGUIRE\A/ D5 vlong@m_cg~ire_~o.o_ds~cc~m~_ Direct Fax: 804.980.2265 March 28, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE 972-4012 Ms. Joan McDowell Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road - Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SP 00-64 Weber (Triton PCS CVR 347D) Dear Joan: Enclosed for your review is a sketch of a proposed shelter structure to conceal the ground equipment associated with the wireless telecommunications facility proposed by our client Tdton PCS at the Weber property (SP 00-64). This is the same sketch that I hand- delivered to you last night at the Planning Commission hearing, but I would like to provide you with more information. The proposed structure is designed to work with the standard 10' x 12'. Triton concrete equipment pad and the standard-size "outdoor" equipment cabinet. The structure would be fully open on one side to provide the necessary circulation for the equipment, and would be partially open on two sides. One piece of equipment that is not shown in the sketch is the cable icebddge which would run from the radio cabinet on the concrete pad to the pole across the open side of the structure. In addition, my client has advised me that the windows shown on the back side of the building would not be glassed in but will merely be openings to allow for additional air circulation. In addition, I have clarified one minor issue on the side view detail. I have Crossed out the reference to the 8-foot wall, which is slightly misleading. The 8-foot reference was intended to show the combined distance of the 4-foot lattice wall and the 4-foot open area and I do not believe this was entirely clear in the initial drawing. Triton has forwarded this sketch on to an architect so that more formal renderings may be .prepared in time for the Board of Supervisors' consideration of this matter on Wednesday, April 4. These renderings will be based on this sketch, although there may be slight adjustments in the dimensions of the structure if the architect and engineer determine that more space is needed between the equipment cabinet and the walls of the structure, but for the most part it will be in general accord with the enclosed sketch. March 28, 2001 Page 2 I would welcome and appreciate any comments anc~ feedback you might have on the pro posedstmctute-aLyour-eadiest-con~enJenc~_can.bereache~y_office.at _977.254 5. Very truly yours, Valerie W. Long VVVL/hll Enclosure CC: The Honorable Sally Thomas (with enclosure) Frank Shortall, Triton PCS, Inc. James Baran, Tdton PCS, Inc. Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications, Inc. \'~R.EA~6331.I TritonPCS UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SITE 92.4' STEEL MONOPOLE PAINTED BROWN 10'x12' CONCRETE PAD W/ EQUIPMENT ANTENNA RAD CENTER = 90.4' ZONING DRAWINGS SCCS-S A/C AIR CONDITIONING A0J ADJUSTABLE ;J:F ABOVE FINISH FLOOR APPROX APPROXIMATELY MGR MANAGER MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS NORTH NOT APPLICABLE NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NTS NOT TO SCALE OC,o/c ON CENTER OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER GPO OPENING OPP OPPOSITE PLYWD PLYWOOD iD INSIDE DIA. .N F~CR ~NFO iNFORMATION !NSUL, INSULATION NT NTERIOR L~(S} POUND(S) },~XIMUM KE~ NOTE ANGLE I AND CENTER UNE PROPERI~ LINE AT NUMBER DETAIL REFERENCE ELEVATION RECERENCE A~isg~atlONs aND's-YMBoLs ENGINEER o2wireiess Solu[ions ' !015 AVIATION PKWY STE 700 MORRI~VlLLE. NC 27560 (919) 469-9426 FAX (919) 469-9967 (540) 344-7939 F.%X (540) 344-3657 CONSULTANT TEAM APPROVED ~Y ~T~ LANDOWNER APPROVAL DATE MUNICIPAL APPROVAL DATE NSPECTOR APPROVAL DATE CANDIDATE NAME: WEBER PROPERT-Y .... SITE NAME: GILLUMS MOUNTAIN SITE CVR- 3470 INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BEFORE YOU DIG CALL UTILITY LOCATION SERVICES. IT'S THE LAW SITE NAME G~LLUMS MOUNTAIN FCC NO. SITE NUMBER CVR-347D FA~A NQ~ SITE AOD~ INTERSECTION OF -84 AND S.R. 708 CHARLO~;'ES~ILLE. /lA 22905 SITE OWNER DAVID WEBER 27 MALVERN FARU ROAD CHARLOTTESSILLE, VA 22903 (804) 971-9566 FLOOD ZONE C PANEL NO. COMMUNITY PANEL ~: 5~0006 O195 H EFFECT~E DATE: DEC£MBER I6. 1980 APPUCANT TRITON PCS 921~ ARBORETUM P4~KWAY RICHMOND. VA 23236 804) 323-9500 ELEVATION - 69,5.6' ZONING JURISDICTION PARCFL NUMBER tAX MAP 73. PARCEL 3lO ~FED BOOK & PAGE ~N~"f NUU6E~ PROJEOT SUMMARY VICINITY MAP PROJECT OESCRIPIION THE PROJECT NCLUDES: ;NSTALLAT;ON OF A 6'xB'-G" CONCRETE PAD W/ EOUiP~SNT :NSTALLATtON OF A 92.~' HiGH STEEL MONOPOLE WITH PNO PANEL ANTENNAS (ONE PER SECTOR~ AND ]NE FUTURE ANTENNNA (ONE PER SECTOR~ TOTAL HEIGHT OF' STRUCTURE IS 94.4 (INCLUDES A 2' LIGHTNING ROD ON TOP OF MONOPOLE). A NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE RUN TO SITE A N~W ELECTRICAL SERVICE RUN TO SITE NO WATER SUPPLY OR SEWAGE RUN TO SITE FROM COUNTY OFFICE. ~AKE 29 SOUTH TO INTERSTATE PR0~JECT DESCRIPTION ~ DESCRIPTION r-1 ~ROJECT INFORMATION, VICINITY MAP. C-I GENERAL NOTES ~ SPECIFICATIONS ~lVl[~ DRAWING C-S SITE PLAN C-4 SITE DETAIL PLAN C-5 DRAPING pr~N C-6 SITE DETAILS C-7 SITE DETAILS C-6 LANDSCAPING PLAN FINAL DRAWING NOT RELF_~ED SHEET INDEX TritonPCS i~o2wireless Solutions t086 CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX. NC 27502 Ph(me: (919) 367-2210 Fax: [919) 367-2220 u/22/~ I CROWN 0~WN 5'Y: OHS CHECREO ~: WEBER PROPERTY GILLUMS MOUNTAIN CVR-347D INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND $. R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 PROJECT INFORMATION VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX T-1 DIVISION 1- STANDARD PROVISIONS GENERAL NOTES DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE.SCALED. THESE PLANS ARE INTENOED TO BE BIAGRAMMATIC PRECEDENCE. DIVISION 2: SITE WORK-02100 -~RTHWORK AND DRAINAGE P~.RT ' GENERAL · . WORK INCLUDED ~ REFER TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE PLAN FOR WORK INCLUDED. NEEDED). 7. WARRAN~f A, IN ADDITION TO THE WARRANTY ON ALL CONSTRUCTION COVERED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE AND REPAIR AREA ~ACK AS CLOSE TO )RIOINAL CONDITION AS POSSIBL]~ TO LEASE AREA PROPER~f OR SURROUN01NG CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION. B. SOIL STERILIZATION APPLICATION WILL GUARANTEE VEGETATION FREE ROAD AND BITE AREAS FOR ONE YF~R FROM DATE OF FINAL INSPECTION. C. DISTURBED AREAS WILL REFLECT OROWTH OF NEW GRASS COVER PRIOR TO FINAL INSPEOT~DN. D. LANOSCAPINC. ~ tNCLUOED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT. WILL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE 0P FINAL INSPECTION. DIVISION ,5: CONCRETE WORKS-05510 1, QUALITY ASSURANCE: COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES. SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS, EXCEPT WHERE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS ARE SHOWN OR SPECIFIED: A, ACI '~01-BB "SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS" B. ACI 318 "BuILOIN0 CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE' (REVISED 1992) ANO ACI518-B9 "COMMENTARY" (REVISED 1992) C. CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE (CRSI)."MANUAL OF STANOARD PRACTICE", 2, REINFORCING MATERIALS: A. RIENFORCING:ASTM A 61§.GRADE 60 DEFORMED, DIVISION 4: UNIT VlASONRY-04.220 1, CONCRETE BLOCKS: A. STANDARD BLOCK SHALL BE THE SIZE NDICATED ON rile DRAWINGS. LIGHT GRAY OR NEUTRAL COLOR, AND SHALL CONFORM [0 THE REOUIREMENTS OF ASTM C 90, TYPE 1. GRADE N, LIQHTWEIGRT TYPE NITH EXPANO SLAG AGGREGATE, 2, MORTAR~ A. All MORTAR FOR CONCRETE BLOCKS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C 270. TYI=E S AND DIVISION 5' STRUCTURAL STEEL-05120 QUALITY ASSURANCE: COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES. SPECIFICADONS AND STANDARDS, EXCEPT WHERE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS ARE SHOWN OR SPECIFIED: A. AISC "CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE', B. AISC 'SPECIFICATION fOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS - ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN AND PLASTIC 0ESIGN", NCLUDING THE "COMMENTARY~ AND SUPPLEMENTS. C. AMERiCAN WELDING SOCI~PF (AWS) D1,1-92,~STRUCTURAL WEL01NG CODE - STEEL." DIVISION 7: SEALANTS AND CAULKING-07900 l,PROVIDE JOINT SEALEEB. JOINT FILLERS AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH JOINT SUBSTRATES UNOER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND APPUCATIONS. PROVIDE COLORS TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACES. PROVIDE BLACK OR OTHER NEU1T~AL COLOR WHEN NO OTHER COLOR IS AVNLABLE. 2,ONE-COMPONENT POLYSULF~0E BASED, ONE PART ELASTOMERIC SEALANT, COMPLYING WITH FS TT--S-00230.CLASS ~- TYPE (NON-SAG), FOR JOINTS AT PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS. PRO'lOT COMPOUND BEARING THE THIO00L CHEMICAL CORPORATION SEAL OF APPROVAL PROV1DE ONE OF THE :OLLOWIND OR AN APPROVEO EQUAL' A, FL~,ISEAL ROG SERIES BY DAP. INC. B HORNFLEX ONE - COMPONENT BY W.R GRACE &c CO, 3. ONE-COMPONENT ACRYLIC SEA[ANT: ACRYLIC TERPOLYMER EOLVENT BASED ONE--PAR1 THERMOPLASTIC SEALANT COMPOUND SOLIDS NOT LESS THAN g5% ACRYLIC COMPLYING WITH FS 'Fr-S-O0250, C[~S~ B TYPE 11. FOR PERIMETER OF METAL AND O00R FRAMES. THRESHOLDS AT EXTERIOR DOORS, AND PIPE SLEEVES THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS AND FLOOR SLABS, PROVIDE ONE 0¢ ~HE FOLLOWING OF ,Ah APPROVED EQUAL: A. DAP ACRYUC 3Y 0AP. iNC. B. GACO AS-5 BY GATES ENOINEERINO/SMC A, OLEO-RESINS CAULKING.COMPOUNO: OIL BASED RESINOUS CAULKIN6, COMPLYING WITH FS TT-C-598, NON-BLEEDING, PAINTABLE. FOR ONE OF THE :OLLOWING OR AN APPROVED EQUAL: A YULCATEX BY W.R. GRACE & CO. DIVISION 8: METAL DOORS &: FRAMES-08110 t. PROVIDE' DOORS AND FRAMES COMPLYING WITH STEEL DOOR INSTITUTE "RECOMMENDED 13. PROVIDE STEEL REINFORCING AT HINGES N HOLLOW METAL UNITS TO BE 7 GAGE x I0 1/2" x NIDTN REQUIRED. I~. PROVIDE HOLLOW METAL 0OORS OF THE TYPES INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND COMPLYING NITH SOl-I00 MINIMUM MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 1§ PROVIDE HOLLOW METAL FRAMES OF THE TYPES AND STYLES INDICATED ON THE 0RAWINOS AND COMPLYING WITH S01 100. PROVIDE 16 GAGE FRAMES AT NTER[OR LOCATIONS. NOTE: DOOR SHALL BE OPERABLE FOR EXITING FROM THE INSIDE WITHOUT THE USE OF A~ RNAL DRAWING NOT RELEASED rD. _CONSmU~O. TritonPCS TRffON PCS 921 ! N~M PARKWAY RICHMOND. VA 23236 8O4 iC o2wireLess SoLutions 1086 CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX. NC 27502 Phone: (919) 367-2210 Fax: (919) 367-2220 ~E'~E J S(~/OD t~ EOR R~W tO/ll/0O I GSUEO FOR ZONING REVISIONS i I0/16/00 / :~C-E To STED. DRAWN aY: CHS CNECXED ~: DFS WEBER PROPERTY GILLUM$ MOUNTAIN CVR-347D INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 [SHEET llTLE j GENERAL NOTES & ,SPECIFICATIONS LEOAL DESCRIPTION LEASE PARCEL CONk*ENDING AT AN HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND ON'THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DRY BRIOGE ROAD. ROLrFE 708: THENCE S24'47.32"E 19.00' ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO A POINT(P,O,BA~.]); THENCE THROUGH THE LANOS OF OAV,C C /.I~ER. DEED BOOK 824, PAGE 57' B64'59'56"E 60.59 FEET TO AN RON PIN SET AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEOINNINO(POEI ~2); THENCE Wll'H THE N~// LINES OF THE LEASE PARCEL AND CONTINUING THROUGH THE -ANDS CF SAiD DAVID C. WEBER N15'58'51"W ,30.00 FEET TO AN RON PiN SET; THENCE N74'Ot'OG'E 50.00 FEET TO AN IRON PfN SET; THENCE B15'SB'SI"E 30.00 FE[~ "0 AN :RON P~N SET; THENCE $74'01'09"W 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONT.~IG.~SQ _UGR__E_ ~FK~ET- OF: LAND AND BEING SITUATED. IN IV~ ~t~IBTK~k~N- DISTRICT. N.B~LE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. LEGAl. ;ESCR,~rlON OF PROPOSED 2.0' ACCESS~UTILII~f EASEMENT CGWMENCING AT AN HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND ON THE EASTERLY R:GNT-DF-~AY DRY BRIDGE ROAD. ROUTE 708: THENCE S24'.47'3Z"E 19,00' ALONG SAiD RIGHT-DF-WAY TO A POINT AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEDINNING(POB THENCE THROUGH THE LANDS OF OAVID C. WEBER. DEED BOOK 8';'4. PAGE 37, AND CONTINUING WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE PROPOSEO 20' ACCESS\U'JlIJTY EASEMENT N74'Ol'OD'E 55.51 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE S15'58'51"E 40.00 FEET TO POINT: ,-HENCE N15'58'51'~ 4-0.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N74'Ot'OD"E 4.0.0~ ~ TO A POINT BEING THE ENO OF THE 20' ACCESS\.UTILII'i' EASEMENT HAVING A TOTAL LENGTH OE 115.5 FEET, LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARENT TRACT BEGINNING AT A VDN MONUMENT FOUNO (P.O.B. ~1) ON THE EASTERN RtGHT OF WAY OP BTATE ROUTE 709: THENCB WiTH TH£ RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE ROUTE 708 N27'4.5',,3B"W 50.79 FE~-J' TO A VOH MONUMENT FOUND; THENCE N24,'47'32"W 134.~5 FEET TO A VDH MONUMENT FOUND; THENCE N12'~.7'12"W 50,59 FEET TO A POINT BEING A WESTERN'CORNER OF NOW OR FORMERLY ROBERT FINLEY' PROPER~Pt'. DEED BOOK lBO0. PAGE 595; THENCE LEAVING SAIO RIGHT OP WAY AND WITH-THE UNES OF ~AID FINLEY PROPER'PT N76'IG'5..3"E 260.00 FEET TO A =OINT; THENCE S25'1'1'2~'E 1194.79 FEET TO A 30tNT: THENCE "161"35'29"E 81.26 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S30'02'52"E 320,50 FEET TO A POINT BEING [HE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID F~NLEY PROPERTY; SAID POINT ALSO LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN LINE OF NOW OR FORMERLY ARTHUR DAVENPORT PROPERTY, DEED BOOK 1543. P/~E 549: THENCE LEAVING SN'O-FINLEY-PROPERI!Y~A~Q. WtTH-THE-LINE. OF..~OAO. DAVENPORT S6~.'~0'44"W 56.3.75 FEET TO A P~i~¥-~)RTFIWEST CORNER-OF-.~AJO-DAVENPORT PROpIL:~RTY,, ~AI~ FOINT-AJ..SO- ............ LOCATED ON THE WESTERN RIGHT OF WAY OF ,~AIO STATE ROUTE :08: THENCE ~EAVING SAID DAVENPORT PROPERTY AND. WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE ROUTE 708 N25'5')'55''W 310.07 FEET ~'0 A POINT:THENCE N25'52'55"W 472.03 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE N28' 19'35"W 142.19 FEET TO A 301NT; THENCE N36'~'5'OA"W 125.7A FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N2§'35'AS"W 279.32 FEET TO A ~OINT: THENCE N62'3§'54"E PASSING A VDH MONUMENT FOUND AT 16.4- FEET FOR ~ TOTAL DISTANCE OF' 40.00 PEET TO THE POINT OF' BEGINNING. CONTAINING 10.31 ACRES OF LAND FROM RECORD AND BEING ~ITUATED IN-I'¢f MAGISTERIAL OISTRICT ALBEMARLE: COUNTY. VIRGINIA. O0 200 [ ,AJTIUTY POLE NOTES: 1 OWNER OF RECO'~D: DAVID C. WEBER ¢ VPRH 58 .,~5"E. \ ~ ~,~ ,,~T~' ,~ ~ 2. LEGAL REFERENCE: DEED BOOK 824 PAGE \ \, ,~,,,~ ~, .'.'\ '..-_. 5. VERTICAL 0ATUM S NAVO-88. "~!~_.. ",.v. ,:%.~.,~, "., \ ~,~... . .. %%:/ ,~ ,, .. . \o..:.-..~..'..,, , ' 4 ~':' 3'-' -" '--'C-"-~'-~- '-UTIU1 F F e?..' '-.'-%'--.7 R.o.,. \-.~(._-.-_~ .... ,3. TAX '~AP NUMBER: Z5-310 ~-. PROPERTY S ZONED: RA COORDINATES 8ASEO ON VIRGINIA STATE, GRID. SOUTH ZONE, ~<....\ ~ .~ 6~.BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO ¢IRGINIA STATE GRID, .'.'t · ALL EASBMENTS OF RECORD WHICH WERE PROVIOED TO "'"" "~,~/',~ SURVEYOR ARE SHOWN HEREON NO TITLE REPORT WAS \ %- ,',.'~"'["~'"J~'"~'~ '" FURNISHED TO SURVEYOR AND THERE MAY BE ~ s':-':.'-'~:'A.L'~ \ ENCUMBRANCES' ON SURVEYED PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. *,,', '. ~-, - -' ~'-,'",,7 ;,~,:.,.,...-.C..~<,;2./-~---~ ._.\ ~. LOCAL POWER COMPANY: VA POWER CO. PHONE 885-8~7-~000. LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANY: SPRINT PHONE 540-228-9191. "~.~:'."-'.-'---:~:-'<:-_'-~uTIuTY Pou~;--.~. ~1, CALL M~SS U'UTY AT I-BO0-SS~-7OD~ BEFORE COMMENCING FLOOD MAP WITH A COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER OF 510006 0195  ,.?~ ~- .... ~ WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 18, 1980. ~ . -2 . D.B. 824, PO. ,37 10.,31 ACRES \ 300 JNE TABLE Hd,'dREW' 2.RECT ONDISTANCE ./ \ \ _.,~,"~ ,,'%.~ , , ~', ,, ~---- ..... .. .. ', ,, .. !. , ~. "4: ~ · ,' ' ', ' '. ", ~ ~¢.'" ', ~ " , ~ '. ~ .-' , .-.. . .. , ~ '%'~ · ~ -- ~ X " ' / ~ '~6" OAK ~. ', ', : ~' , '/ ~ENT '27" O~ ' "' '" ' ;"-~, .2 ....... ' ' J ~ ...... ~8o' TAU ~ , · ' ,P.O.B. k J ..~z5 ~-~ , '-i ' ', ~ - ~ - lo ~~,~ ~ ~ ',, , ,. ~_ ,, , , '~ ~ ~ .' 'L "' ',LX' /. ~,~,~ ~. ,L,~s. ', kk,/ ~ .; ~.--~" ~;- , ~' Y*~ ...._1 ~" . '., % ....... '-.. '-.. ' ........... ~ '.,.... '..,....,, -... o ' '--. ~s~ ~,s~ E~'~ ~oo.~ ...... '-. '~x '~ " " "' ' ...... -.. .... - ..... ' LL .................... "' .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 705 -. ~.~"~ , -. '~L ..... - ..... ' ............. "-. ~ '~E: ~"=20' '. IPF ~RON PIN FOUND OF HIGHWAYB -- INDICATES LINES THAT ARE FROM RECORDS ANO NOT SURVEYED ON THE GROUND. INDICATES SURVEYED LEASE PARCEL. SURVEY SHOWING BOUNDARY FROM ~ECORDS & PARTIAL SURVEY FOR LEASE AREA AND ACCESS ROAO SITE #: CVR 347 "D~ SITE NAME: WEBER PROPERTY SITUATED ON THE DAVID C. WEBER DEED BOOK 824. PAGE 37 AND ACCESSED FROU ~ATE ROUTE 70~ IVY MAGISTERIAL OlSTR:CT SCALE = ~ CO' PL~J~INERS ARCHrCEcTs ENglNEE]:~S SURVEYOR~ No. 002'~C 0-2 MIN. SETBACK RI~QUIREMENTS FRONT: 75' SIDES: 25' REAR: 55' ,, TritonPC$ ; F-UTILIT'F POLE /'~92.4.'¢ FALL ZONE TRITON PCS VPRH 68 9211 ARBORET~JM PARKWAY  RICHMOND, VA 25256 804 523--9500 '"'..~....~ j ~-~,,-.~ / _~.¢~,% ~,~\ ~.~---PROPOSED TRITON PCS 12'x1.-6' ......... O' WI~ \ : ~'~*-..~.~ ~ ./ ~,9'~'.~.~~'~ ~ EQUIPMENT PROTECTION SHED L HERErN ARE THff PROPER~ OF ENGIN~R  iretess SoLutions SITE PLAN SCALE: I"=80' SUITE 101 APEX. NC 27502 Phone: (919) 367-2210 Fax: (919) 367-2220 N/~ /~O~E~?r BRAWN BY: C~S ONECKED ~: DFS D.B. 824, PO. 57 WEBER PROPER~ 10.51 ACRES GILLUM8 MOUNTAIN TAX 73- 51 O /?"~ [ ,,c .u..~. ] ~ ~'/" $/F INTERSECTION OF ~ ~rHu~ m~g~Po~r AND S.R. 708 .-" o.~. ;5~ Pc. f~ CHARLO~ESVlLLE, VA ~903 SITE P~N FI~ D~WING [ ~EET NbMBER NOT FOR 2ON~RUE~ON C-3 GENERAL NOTES: TF~EE NOTATION LEGEND: 1. EXCEPT AS MAY BE EXPRESSLY NOTED TO 'J]-iE CONTRARY HEREIN. NO TREES OR $1GNIIqCANT VEGETATION I$ TO BE NOTE: TREE DIAMETERS M~SURED AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH). REMOVED WITHIN 200' OF THE CENTERUNE OF THE $.R.O. = SOUTHERN RED OAK PROPOSED POLE. N.R.O, = NORTHERN RED R.O. = UNDETERMINED SPECIES N THE RED OAK GROUP. 2, OVERALL TOWER HEIGHT INCLUDING UGHTNING ROD - C4.4' ..................... 5.~BA~F.. DL~E-t~J~.OE. POLE VARiES_BETWEEN 23,5' AND 25.5' _ ,~. TOP o~r~ Or POL~ = ~0' ~ 36" S.R.O. 86' TALL ACL BASE ELEV - 695' ASL TOp ELEV. - 781' \ 27- s.R.o. 8°. TALL /\' ~.~,~ ~-~,~ ~ ~ / ASL TOP ELEV. -- 770' \\ '"-.., X~-~- . ~._~ \\ / ~ / \ ' PROPOSED ~ ~ / ~* ~ · ~ '~.,, ~,",j, TRITON PCS H-FRAME ~ \ ACCESS/UT~U~f \ 26' S.R.O. 70' TALL ~-- ~'~ '~.~"~ ~ \ ~, ~ / / \ \ BASEMENT ~ ASL CASE ELD/ - 695' '~ / "~ '% \ o \ \ / / 5 \ \ ABL TOP ELD/. - 785 ~ ~ / ~ X X ~ , / / /-'-EQUIPMENT PROTECTION \ \ \ .~:~. ---~ .__. ~. ~ \ \ \ / I/ SHED oVER \, \ ' ~ / ---- "... ~ t \ \ \ / // EOUIPM~rr PAD ANO \ ~ \ ~ ~ y.,~5".-.,~_./ ~...-~ ~.. ~,~ L__ ~XISTING~--~ \ \ / // 5'-6'x5' EQUIPMENT \ \ ?- .... \ \~ X ... .... ......u.L.~ ..~ \\ , .. x /\ I ', -~ ...... \ \~ ~ .~ c., ~.~.o ~6, ~ ~_ ~ ',, . . '-~ / ~ ~ ~,~o, ~c, ~ /", ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~" ASL BASE EL~ - 696' ~>' --~-~, ~ --... ' ~ / /lC~ BRIDGE ~ ~ 25" ~,0. 84' ASL SASE EL~ - 697' 14" ~.O. 66' TALL ~ PROPOSED ~ITON P~  ASL BABE EL~ - 696' ~ ~ L~E ~ (30'x50') ASL TOP [LEV. - 762' P~oPo~D TEMPORARY ' ~ ~ ~E pRO~CT~ON FENCE " ~ jo ~IMUTH 75' ~IM~TENNA 27~ ~ RAO C~R 90.4' '- '- '~ 94" R,O 80 TALL ~D CENTER 90,*' '~'; ~LR.O. 74 TALL ~' ~SL CASE ELEV - 699' ASL BASE ELEV 698: 25" R.O 88' TALL ~XIS~NG" ~ ,. ~,~,~ ~ o~,ENT,TE~ ~w,s~ .,o~ ~u[ ~o,~. SITE DETAIL Pb~N l'ritonPOS ~trON PCS 921~ ARBORE~JM PARk'WAY RICHMOND. VA 23256 o2wiretess SoLu~ons 1086 CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX. NC 27502 Phone: (919) 367-2210 Fax: (919) 367-2220 RELF~SE 6/6/00 J ISSUED FOR RD/1EW 10/11/00 J ISSUED FOR ZONING OHECKED BY: DSS WEBER PROPERTY GILLUMS MOUNTAIN CVR-347D INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 J SHEET ~TL£ J SITE DETAIL PLAN C-4 27"S,R.O. 80' TALL ASLBASE ELEV - 695' 23" S.R.O 75' TALL ASLTOP ELEV. - 775' ASL BASE ELEV - 695' ASL TOP ELEV - 770' - JG' S.R.O. BG' TALL ASL BASE ELBe - 695' AEC TOP ELEV. - 781' 36" R.O. 76' TALL ASL BASE ELE'V - 694' ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED TRITONPCS ~ / ' ~ PROPOS[D TEMPO~ X ~ 25" R.O. 84' TALL TREE ~RO~CTION FENCE ~ ASL TOP EL~ - 781~ xx. (~1~) .............. ~ ~ -"~E NOTA~ON LEGEND: BASE EL~V - 698' 25" R.0. 88' TALL T ~ ASL BASE ELEV - ASL TOP m~ ~. - 786' EXiSTiNG ~ ~..'~L,'~ ~- ASL TOP ELEV - 770' '' ~ ~ // ~ ~ ",/ SHED O~R 6'x8'-6" ." / ~" ~ 7 EQUIPM~ PAD ~O 20' WIDE ~ / ~/ x ~ / ..... / ~ y s y 2 ~ ASLTOPE~ - 788' ~ ~O ~ .... ;~ ASL BASE ELEV - 69~' ~~ ~ ~ ASL TO~ EL~. ~ 775~ ~ , ~ '~ // / ~ ~ ~ ~9 /~ ~ ' ~ ~,'~ ASLTOP ELEV.-~ ~ ~ . -' '', ',.. .~ ~// / / ~ ~ ~ ~- / ~ ~ ~ / ~ X ~--" ~ ~ ~ '.,, · ' ~ '-~ ~ ~ < ~ ~'/ ~ '.1/ GRADING PLAN SEiLE 5 0 NOTE: TREE DIAMETERS Mc_..ASURED AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH). S.R.O. = SOUTHERN RED OAK N.R.O. = NORTHERN RED OAK R.O. = UNDETERMINED SPECIES IN THE RED OAK GROUP. FINAL DRAWING NOT REL,F,~ED 'FOR CONSI~UCllON TritonPCS TRfTON PCS 9211 ARBORETUM pARKWAY RICHMOND, VA 2.32.36 J25-4058 FAX iC o2wireless Solution s 1086 CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX, NC 27502 Phone: (91g) 367-2210 Fax: (91g) 367-2220 CHECKED WEBER PROPERTY GILLUMS MOUNTAIN CVR-347D INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 GRADING PLAN C-§ L OABIN~T PAINTED BROWN OTEXT[LE vi.)- ' (SEE DETAIL FOR REINFORCING -- CONCRETE PAD. DNTEO ~ARTHTONE / / -6" SLOPE EQUIPMENT SUPPORT PAD DETAIL (10'x12') SCALE INONE F 6" ./--- 1" CHAMFER ../~ (I~PICAL) ,, . ~' ' ' 1 r~-~ 20 MIL PVC VAPOR BARRIER ~ - [ ~ , ~ "' SECTION A · " NOTES: ~OT ~O 'SCALE CONCRETE PAD DETAIL & CROSS SECTION CE BRIDGE POST~ TRITON PCS CABINET PAINTED BROWN (EARTHTONE) EDGE OF CONCRETE-'~ CONCRETE PAD TINTED EARTHTONE ~ CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD LAYOUT ~§~: 2 ,1 PANEL ANTENNA PAINTED BROWN -- FUTURE ANTENNA / , ~;"' / / MICROFLECT PIPE , NOTE: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SiZE OF TRI-BRACKET REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 2. PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE FLUSH MOUNTED ¥O MONOPOLE. 5. ANTENNA DIMENSIONS HxWxD = 44.7"~ 6.3"x 2.7' 4. LIGHTNING ROD SHALL BE ~0 TALLER THAN 2' HIOH WITH A BASE DIAMETER OF I". TAPERING TO A POINT AT TOP 8. ALL ANTENNA PANELS. CABLES AND BRACKETS TO ASSEMBLY PAINTED BROWN ~' OF #57 -~ STONE ~FUTURE COAX --,3-1/2" DIA, METAL POSTS EMBEDDED N CONCRETE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS ~O.,L'=: I 5 BI-BRACKET MOUNT DETAIL NONE FOOTING FOR CELLPAK/ METER RACK 1. PIPE COLUMNS WAVEGUIOE CHANNEL, AND PIPE HEAD BY ADVANCED LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGY, 2. CONNECT E. ACH SUPPORT LEG TO GROUND RING 3. CABLE SUPPORT SPACING EVERY ~-. COORDINATE CABLE ROUTE AND WAVE GUIDE BRIDGE DETAIL STEEL MONOPOLE PNNTEO ]ARK BROWN -- PANEL ANTENNA~ PAINTED BROWN DAPA TR-5 MECHANICAL DOWNTILT 9RACKET ~ AND DAPA FIX 805 % PIPE MOUNT BRACKET MICROFLECT PIPE MOUNT PART ~ 81882 OR EQUA_ --MICROFLECT TRI-BRACKET PART ~ 81828 OR EQUAL SCALE: 4 NONE m FINAL DRAWING NOT R~EO FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE TritonPOS o2wire[ess Solutions 1086 CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX, NC 27502 Phone: 1919) ,367-2210 Fax: (919) 367-2220 RELEASE ISSU~ FOR ZONJN~ REVISIONS DRAWN BY: CHS CHECKED BY; 0FS WEBER PROPERTY GILLUMS MOUNTAIN CVR-347D INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 SITE DETAILS C~ POST (TYP) -~ OUTUNE OF 1'-0' WIDE ROOF OVERHANG 6'x8'-6' EQUIPMENT SLAB OUTLINE OF EQUIPMENT CABINET BOARD FENCE w/RNL (TYP 80TH SIDES) -- WOOD FRAMED WALL FLOOR PLAN NOT FO SCALE ~ ~ENCF POSTS MAY BE 4"e PINE OR 2'~ OAK _~5'.~Q_/_C MAX~ --ORANGE UV-RESISTANT HIGH TENSILE / STRENGTH POLY BARRICADE FABRIC NOTES: PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION: AT ~tE START OF GRADING INVOLVING THE LOWERING OF EXISTING QRAOE AROUND ^ TREE OR STRIPPING OF TOPSOIL. A CLEAN. SHARP. VER"RCAL CUT SHALL BE MADE AT THE "-DOE OF THE TREE ~AVE AREA AT THE SAME TIME AS OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE INSTALLED. THE TRE~ PROTECTION FENCING SHALL 3E INSTALLED ON THE SIOE OF THE CUT FARTHEST AWAY FROM THE TREE TRUNK AND SHALL REMAIN N PLACE UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION iN THE ViCINI~ OF THE TREES IS COMPLETE. qO STORAGE OF MATERIALS. RLL, OR EQUIPMENT AND NO TRESPASSING SHALL 3E ALLOWED WR'HiN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROTECTE0 AREA. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL AT A RADIUS EQUAL TO 1' P. AOIUS/1° DIAMETER OF TREE TO REMAIN. TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL SCALE: NONE VENT PAINTED DARK BROWN - ROUGH ~AWN SIDING FRONT VIEW - EQUIPMENT CABINET, & EQUIPMENT PAD SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WOOD VENT BOTH CABLE ENDS ROUGH SAWN SIDING ~,, __ .:~-22.T-"- .~/ ~P eom S~D~S) S DE ELEVATION VIEW NOT TO SCALE (2) FRAMED VENT~ OPENINGS /T RAISED SEA~ METAL ROOFING AND RIDGE // VENT PAINTED DARK BROWN - ROUGH SAWN SIDING --- GBADE REAR VIEW ,"i 0 [ TO FINAL DRAWING NOT RELIED FOR CONSTRUC~0N TrilonPCS 9211 ARBORETUM PARk~/Ay RICHMOND, VA 23236 o2wireless Solutions 1086 CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX, NC 27502 Pm: (919) 367-2210 Fax: (919) 367-2220 ~HIS DRAWING IS COPYRI~RT[0 AND IS THE PROPER~f OF file 0WHIR. IT 1S PRODUCED DRAWN BY: CHS CHECKED DY: OFS WEBER PROPERTY GILLUMS MOUNTAIN CVR-347D INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 SITE DETAILS C-7 EQUIPMENT PROTECTION SHED ! PLANTING LIST OF MATERIALS I /~ lO EASTERN. RED CEDAR Juniperus Virginiana B'-20' ~-0'-50' 6' HIGH ;.~[{~ I0 KAEMPFERI AZALEAAzoleo koempfer[ 4'-6' 4'-6' 5 GALLON GENERAL NOTES: (5) PROPOSED WHITE: -~. O I t/"~' 1. EXCEPT ~ MAY BE EXPRESSLY NOTED TO THE CONTRARY PINES -- SEE 'PLANTING ~ .'?~/~..?~ REMOVED WITHIN 20¢ 0F THE CENTERUNE OF THE t ~ 36" S,R,O, 56' TALL PROPOSED POLE, \ \ :~'~F~ DETAIL" (TYP) . . ASL BASE ELD/ - N E.G. = NOR~ERN RED OAK ~ ~ ~ ~,~$7'..- 2Y S,R,O. 75' TALL ASL TOP EL~. - 775' R.0. = UND~ERM NED SPECIES IN ~E RED O~ GROUP. ~ ~ '.~- ', /;' ,.' ASL BASE EL~ - 695' ~ ~RN RED ~. PROPOSED ~ 0 ~TER~ ' ~0 ~EE ~ ~ ' ~uc~ 26 S R O 0 T LL / ~ - X~ ' ~ ~ (10) PRO.BED ~PFERI ~ / X % ~ ASL BASE EL~ - 696'' CEDARS - SEE "P~ING LI~ % ~, / (~) 'X ~ ~% / % 23" P.O. 8~' TALL ~2 STRANOS ~12 WIRE ~ ]% ~ / / ~¢ ASL BASE EL~ - 697'~ WIRE THROUGH RUBBER HOSE TO PROfECT TREE FtNAL GROUNOLINE -~ NT. OF FIE APPROX ~ )/2 HT. OF TREE 1'-O" SAUCER W~DTH _0CATIONS TREE PLANTING &: STAKING DETAIL ',I[F ' 5,,:.A,. E 3g" N.R.O. 74' TALL ASLBASE ELEV - 698' \. ASLfOP ELD/. - 772' \ \ BURLAP OR CONTAINER %1 //~/ ~ ~6HER THAN ESTABLISHED 1 DLANDNG BEO DNLY ~__ RNISHED GRADE BARRIER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NO! r,3 S.'ALE ASL BASE ELD/ - 69B' GRAVEL DRIVE ASL TOP ELD/. - 786' ~ /'--TRITON PCS H-FRAME METER STANO / / / ~TRITOI~ PCS 12'x1~--6" ~ EQL~ENT PROTEC'~ON / SHED (~ER 6'x8'-6" ~ EQUIPMENT "F, AD AND 3'-6"xB' EQUIISMENT CABINET ~ . TRITON PCS / ICE BRIDDE / / / ,\ LANDSCAPING PLAN [ CENTER OF PROPOSED 92.4' UONOPOLE I ASL BASE ELEV -- 695,6' [~L TOP EL~ - 788' PROPOSED TRITON PCS ~E ~ (30'x30') ASL BASE ELD/ - 697' ASL TOP ELD/ - 775' PROPOSED TEMPORARY TREE PROTEC~ON FENCE CYP~CAL) ~,~. 24-" R.O. 80' TALL ASL BASE ELD/ - ~' ~,' ASL TOP ELEV. - -- 25' =,ADIUS [~2wiretess Solutions 1~ CLASSIC ROAD SUITE 101 APEX NC 27502 Phone; (919) 367-2210 Fax: (919) 367-2220 DRAWN BY: CHS CHECKED BY: DFS WEBER PROPERTY GILLUMS MOUNTAIN INTERSECTION OF 1-64 AND S.R. 708 CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22903 LANDSCAPING PLAN C-8 RNAI. DRAWING NOT RELEASED pR _coNs~U?N Ella Carey From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Stephen Waller Tuesday, May 08, 2001 1:59 PM Ella Carey FW: Correction in report for SP 01-003 Wood (Triton) High I Original Message--- From: Stephen Waller Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 4:21 PM To: Wayne Cilimberg; Janice Farrar Subject: Correction in report for SP 01-003 Wood (Tdton) Importance: High the above-mentioned repOrt has a minor correction in the conditions and needs to be substituted for the Board meeting. the following note has been added: Note: The recommendation of the Planning Commissions was made with a condition that incorrectly indicates that the monopole proposed with this facility will be made of metal. However, the rest of the report correctly refers to a wooden rnonopole, as requested by the applicant. Therefore, condition 2a has been corrected in this report to read: "The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; "for the Board's Considera~on. SP.Tower 01.003 (Arrowhead).do... Stephen B. Waller Planner 804~296-5823 ext. 3385 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER MAY 1, 2001 MAY 16, 2001 sp 0!-003 WOOD, T.E. (TRITON PCS) Note: The recommendation of the Planning Commissions was made with a condition that incorrectly indicates that the monopole proposed with this facility will be made of metal. However, the rest of the report correctly refers to a wooden monopole, as requested by the applicant. Therefore, condition 2a has been corrected in this report to read: "The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; "for the Board's Consideration. Applicant's Proposal: The proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility which would implement a self-supporting wooden monopole, at a height of six (6) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. Three flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4 feet in height, and a lighming rod would be attached at the top of the pole. All ground-based eqm'pment would be contained within a brown metal cabinet, six feet - nine inches in heig~ht, to be placed on an 8.5-foot by 10-foot concrete pad. According to the applicant's request, approval of this facility would help to increase wireless coverage along U.S. 29, south of Charlottesville, in order to assist Triton PCS with maintaining a wireless communications system that in accordance with the requirements of it's FCC issued license, by preventing the occurrence of a "gap" in the network (Attachment A). Petition: As part of a system that is intended to provide wireless communications coverage throughout the area the applicant, Triton PCS, Inc., maintains several fac'flities in the County of Albemarle. In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 ofthe Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a new personal wireless services facility for increased coverage (Attachment B). The applicant's petition cites the presence of a 90-foot tall tree, located approximately 23 feet away and with a top elevation of 853 feet Above Sea Level (ASL), as the basis for requesting a monopole with a height of 98 feet. The property, described as Tax Map 88/Parcel 26, contains approximately 71.34 acres that are zoned RA, Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (Attachment C). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. Plann~ and Zonin~ History.: SP 98-009 CFW Wireless (Arrowhead) - At its June 9, 1999 meeting, the Board of Sup~sors approved a request to allow a wireless facility employing a wooden monopole with a maximum height of not more than six (6) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet (Attachment D) Character of the Area: The site of the proposed facility site is a 400 square feet wooded lease area, situated below and west of Dudley Mountain's ridgeline. The lease area, situated at an elevation that ranges between 762 and 765 feet ASL, is indicated on a topographic map in Attachment C. Access to the facility would be taken from an existing gravel road within a 20-foot wide private access easement that begins at the south side of Arrowhead Valley Road (Route 745), approximately 1/4 mile east of the intersection with Route 29. The gravel driveway would be extended approximately 215 feet east over an existing dirt road and then 58 feet north to connect with the lease area. All areas surrounding the facility site are heavily wooded and vegetated with a mixture of large~ mature trees and dense underbrush. An existing wireless facility (operated by CFW) is located on the subject parcel approximately 160 feet west of the proposed monopole. The nearest dwelling is located approximately 1100 feet north of the facility site on an adjacent parcel. The closest property line, which is the boundary shared with Tax Map 88/Parcel 20, is 98 feet south of the proposed monopole location. With an exception of the adjoining property located at the northwestern tip of the subject parcel (Tax Map 88/Parcel 26A) which is zoned LI, Light Industrial, all other adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. Letters from two owners of nearby properties, in opposition of this request are attached along with a copy of a petition that was submitted in opposition of the special use permit for the existing CFW wireless facility (Attachment E). CQMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff notes that construction of the proposed facility and its service road extension would not require a substantial amount of clearing. Therefore, staff's review of this request for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan focuses mainly on the possible impacts that would result from the presence of the monopole and ground-based equipment in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy provides gtn'delines for the siting and review of wireless facility proposals. In accordance with the wireless policy, visib'flity is considered to he the most important factor of staff's review for possible impacts. Entrance Corn'd0r: The proposed fac'flity site is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for Route 29. As stated in the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is,. in part, "to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, ''to protect the County's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism~' The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impacts of all development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. While traveling in the southbound lane of Route 29 at a low speed, and stopping at short intervals, staff estimated that a red balloon floating at the proposed height of the monopole could he seen slightly above the treetops for an approximate distance of 150 feet. Because the balloon was either invis~le or could only be spotted below the ridgeline from all other points, it is anticipated that the monopole itself would have minimal visibility. This is largely a result of, both, its design and its location within a stand oftrees that are similar in height. Furthermore, staff observed that the existing wooden monopole was not easily identifiable while traveling on Route 29 at the posted speed limit. Therefore, the ARB has reviewed and approved this proposal with conditions that are consistent with those that were established with the approval ofthe existing monopole on this property (Attachment 17). Note: The existing CFW facility was approved with conditions restricting the monopole to a height of 6 feet above the tallest tree within 25feet and increasing the "tree preservation area" up to a radius of 1000feet. Open Space plan: Part IV of the Open Space Plan, entitled Protection Techniques, sets forth several of the mechanisms that can be used to protect open space resources; this includes, but is not limited to, the implementation of conservation or open space easements, and Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Parts of Arrowhead Farm properties located directly to the south and west of the subject parcel (Tax Map 88/Parcel 20), are currently held in a conservation easements, dedicated to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF), Although the County of Albemarle is not a party to the easements, the owner of these properties must agree to incorporate various provisions that are set by the VOF for accepting and holding this type of negotiated agreement, including restrictions on certain levels of development. Some portions of Arrowhead Farm, as well as several nearby properties mostly located on the west side of Route 29, are also included in the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District. The establishment of Agricultural and Forestal Districts places certain controls on the location of public utility facilities to landowners who agree to limit development for the purpose of protecting the agricultural and forestal use of the property. Although the proposed facility is adjacent to Arrowhead Fman, the subject parcel is under separate ownership and is not subject to any of those governing agreements. Therefore, approval of this proposal would not compromise the ability of those properties to qualify for incorporation into the Agricultural/Forestal programs in which they are enrolled. Because this proposal is adjacent to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, this special use permit request was also referred to the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee, along with the photos that were taken during the balloon test, for additional review and comment. The Committee's action on whether or not the proposed wireless facility would be incompat~le with the Agricultural and Forestal District resulted in a split vote; four members were against the facility and four members believed that the facility would impose no significant impact (Attachment G). Another one of the open space resources that is present on the subject parcel and that could he impacted by this application, is the forest surrounding the site. Staffrecognizes that when existing structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy favor the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where the monopoles and groUnd equipment can he designed to blend well into the natural surroundings. Because a limited amount of disturbance would he necessary to establish this facility, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any of the nearby properties within the area. Additionally, one of the standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities requires the establishment of a tree conservation area in which no trees within a certain distance of the facility can be removed prior to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development. Natural Resources and Cult~, ral Assets: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Ctfltural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets SPecific goals for managing those resources and preserving the environment for future use. Mountains are designated as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection i_n the Rural Areas. Staff notes that although this site is adjacent to Dudley Mountain, it is located completely below and omside of the Mountain Resource Area~ Furthermore, as demonstrated with the pole for the existing CFW facility, the forested mountainside between the lease area and the mountain's ridgeline would provide an effective backdrop for the proposed monopole from most viewpoints. Arrowhead Farm also contains a historic site, consisting of a residence and outbuildings ~Mfich are included on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed facility would impose any adverse impacts upon the historic structures, because they are situated at the western portion of the Arrowhead property, closer to Route 29. Furthermore, due to the presence of the trees on the incline of the mountain behind the lease area, the brown monopole and other equipment within the lease area would be obscured from areas located to the south, this includes the view toward the facility site from the Arrowhead property. This is also supported by limited visibility of the existing monopole on the subject property, even in the absence of leaves. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The wireless policy defines "Avoidance Areas" as areas that have significant resources and those that would be~unwise for the siting of wireless facilities. Mounta/ns, Agricultural and ForestaI Districts, Historic Districts and Conservation Easements are all considered to be Avoidance Areas. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, these facilities should not be located within or adjacent to Avoidance Areas. Staff analysis is focused largely on the visual impact of the proposed facility from surrounding properties and roadways. By virtue of the standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities, all monopoles and related equipment are required to either be made of wood or painted brown. Due to its design and location in an area where the top of the monopole structure would be at a height that is comparable to the tops of the trees, staff anticipates that the visual impact of the proposed fac'dity would be minimal. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that approval of this application would not be inconsistent with the policies and guidelines that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities and protecting the important resources of Albemarle County. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordimnce and recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)0I) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and, Section 32.2,2 of the Zoning Ordinance- waiver of the site plan requirements 1. Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight 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 he,of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, Based on the observation of a balloon height test, staff anticipates that the proposed monopole would he visible for a short distance while traveling Route 29 south. However, hecause the balloon only extended slightly above the tops of the trees, it is staff's opinion that the monopole would not compromise the distant ridgeline of Dudley Mountair~ As a result of the dense coverage fi:om the existing tall trees that surround the site and the backdrop provided by the mountain, visibility of the structures located within the lease area would he adequately obscured from the adjacent properties, to such an extent that it not would be an obtrusive feature that draws attention to the facility. Furthermore, because this proposal would not necessitate the removal of any of the larger trees that are intended to assist in obscuring its view, it is staff's opinion that the fac'dity would not impose any significant physical disturbance on the subject parcel or adjacent properties. The existing service road was constructed to a standard that was approved with conditions that are intended to ensure that minimal disturbance would be imposed upon the natural landscape of the site. The applicant's request indicates that Triton service personnel would normally travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is anticipated that some unscheduled visits Mll be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather or other unexpected factors. Once the proposed facility has been constructed and is fully operational, the sum ofregularly scheduled site visits for both facilities combined would equal two per month, this is much less than the numher of vehicular trips projected for conventional residential development. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this level of traffic utilizing a single entrance would not impose a significant increase in activity or vehicular traffic within the area. With consideration for the above-cited factors, staff finds that the proposed fac'flity would not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The Zoning Ordinance includes preseiwation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural scenic and historic resources as intents of the Rural Areas. Uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas zoning district are lirrdted either to rural scale residential development, or those uses related to agriculture and forestal activities. The uses that are most often allowed by special use permit are for services related to those by-right activities. However, staff recognizes that the presence of various utilities within the Rural Areas is not uncommon. Aside from the existing wireless facility located on this property, other examples of ut'flities within the area include the standard types of wooden utility poles for overhead lines that provide electrical power and conventional phone services. Although those utilities usually employ structures that are much smaller than monopoles for wireless facilities, they are most often placed in locations where they are more visible, such as road sides and large easements that cut through wooded areas. The key purpose of the County's Wireless Design Policy is to site wireless facilities in locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the surrounding area. This facility would be 'located within a wooded area and accessed by extending an existing private driveway, both of which have be favored approaches in the County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they have limited visual impact. The Agricultural and ForestaI Districts Advisory Committee's review of this proposal for it's impact on the adjacent Hardware AG/FOR District resulted in a tied vote. With the exception of a distant point in the southbound lane of Route 29 where the top portion of the monopole would be Visible above the tops of some surrounding trees, the proposed facility would be effectively obscured from viewpoints that are located outside of the lease area. Therefore, staWs opinion is that approval this fac~flity will not result in a changing in the character ofthe Rural Areas district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff review of this request is made in consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to 1.4, 1.4.4, 1.5. In some way, ali of these sections address the provision of public services. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service. Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. The establishment of wireless service facilities expands the availability of commtmications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the goals °fthe wireless policy are intended to ensure that equipment, employed in those facilities are not responsible for diminishing the value of the important resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Therefore, it is staff's opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Section 10.1 of Zoning Ordinance lists limited delivery of services as one of the intents for the Rural Areas zoning district. It is understood that approval of this request would act to increase the level of services that are provided in the Rural Areas. However, when established compliance with the guidelines for wireless service facilities, the anticipated increase in services has not be deemed to conflict with any of the agricultural and forestal, or the other rural objectives set forth for the RA district. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed facility would not restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or on the by-right uses of other properties within the district. with _additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public heal.th, safety and general.welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio t~equency 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 alt Of the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requireme~nt adequately protects the public health and safety. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Currently, there are no provisions that act to prohibit the establishment of personal wireless services, and review of this request has been based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan is specific to this site alone. As a component of the Comprehensive Plan, the Personal Wireless Communication Facifities Policy provides the guidelines for siting wireless facilities within the County of Albemarle. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permit process or the denial of this particular application has the effect ofproha~biting the provision of personal wireless services. Information provided by the applicant has not demonstrated that no other locations within the proposed area of service are available for construction of a new facility, and alternate sites for the construction of a new fac~ty for this service area have not been proposed or discussed. a Request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with Section 32.3.10, the Planning Commission may waive the drawing ora site plan if requiting a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of personal wireless communication facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area that is normally impacted by these uses and the ability to obtain the required information through the erosion and sediment control plans and the building permits. In this case the construction of the proposed facility will require activity related to construction of the service road extension, connection ofelectrical utilities which are currently on site, and the placement of the monopole and ground equipment. Because of the minimal activity that is necessary for installation, staff is unable to identify any purpose that would be served by requiting the submission of a site plan that is in full compliance with the provisions of Section 32 (Site Plans). TherefOre, staffrecommends approval'ora site plan waiver for the wireless fac:~ty proposed in SP 01-003, subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; The applicant shall provide adequate area for one parking space; The applicant shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior tothe issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the _final revisions of the construction plans. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The facility would provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The fac~y would not restrict any ofthexpermitted uses on adjacent properties;. 3. The design and siting ofthe facility is such that it would have a limited visual impact on adjacent property and public roads; 4. The vegetation on the side of Dudley mountain would provide an effective backdrop for the proposed monopole, and, 5. Access to the facility will be provided by extending an existing driveway and placing gravel over an existing dirt path. Staffhas identified the following factor that may deemed as unfavorable to this request: The site of the proposed facility is surrounded by properties that are considered to be Avoidance Areas. The following factors are relevant to this consideration.' Approval of this proposal would introduce a second wireless facility on the subject parcel, There are existing reasonable by-right use that could be established on the subject property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff's opinion is that while this site is located within the Rural Areas, and adjacent to properties within an Agricultural/Forestal District and conservation easement the existing trees and terrain surrounding the site would help to reduce the visual impacts to such an extent that approval of this proposal would be consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit, subject to conditions. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision fOr the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The top ofthe pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed six (6) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception ofthe grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No fighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two trees that have been used to justify the height the monopole; g. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); h. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The fac'flity shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)" Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Wood- Arrowhead (Triton PCS)"; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out t~om the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out fi'om the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the perrnittee shall not remove existing trees within one thousand (1000) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A o special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. ~The permittee shah submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. 'The report shall identify each user ofthe pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabiliTation measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the tuminaire. For the purposes ofthis condition, a Iuminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing ofthe lease area shah not be required. 11. Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of grave. Should installation of the facility require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed. 12. The applicant shall execute an agreement with CFW and the property owner, in order to ensure that all of the responsibilities for maintaining the access road in a condition safe are shared evenly. 13. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance ora building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. ATTACHMENTS: C- D- E- Application and Request for Special Use Permit Site Information and Construction Drawings Tax Map/Location and Topographic Maps Board Approval Letter for SP 98-09 Correspondence from Neighboring Property Owners ARB Approval Letter Agricultural/Forestal Districts Committee Action and Minutes Ella Carey FFOB: To: Cc: Subject: Wayne Cilimberg Tuesday, April 24, 2001 10:47 AM Charles Martin; Charlotte Humphds; David Bowerman; Lindsay Dorrier; Sally ThomaS; Walter Perkins Ella Carey; Bob Tucker; Tom Foley; Roxanne White; Larry Davis; Joan McDowell SP 00-64 Weber/Triton Communication Tower This item is scheduled for the Consent Agenda tomorrow night. Since the Exec Summary was completed and forwarded to you last Friday, two changes in conditions have come to our attention. They are: 1. The applicant has requested that condition number 11 be eliminated, as the proposed shed would shield the ground equipment from view. 2. Staff has recognized that Condition 12 (old condition 13) should reflect a change in the proposed size of the storage building from 20' by 19' to 12' by 14'6". Staff believes that these changes are acceptable. Ella suggested that wa notify you of these changes before tomorrow night in the hope that this can remain on the consent agenda. A new executive summary is attached which includes the latest revised conditions of approval. Should you have any questions do not hestitate to contact Joan McDowell or me. Thanks. Weber Exec. summary.doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-64 Weber/Triton Communication Tower SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Board of Supervisors request to the applicant to explore the feasibility of co-locating the ground equipment with Ailtel or storing the equipment in a rural-type building so as to minimize its visual impact STAFF CONTACT(S): Joan Mc~Dowell, Wayne Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: NUMBERS: April 25, 2001 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT,AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: 'ITEM ' Background: On February 14, 2001, the Board of Supervisors held a public headng on this application and requested that Triton PCS explore alternatives regarding the ground equipment for a communication facility to mitigate its visual impact from Route 708. The visual impact of the tower base and ground equipment was the primary reason staff recommended disapproval of the application. The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the application. On April 4, 2001, the BOard deferred action on the proposed revisions to the conditions of approval, due to the timing of the submittal. Discussion: On April 20, 2001, staff provided 'the Board an Executive Summary With revised conditions of approval reflecting the changes discussed at the April 4 meeting. Subsequently: 1. The applicant has requested that condition number 11 be eliminated, as the proposed shed would shield the ground equipment from view. 2. Staff has recognized that Condition 12 (old condition 13) should reflect a change in the proposed size of the storage building from 20' by 19' to 12' by 14'6". Recommendation: Staff finds these changes to be acceptable and offers the new conditions as underlined below for Board approval at its April 25, 2001 meeting. SP 00-64 David Weber (Triton PCS) Revised Conditions of Approval 1. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level SP 00-64 l Weber/Triton (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole shall be a weeder metal pole, dark brown in color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be perm~ed on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown .in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached plan entitled "Weber Property Triton PCS" dated. (revised) 4t06~01..~ e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a wicffh not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. f. Prior tO issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. g. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The pole shall be located as follows: a. The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled ~¥eber Property Tdton PCS" and dated (reviSed) 4106/01. b. The proposed facility shall be located not more than 25 feet from the existing access road. Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled ~Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated ('revised) 4106/01. b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole. c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Pdor to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. SP 00-64 Weber/Triton 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that ali light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this COndition, a luminaries 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. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials and height shall be restricted as follows: · The fence shall be constructed with barbed wire to match the existing fence adjacent to the subject lease area. I1. !2.1!. I A l=landscaping plan depicting screening landscaping along Rt. 708 shall be required,~ shaUJncAm~ ................... ~ ................ p~S ...................... ~ ........ iandscapin~ plan shall be approved by the Planning Dir~tor or designee prior to the issuance of buildin~ permits. !3. 12. A 12' by 14'6" shelter constructed of unpainted r0u.qh sawn wood shall be constructed around the ground equipment, as shown on the plans titled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01 ,. !4.13. The entrance gate from Route 708 to the site, as located on.the plans titled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01, shall be replaced with a solid ,qate constructed of unPainted rough sawn wood. SP 00-64 3 Weber/Triton COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE S U M MARY AGENDA TITLE: Roy L. Williams -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 24A. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Benish, Cilimberg, Foley, Tucker AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 ACTION: .CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X .ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a parcel (Tax Map 62, Parcel 24A) located on the west side of Route 20 and the east side of Dorrier Drive, just north of Darden Towe Park. The property is located within Urban Area Three (Pantops). The applicant is requesting water service due to contamination of the existing well on-site. DISCUSSION: The subject property is located in the Urban Area Neighborhood Three. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas: "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)2 "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." RECOMMENDATION: As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this property is located within the designated Development Area the provision of both water and sewer service to the property would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider providing water and sewer service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 24A. Attachments: A - Location/Jurisdictional Area Map B - Land Use Plan Map, Neighborhood Three 01.089 REVISED: 8/11/98 ALBEMARLE COUNTY 5! A'I-I'ACHMENT A 4,9 F e GHARLOTTESVlLLE 8~ RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 62: ATTACHMENT B ~PEN PARK FRANKL I N A~HCROFT MONT[CEI 0 LOOP URBAN NEIGBORHOOD I~~ IIm"~' !~"l~"' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ~ ~ommunity Development Block Grant 00-25 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 20064 in the amount of $25,000.00 AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters; Ms. White BACKGROUND: The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development has approved a $25,000.00 planning grant for the Whitewood Village Project. The grant will provide the following products: · Needs assessment and two public forums, Architect, feasibility study and market analysis, · Engineer and housing inspection report, · Conduct a facilitated planning strategy and physical improvement plan, · Community improvement grant proposal preparation, and · Community improvement grant pre-contract activities. DISCUSSION: This grant is totally funded by a federal community development block grant. There is no local match. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 20064 in the amount of $25,000.00. 01.083 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: WHITEWOOD VILLAGE PLANNING GRANT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GRANT 20064 AMOUNT 1 1221 81030 563100 AHIP $25,000.00 TOTAL $25,000.00 REVEN U E CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1221 33000 330009 CDBH-HUD $25,000.00 TOTAL $25 000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: · DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 10, 2001 _5'- 7'- ,~/ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Lane Baseball Field SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by the Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League to rename the Lane Baseball Field STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Mullaney, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2001 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED / BACKGROUND: The Lane Babe Ruth League has been responsible for the capital improvements and maintenance of the County owned Lane field since Lane High School closed in the mid 1970's. Darrell Gardner has been involved in youth baseball in our community for nearly 50 years. For the past 15 years he has spent countless hours maintaining and organizing various improvement projects for Lane field. The league has recently obtained funding to replace the scoreboard and would like to rename the field in conjunction with this. In recognition of Mr. Gardner's commitment to the youth of this area and baseball, the league proposes that the field be renamed "Darrell C. Gardner Field at Lane Park". The Parks and Recreation Department endorses and joins with the Babe Ruth League in this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the board rename the Lane baseball field "Darrell C. Gardner Field at Lane Park". 01.086 March28,2001 Lane Babe Ruth BaseballLeague RE: Lane Field Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director Parks &Recreation Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 REC- tg:EO ~IA~ 3 0 200t Parks &'Rec. Dept Dear Mr. Mullaney: I am writing at the request of the Lane Babe Ruth Baseball Board to make a request of you and your office regarding the name of Lane field. It is my understanding that Lane field is actually a county park. The league needs a new scoreboard and we have obtained funding for a new scoreboard. We also, have had a volunteer who has worked with our league for over 15 years and has been involved with youth baseball for nearly 50 years. This gentleman spends countless hours maintaining the field and trying to improve it as much as he can for the benefit of you baseball in this area. Our board in considering replacing the scoreboard would also like to rename the field. We do not want to change the name but would like to add a name to the field. We would tike to recognize this individual for his commitment to the youth of the area and his commitment to baseball. The gentleman I am referring to is Darrell Gardner. "G", as he is affectionately known, has dedicated the majority of his adult life to promoting youth baseball. He is also involved in a foundation which is trying to raise money to help defray the expense of purchasing protective equipment and uniforms for youth baseball in our area. Our proposal is to rename the field to "Darrell C. Gardner Field at Lane Park". We believe that this would be a fitting tribute to this man and would be recognized by the past players, current players and future players as the man who lived baseball. I would like to discuss this with you in further detail and hope that this tribute can be accomplished in the near future. My home telephone number is 974-6716 and I would be willing to meet with you at your convenience. Sincerely, President RECE VbD NAY May 21, 2001 Mr. Larry Miller, President Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League 1706 Jumpers Run Charlottesville, VA '22911 Dear Larry and the Lane League Board of Trustees: On Wednesday, May 16, 2001, I was surprisingly and overwhelmed with the awarding of one of the greatest events in my life, including my marriage and the births of my 4 wonderful children. The naming of the Lane Babe~Ruth League Field~n-my name was such a wonderful honor given to me by the Lane ~eague Board of Trustees and the County of Albemarle. I shall cherish this mag~ificent~a~ardTfor'the~re~t"6f'my-iife. I have dedicated my work on this field - ONLY - to provide the best playing conditions for th~ hundreds of players ~ho will ever play the great game of baseball which they richly deserve! I cannot find adequate words to describe my deep, sincere, heartfelt feelings of how much I appreciate this great honor in my life wh'i-~-.you have given me. Therefore, I will just say, "THANK YOU, THANK YOU so VERY, VERY much FOR THIS HONOR!" Most sincerely, Darrell C. Gardher Copy To: Mr. Pat Mullaney, DireCtor Albemarle County Parks and Recrecation Department 05-24-01 A10:zi. 9 IN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appointment of Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appoint Interim Director STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA .ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: ~'~~ BACKGROUND: Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works has submitted his letter of resignation and is scheduled to leave County employment on April 24. As a result, staff has begun the process of finding a replacement and hopes to hire a new Director by July 15, 2001. DISCUSSION: Due to the vacancy, it is necessary to appoint an interim Director of Engineering and Public Works until the vacancy is filled. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the appointment of Jack Kelsey, the County's current Chief of Engineering as the interim Director. 01.090 FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TTD (804) 972-40] 2 April 11, 2001 Douglas E. Little 413 7th Street N.E. Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 41, Parcel 39A, 39B and 39D (Property of MLB Land Trust, Douglas E. Little, TruStee) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Little: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted properties. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 41, Parcel 39A consists of three separate parcels. Original Parcel 39A contains two (2) theoretical development rights. Original Parcel 39B contains two (2) theoretical development rights. Original Parcel 39D contains three (3) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is provided below. Our records indicate that Parcel 39A contains 14.020 acres and no dwellings. This parcel includes 10.02 acres formerly identified as Parcels 39B and 39D. The tax map was revised to show these three lots as one parcel in 1987. The most recent deed for the original Parcel 39A prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 471, page 379 This deed is dated April 21, 1970 and is between Richard D. Hawley & 'Hazel S. Hawley, Grantors and A. Keene Byrd & Mary Louise Byrd, Grantees. It conveyed 4.0 acres shown on a plat dated April 1970 that was made part of that deed. This parcel is identified as Parcel 39A on the 1980 tax map. The most recent deed for the original Parcels 39B and 39D prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 487, page 417. This deed is dated May 17, 1971 and is between Richard D. Hawley & Hazel S. Hawley, Grantors and A. Keene Byrd and Mary Louise Byrd, Grantees. It described the land that was conveyed as: "....all those certain tracts or parcels ..... containing 10.02 acres in the aggregate and more particularly described as Lot 2 and Lot 4B on a plat of William S. Roudabush, Jr., CLS dated September 16, 1970 hereto attached and made part of this deed." The plat, recorded in DB 487, p. 419, shows Lot 2 containing 4.00 acres and Lot 4B containing 6.02 acres. Lot 2 (former 39B) carried this note: "This property to be added to the adjoining 4 MLB Land Trust April 10, 2001 Page 2 acres (Parcel 39A) owned by Keene Byrd." Lot 4B (former 39D) carried this note: "This property to be added to the adjoining 4 acres (Parcel 39A) owned by Keene Byrd." There are no hooks on the plat indicating the three lots are being combined into one parcel. Deed Book 536, page 426, dated September 5, 1973, between Ronald W. Critzer and Dorothy J. Critzer, Grantors and Richard D. Hawley, Grantee conveyed 0.064 acres from Parcel 39C to Parcel 39E. The plat showing this transaction included hooks combining former Parcels 39A, 39B and 39D. However, the owners of former Parcels 39A, 39B and 39D were not parties to this transaction or the plat. Based on the reference to Lot 2 and Lot 4B in D.B. 487, p. 419 and absent evidence that the owners of Parcels 39A, 39B and 39D intended to combine these parcels into one and only one parcel, it is determined that Parcel 39A consists of the three separate parcels shown on the 1980 tax map. There have been no off conveyances since the adoption of the ordinance. Therefore, the former Parcel 39A shown on the plat recorded in D.B. 471, p. 379A containing 4.0 acres has two (2) development rights. The former Parcel 39B shown on the plat recorded in D.B. 487, p.419, containing 4.0 acres has two (2) development rights. The former Parcel 39D shown on the plat recorded in D.B. 487, p.419, containing 6.02 acres has three (3) development rights. These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files Two additional parcels by determination CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNING BODY Notice was sent to Ella W. Carey Board of Supervisors at the following address: by regular mail, postage prepaid, mailed on on the following project: Ennstone, Inc. copy of which is attached hereto. 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 April 11, 2001 A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA City of Richmond Sworn to before me this day of /~0~.[ t...- 2001. Notary Public My commission expires: /~J EnnstoneLOCNOT2/04/l 1'/2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVENUE BOND FINANCING BY VIRGINIA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING AUTHORITY Notice is hereby given that the Virginia Small Business Financing Authority ("VSBFA") will hold a.public hearing on the application of Ennstone, Inc. ("Applicant"), whose address is 301 Warrenton Road, Falmouth, Virginia 22405, requesting the VSBFA to issue up to $4,700,000 of its revenue bonds to assist the Applicant in acquiring, constructing and equipping (i) a concrete processing plant consisting of 5,000 square feet on four acres of land located at Broad Run Industrial Park Lot 4B3 on Industrial Road in Gainesville, Prince William County, Virginia and (ii) a concrete processing plant consisting of 5,000 square feet on two acres of land located in the Northside Industrial Park at U.S. Route 29 and Northside Drive in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. The issuance of revenue bonds as requested by the Applicant will not constitute a debt or pl ~edge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the VSBFA and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia or any political subdivision thereof will be pledged to the payment of such bonds. The public hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 10:00 o'clock a.n~. on April 24, 2001, before the VSBFA, in the third floor boardroom, at 707 East Main Street, Suite 300, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Any person interested in the issuance of the bonds or the location or nature of the proposed projects may appear at the hearing and present his or her views. Virginia Small Business Financing Authority \Lgllq'~45569.1 Albemarle County Service Serving ~ Conserving April 11, 2001 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, VA Ladies and Gentlemen: You have previously been provided notice, as required by law, of a public hearing to be held on proposed changes to the water and sewer rate schedule of Albemarle County Service Authority. I am enclosing a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors setting out all proposed rates and fees of Albemarle County Service Authority. Very truly yours~ J n Executive Director JWB:mf Enclosure 168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Tel (804) 977-4511 · Fax (804) 979-0698 www. acsanet.com The Rules and Regulations are proposed to be amended and re-enacted as effective July 1,2001: SECTION 12 - RATES AND FEES 12-01. GENERAL. All fees are payable prior to connection to any facility owned or used by the Authority. Rates and fees are fixed to provide funds sufficient at all times for the following purposes: A. To pay the cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the systems on account of which revenue bonds are issued, including reserves for such purposes, and for replacement, depreciation and necessary extensions. B. To pay the principal of and the interest on the revenue bonds as they shall become due and to accumulate reserves therefore. C. To provide a margin of safety for making the' payments above. 12-02. WATER AND SEWER RATES. Rates for water and sewer service shall be established by the Board pursuant to the procedures specified in the Act. Normally, rates will not be changed more often than annually. The rates established will apply to all customers of the system with the following exceptions: A. No charge will be assessed for water used for fire protection. B. When a customer's water service line leaks, no sewer charge will be made for the estimated amount of water not passing into the sanitary sewage collection system. Upon presentation of evidence that the leak has been promptly repaired, the water charge will be adjusted to the wholesale rate for all water above the customer's normal consumption. 12-03. CONNECTION FEE. All new water and sewer services connected to Authority facilities shall pay a connection fee, the purpose of which is, in part, to defray the cost of meter installation, including necessary materials and labor. This fee will be $1.00 for the following Scottsville properties identified as follows: Albemarle County Tax Map 131A, Parcels 01-0A-00100 - 00800, 01-0B-00100 - 00300, 01-0B-00500 02-OA -00200 02-0A-00400 02-0B-00200 - 00600, 02-0C-00300 -00800, Albemarle County Tax Map 131, Parcels 64A and 65 [Added 07/01/01] 12-04. LOCAL FACILITIES FEE. 1. The purpose of this fee is to defray, in part, the cost of installing mains, valves, fire hydrants and other appurtenances which are necessary to provide water and wastewater service to abutting properties and which have been provided by someone other than the customer. Accordingly, all new water and sewer connections for which a developer or customer has not installed and funded these local facilities will be assessed this charge. This fee is not applicable for the parcels identified in Section 12-03 above. [Added 07/01/01] 12-05. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE. All new water and sewer services shall pay a system development fee, the purpose of which is to defray, in part, the cost to Albemarle County Service Authority of providing major transmission and distribution mains, collection lines, pumping stations and storage facilities which are necessary to provide service to new customers. [Revised 6/29/89] This fee is not applicable for the parcels identified in Section 12-03 above [Added 07/01/01] 12-06. BUCK MOUNTAIN SURCHARGE. In accordance with the joint resolution signed by the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Authority, all new Authority water connections in the urban service area will be assessed a surcharge to pay a portion of the Buck Mountain Reservoir land acquisition costs. 12-07. TAPPING FEE. Where the Authority provides water main taps to accommodate line extensions, fire sprinkler systems and similar uses, a tapping fee will be assessed to the customer in accordance with the following schedule: (Amended 6/18/98) TAPPING Machine TAP SIZE LINE SIZE PRICE E-4 3/4" - 1" 1 1/4"- 3" $100.00 B-100 3/4" - 1" 4" - 24" $100.00 A-2 1 1/2" - 2" 6" - 24" $150,00 CL-12 4" - 12" 4" - 24" $60.00/inch 13-09. LATE DELINQUENT PAYMENT PENALTY AND INTEREST-CHARGE. 1. Any regular water and/or sewer service bill not paid in full by the next billing date for that account will be charged a delinquent penalty of 10% of the unpaid balance. [Added 7/01/01 .] 2. Any regular water and/or sewer service bill not paid in full by the next billing date for that account will also be assessed a late payment charge of 1 1/2% per month on the outstanding balance. [Added 6/30/87; amended 7/01/01] 14.06. MISCELLANEOUS BILLS. Any bills other than regular water and/or sewer bills issued by the Authority are due upon presentation and shall be considered delinquent, and subject to the penalty and interest charges specified in Section 13-09, if not paid within forty-five (45) days of the billing date. [Amended 7/01/01] ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER RATE SCHEDULE Effective July 1, 2001 SERVICE CHARGE $4.25 per account, per month. VOLUME CHARGES In addition to the fixed service charge, a volume charge based upon monthly metered water use will be assessed as follows: Water Beginning with the first billing cycle for the month of June and ending with the last billing cycle for the month of October the charge for water shall be $2.82 per thousand gallons. Beginning with the first billing cycle for the month of November and ending with the last billing cycle for the month of May the charge for water shall be $2.32 per thousand gallons. Wastewater Metered Consumption $2.51 per thousand gallons CONNECTION CHARGES Payment for the applicable connection charges will be accepted only after the issuance of a building permit. Connection Charges for metered services larger than 5/8" shall be equated to equivalent residential connections (ERC) according to the following ratios: 5/8" meter = 1 ERC 3" meter = 15 ERCs 1" meter - 2.5 ERCs 4" meter = 25 ERCs 1 1/2" meter = 5 ERCs 6" meter -- 50 ERCs 2" meter = 8 ERCs Service Connection (Tap) Charge - To defray the cost of installation of a service connection from the water and/or wastewater main in the public right-of-way to the curb or property line and/or the installation of meters, all new services will be charged according to the following schedule: (a) Water 5/8" meter and connection $587 1" meter and connection $689 Over 1" meter and connection Actual Cost 5/8" meter only $110 1" meter only $177 Over 1" meter only Actual Cost (b) Wastewater All Taps Actual Cost This fee will be $1.00 for the following Scottsville properties identified as follows: Albemarle County Tax Map 131A, Parcels 01-0A-00100 - 00800, 01-0B-00100 - 00300, 01-0B-00500, 02-0A-00200, 02-0A-00400, 02-0B-00200 - 00600, 02-0C-00300 - 00800, Albemarle County Tax Map 131, Parcels 64A and 65 Local Facilities Char.qe - To defray, in part, the cost of local facilities (mains, valves, hydrants, etc.) provided by someone other than the customer, the Authority charges each new connection $1,300 for water and $1,400 for sewer. If a developer or customer applying for service installs and funds the local facilities, this charge is not assessed. The Local Facilities Charge will apply only to water and sewer mains placed in service after July 1, 1983. [See Sections 6-01 and 12-04] This fee is not applicable to the Scottsville properties identified above. System Development Charge - In order to defray, in part, the cost to Albemarle County Service Authority of providing major transmission/distribution mains, collection lines, pumping stations and storage facilities necessary to provide water and wastewater service to new customers, a system development charge based on meter size will be assessed to all new customers as follows: Water Wastewater $475 per ERC $625 per ERC (except Glenmore) This fee is not applicable to the Scottsville properties identified above. RWSA Capacity Charge - To defray, in part, the Authority's share of annual debt service on excess capacity in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority facilities, all new water and sewer connections to the Authority systems shall be assessed the following, based on equivalent residential connections (ERC): Water $858 per ERC Wastewater $615 per ERC (except Glenmore) This fee is not applicable to the Scottsville properties identified above. Buck Mountain Surcharge - In accordance with the joint resolution signed by the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Authority, all new Authority water connections in the urban service area will be assessed a surcharge in accordance with the following table to pay a portion of the Buck Mountain land acquisition costs: Meter Size Surcharge Meter Size Surcharge 5/8" $ 200 4" $ 6,000 1" $ 500 6" $12,000 1 1/2" $1,000 8" $18,000 2" $1,600 10" $29,000 3" $ 2,500 12" $43,000 Miscellaneous Charges: (1) Account Charge - $6.00 per each new account (2) Delinquent Cut Off/On Fee - $15.00/trip during normal work hours $20.00 after work hours & weekends (3) ReconneCtion Fee 5/8"- 1 1/2" meter 2" - 4" meter Larger than 4" meter $15.00 $20.00 Actual Cost (4) Special Service Fee $15.00/trip during normal work hours $20.00 after work hours & weekends (5) Meter Size Change Fee All Meters Actual Cost (6) Returned Check Charge $30.00 (Cash) (7) L-ate Delinquent Payment Penalty and Interest 10% Unpaid Balance Plus 1 1/2% per month (8) Meter Reread Fee $15.00 (9) Fire Hydrant Use Fee a: By tanker $20.00 per seven day authorization; $1.00 per day for up to five days extension plus water taken @ TWICE the effective rate except when the water is to be used for human consumption in which case the effective rate shall be charged. b: By approved hydrant meter assembly: (1) Deposit 5/8" - 1" meter assembly - $300 3" meter assembly - $1500 (2) Use fee $20.00 per 30-day authorization plus water used @ TWICE the effective rate. (10) Temporary Water Service $25.00 + water used, Deposit required (11) Misc. Delinquent Bills 10% Penalty plus 1 1/2% penalty & interest/mo. Construction Plan Review Charge: $32.00/hour Construction Inspection Fee: Water and/or Sewer lines greater than 400 linear feet Water and/or Sewer line less than 400 linear feet Reinspection Fee of New Water/Sewer Lines Inspection of New Pumping Stations $.50/linear foot Actual Cost $22.00/hour Actual Cost Line Tapping Fee - Where the Authority provides water main taps to accommodate line extensions, fire sprinkler systems and similar uses, a tapping fee will be assessed to the customer in accordance with the following schedule: TAPPING MACHINE TAP SIZE LINE SIZE PRICE E-4 %" - 1" 1 ¼"- 3" $100.00 B-100 %" - 1" 4"- 24" $100.00 A-2 1 ¼"- 2" 6"-24" $150.00 CL-12 4" - 12" 4" - 24" $60.00/inch INSTALLATION OF TAPPING SLEEVES AND TAPPING VALVES Mechanical Joint Tapping Sleeve and Tapping Valve: $400.00 10"~12" 14"-24" $500.00 $600.00 Caulked Type Tapping Sleeve and Tapping Valve $600.00 10"-12" $700.00 14"-24" $800.00 INSERTING VALVE 4" $700.00 6" $80O.O0 8" $90O.0O All water mains shall be uncovered and cleaned by the customer, who shall also supply all materials. The excavation shall be prepared in accordance with all applicable safety regulations. Return trip charges resulting from the customer failing to properly prepare the trench and pipe for the tapping/inserting operation will be billed to the customer. These additional costs shall include labor, equipment, and overhead costs. Ella Carey From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David Benish Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:25 PM Sally Thomas; Charlotte Humphris; David Bowerman; Charles Martin; Walter Perkins; Lindsay Dorrier; Bob Tucker; Ella Carey; Diane Mullins Wayne Cilimberg; Scott Clark Revision to Exec. Summary, SP 00-34 Springhill Farm Attached is a revised version of the Executive Summary for SP 00-34, Springhill Farm. The revised Executive Summary includes a phrase which that was inadvertently omitted from the early version received in your packet. Also, the Draft Commission minutes received by the Board incorrectly noted condition of approval # 5 for SP 00-34. Condition # 5 in the Planning Commission action letter is the correct action of the Planning Commission. The Commission minutes are being corrected for approval by the Commission. 01-087.doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-34, Springhill Farm (REVISED--SEE UNDERLINED BOLD, AND ITALIC PRINT) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The conditions of approval for SP 00-34 include a requirement for stream-buffer easements. It has become necessary to alter the wording of this condition (see below). STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Clark AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: In the attached staff report and the Planning Commission approval letter for SP 00-34, condition 5 reads: 5. Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feet from each bank (to be held by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation Distr'~:t) shall be placed on all streams on Parcel 58-95 (as it currently exists, before division), including a tree- planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank for that portion of the stream located on the 102 acre parcel. The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. DISCUSSION: The Engineering Department has notified the Planning Department that the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) may not necessarily be able or willing to hold these easements. SWCD staff has indicated that the District would be interested, but it is not possible to get a final decision without discussion by the SWCD board. If no holder can be found for the easements, the applicant would not be able to meet the conditionS of the special use permit. (it is possible that the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority could hold these easements.) Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessarily restricting the applicant's ability to meet the conditions of approval, condition 5 should be rephrased as follows: 5. Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feet from each bank shall be placed on all streams on Parcel 58-95 (as it currently exists, before division), including a tree-planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank forthat portion of the stream located on the 102 acre parcel. The plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The easements shall be granted to the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, the County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the County of Albemarle. If no such entity accepts the easements, the applicant shall provide written evidence from such entities declining the easements and this condition shall be null and void. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of SP 00-34, Springhill Farm with conditions. Staff recommends Condition 5 be modified as indicated above. NOTE: Densities shown on this map may not be realiz- able with existing facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1977-1995 ;/~' i~ o" · ,..1':'-.. o. ~' Village Res. (max. 1 du/ac) Commercial Public Institutions ~nvironmentally Sensitive Proposed Roadway , Hap 10 Type I Village Ivy Scale "-- 2000' -27- ATTORNEY AT LAW 202 EAST HIGH STi~I~IET P~ O. BOX 1285 CHARLOTTESVILLE~ VIRGINIA 22902 Apfill8,2001 TI~.LE PHOi~I E 804 - 979 - 2174 FAX 80,~- 979- 631] Albemarle County Board of Supervisors c/o Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk 401 Mclntire Road Charlotteville, VA 22902 Re: SP 2000-34 To the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: I am writing on behalf of Blue Springs Land Corporation with respect to SP 2000-34, which is scheduled to be heard by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2001. As per the information submitted with the SP 2000-34 application, I am the Vice President and a shareholder of the Applicant Blue Springs Land Corporation. I have received the April 3,2001 letter from Mr. Scott Clarke of the Albemarle County Department of Planning notifying the Applicant of the action taken with respect to the above referenced Special Use Permit by the Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on March 27, 2001. While appreciative of their recommendation of approval, the Applicant objects to certain aspects of the conditions to which that approval would be subject, as follows: Condition 5: The impoSition of riparian buffer easements on streams not located on the new 102 acre parcel. Riparian buffer easements on the new 102 acre parcel were proffered by the Applicant. Condition: 6: The limitation of building to homesite ,gl. The AppliCant does not want any limitations on the location of the homesite, except as otherwise generally required by Albemarle County ordinances on home Site location. Condition 7: The limitation on land clearing for residential development to 2 acres. The Applicant does not want any limitations on the amount of residential cleating. The Applicant proposes subdividing its 442 acre parcel into a new 102 acre parcel, which would be limited to one dwelling unit, and a 340 acre residue. The Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not require off-site riparian buffer easements, specify required building sites nor provide limitations on residential clearing as pre-conditions to subdivision apprOval in the Rural Areas. Although the 102 proposed new parcel is larger than the vast majority of lots in the Ivy area where it is located, its size alone is not sufficient rationale for Albemarle County Board of Supervisors April 18, 2001 Page Two imposing conditions on its use that are not generally imposed on lots in such areas of Albemarle County. Although the control of subdivision of property in order to provide for the orderly growth of the County is certainly important to the well being of the County and its people, the subdivision of land into large tracts such as proposed here ought not serve as the basis to allow the Albemarle County Department of Planning to dictate to the owners of such tracts exactly where they may build on their property, which is what they are trying to do here. I will address the issues presented herein further before the Board on April 25, 2001. Sincerely yours, Ethan A. Miller, Esq. EAlVl/krs cc: Mr. Scott Clarke COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-34, Springhill Farm SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The conditions of approval for SP 00-34 include a requirement for stream-buffer easements. It has become necessary to alter the wording of this condition (see below). STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Clark AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 'ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes In the attached staff report and the Planning Commission approval letter for SP 00-34, condition 5 reads: 5. Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feet from each bank (to be held by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District) shal be placed on all streams on Parcel 58-95 (as it currently exists, before division), including a tree- planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank. The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. DISCUSSION: The Engineering Department has notified the Planning Department that the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) may not necessarily be able or willing to hold these easements. SWCD staff has indicated that the District would be interested, but it is not possible to get a final decision without discussion by the SWCD board. If no holder can be found for the easements, the applicant would not be able to meet the conditions of the special use permit. (It is possible that the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority could hold these easements.) Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessarily restricting the applicant's ability to meet the conditions of approval, condition 5 should be rephrased as fol lows: 5. Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feet from each bank shall be placed on all streams on Parcel 58-95 (as it currently exists, before division), including a tree-planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank. The plat creating the new parcel shal not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The easements shall be granted to the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, the County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the County of Albemarle. If no such entity accepts the easements, the applicant shall provide written evidence from such entities declining the easements and this condition shall be null and void. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of SP 00-34, Springhill Farm with conditions. Staff recommends Condition 5 be modified as indicated above. 01.087 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 April 3, 2001 Ethan A. Miller 202 East High Street P O Box 1285 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2000-34 Spdng Hill and SP-2000-38 Spring Hill Tax Map 58, Parcel 95 Dear Mr. Miller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on March 27, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following: · SP-2000.34 Spring Hill - Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. No further division of the proposed 102-acre parcel allowed by this shall 'be permitted. No further division of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted without an amendment to SP $1-01 and 81- 55. 2. The 102 acre parcel shall be created through application for a rural division. 3. If an application for a rural division of Parcel 58-95 is not filed with the Planning Department Within 18 months from the Board approval date, this permit amendment will expire. Only one dwelling unit shall be permitted on the 102 acre parcel. Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feet from each bank (to be held by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District) shall be placed on all streams on Parcel 58-95 as it currently exists, before division, including a tree-planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank for that portion of the stream located on the 102 acre parcel. The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed' until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. (limit to the 102 acre parcel) 6. The building site shall be limited to the area labeled "Homesite 1" on the applicant's "Preliminary Site Study," drawn by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying Inc. and dated July 19, 2000. 7. Land clearing for this residential development site (including accessory structures such as sheds or pools) shall be limited to no more than 2 acres (includes 1.05 acres required for the 35,000-square- foot building site and 10,000-square-foot septic site). This condition is not intended to limit agriculture, horticulture or forestry on the parcel. Page 2 April 3, 2001 · SP-2000-38 Spring Hill - Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall secure the following approvals before removing vegetation or beginning work on the stream crossing: a) Engineering Department approval of structural computations for the entrance and stream crossing, include structural design computations that demonstrate the bridge can safely carry the vehicles that will access the residence (including all emergency vehicles). b) Fire & Rescue Department approval of the entrance design. c) Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.02.2 and 18-30.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. On the plan sheet, indicate the FEMA panel and designation (Community-Panel # 510006 0215 B) and that this section of Ivy Creek is a detailed study area. d) Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. e) If the Engineering Department, after review of the hydraulic computations, finds that the floodplain will be changed, the applicant must obtain a map revision from FEMA. f) Engineering Department approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. [17-203] A water protection (E&SC and SWM) bond must be posted and a pre-construction conference held pdor to the issuance of a grading permit. g) Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [17-322] Please include planting of trees to widen the Ivy Creek stream buffer. h) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance design, including provision of adequate sight distance. 2. In order to protect downstream habitat of the endangered James Spiny-mussel, the applicant must adhere to the following conditions recommended by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries: a) Instream work for constructing either entrance shall not occur from May 15 to July 31 of any year. b) Any cofferdams used in instream work for isolating the bridge construction area shall be no-erodible. c) In-stream: construction work shall block no more than 50% of stream flow at any given time. d) Excavated material shall be removed from the floodplain to prevent reentry of that material into Ivy Creek or its tributaries. e) Where they have been altered by construction or vegetation removal, the original streambed and streamba nk contours shall be restored: f) Areas where vegetation has been removed for bridge construction shall be replanted with similar species (except in the area occupied bythe bridge), or must be included in the tree-planting plan required as a condition of SP 00-34. 3. The existing farm entrance shall be permanently closed upon completion of the new entrance. 4. The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been Placed and the stream crossing remains stable. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 25, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. Page 3 April 3, 2001 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Planner SC/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Scott Clark March 27, 2001 April 25, 2001 SP 00-034 SPRINGHII,L FARM and SP 00-038 SPRINGHILL FARM FLOODPLAIN CROSSING APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant, Blue Springs Land Corporation, proposes to divide the 442.656-acre residue of Spring Hill Farm (TMP 58-95) to create a 102-acre residential lot, as shown on the Attachment C. The farm was originally divided by SP 81-01 and SP 81-55. Both approvals included a condition that any further division of the residue would require amendment of the existing permit(s). The applicant also proposes to construct a driveway and bridge over Ivy Creek at or near the intersection of routes 637 and 677 in the Rural Areas of the County. PETITION The first petition is for the approval of a special use permit to allow one approximately 102-acre lot to be created from the residue of Spring Hill Farm. The second petition is for the approval.of a special use permit, in accordance with Sections 30.3.5.2.1.2, to allow ~onstmction of a bridge over the floodway. The property, currently described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 95, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. It is in the Rural Area (RA) zoning District and is recommended as a Rural Area in the Land Use Plan. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR T~ REQUEST The applicant states that single-family residences are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district. The applicant has also offered to protect Ivy Creek (which crosses the proposed 102-acre parcel) and other streams on the parcel with 100-foot riparian buffer easements, and to accept condition preventing any further division of the new 102-acre parcel. The stream crossing would be used for access to the residential parcel that would be created by SP 2000-34 (if approved). CHARACTER OF THE AREA The parcel is in the west-central part of the County, just south of Ivy along State Route 637. The terrain is hilly; Gillums Mountain stands directly to the west. Ivy Creek, which crosses through the east side of the parcel (next to SR 637) is hsted in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan as an Important Stream Valley. The immediate surroundings are characterized by a mix of large farms, large-lot subdivisions, and private estates. There are significant stands of hardwood forest, as well as pastures and hayfields, in the area. At 442.656 acres, Parcel 58-95 is the second-largest parcel in the area. It is largely forested, with a small portion in open fields. RECOMMENDATION Staffhas reviewed the proposals for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. PLANNING AND ZONING ItISTORY In 1981, the approval of SP 81-01 and SP 81-55 allowed those sections of Spring Hill Farm (parcels 58-95 and 58-96) that were included in the former Ivy Village development area to be divided into a total of 33 residential parcels, with a residue of approximately 480 acres. Both approvals included conditions that required amendment before further division of the residue would be permitted. These two pernfits were made possible by a section of the zoning ordinance that has since been repealed. At the time, section 10.5.2.1 of the'ordinance effectively allowed applicants to obtain special permits to reorganize the size and shape of development-tight lots and by-right lots, if the Board of Supervisors detenuined that such rearrangement was "compatible with the neighborhood." The current ordinance does not include this provision, and also would not permit a request for additional development or subdivision rights on any parcel (such as 58-95) that is within a drinking-water watershed. The two parcels that originally comprised Springhill Farm had a total of 41 lots available for division. The Springhill subdivision used 33 lots, and the rights for an additional lot have been expended in transferring acreage to other parcels. The current number of available lots theoretically remaining on Parcel 58-95 is seven(see Attachment H). However, based on the previous special use permits on this property (SP 81-01 and SP 81-55), any further divisions will' require Board approval. That approval must be based on the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: There are no inherent development tights that may be exercised without such an approval. In the report for SP 81-55, staff stated that "[we] would emphasize that a request for development of the residue would receive thorough review under the RA criteria. Staff recommendations under SP 8t-1 and SP 81-55 should not be deemed applicable to further development of the property." In 1991, the Zoning Department determined that the applicant could transfer approximately 34 acres of the residue from Spring Hill Farm to the Tandem Farm subdivision without violating the permit conditions of SP 81-01 and 81-55. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates this land for rural uses. This proposal is to create a residential use. The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan identifies Ivy Creek, which runs through the east side of the parcel, as an Important Stream Valley. STAFF COMMENT: SP 00-34 (Parcel Division): Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: Tt~.e Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use pei'rnits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that Such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Due to the'buffering provided by the extensive wooded areas of the parcel, the proposed dwelling would not have significant direct impacts on neighboring properties. Without a hydrogeological test, it is not possible to determine what the potential impacts on nearby wells would be. Traffic impacts from a single additional residence would be negligible. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Parcel 58-95 is a largely wooded 442-acre tract bordering on Ivy Creek and Little Ivy Creek, and is the renmant of a larger (674-acre) farm. As it exists now, the parcel satisfies the four goals of the Rural Areas district as stated in Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: 2 · Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities · Water supply protection · Limited service delivery to the rural areas · Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources The division of this parcel and the attendant actions planned by the applicant (stream crossing, easements, etc.) would have the following impacts on these four goals: Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities: Although this action would create a large parcel with only one dwelling, the primary land use would change from agriculture and forestry to single-family residential. The extent to which this parcel would remain in agricultural use would depend on the inclination of the future owners to continue farming and forestry. If this is to be a large residential "estate," then it is quite possible that this land will go out of production agriculture and forestry for the foreseeable future. The applicant has indicated an interest in placing a conservation easement (to be held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation) on the proposed parcel. However, making this easement a condition of a special-use permit would make it impossible for the VOF to hold the easement, and would not allow the apphcant (or future owners) to gain the tax benefits that a voluntary easement provides. Therefore, unless such an easement is placed on the property voluntarily by the applicant, there is no way to ensure that such protection will be available for the land in the future. Much of the section that the applicant proposes to divide from 58-95 is forested and contains soils that are rated "moderately high," "high" and "very high" for potential tree productivity by the US Department of Agriculture. The open land near IvY Creek has Class IH soils. Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Protecting the best soils for agriculture and forestry is consistent with the decision to give highest priority to [agricultural and forestal] land uses in the Rural Area. It is desirable that rural development be directed away from soils which are suited for agricultural production." The two possible building sites suggested by the applicant are both located in areas of "moderately high" tree productivity, and are surrounded by soils with "high" productivity ratings. The building site and necessary driveway would impact these soils, and the proximity of a house to these areas would limit the parcel's viabihty for forestry. It is important to consider the effects of this requested division on Parcel 58-95 as a whole. Both in terms of productivity and of protection of natural resources, the division's effects will not be limited to the 102-acre lot. The loss of 102 acres from a 442-acre parcel will reduce its overall productivity and viability as farm and forest land. It is possible that furore applications will also request some form of development on the remainder of parcel 58-95. The proximity of residential uses in that area would make forestry and farming more difficult and less likely to continue in the long mn on the 102-acre parcel, and vice versa. These matters must be considered in any later review of proposed development on the residue parcel. However, this 102-acre parcel is much larger than the current minimum lot size required in the RA zone (21 acres). If this were a standard "by-right" subdivision, it would be possible to create several more lots on this parcel, which would have greater impacts on water quality, forest quality, and agricultural/forestal viability. If sufficient conditions are placed on approval of this division, the effects of fragmentation could be significantly reduced, although not eliminated. Such conditions should limit land clearing and water-quality impacts related to residential use of the land, without reducing future agricultural and forestal potential. By limiting the area ofland clearing for residential development, conditions on this permit can limit the impacts on productive and erodible soils, withoot requiring the apphcant to go through unduly complex site-selection processes. Staff proposes that this clearing be limited to 2 acres, a size typical for rural residential lots in the County and sufficient to allow for primary and backup septic fields. Water supply protection: The proposed division is located in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Urban and suburban development in water supply watershed areas causes the degradation of water quality through runoff from development activities, and conflicts with water quality protection efforts. Therefore, it has been a County policy to restrict development in water supply watersheds...." Some of the water-supply impacts of.this project would come from the clearing of the dwelling site, and others from the stream crossing that the applicant plans for access to the dwelling. (This crossing is dealt with in the report for SP 2000-038.) Depending on the building site chosen, the apphcant estimates that 1.97 or 2.47 acres of the site would be cleared (including driveways). Of this, 1.44 or 1.77 acres would be impervious surfaces, which increase runoff impacts. Except in the floodplain of Ivy Creek, the soils on the parcel have "moderate" and "severe" erosion hazards (see Attachment E), as defined by the US Department of Agriculture. The building sites, septic fields, and driveway would all impact these erodible soils, and increase water-quality impacts. It should also be noted that the areas near the proposed building sites have "moderate" limitations for septic fields (see Attachment F). The applicant has proposed a lOO-foot riparian easement to protect Ivy Creek and its tributary streams as they pass through the parcel. Especially if these buffers were planted with trees (where they are not already forested), water-quality impacts could be reduced to some extent..0Xlote: The applicant must ensure that the terms of these easements allow for the construction of any entrances to be built if SP 2000-38 is approved, and for road-safety improvements along Route 637.) If fore~d buffers are protected on all of the current Parcel 59-95, and added to Ivy Creek where existing buffers a~e very narrow, water-quality impacts of development on the parcel can be offset. Minimizing land clearing will reduce impacts on erodible soils (see above). Limited service delivery to the rural areas: The single dwelling unit to be created on this parcel would create minimal additional demands for service delivery in the area. As the parcel is not served by public water or sewer, water-supply and sewage-disposal needs would need to be addressed on-site. The addition of one dwelling would not significantly increase the area's demand for fn'e, rescue, police, or school services. Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources: One dilemma created by this proposal is that in order to avoid slopes, streams, floodplains, and other important resources, building sites are limited to hilltops in the center of the proposed parcel. Clearing one of these sites and providing access to it would fragment this forested parcel and create more forest edge. As noted in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, fragmentation of forests reduces both habitat value and commercial Viabihty. 4 In order to avoid the most productive soils, reduce the length of the driveway (and thus impervious surface and forest-edge creation), and limit forest cleating to an area of smaller, younger trees, construction should be limited to the applicant's proposed "Building Site 1" (see Attachment D).Compared to "Building Site 2", this site is closer to the edge of the parcel, is closer to an existing area of open pasture, is closer to the road (requiring less road construction and related clearing), and is in an area of younger, lower-quality trees. The main impact on historic resources .would be the further division of the original Spring Hill Farm tract. As of July, 2000, only 95 rural parcels (out of a total of 22,907) are over 440 acres m size. Further divisions of such parcels have direct.and permanent impacts on the County's historic landscapes, furthering the conversion of rural landscapes into suburban residential areas. The state Department of Historic Resources has found the site of Flanagan's Mill, a late-19th or early-20th century gristmill, near the existing farm entrance. Few remains of the structure were found, and it is "probably too late a structure of be of archaeological interest." They site is not considered threatened, but a side benefit of closing the farm entrance (see conditions of approval) is that off-road traffic near this site will be eliminated. Scenic impacts would largely come from the cleating and landscaping of the section of Dick Woods Road on either side of the entry and bridge. Further visual impacts would be created if trees on the hillside (between the road and the applicant's primary suggested building site) were cleared. and that such use will be in harmony w~th the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that is the intent of the Ordinance "that agriculm, ral and forestal lands be preserved." The proposed dwelling and the related land-cleating activities would be located in an area of prime forestal soils, some of which are highly erodible. Land clearing would increase forest fragmentation and Could reduce the viability of commercial forestry on what is now one of the county's largest remaining rural parcels. The extent of land protection and of.continued productive viability would depend on any voluntary efforts undertaken by the applicant or future owners. In order to minimize the impacts of this division on agricultural and forestal activities, the area of land clearing for other purposes should be limited to what is needed for the building site itself. Section 1.4.8 adds that the Ordinance is designed to "provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment." As discussed above, the land clearing and road consti'uction on this site would impact water quality (through runoff from cleared land and impervious surfa'ces) and wildlife resources (through habitat fragmentation and the impacts of residential development). with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-right uses in the Rural Areas include agricultural and forestry uses and low-density residential use. The requested division would support a low-density residential use. Section 10.1 states that "it is intended that permitted development be restricted to land which is of marginal util!ty for agricultural/forestal purposes, provided that such development be carded out in a manner which is compatible with other purposes of this district." This would suggest that if the division is permitted, conditions should be imposed that would prevent development or non- productive disturbance on those soils that are of value for forestry and agriculture (see Attachment G). These conditions could require that building sites not be located in those areas rated above "moderate" or "moderately high" for tree productivity, or rated soil class III or above for agriculture. However, in order to avoid unreasonably restricting the applicant's options on the site and creating ambiguity over which land is developable, it would be simpler to simply conditi°n that land clearing for residential use be limited in area (as discussed above). with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no applicable regulations in Section 5.0. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The central public-health and welfare issue is the potential impact of the project on water quality in the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir (due to siltation and the chemical inputs typical of residential development). The stream buffers offered by the applicant will be valuable in limiting such impacts. The safety issues, which relate to the access road over Ivy Creek, would largely impact the landowner. During a 100-year flood event, the road could be inundated, blocking the parcel off from road access. Rural divisions are not required to provide access that is out of the 100-year flood. SP 00-38 (Stream Crossing) STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: 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 adiacent property, The Engineering department will require the applicant to provide calculations showing that adjacent properties will not be impacted by any changes to the floodplain created by this project. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The crossing in itself will not significantly change the character of the area, except in that landscaping and the clearing of roadside trees and vegetation (for sight distance) will reduce the rural wsual character of the surroundings. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that conservation of natural resources is one intent of the Rural Areas zoning district. There was concern that this project might impact populations of the James spinymussel, a federally-listed endangered species that occurs only in certain streams in the James River watershed. (See Attachment J.) One population has been found downstream from this site in Ivy Creek. After a survey of the site (see Attachment K), the Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (DGIF) reported that "[d]ue to the lack of appropriate habitat...we do not anticipate significant adverse impacts to the James spinymussel or any other resources under our jurisdiction" on this site. However, to avoid impacts downstream, DGIF recommends the following conditions if the Project is approved: If the project is modified to include instream work, we recommend an instream work time-of-year restriction from 15 May - 31 July to protect spawning adults, conducting instream activities during low-flow conditions, using non-erodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, blocking no more than 50% of stream flow at any given time, stockpiling excavated material in a manner that prevents reentry into the stream, restoring original streambed and streambank contours, revegetating barren 6 areas, and implementing strict erosion and sediment control measures throughout the project period as described in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 1992, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. (Attachment L) Staff supports these conditions. Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, the provisions of this section of the ordinance are to "restrict the unwise use; development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment". There does not appear to be any significant danger to property, except if someone were to drive across the bridge and driveway (which would cross the floodway) during a severe flooding event. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-right uses in the Rural Areas include agricultural and forestry uses and low-density residential use. The bridge would support a low-density residential use. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations for stream crossings in this section of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The construction of the entrance is not expected to negatively impact public Safety,. The removal of trees along Route 637, intended to improve sight distance for the new driveway, will also improve visibility for drivers along this road. SUMMARY SP 00-34 (Division) Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: · The proposed parcel is significantly larger than the County's minimum for by-right lots in the rural areas (21 acres). · Soil impacts can be reduced through permit conditions that reduce the area of development. · Stream-buffer easements will provide additional long-term protection for streams in the South Fork Reservoir watershed. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: · Parcels of this size are increasingly rare ~n the County. · Any division diminishes the parcel's natural-resource value and economic potential for forestry. · Residential development on the parcel will impact highly productive and, in some cases, erodible soils. SP 00-38 (Stream Crossing) Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 7' · The new driveway location will have a greater sight distance along Route 637 than the existing farm entrance, and so will be safer for the parcel's owners and drivers on Route 637. · Closing the existing farm entrance (see conditions below) will eliminate off-road traffic near a documented historic site. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: · Constmction of the bridge and driveway will impact the stream and stream buffers. (Conditions on both permits are intended to minimize these impacts.) This proposal has positive and negative aspects that must be weighed carefully. The parcel in question has several existing features that are worthy of protection. Large forested parcels protect water quality, provide a resource base for rural economies, and protect biodiversity, all of which are stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Because this parcel is within the area's :main drinking-water watershed, it provides public health benefits. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance provides justification for approval of large residential estates when (as in this case) the development is not by-fight. When the County has an opportunity to prevent the fragmentation of large rural parcels, it attempts do so. However, there are also practical matters to consider. First, the proposed new parcel is nearly five times larger than the 21-acre minimum by-fight parcel size now permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. This development would have significantly less impact than the additional 7 or 8 houses that might have been built if the applicant had used all available development fights in 1981. Both the new parcel and the 340+- acre residue of parcel 58-95 would be large enough to sustain agricultural and forestal uses. This permit has been conditioned to prohibit further division of the new 102+-acre parcel or of the residue of Parcel 58-95. Also, the applicant's proposed stream-buffer easements will provide water quality protection that does not currently exist on the property, thus protecting the streams (and the South Fork Rivanna reservoir) from the impacts of logging and other future activities. Under current conditions, the applicant could create one building site anywhere on Parcel 58-95 without any limitation on land clearing. While this permit would allow two building sites (one on the new parcel, one on the residue), both of these sites would be limited in size and location in order to minimize impacts on the parcels' forests and on water quality. Given these factors, the Planning Department can recommend approval of SP 00-34 and SP 00-38. However, it is imperative that the conditions listed below be placed on the approval to ensure mitigation of the project's impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of SP 00-34 with the'following conditions: 1. No further division of the new parcel all6wed bY this permit or of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted. 2. The new parcel shall be created through application for a rural division. 3. If an application for a rural division of Parcel 58-95 is not filed with the Planning Department within 18 months from the Board approval date, this permit amendment will expire. 4. Only one dwelling unit shall be permitted on the new parcel. 5. Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feet from each bank (to be held by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District) shall be placed on all streams on Parcel 58-95 (as it currently exists, before division), including a tree-planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank. The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 6. The building site shall be limited to the area labeled "Homesite 1" on the applicant's "Preliminary site Study," drawn by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying Inc. and dated July 19, 2000. 8 7. Land clearing for this residential development site (including accessory structures such as sheds or pools) shall be 'limited to no more than 2 acres (includes 1.05 acres required for the 35,000-square-foot building site and 10,000-square-foot septic site). This condition is not intended to limit agriculture or forestry on the parcel. 8. Land clearing for any future building site on the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be limited to no more than 2 acres. The site shall not be located on soils rated "high" or "very high" for tree productivity by the USDA's Albemarle County Soil Survey, or on soils rated "moderate" or "severe" for erodibility or septic- field limitations. Staff recommends approval of SP 00-38 with the following conditions, contingent on the Board's approval of SP 2000-34: 1) The applicant shall secure the following approvals before removing vegetation or beginning work on the stream crossing: a) Engineering Department approval of structural computations for the entrance and stream crossing, include structural design computations that demonstrate the bridge can safely carry the vehicles that will access the residence (including all emergency vehicles). b) Fire & Rescue Department approval of the entrance design. c) Engineering Department approval of computations and Plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.02.2 and 18-30.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. On the plan sheet, indicate the FEMA panel and designation (Community-Panel # 510006 0215 B) and that this section of Ivy Creek is a detailed study area. d) Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. e) If the Engineering Department, after review of the hydraulic computations, fmds that the floodplain will be changed, the applicant must obtain a map revision from FEMA. f) Engineering Department approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. [17-203] A water protection (E&SC and SWM) bond must be posted and a pre-construction conference held prior to the issuance of a grading permit. g) Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [17-322] Please include planting of trees to widen the Ivy Creek stream buffer. h) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance design, including provision of adequate sight distance. ~ 2) In order to protect downstream habitat of the endangered James Spiny-mussel, the applicant must adhere to the following conditions recommended by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries: a) Instream work for constructing either entrance shall not occur from May 15 to July 31 of any year. b) Any cofferdams used in instream work for isolating the bridge construction area shall be no- erodible. c) In-stream construction work shall block no more than 50% of stream flow at any given time. d) Excavated material shall be removed from the floodplain to prevent reentry of that material into Ivy Creek or its tributaries. e) Where they have been altered by construction or vegetation removal, the original streambed and streambank contours shall be restored. f) Areas where vegetation has been removed for bridge construction shall be replanted with similar species (except in the area occupied by the bridge), or must be included in the tree- planting plan required as a condition of SP 00-34. 3) The ex/sting farm entrance shall be permanently closed upon completion of the new entrance. 4) The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been placed and the stream crossing remains stable. Attachments A) Location Map B) Tax Parcel Map C) PrOperty Survey showing parcel D) Applicant's "Preliminary Site Study" E) Erosion Map F) Septic-Field Limitation Map G) Forestal Soils Map H) Memo fi.om Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration Location Map I) Applicant's initial plan for the driveway and bridge, dated July 18, 2000 J) Memo fi.om Crystal Nance, DCR-DNH K) Final Report on stream survey, Richard J. Neves, Virginia Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit L) Copy of recommendations from Tom Wilcox, Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries l0 MOU NT/~',t N ~%~._~L~ATTACHMENT A ~ MOUNTAIN ~aKeI Albemerle I I TO RT, 151 / \ CASTLE Heards Mtn. F.T, ~ BOAZ ~ MOUNTAINS \ ROCK HIGk TOP TOM MOUNTAIN Cross Roads SP00-34 SPRINGHILL FARM North Garden 11 31. ATTACHMENT B 38 I00 12 MAGNETIC MERIDIAN 0 150 300 600 SCALE IN FEET ]PLA'/' ]PARCEL A A ]POR'~O~ O~ S]PH~G ~ ]FARM CONTA~i][~G A]PPHO~~y 102.08 ACRES AL,BEMAP, LE COUNTY, MAY 38, 2/~ SPRING HILL FARM RESIDUE 340+,- .AC. 6 SPRINGS DA%4D HABERLY HABE 11.047 AC. LOT 2 BLUE SPRING~ MICHAEL DALLY SUSAN DALLY 21.004 AC. NO3'13'49"E 91.49' / REVISED LOT 1 TANDEM FARM N/F JOHN B. AND 4 I ' ' ';3-ULIE NEFF CAREW S-6' '2 08,-E D.B. 1129 P. 736 200.52' 22.55 ACRES S86'42'22"E 31,57' ?ARCELA 4,447,006.87 sq. ft. 102.08 acres S53'38'55"E LOT 10 WILLIAM BAILEY ! MEANNE BAILEY LOT 8 3.379 AC. / k N/F / SHER WOOD FRYE / \ / LOT 9 MARIETTA FRYE / / ALAN JENKINS \ 6.076 AC. BARBARA JENKINS / 6.928 AC. k \\, / \ / '\ / / S60'27'44"W 40.00" GLOECKNER ENGINEERING~SURVEYING INC. ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - LAND PLANNERS 2246 IVY ROAD, SUITE 11 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 100 Yeor Flood Plain \ Proposed Bridge and Driveway \ S01'02'10'E · 41.07' N41'52'10"W 83.20' N35'40'38"E 58.03' '----... N43.'25'38"E/ 65.73' N51'O,6'OS"E 5.45' ," S03'11 '02"E 251.80't / / / ! ! S31'29'38'w ? 16.32' Sl 6'32'3~ 121.20' 53b ....] ............ SPRING HILL FARM: RESIDUE 340+- AC. )0 S50'O4'28"W 252.19' L=98.42' R=685.55' / N30'O6'O8"E 69.12' 49'10'28"E 70.74' STATE ROUTE 677 00-024-00 ", / \ 525 ~_ SPRING HILI.-RESIDUE P~----~-~ ~EM~ co?~. v~?~_ PRELIMI---~~Y SITE STUDY 58, PARCEL 95 C 0 Z © C/') TO IVY ~ ?/ 53Frl~ t/ ATTACHMENT G '!7 FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 40I Mclntire Road, Room 227. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 ATTACHMENT H TTD (804) 972-4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Clarke, Planner FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration DATE: 08/09/00 RE: SP 00-38, Springhill Farm 1. Please mention in your staff report that SP 2000-38 is an amendment to SP 81-1 and 81-55. The purpose is to further divide the residue remaining after creation of the lots allowed under those SP's. Those SP's utilized a regulation that is no longer available in our zoning ordinance.~ With this in mind, the Board of Supervisors needs to decide if the residue may be divided further under this SP, or if it is essentially "frozen" at the current size. If the decision is to permit any divisions, the total number of lots may not exceed the total that would have been permitted at the time SP 81-1 and SP 81-55 were approved. 2. Although SP 81-1 and SP 81-55 control this parcel, those SP's were based on the development dghts and by-right development potential at that time. Unfortunately, there was an error in the calculation and the parcels were noted in the staff report as having fewer nghts than actually existed. The following calculation notes the correct Cf of lots available in 1981 to the two parcels, that were included in the applications for SP81-1 and SP 81-55: Parcel 95 - 674.67 acres - Development right lots (10 acres total) 5 By-right 21-acre lots (664 + 21) 31 Parcel 96 - 20.4 acres - Development right lots 5 No 21-acre lots 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS AVAILABLE in 1981 41 ~ "10.5.2 Where Permitted by Spedal Use Permit; 10.5.2.1 In addition to the provisions of section 10.3.2, the board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for the division of a parcel into more than five (5) lots or the construction on a single parcel of more than five (5) dwelling units at a gross density not to exceed one dwelling unit per two acres (1 du/2 ac); provided that the board of supervisors shall determine that such division and/or construction is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this ordinance, with reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas~ and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following:" [nine criteria followed] Because the property is within the watershed of a public drinking water supply impoundment, under the current ordinance it cannot request additional development or subdivision rights. 18 Since 1981, the applicant has created the maximum number of lots available under SP 81- 1and 81-55:33 residential lots tOtaling 206.135 acres. In addition, he has transferred several acres from the residue to various adjoining lots, e.g., Blue Springs Farm (noted on the plat to be 34+ acres). Therefore, the equivalent of one 21-acre lot is no longer available, so the lot tabulation is thus: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS AVAILABLE in 1981 Less the Number of Lots Created under SP's 81-1 and 81-55 Less the Number of equivalent 21-acre parcels transferred TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS REMAINING 41 33 1 7 Since the SP does not require new construction, if the request is approved, please set some specific time by which the subdivision plat must be signed and recorded or the SP expires. Eighteen months would be in keeping with the ordinance. 19 ATTACHMENT ! ER DIAN 50' .~ \ SYCAMORES (50' O. C,) FLOOD PLAIN 50' SCALE: t" = 20' 13+00 I~+00 EVISIONS  / ~4+95.6o / / DATE JULY 18, 2000 SC, ALE 560 555! 55{; 545 53O 10+00 525 ~PO. O0 GRADE STA = 10+60 ELEV = 549,60 .D, = -14.00 75,00' VC NOTE: RISE N FLOOD PLAIN ELEVA330N AREA CUT IN "'LOOO PLAIN ~ AREA FILL IN FLOOD PLAIN LOW POINT 533,13 LOWPOINT 12+01.50 PV1 = 533.13 A.D, · 18,00 11+00 cUT-6..02 s, 30' SPAN FILL = S72.93 S.F. ~ 12+00 WALL HORIZONTAL SCALE: '~" ~ 20' VER'~CAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 13+00 LOW POINT ELEV = 53; LOW POINT STA = 13+3 PVI STA = 13+83,5,~ P~ ELEV = 533A3 A.D. = 4.00 K - 25,00 100,00' VC 14+00 I3 .52 EXISTINO / ORADE 15+00 560 555 550 545 540 535 JOB NUMBER 00-024-00 DWG. 530 525 ~ ! e 07/~$/00 WED 14:56 FAX 8043712674 NATURAL ItERITAGE COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 217 (iovemor Str~c~, 3rd Floor TDD ($04) 75~2~21 R/ahmond, Vir~nia 23219 (8(~) 75~-7951 FAX ($04) 371-2~574 ht~:/lwww,sm~e,vn.uS/-d~r/va~r.h mfl ~ 001 ATTACHMENT J David G. Brickl~y D~ct~r FACSIMII,E TRANSMISSION FAX NO: (8.04_) 371-2674 TOTAL PAGES: DESCRIPTION: (INCLL~ES COVER PAGE) IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (804)786-7951. An Agency of the Natural ~esourees Secretariat 21 ~ohu P~ul Woo~-y, .Ir. ~ of Natural COMMONWEALTH of VIRQ1NIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 217 Governor Su'ee~. 3r~ Moor TDD (804) 786-21:ll Riehmand. Virginia ~219 (804) 796-7981 TAX 0~04) MEMORANDUM DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: FROM: Scott Clark, Albemarle County Planning Department Crystal Nance, DCR-DNH ~ SUBJECT: Stream Crossing over Ivy Creek for Access to a Single-Family Residence The Department of Cons,:-Tvation arid Recreation (DCR) has searched its Biological and Conservation Data System (BCD) for occurrences of natural heritage resources fi:om the area outlined on the submitted map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of. rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natxtral communities, and significant geologic formations. According to the information currently in our files, ~ lames spinymussel (Pleurobema cotlina, G1/S 1/LF_~E), a rare freshwater mussel, ha~_ been documented in Ivy Creek. The James spinymussel, endemic to the .lames River watershed, occurs in a variety of substrata ranging fi:om sand and silt mixtures to gravel and sand mixed with rubble and in a variety of flow regimes (Clarke & Neves, 1984; Hove & Neves, I994). It is now restricted to small headwater streams of this watershed (Neves, 1991). Threats to this species include competition with the exotic elm (Corbiculaflwninea), erosion and sedimentation from logging, mad construction, and livestock grazing, sewage effluent, and water quality degradation (Neves, 1991). Please note that the James spinymussel is currently classi~ed as endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service CUSFWS) and the 'Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDG~. The lames spmymussel may occur at the location of the stream crossing if appropriate habitat is present, Due to the potential for this site to support additional populations of the James spinymussel, DCR recommends an inventory of suitable habitat in the study area. With the survey results we can mom accurately evaluate potential impacts to natural .heritage resources and offer specific protection recommendations for mlrfimi~g impacts to any documented resources. To minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities, DCR recommends the implementation of and strict adherence to erosion and sediment control measures during ali land disturbing activities. DCR also recommends eoordin.~_tion with Agency of the Na~ttrttl Resources Stcretarlttt 22 07/05/00 WED ~4:57 F~ 80437~2674 ~003 the USFWS m~d the to ensure compli~ce wi~ protected species legislation, DCR-Division of Natural Heritage bioiogi~ are qualified and available to conduct inventories for rare, threatened, and end~,~gcrcd species, Please contact $. Christopher Ludwig, Naun-al Hexitagc Inventory Manai/cr, at (804) 371,6206 to discuss arrangements for field work. A list of othc-r individuals who ar~ qualified to conduct inventories may be obtained from the USFWS. Any absence of data may indicate that thc project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that thc area lacks natural heritage resottrces. New and updated information is continually added to BCD. Please contact DCR for an update on tMs natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before it is utilized. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Klm Marbain, USFWS Ray Femald, VDGIF 23 07/05/00 WED 14:57 FAX 8043712674 NATTT~tL HERITAGE ~ 004 LiteramreCited Clarke, A.H. and ILJ. Neves. 1984. Status survey of thc James Riwr spinymussel, Canthyria collina, inthe James River, Virginia. Unpublished report on file with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Newtnn Comer, Massachusetts. Hove, M.C. and R,J. Neves. 1994. Life Mstory of the endangered James spiny-mussel .Pleurob~ma collina (Conrad, 1837). American Malacological Bulletin I 1:29-40, Ncves, RdI. 1991. James spinymussel. In Virginia'sEndangcred Species: Proc~dings of a Symposium. K. Terwilligcr ed. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Gompany, Blacksburg, V/rg/n/a. -~DOT/ENVIRONMENTAL t - CULPEPER Final Re port Survey for Freshwater Mussel Fauna at tit< of Ivy Creek, Albemarle Co ~?.1~.2000 13:$8 ATTACHMENT K Route 637 Bridge Crossing anty, Virginia Prepared by Richard 'J'. Nevet Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wil~ilife Research Unit Blacksburg, Virgi~ fia : for Virginia Department of Tr~ nsportation 1401 East Broad St~'eet Richmond. Virginia 23219 August 1999 RECEIVED 25 · UDOTxE ? HUIROHMENTRL - CULPEPER 07.15.2000 15-'50 Survey Proeedu ' he I;tma}n r, aeh in proximity to the Route 637 brid ; County.'V^ was I~urveyed for freshwater mussels. The mac the brid~[e crossing (511{) m total) was surveyed on July 30, 1 )99 by biologists from the Virginia Cooperative Fish iand Wildlife Research Unit {Neves, Zimm Survey ~rocedure~ consisted of snorkeling the designated clarily 14 search f6r freshwater mussels. The banks and stre~ ~e crossing of Ivy Creek in Albemarl~ ~ 100 m upstream to 400 m downstream of ~rman, Ooode) (see topographical map). ch under conditions of Iow flow and water m margins also were searched for muskrat :ies prcsem. Thc weather on July 30 was hol ood, and flow velocities were dow. A total middens~ and incidental shells to obtain a complete list of spt : and sunr~y; water icmperature was 24°C. Water clarity was of 4.5 m~n-hours ~vas spent to conduct the survey. Survey Results '~'he surveJ/ed reach oflvy Creek was ~-7 m wide in Maxima depth i~ the designated reach was about lm (bear At a distance of roughly 300 m downstream of the bridge wal water fo~at, least 50 m upstream. This pool was heavily sedh downstream~ reach!was characterized by slow flow, because o of mixed~parlicle sizes and bedrock. Large boulder outcrops creating ~mall casdades. These outcrops undoubtedly create normal fl~w. cbr~di!ions. Many of the riffle areas were expose the substl, ata. A roW-crop field bordered the right ascending An irriga ion intak~ hose was holed in the slream, roughly 20 T~e reach ~pstream of the bridge flowed through a m~ Substratt:h-~ was principally of small particle sizes, and there v mollusks. aost sections and generally shallow. dam pool), with a mean depth of <20 cm. an active beaver dam. which impounded ~cnted and nearly stagnant. The entire 7near-drought conditions, and a substratum x:cur at intervals in the stream reach, : arriers to fish movement during low and with water flowing among and not over ank, and thc left bank wa s mostly for%tcd. · m downstream of thc bridge. adow, with some riparian vegetation. as limited wetted stream bed suitable for 26 ,"UDOT~'ENUIROHMEHTRL - CULPEPER ~ No [reshwater mussels or mussel shells were £oun~ physi I habitat:was not suited to even headwater ~pe¢tes, ~ dispcdal art'. im~edimems to colonizadon from downstrear occur. Conclusiom There ~ere no live mussels or mussel shells found reach I~as heud~ater traits, with considerable bedrock and unsui~iblo habit~tt for freshwater mussels particularly in musseis in this s~ectlon of lvy Creek of concern to state or 17. 15.2B00 1~:$1 n tl~¢ 500 m of surveyed stream. I M~st or thc ~nd the limited flow and boulder barriers to where several mussel species are known to n the 500 m of surveyed stream. Because tills )uldcr outcrops and limited flow. il piovides mcr. There are no protected species of deral agencies. P. 4 27 UDOT/ENUIEONMENTRL - CULPEP£~ 2'30" 87.13.2908 13:51 ~ - ~10 OOD FEET 78' ~7'3~),,L t;0g .I gTOoOo FEET Mapped edit~, and published by the Geologic, C~n~roi by USGS and USC&GS taken 1963. ~,eld checked )g64. Revised from ~e~'~ TopOgraphy by Photogrmmmetric methods from aerial pho~o~rephs taken 1972. F~e~d checked 1973 ~l~conic Projection. ) 9~7 ........ IO,DOO-~oo{ E~ d bas-~ ~,, .-u~n ~merlcen dalum ' '12 35' !; 28 ' VDOT/ENUIRONHENTRL CULPEPER 07. 1J.2000 15:52  (MUSSELS~ ,~'"~oilectors ~ yes, L. Zimmerman. C. Coode ~.i Collection No. VDOT 6.17 Day ~0~ ~ Monih July ~ear 1999 Da~c: ~ , _ W~r Temp, COU.,~ Albem~rle Qua~ngle. Charlotteavtlle  State. VA Town livy. Stream Conditions Io~ .Io~ clear Comments.?PS } lo~a ~ t ~n ~ .... 24°C _ Man Hours Species"- !ound ]' - T Ab No. of Specimens Live Fresh Dead Subfossll P, 6 29 ATTACHMENT L Scott Clark From: Tom Wilcox [SMTP:twilcox@dgif. state.va.us] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:47 PM To: sbowler@albermarle.org Cc: dhirsch@albermarle.org Subject: 19 July Ivy Creek Site Visit Stephen: Pursuant to our phone conversation, we found the proposed bridge crossing site on Ivy Creek and the habitat at the crossing is mostly bedrock and is heavly silted. The federally endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) has been documented 1.5 - 2.0 miles downsteam of the project site. Due to the lack of appropofiate habitat and instream work is not proposed, we do not anticipate significant adverse impacts to the James spinymussel or any other resources under our jurisdiction. if the project is modified to include instream work, we recommend an instream work time-of-year restriction from 15 May - 31 July to protect spawning adults, conducting instream activities during Iow-flow conditions, using non-erodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, blocking no more than 50% of stream flow at any given time, stockoiling excavated material in a manner that prevents reentry into the stream, restoring original streambed and streambank contours, revegetating barren areas, and implementing stdct erosion and sediment control measures throughout the prqiect pedod as described in the Virginia Erosion and Sedir~ent Control Handbook, 1992, Virginia Department of Conservation ant Recreation. Please call me if you have any further questions. Tom Wilcox Environmental Services Section Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 804/367-8998 804/367-2427 (fax) twilcoxCb, d,qif, state.va.us Tom Wilcox.vcf 30 March 21,2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Valerie W. Long, Esquire P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2000,77 Orrock Property (Triton) Tax Map 92, Parcel 5A Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of 80 feet, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 712.8 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. 2) The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a) The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees; b) Guy wires shall not be permitted; c) No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d) The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)"; e) A grOunding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and taperingto a point, may be installed at the tope of the pole; f) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two trees that have been used to justify the height of the monopole. g) Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); Page 2 March 21,2001 10)The permittee shall comply with sectiOn 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. the lease area shall not be permitted. h) The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number I of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. 3) The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)". 4) Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a) Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)"; b) No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c) Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. 5) Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for apProval: All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall'not remove existing trees within 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 tow hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. 6) The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. 7) The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. 8) No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to'the County Engineer are employed. 9) 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 through 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. Fencing of Page 3 March 21,2001 11)The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility. Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 18, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prier to your scheduled hearing date. Please note that the Planning Commission also took the following action at their March 13, 2001 meeting: · Request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Unanimously approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2) The applicant shall provide adequate area for one parking space; 3) The applicant shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Planner SW/jcf Cc~ Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIlshouse Bob Ball Jeanette E. Orrock Triton, PCS, Inc STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER MARCH 13, 2001 APRIL 18, 2001 SP 00-077 ORROCK (TRITON PCS) Applicant's Proposal: The propOsal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility which would include an eighty (80) foot tall self supporting steel monopole with two flush-mount panel antennas (nearly 4 feet in height), and a lightning rod attached. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a metal cabinet six feet - nine inches in height, on a 10-foot by 12-foot concrete pad. According to the applicant's request, approval of this facility would help to increase wireless coverage along State Route 53, south of Monticello, and assist Triton PCS in maintaimng a wireless communications system, in accordance with the requirements of it's FCC issued license by preventing the occurrence of a "gap" in the network(Attachment A). Petition: As part of a system that is intended to provide wireless service coverage throughout the area, the applicant, Triton PCS, Inc. maintains several personal wireless facility sites in the County of Albemarle. In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit which would allow the construction of a personal wireless services facility. The applicant's petition cites the presence of two specific trees as the basis for requesting a monopole with a height of 80 feet. The first tree is a 78-foot tall Ash which is located 39 feet away and.situated at an elevation that is approximately four (4) feet lower than the proposed location of the monopole, while the second is a 75-foot tall Ash, approximately 63 feet away and 8 feet higher. The property, described as Tax Map 92, Parcel 5A, contains approximately 15.61 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Scottsville District (Attachment B). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. Character of the Area: The site of the proposed facility is a wooded lease area that is 900 square feet in area and situated at an elevation between 632 and 636 feet Above Sea Level (ASL) on an incline with a peak elevation of 652 feet ASL. The proposed location of the tower site is indicated on a topographic map (Attachment C) and an enlarged vicinity map (Attachment D). Access to the facility would be provided by use of an existing gravel road within a 16-foot wide private access easement which starts on the north side of Route 53, and would be extended 109 feet east to the lease area. Areas directly south and east of the facility site are vegetated with a mixture of large, mature trees and dense underbrush. A heavily woOded tree line lies just west of the private road, and with the exception of areas that are cleared for the house and to accommodate utility lines, most of the property exists in its naturally wooded state. The nearest dwelling to the facility site is located approximately 400 feet north of the facility site on the same parcel. The nearest property line is approximately 159 feet south of the lease area and is the shared boundary with property identified aS Tax Map 92/Parcel 6. The house on that property is located more than 600 feet away fi:o~ the facility site. All of the adjacent properties ~tre zoned Rural Areas, and several of those are ~0-grii~d a~ ti~'4ing.historic significance. During a field visit, staffobserved that a red balloon which was floated at the proposed height of the monopole was visible from two nearby locations. The first of these areas was a parking lot on the Jefferson Vineyards property which is located south of the site, off of Route 53. The balloon was visible from this location approximately at the same height as the treetops along the ridgeline. Next, staff found that the balloon was barely visible through the forest and below the treetops from a driveway that intersects with Route 53, approximately 1/2 mile west of the site. The standard conditions of approval for wireless facilities require monopoles and all related equipment to either be made of wood or painted brown. Therefore, as a result of both its design and location within a within an area where the trees are comparable in height, staff anticipates that the proposed facility would have minimal visibility (Attachment E). Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that the proposed lease area and its service road extension will not require a substantial amount of clearing in preparation for the construction of the proposed facility and extension of its access road. Therefore, staff's review for compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan is focused mainly on the possible impacts that could result from the presence of the facility in the proposed location. Staff analysis also includes an assessment of this proposal's compliance with the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy which was recently adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December, 2000 to provide the guidelines for siting and review of proposals for wireless facilities. When considering the goals that are set forth in the wireless policy, the County has generally favored and approved new cellular and PCS facilities that satisf3, the criteria for Tier One review, which implements facilities that are located within an existing structure; or for Tier Two review which utilizes "treetop" monopole structures (a treetop structure is defined as a mount for personal wireless facilities no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed mount). However, with this specific proposal the applicant has requested that consideration be given for the presence of 2 trees that are located more than 25 feet from site of the proposed monopole. These are the 75-foot tall and 78-foot tall Ash trees that are identified as numbers 1 and 5. Therefore, approval of this application would allow a wireless facility that would meet the concept proposed for Tier Three review. In accordance with the wireless policy, staff considers visibility to be the most important factor when reviewing personal wireless facilities in proposals for all three of those concepts. Staff notes that in past Cases when an applicant has requested consideration for Tier Three facilities, conditions have been implemented to restrict the top of the monopole to an exact height, as approved by the Board. Approval of all wireless facilities also includes the standard condition that restricts the removal of any significantly sized trees (six inches in caliper, or greater) within 200 feet of monopole structures without the prior apProval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. This requirement would help to ensure that the two trees cited as the justification for the applicant's height request and several of the other trees that help to obscure the facility would be preserved. 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. 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, these facilities should not be located within "Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. Although this site is located on property that is adjacent Monticello and Patterson Mountain parcel, the proposed facility site is located completely outside of the Mountain Resource Areas that have been mapped on those properties. Open Space Concept Map identifies several historic sites that are adjacent to the subject property, this includes structures at Simeon that are Surveyed Historic Sites, as well as the Nationally Registered Historic Properties of Monticello. Due to the presence of the trees on incline of the hill where the lease area would be located, view of the monopole and other equipment within the facility site woUld be obscured from Simeon which is situated at a lower elevation. As indicated in the applicant's request, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation was contacted to observe balloon height tests, and provided comment on this request to assist in determining the proposed location and height for the monopole so that it would blend well into its natural surroundings (Attachment F). The only open space resources that are present on the subject parcel and could be potentially impacted by this application are forests. Although forests are recommended for protection within the Rural Areas, because of the limited amount of disturbance that would be necessary, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or the farmlands present on adjacent parcels in the area. Furthermore, when existing structures are not available, it is recognized that the recommendations of the Personal Wireless Policy favor locating new facilities in forested areas where equipment can be designed to blend well into the natural surroundings. This includes the locating structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy in areas where they are not "skylighted" against the horizon so as to alter the ridgelines. This subject property is located off of Route 53, a designated Entrance Corridor, but the site itself is located outside of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Although Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of this facility is not required, staff referred the proposal to the ARB for informal comment and recommendationS, with the applicant's cooperation. Despite staff's request, the ARB declined to provide comments on this proposal, because of the balloon was not visible from Route 53. However, the Design Planner has indicated that the ARB would be willing to review this proposal with further direction from the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Staff analysis is focused largely on the visual impact of the proposed facility from surrounding properties and roadways. Due to the limited visual impact of the monopole and other equipment within the proposed facility site, it is staff's opinion that approval of this application would not be inconsistent with the policies and guidehnes that are set forth by the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities and protecting the important resources of Albemarle County. Planning_ and Zoning History: No planning or zoning history is available for this parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and, Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning OrdinanCe - waiver of the site plan requirements 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a fmding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, Due to the coverage of existing trees, visibility of all structures within the site would be obscured adequately fi.om the surrounding properties. Based on the observation of a balloon height test, staff anticipates that the proposed monopole would be slightly visible from propertieS located to the west and south of the site. However, because it would only extend slightly above the tops of the trees, it is staff's opinion that the monopole would not compromise the distant ridgeline, beyond Route 53, to an extent that it would be an obtrusive feature that draws attention to the facility. Furthermore, because this proposal would not necessitate the removal of any large trees, the facility would not impose any significant physical disturbance on the subject parcel or adjacent prop erfies. The applicant's request indicates that Triton service personnel would normally travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather or other unexpected factors. However, once the tower 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. With consideration for the above-cited factors, staff finds that the proposed facility would not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The Zoning Ordinance lists include preservation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources as intents of the Rural Areas. Uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas zoning district are limited either to rural scale residential development, or those uses related to agriculture and forestal activitiesi Although the uses that are most often allowed by special use permit are for services related to those by-right activities, staff recognizes that the presence of various utilities within the Rural Areas is not uncommon. Other examples of utilities within the area include the wooden utility poles and overhead hnes that provide electrical power and conventional phone services. Although these utilities usually employ structures that are much smaller than monopoles for wireless facilities, thev are often placed in locations where they are more visible, such as road sides and easements that are cut through wooded areas. 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 area. This facility would be located within a wooded area and accessed by extending an existing private driveway, both of which have be favored approaches in the County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they have limited visual impact. With the exception of the top portion of the tower which would extend to the same height level as the surrounding tree canopy, the facility would be effectively obscured from views outside of the lease area. Therefore, staff's opinion is that approval this facility will not result in a changing in the character of the Rural Areas district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff review of this request is made in consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to 1.4, 1.4.4, 1.5. In some way, all of these sections address the provision of public services. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service. Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. The establishment of Wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the goals of the wireless policy are intendedto ensure that equipment for those facilities are not responsible for diminishing the important resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Therefore, it is staff's opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthe Ordinance. Section 10.1 of Zoning Ordinance lists the limited delivery of services as one of the intents for the Rural Areas zoning district. 'It is understood that approval of this request would act to increase the level of services that are provided in the Rural Areas. However, it would not conflict with any of-the agricultural and forestal, or the other rural objectives set forth for the district. Therefore, staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal complies with this provision of Section 31.2.4:1. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed facility would not restrict current uses on the subject parcel, or by-right uses on any other property within the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the 5 public health and safety and general welfare by prov!~ing increased coInmunication services in the event of emergencies and increasing oVerall g~t~i~i:~:bmm~cation 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. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instmmentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased commumcation services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. e Request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32;2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review -- committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of personal wireless communications facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area that is normally impacted by these uses and the ability to obtain the required information through an erosion and sediment control plan and the building permits. In this case the construction of the facility will require activity related to construction of the service road extension, connection of utilities which are currently on site, and the placement of the tower and ground equipment. Based on the minimal activity necessary for installation, staff is unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission ora site plan. Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver for the wireless facility proposed in SP 00-51, subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; The applicant shall provide adequate area for one parking space; The applicant shall submit a revised set of site plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 2. 3. 4. The facility would provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties; The design and siting of the facility is such that it will have limited visual impact on adjacent property and public roads; and, Access to the facility will be provided by extending an existing driveway and placing gravel over an existing path. Staff has identified no unfavorable factors that would result from the approval of this request. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: The applicant consulted with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation for the location of the proposed facility site; and, There is an existing reasonable use of the property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff's opinion is that while this site is located within the Rural Areas, and has very limited visibility from nearby properties, the existing trees reduce the impacts such that approval would not be inconsistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Pohcy. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of 80 feet, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 712.8 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. TheXround equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment o o o eo attached to the pole shall be dark brOCk'iff cOlor and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)"; A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the two trees that have been used to justify theheight the monopole; Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)" Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)"; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that ~)roject out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within 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. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Deparunent of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- E- F- Application and Request for Special Use Permit Tax Map Topographic Map Vicinity Map Site Information and Construction Drawings Letter from Thomas Jefferson Memorial Day (Dated February 28, 2001) Application for Special Use Permit ATTACHMENT PAGE 1 Project Nan, el~-~,,,~t=~i..~t=m.?) 0frock Pro~y (~iton 2~ ~-360B) 'gxistingUse ~id~tial ~d A~i~lt~e Proposed uscWireless ~lec~t~a~ica~ons Pacitity [*Zoning District ~ *Zoning Ordinance Sectiou number requited I0.2.2.6 ('staff will assist you with these items) Nmnber ofacres to be covered by Special Use Permit (,.r~,m.,,,~,,~,~.,~,,,,.o 15.61 acres Is this an amendment to an existing Special Usc Permit? Are you submitting n site development plan with this application? 0 YesEl No 0 Yest~I No Contact Person (Who,n should we call/write concern/ag this project?): Valerie W. Lonq, Esq., McGuirekbods T,LP Address P.O. ]Daytime Phone ( ~ox 1288 804 ) 977-2545 Or-rock City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22902 Fax# (804) 980-2265 E.mailVl°ngr~mcgu/rewoods.co Owner o£ land [~ listed in the County's records): Jeanette E. Address i240 Thomas Jefferson Parkway Daytime Phone( 804 ) _977-5340 Fax # City Charl°tte~viil~mte VA E-mail Zip 22902 Applicant (who i~ thc contact re=on representing? Who is requ=ting the ~peci'al us-'?): Address 9211 Arboretum Parkway City Daytime Phone( ~04 ) 323-9500 Triton PCS, P&~nd State VA Zip23236 Fax#(8'04) 323-4058 E-mail I_.. ' '- - - ' Physical Address (ira.~illned} i s Tax mapandparcel 99 00 00 005_~ 1240 Tho,.rm Jefferson Park~eav, Cnarlottesville~ VA 22902 ' [Locationofproperty(landmark~.intcr~ctioa~.oromm.)Take 1-64 West to Exit #121 (S.R. 20). Go left onto S.R. 20 South. Continue ~until S.R. 53..Go left onto S.R. 53. Go about 1 mile those tax map and parcel numbers .. History: El Special Usc Pt:traits: ..past ~$ontice!lo to ~t240. (driveway on left). Follow driveway to near tod of hill. 'aisc on riqht. Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please hst Tax Map 92, ~arcels 004 and 005 ~ ZMAs and Proffers: ~.J VarlanCCS: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan.* Letter of Authorization Y~ n No lO 401 Mclntire Road -:- Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 -:- Fax: 972-4126 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The 1: ATTACHMENT A hereby reserves unto itself~the right to issue all special use permits permitted he~ PAGE 2 permits for uses. as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be ehanged thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in 'section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review'of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? S~ a~a~ How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? See attached How will the proposed special usc affect thc character of the district surrounding the property? See attached How is thc usc in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance'?. See attached How is thc usc in harmony with thc uses permitted by right in thc district.'? See attached What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?. See attached How will this use promote thc public health, safety, and general welfare of thc community7 See attached Describe your request in detail and ihclude ail pertinent infCr~atiOn such as the ~ involved in Se use, operag.n.g hours, and any unique features ofthe use: See a ATTACHMENT A PAGE 3 ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name ora corporation, partnership or association', or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen.t acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application· I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date Valerie W. Long. (804) 977-2545 Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory 12 Orrock Property (Triton PCS - CVR 360B) ATTACHMENT A PAGE 4 What is the comprehensive plan designation for this property? Rural/Agricultural How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed 80-foot monopole will not adversely affect adjacent property. Due to various siting and visibility concerns which are discussed more fully below, the p01e is not located within 25 feet of the trees used to determine the pole height, as has been the usual custom and guideline. Rather, the pole is sited between two large trees of 78 feet and 75 feet in height. These trees are 38 feet and 58 feet from the pole, respectively, and due to the slOping grade of the lease area, these trees provide effective uphill backdrop and downhill screening for the pole. As a result, the top elevation of the pole will be one- tenth ora foot below the top elevation of the 75-foot tree and 8.9 feet above the top elevation of the 78-foot tree. Despite the distance from the pole to these two tall trees, the facility will nevertheless be minimally visible from adjacent property, and will therefore not have an adverse impact on such property. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The proposed facility is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area, because it will be only minimally visible from adjacent properties, will not generate additional traffic or development, and preserves the character of the area. Because of the upward slope of the lease area, the proposed pole and antenna will be sited within a grove of tall trees, with additional tall trees providing a backdrop to the facility, avoiding a "skylighting" effect. This enables the facility to be only minimally visible. Therefore, the character of the district surrounding the property will not be affected. The proposed facility will effectively blend with 'the existing trees on and nearby the property. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The proposed facility is consistent with the County's preference for monopole structures, which extend slightly above the treetops as discussed in the County's wireless design manual. In addition, wireless telecommunications services provide a public service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community," consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the district? The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available at this property or by-right uses on any other property. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance apply to this use? Section 5.1. I2, which outlines public utility structures and uses. ATTACHMENT A PAGE 5 How will this use promote the public health, S~if~' and general welfare of this community? The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications services to this portion of Albemarle County, especially emergency ' communications, and will increase overall communication services. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and unique features of the use: Triton PCS, Inc. ("Triton") requests a special use permit to construct, maintain and manage a wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by Jeanette E. Orrock, identified as tax map parcel 92-$A. Triton also requests a waiver of the site plan requirement for this application, in accord with section S2.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The facility would be comprised ora steel monopole with flush-mounted antennas, along with the necessary transmitting and receiving equipment. The pole, antennas and ground equipment would ail be painted a flat, dark brown color. Triton operates a Personal Communications Service (PCS) system, providing the most technologically advanced wireless communications throughout Southeastern United States. Triton and AT&T Digital PCS have undertaken a joint venture to expand the AT&T digital PCS network to over 11 million people in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Triton is a member of the AT&T Digital Wireless Network, licensed ro cover more than eighty percent of the United States. AT&T Digital PCS provides convenient and secure mobile communications, combining voice, messaging and paging communications in a single phone. Triton has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for a 30-foot by 30-foot lease area with the facility located entirely within this area. As the lease area is within the Monticello viewshed, Triton and its representatives and consultants have worked very closely with representatives from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation since the initial stages of the sire selection process. Prior to filing this application, Triton's representatives and consultants conducted three preliminary balloon tests to gauge the potential visibility of the proposed facility from Monticello. During two of the tests several representatives of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation were present to observe the test and provide comment. While they were invited to view the third test, the Foundation representatives did not feel it was necessary to observe the test a third time. While the balloon was visible from a great distance just over the tops of the trees, as proposed in this application, the pole height and location have been approved by these Foundation representatives. The lease area is surrounded by mature trees and is located on a slope which provides sufficient backdrop such that the pole is only minimally visible when viewed from a few select vantage points for a very short distance along State Route 53 and only minimally invisible at a distance from Monticello. The only observable vantagepoint of the balloon was from the parking lot of the Jefferson Vineyards, approximately lA to ½ ora mile from the Orrock property driveway. At this location the balloon was visible just over the treetops. It was not visible from 2 14 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 6 Route 53 adjacent to the Vineyards. The balloon was also minimally visible from Koute 53 approximately 1/2 mile west of the Orrock property Photographs of the balloon from each of these locations is included in the application materials. The facility will be accessed by an existing gravel driveway that will be extended a short distance to reach the lease area. The location of the extension of the access was carefully designed to avoid any tree removal to facilitate access. In addition, the lease area itself is within an existing small clearing within the wooded area. The facility will emit no noise, odor or glare. Nor will it interfere with television or radio reception in the surrounding areas. The facility will not be lit, unless required by the FAA. To develop its network, Triton has divided the Basic Trading Area region into small geographic sections ("cells"). Each "cell" site holds the equipment that provide the air interface to the subscriber units and must be precisely located relative to other "cells" to create a reliable communications grid system. This grid system must reflect the topography and traffic (use population and building density) of the "cells" as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable Transmission area. Triton's FCC license requires it to operate its system in a defined service region using designated radio frequencies. Each site must be precisely located relative to other facilities within the network to ensure that Triton complies with the terms of its license. The network requires a facility at this location to avoid a gap in service to this portion of Albemarle County. Triton carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that provides adequate height and range of coverage, while meeting the goals of the community by minimizing the visibility and thus the impact of the proposed facility on adjacent or nearby properties. Location of the facility on this parcel will enable Triton to construct the facility with only a minimal amount of grading and clearing. The subject parcel is zoned Rural/Agricultural. The surrounding properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility are primarily used for rural residential and agricultural purposes. Included with our application is a large copy of the topographical map of the property. On this topographical map we have drawn a 2000-foot radius around the centerline of the proposed pole. The tract of land on which the site is located contains 15.61 acres. Tax map parcels 92-4 and 92-5, which are adjacent to the subject property and are also owned by Ms. Orrock contain 18.77 and 17.7 acres, respectively. As mentioned above, while the location of the pole is not within 25 feet of the tallest tree in the lease area, Triton believes it is in the location that will provide the lowest level of visibility from Monticello and surrounding roads and properties. The proposed pole location represents the site best suited to satisfy a variety of concerns, the most important of which is minimizing visibility of the facility from' Monticello and surrounding roads and properties. Rather than locating the pole within 25 feet ora tall tree and requesting a pole height 7-10 feet above the tallest tree, Triton has ATTACHMENT A PAGE 7 endeavored to site the pole in the location, that Will~'~':t~gult in the lowest amount of visibility from Monticello and surrounding road's and properties by taking advantage of the natural topography of the Orrock property. We sited the pole within a clearing to avoid the need to remove any trees for access. Accordingly, the pole is sited between a 78-foot tree (shown as "tree #1" on the attached plans), which is 38 feet from the pole center, and the'75-foot tree (shown as "tree #5" on the attached plans), which is 58 feet from the pole center. In determining this precise location, Triton conducted three balloon tests, two of which were attended by multiple representatives of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, to assess the visual impact of the proposed facility, and to identify the precise location within the general area that would provide the lowest level of screening. A representative of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation also visited the Orrock property to View the lease area and the surrounding trees. Locating the pole closer to the 75-foot tree would reduce the "backdrop" effect that tree provides. Locating the pole closer to the 78-foot tree would require a taller pole for the signal to extend over the top of this tree, which lies in the path of the coverage objective (Route 53). A taller pole would result in increased visibility of the pole from Monticello. However, at the proposed location the pole is at a higher base elevation than the 78-foot tree, which enables the signal to reach the road with a pole that is only slightly taller than the tree. Another factor that weighed against locating the tree any closer to the 78-foot tree is the existence of an underground well line running very close to the 78-foot tree, and the strong desire by Triton and the landowner to avoid damaging the line. Therefore, the current site was chosen as the most appropriate location, with the least amount of visibility. As proposed, the top elevation of the pole will be one-tenth of a foot below the top elevation of the 75-foot tree, which is located uphill from the pole, and 8.9 feet above the top elevation of the downhill 78-foot tree. In addition, other mature trees located on the nor-th side of the property's driveway provide additional "backdrop" screening from Route 53 and adjacent properties, and general screening from Monticello As mentioned above, the proposed site has been approved by the representatives of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. The heights, locations, base elevations and top elevations of several other trees within close proximity of the proposed pole are shown on the enclosed plans. Triton requests an 80-foot pole to enable the signal from the antenna to extend over and beyond these trees. As demonstrated by the three balloon tests, this facility Will only be minimally visible from the Entrance Corridor and virtually invisible from Monticello and surrounding properties. This lease area is ideally situated for a wireless telecommunications facility, as the mature trees surrounding the pole and located elsewhere on the heavily wooded property will provide excellent screening for the pole when viewed from State Route 53. The proposed facility was designed to strictly comply with the County's wireless design manual. The antenna panels will be flush-mounted to the pole and will not extend above the top of the pole. The pole will be painted flat brown and the antenna panels, 16 'ATTACHMENT A equipment cabinet and cables will all be painted to match the color of the pole. In addition, the concrete pad will be tinted earthtone to blend in With the surrounding wooded area. The design and the siting of the facility will minimize its Visibility from the road and from surrounding properties, as it will blend in with the existing trees in the area. " Once constructed, the facility will be visited approximately one time per month for routine maintenance checks. The facility will not impact the provision of services by Albemarle Countv. As a telecommunications facility, this proposal will serve the community by fostering increased communications, especially emergency communications. Most importantly, due to its design and precise location and siting, the facility will be only minimally visible, if at all, from nearby roads and residences. PAGE 8 \\REA\46638.2 LIMITED AUTHORIZATION TO ACT AS APPLICANT .-k_ND AUTHORIZATION To SUBSffT LA_ND USE APPLICATIONS ATTACHMENT A PAGE 9 ~ o ~,,,, o'~d~ ,=~.~'. (~ C ~ does hereby authorize Valerie W. Long, Crown Communications Incorporated, Triton PCS, Incorporated, and/or representatives thereof, to represent _ ~o q before any municipal or CountY Govemment for the sole purpose of obtaining land use permits and/or variances as may be required for Crown Communications Incorporated and/or Triton PCS, Incorporated to place telecommunications towers, anrermas, transmission lines, mounting devices and other related equipment on the property of "'-J ~~ ~-~,~. ~)~ c J~ located Tkis authorization shall specifically include the right to submit land use applications on behalf of C~ ~ ~ , including, but not limited to applications for special use permits, certificates of appropriateness, and variances. WITNESS the following signature: Date: l&-lS-rDO \~EAX25983.2 18 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 10 - 15.61 Ac. ROY SOUTHALL ,~9~_Z/~.~ o,e. ~57~o9 D.a ~ 92Parce131ron ~'~--'-~ :~--/1/ ~ /.~ Residue of Porcel 5 11.45 ~ ~ ,, ~5./~ -' ~.~.LAT SHOWING A SURVEY OF 15.61 ACRES A 'PORTION OF PARCEL 5 TAX HAP 92 LOCATED NEAR SIMEON ALBEHARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA "..h '~--]7-3~b~ 78 . ~ ~CALE: I"= 200' REVISED: March 24,1976 OAT~: JAN. f_~_1976 WILLIAM S. ROUDABUSH, A Professional Corporation CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYORS Charlottelvllle ¥lrgl.la 19 64A ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT B 78 SP 00-077 ORROCK (TRITON PC~) 28 / ~04 SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 92 2O 600 SCALE IN FEET 0 600 1200 ATTACHMENT C ×499 SP 00-077 ORROCK (TRITON PCS) G HOUSE PROPOSED FACILITY D MONTICELLO ROUTE 53 SCALE 1" 400' _) _) ATTACHMENT E PAGE t TRITON PCS. S Member of the AT&T Wireless Ne~ork ORROCK (TRITON PCS) , F~x. ( 240 THOMAS JEFFEESON PAEKWAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 KIRKA. hOWERS C VR - 3 6 C)B 80' STEEL POLE PAINTED BROWN ~ L E G E N D D R A W I N G I N D E X S I T E D I R E C T I O N S ~_ _ _ A~L ABO~ 8a~NO ~ a% aEIAL (E) EXlS~aO ROAD, TURN RIGHT ON ROU~ 250 EAST TURN RIGHT ONTO Aa~ AeO~ aER~ ~* ~L mC NOT IN CONm~C~ (~) aEW 1--64 ~ST AND PROCEED TO EXIT 121. AT END OF EXIT ~PROX ~PP~OX~ ~ O~ C[~ ~ C[~U~E ROU~ 55 SOU~, GO ABOUT 1 MILE PAST MONTICELLO TO · z~ ~a~u~ OH~ O~H[~O ~0~ [ ~ ~1240 (DRI~WAY ON LEFT). FOLLOW DRI~WAY TO NEAR als eA~ mANSamS~ SfAtl~ OHT O~HEAO ~LCO B~ BARBEO ere (* TOP OF HILL. SI~ IS ON RIGHT ABOUT 50 YARDS BEHIND c~c HOUSE. Z 3.TE ELEVA' ~%. .~ , ,~v ,~ ..... "~""'""~ Z 4 ELEVATION & ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAILS ~ [,.~, . ORROCK ~TO"~ ~*so(TRITON PCS ~ .... ~ ""'~ CVR-560B J P R 0 E C T S U M M A R Y 1240 mO.AS~rrERSON PARKWAY ',. CHARLOTTES~LLE. VA 22902 SI~E NUMBER: CVR-560B PROPERTY OWNER: JEANETTE E. ORROCK SITE DATA: T.T.V. PARTICIPANTS: ALBEMARLE COUNTY SITE NAME: ORROCK (TRITON PCS) 1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY LATITUDE: N 57'-59'-50.2" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ~: ,/~ ,/A I SITE ADDRESS: 1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY LONGITUDE: W 78'-26'-52.1" ,.r.~. ,/~ ,/~ ,/, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 APPL. ICANT: TRITON PCS A~. ~,o~ ~C~,C (~-~o~ TITLE SHEET 9211 ARBORETUM PARKWAY, SUITE 200 GROUND ELEVATION: 652.8 FT (AMSL) ~,.o.~. ~C,~T~O, RICHMOND, VA 25256 AMSL= ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL ~s~.~. ~a, ~o~ ZmlN~ N/A N/A N/A CO~T~CT DAVID CURRENT ZONING: RA (804) 523-9500, EXT 220 ' ~co .., T JURISDICTION: ALBEMARLE COUNTY 8~: ~cs-sc~T 123 '.' .~ -' -' ~ ~ X ~,~-- ~ ~ ~ % ,,~ :'/.N '~t. '-.. ~' : .'." ~ ~, ~ .~ ~%.~. ~,~' ~A~ ~. /~ N~&~''~~~. '~ ~:'-. ' . -- -___ .;~% ~-~** .,/, '-.. ~ 56' TALL ~~ {'~ ~ ~ / ~ // ~_ GRAPHIC SCALE GENERAL NOTES ( IR ~ET ~ 1. TAX MAP PARCEL #: 92-00-00-005A I inch = 20 It. 2. PROPERTY OWNER: JEANETTE E. ORROCK, W.B. 80. PG 767 3. BEARINGS SHOWN BASED ON THE VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM- (SOUTH ZONE) 4. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE LEASE AREAARE TRUE AND CORRECT. DIMENSION8 FROM THE LEASE AREA TO THE UNSURVEYED PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 5. HORIZONTAL DATUM - NAD 83 (2C ACCURACY) 6. VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 88 (2C ACCURACY) 7. LEASE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN F.LR.M. ZONE "C" AS SHOWN ON COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 510006 0375 BpATED D~CEMBER 16,1980. (FLOOD ZONE DETERMINATION IS BASED ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE M~8 AND DOES NOT IMPLY'IIHAT THE PROPERTY WlM. OR WILL NOT BE FREE FROM FLOODING OR DAMAGE.) 8. NO SUBSUFACE tNVE8TIGATION PERFORMED BY RICE ASSOCIATES 9. MAGNETIC DECLINATION IS COMPUTED AND NOT OBSERVED. 10. NO WETLANDS AREAS HAVE BEEN DELINEATED. 11. BOUNDARIES AND AREAS OF ADJACENT PARCELS ARE BY COMPILATION. 12. THE BOUNDARIES AND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE COMPILED. AND DO NOT REFLECT A COMPLETE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES. 13. THIS SURVEY HA8 BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A Tm.E REPORT. 14. THE TREE IDENTIFICATIONS MADE HEREON WERE DELINEATED BY AREORIST AND PROVIDED TO RICE ASSOCIATES BY THE CLIENT. RICE TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IDENTIFYING NAMES OF ANY TREES SHOWN HEREON. I CERTIFY THAT THE LATITUDE OF 37'59'50.2" hi AND THE LONGrFUDE OF 78"26'52.1" W ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN + / - 50 FEET HORIZONTALLY AND THAT THE TOWER SITE ELEVATION OF 632.8 IS ACCURATE WITHIN + /: 20 FEET VERTICAU. Y. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM (COORDINATES) ARE IN TERMS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) AND ARE TE~PRESSED AS DEGRESS, MINUTES AND SECONDS, TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF A SECOND. HE VERTICAL DATUM IS IN TERMS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 _.,_:..,,,_,.,__,,,o,,_. LESL,E R. BYR,S,DE.~_S. ~' [ ~ LEGEND ; ................. EDGE OF GRAVEL El} TELEPHONE PED ~ ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER R/S · ROD SET ~/F O ROD FOUND GRAPHIC SCALE inch = lO0 ft. T.M. 92-00-00-005A W.B. 80. PG, 767 JEANETTE E, 0RROCK J~N~E E, ORROCK /J t'*/:~ W,B. 80, PG. 767 I4.8 ' N44'35'32,, N5 '02'20' w Ill STANLEY WOODWARD, JR T.M. 92-00-00-006 W.B. 76. PG. 852 D.B. 664, PG. 525 LINE TABLE ATTACHMENT E X ,/CRDWi PAGE 2 COMMUNIC~llO~, CROWN COMMUNICATIONS 5372 FALLDWATER LANE SUITE C ROANOKE. VA 24014 540)725-6072 540)725-7773 ¢A¥ TECTONIC ........... TRITON PCS. ][n~ SEAL BLOCK -- I RICE ASSOCIATES 508 TURNER ROAD SUITE G RICHMOND VA 25225 TEL: (804)674-9725 FAX: 804 674-9726 REVISIONS RRST SUBMITTAL RE~SE I~EE NAMES~-JJ'> THiS DRAWING IS COPfRtGHTED AND S THE SOLE PROPERrf OF CROON COMMUNICATIONS n IS PRODUCED SOLELY FOR USE BY TEE OWNER AND ITS AFFILIATES REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWING AND/OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN U S FORBIDDEN WITHOUT IHE WRII~EN PERMISSION OF THE OWNER ;RAPHIC SCALE SITE NAME ORROCK (TRITON PCS) SITE NUMBER CVR- 560B SITE ADDRESS 1240 THOMAS JEFFERSON PKWY CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA 22902 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SHEET TITLE SITE SURVEY EET NUMBER SP 1 24 ATTACHMENT E ~N JEANETTE E. ORROCK T.M. 92-00-00-005 W.B. 80. PG. 767 ~'~JEANETTE E. ORROCK T.M. 92-00-00-004 \ w.e. 79. PG. 510 D.B. 330, PG. 57 ..-- ~..~.~ ,,~q'~,~"'"'"- / JEANETrE: E. ORROCK ~., %~ ,/ ~. ~2:oo-oo-oo,~ ~ [~,~'o' q:~/ _W_.B._5_0. PG. 767 ,~'T D.B. 1491, PG. 495 ~/ ~5.61 AC. / / / / / STANLEY WOODWARD, JR // T.M. 92-00-00-006 W.B. 76. PG. 652 D.B, 664, PG. 525 ~ ~ ~tt 14.81' 4 '33'32,, / 25.19' N51'02'20 / / THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. T.M. 92-00-00-016 D.B. 690. PG. 465 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N45"57'35"E 40.88 L2! N20°33'46"E 42.48 L3 ! N09°03'57"E 383.10 L4 N20°48'25"E 103.04 L5 N14°09'10"E 68.28 L6 N03°59'32"E 64.29 L7 N08°09'36"W 177.02 L8 N11°31'59"E 50,99 L9 N32°26'67"E 34.76 L10 N47°39'15"E 133.0'1 Lli N68°21'46"E 33.71 L12 S80°32'28"E 63.53 L13 N73°31'59"E 42.11 L14 N50°§3'56"E 78.83 GRAPHIC SCALE iTEC' PAGE 3 ~-~ T TON PCS. ~ KinK A. BOWERS SUBMITTALS ORIGINAL SIZE IN INCHES ORROCK (TRITON PCS) CVR-560B 240 ]]'lOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWA'i CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902 ALBEUARLE COUNTY SITE PLAN ' Z 1 PLAN ( m. r~r ) ATTACHMENT E ~N -- PROPOSED 16' WIDE EXiSTed. ACCESS EASEMEN1 TO BE'R~SURFACED"~'v '~ ~." ~X ~'~¢~'"'~ 'OT nME OF PLANTING ~ '%,. ~ASEMENT~ //'~ ~ k.~ e,v,u ,cc~ss ,o,% " . ' '/ ' s~ , '" SEE DETAIL~ ~ " '. N, 24" ASH "%~ ~ 75' TALL ~ ,,~, ~ CEN~R ,/ '%... ~DED AREA (HEA~ FORESTED) '"'-.. WOODED AREA '"  SCCS EQUIPMENT (HEA~LY FORESTED) -.ON 10'X12' CONC. PAD 10" HACKBERRY CHERRY ........ 56' TALL ~ 25' 30' TALL ~ 35' FROM .................. J~WER CENTER CENTEn 63 '" --'''"~ / BACKBOARD 25' RADIUS ................ ~ .... '~ PRO~C~ON FENCING SEE DETAIL ~ .... BASE ELEV.=632,8' (AMSL) · , " TOP ELEV.=712.8' (AMSL) / ,/ '''" .................... ' ' HACKBERRY TALL e 25' FROM ....... 63, TO~. 20" ASH 78' TALL @ 39' FROM~ TOUR CE.TER { '~ -~ ................................................................... 628 ....... ~.. LOCAllON OF''"--. UNDERGROUND WATER LINE "'-.... /'?'~SITE DETAIl. PLAN ~,~.~ SCALE: 1'-~0' 'LEGEND EXIST TREE HEIGHT SCHEDULE TREE NO, TREE HEIGHT AMSL DIST, FROM POLE BASE ~OP 1. 78' 628.00 706.00 59' 2. 61' 652.00 695.00 25' 5, 56' 635.0069t.00 25' 4, 30' 637.00 667.00 55' 5. 75' 640,00 715.00 I 65' PAGE 4 IITEcTONIC ~'~,.o,J~,.,~ ,..c. --,~ I I~ IIo 0 SUBMITTALS ',',:=, 02-01-01 RE-U~.L ]RE TfPES ORROCK (TRITON PCS) CVR-3fiOB 240 ~0MAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 2290; ALBEUARLE COUNTY SITE DETAIL PLAN Z 2 26 ATTACHMENT E _2 C .STEEL POLE @ TOP ELEV. 712.8' / 7d "~ ~ _61' HACKBERRY @ TOP ELEV. 69,3.0' 75' ASH @ TOP ELEV. 715.0' 2 SECTOR TRITON PCS CLUSTER MOUNT ANTENNAS (FLUSH MOUNT) /ASH © TOP ELEV. 706.0' 75' ASH @ BASE ELEV. 30' CHERRY @ BASE ELEV. 637.0' RY__~ TOP. ELEV.. 667.0' '/ 2 TRITO CS ABI 640,0, ~~~~~~ PAINTED BROWN ~, 61 HACKBERRYTREE @BASE ELEV. 6`3 56' HACKBERRY @BASE ELEV. 635.0' // ASH @BASE ELEV. 628.0' 80' STEEL POLE ©BASE ELEV. 6`32.B' / NOTE: COMPOUND SURROUNDED BY TREES IN WOODED AREA. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (AMSL) QELEVATION VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST SCALE: ~ NTS PAGE 5 TECTONIC .... TRITON ]PCS, I-x-~c~ R LANE KIRK A. BOWERS 0402 O19976 I ORROCK (TmTON ['CS) CVR-360B 240 ~rlOMAS JEFFERSON PARKW.~ CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SITE ELEVATION 7 3 o PROPOSED DAPA 58010X ANTENNAS (~YP OF 2) 71o.8' (AMSL) PROPOSED J~ CLUSTER MOU._..~%/I'I'] ANTENNAS PROPOSED COAX CABLES ON STEEL POLE UP TO ANTENNAS. ~ PROPOSED 80' HIGH STEEL POLE~ 'NOTE: POLE TO BE PAINTED BROWN PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE SEE DETAIL ~ ' '-X PROPOSED SCCS EQUIP. PAINTED BROWN ON 10'X12' CONC PAD TO BE TINTED EARTHTONE 2' LIGHTNING ROD AT TOP OF POLE ~ 2" @ BASE. TAPERING TO POINT GROUND LEVEL (AQL) 712.8' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (AMSL) i~/EXIST tRADE r EXPOSED FOUNDATION TO BE 11NTED EARTHTONE ~[~FOUNDAT]ON TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS ATTACHMENT E ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE ~--I['-- PAGE6 ANTENNA SECTOR ANTENNA COAXIAL CABLE AZIMUTH RAD COAXIAL COAXIAL CABLE MINIMUM TRX ANTENNA MECHANICAL '1 I DAPA 58010X , ANDREW A-1 (44,7"x6.3"x2.7") BOTTOM 155' 78' 100' 7/8"¢ LDFS-50A 10" N/A G RX O' -' I II DAPA 58010X ANDREW m:.~o... VA 2~236 B-1 2 (44.7"x6.3"x2,7") BOTTOM 310' 78' 100' 7/8"¢ LDFS-50A 10" N/A B RX O' DAPA 58010X ANDREW 0 / I r" A-1 1 (44,7"x6,5"x2.7") TOP 155' 78' 100' 7/8"¢ LDFS-50A 10" N/A GQ RX/TX · DAPA 58010X .... ANDREW B-1 2 (44.7"xG.3"x2.7") TOP ,310'___ 78' 100' 7/B"¢ LDFS-50A 10" N/A BB RX/TX O' / I/ Pcs. Izlc TOTAL,EN¢._ DOET, BO'+ (AGL) STEEL POLE PAINTED BROWN EMS MTO-OlO-20 MECHANICAL DOWNTILT BRACKET DAPA 58010X PANEL ANTENNA (TYP OF 2) (44.7"XG.3"X2,7") MICROFLECT PIPE MOUNT PART # B18,32 OR EQUAL ~'"DISTANCE TO POLE CANNOT EXCEED 12" MICROFLECT TRI-BRACKET PART # B182B OR EQUAL QTRi-BRACKET ELEVATION SCALE:NONE 5/8" DIAMETER GARDEN ~ ~ EVERGREEN M N 12 OR ~4 GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE--~,~-~IIS~ 7/-TURNBUCKLE, OR 2 fi~ ~12 ~ ~RES ~ISTED '~'~ ~~- STAKE 30" CUT LOOSE AND DROP ~1/~;~1~ LONG MA~RIALS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE~P T ' ~ ~/ MATERIALS FROM TRUNKS ~ AND S~MS, WRAPPING MATERIALS AND METAL CASES FROM ROOT BALLS SHALL CONFORM TO STA~ SPECIFICA~ONS. ~LANDSCAPING OETAIL ~ SCALE: ORANGE UV-RESISTANT HIGH-TENSILE ---~ /-- FENCE POSTS MAY BE 4"¢ PINE STRENGTH POLY BARRICADE FABRIC \ // OR 2"¢ OAK TREE PRO'rECT]ON NOTES: t. PROTECTION OF EXIST]NG VEGETAHON: AT THE START OF GRADING INVOLVING THE LOWERING OF EXISTING GRADE AROUND A TREE OR STRIPPING Of TOPSOIL. A CLEAN SHARP. VERTICAL CUT SHALL BE MADE AT THE EDGE OF THE TREE SAVE AREA AT THE SAME ~ME AS OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE INSTALLED. THE 1REE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE SIDE OF THE CUT FARTHEST AWAY FROM THE TREE TRUNK AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCT]ON IN THE VICINITY OF THE TREES IS COMPLETE, NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, FILL, OR EQUIPMENT AND NO TRESPASSING SHALL BE ALLOW'ED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PRTECTED AREA. 2. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL AT A DISTANCE EQUAL TO 'FREE DRIP LINE OR 5', WNICHEVER rS GREATER, GTREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL 5" #2A AGGREGATE COMPACTED AND ROLLED COURSE AGG. & 2" OF 2A COMPACTED AND ROLLED CLASS 4 GEOTEXTILE PROOF ROLL & STABILIZE ~....~ SUBGRADE ~ v 2'-0" ~ 12'-0" CONSTRUCT]ON NOTES: 1. CLEAR AND GRUB THE LAND ALONG THE ACCESS DRIVE. 2. REMOVE ALL EXiST]NC ORGANIC MATERIAL TO SUITABLE SUBGRAOE. .3. PLACE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OVER SUBGRADE AND THEN PLACE AGGREGATE BASE. f";'~GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE DI~TAII ~ SCAL£: NTS 5372 FAILOWWAER LANE KIRK A, BOWERS O4O2 O19976 SUBMITTALS ORROCK (TRITON PCS) CVR-560B 240 THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWA~ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ANTENNA1 Z 28 BTS DOOR (TYP) 10'-0" 5" POWER CONDUIT 5" TELCO CONDUIT .3/4" SPARE CONDUIT CABLE BRIDGE POST (TYP) OVERHEAD CABLE BRIDGE---/ NOTE: USE ERICSSON BOLT PATTERN TEMPLATE TO PREDRILL HOLES FOR ANCHOR BOLTS /'T~EQUIPMENT PA0 PLAN SCCS-S EQUIP CONC EQUIPMENT PAD #2 GREEN iNSULATED (STANDARD) CABLE BRIDGE GROUND- ~ STEEL POLE I BGB MOUNTED TO STEEL POLE -- TOWER GROUND RING 5'-t1" RUN SEE DETAIL~ CABLE GROUND BRIDGE (TYP)-~ ~COAXIAL CABLE (T'~ or 'g DIA PiPE COLUMN (TYP) ~--CABLE ~RIDGE SUPPORT SEE DETAIL (~ -- #2 AWG SOLID TINNED COPPER TO EQUIPMENT GROUND RING (TYP) #2 AWG GROUND CONNECTION (TYP) /~CABLE BRIDGE NO~E: CABINET TO BE PAINTED BROWN. FMOUNT MGB TO CABLE BRIDGE W/ 5/8"~ THREADED RDO DUPLEXERS MOUNTED BENEATH BRIDGE '2"x2" HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED ANGLE IRON T/CONC--~ PAD "- EQUIPUENT GROUND RiNG 3'-9" (MIN) L FBRIDGE CHANNEL AS PER TRITON PCS STANDARDS CONCRETE I ' FOUNDATION /--- BRIDGE CHANNEL (T'YP) -"t //---COAXIAL ANTENNA STANDARD HANGER , ~ // CABLE (TYP) #2 AWG GREEN, .~ \,~ / / STRANDED COPPER _.~ , / jl]J W1RE W/ TIE WRAP ~ 5/8"~ THREADED ROD -T--~j~J~ /-- W/ NUTS & OVERSIZED bl ~ WASHERS .L ~ e(j~ ~)Be .j[ ~ UNISTRUT CABLE ~ ....... ~ SUPPORT O D.C. MAX GTRAPEZE CABLE RUN SEE DETAILj__ POWER AND TELCO CONDUITS, S'RJB UP~ TOP GRAI J. 1.5 NOTE: SCCS-S MOUNTING BASE /--6x6-6/6 WIRE MESH THICK CONC. SLAB ~NTED EARTHTONE. 16" O.C. STR. / ~CRUSHED STONE CON~NUOUS SLAB ON GRADE SHALL BE PLACED OVER A MIN OF g" CRUSHED STONE TO BE AASHTO NO. 57 OR MID CR-6 ON UNDISTURBED OR W~LL COMPACTED SOIL TO BEARING PRESSURE OF MIN. 2000 PSF. E~,'MEN T FOUNDATION ~ $CAIF :NTS BTS ~ BTS MOUNTING BASE EXPANSION BOLTED 1 TO CONCRETE PAD --~ [ J/--LEVELING GROUT CONCRETE ~ ]./'PAD W/ 1:2 SLOPE EQUIPMENT PAD m TINTED EARTHTONE--~ J ~'~ I ~DEPTH OF GROUT ' X I~j~--~_~/' PAD VARIES, ]~, .'Jll~,~_~~ 1-1/2" MiN. TO ~ , · ' ; 4" APPROX. · .., . . - · ' ' ; '~" · . · '""J'~5/8"~ HILTI STAINLESS STEEL KW1K BOLTS. SHIM iF REQUIRED TO LEVEL SLAB BEYOND. (MIN..3 1/2" EMBEDMENT DEPTF TYP OF 4) ~ SECTION ATTACHMENT E PAGE 7 ~ PCS. ~Irt~ ~ S un °m' _ 5372 FALLOWWA*~R LANE KIRK A. BOWERS 0402 019976 ~ I~-q I SUBMITTALS ORIGINAL SIZE IN INCH~S ORROCK (TRITON PCS) CVR-560B 240 ~{0MAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FOUNDATION & CABLE BRIDGE DETAILS Z ~ February 28, 2001 MONTICELLO ATTACHMENT F KAT IMHOFF Chief O?erating O.~cer Valerie W. Long, Esq. McGuireWoods, LLP 310 4th Street NE Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mrs. Long: I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. to thank you for your consistent efforts to involve us in the matter of locating a cell tower near Monticello. On two occasions, Foundation staff observed balloons flown just above the treetops on the Orrock property. From this we concluded that a tower, described as a small panel atop a single pole, if installed in that location and at that heig~ht, would have little or no visual impact. We truly appreciate the steps taken by the landowner, Jeanette Orrock, and your client, Triton Communications, to help us preserve an important historic resource: the view of rural Virginia seen from Monticello. Sincerely, Kat Imhoff Chief Operating Officer CC: Mike Merriam, Director of Facilities, Planning and Construction Stephen Waller, Albemarle County Planning Commission THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. POST OFFICE, BOX 3[6 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE 804 984.9802 F,~X 804 977'7757 kimho fro monricello.org RECEIVED ;~LANNiNG AN.r, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEJ 3O 04/19/01 16:1~ "~8040802222 MW LLP ~ 002/00? M~iuireWood~ LLP Coort Square Building 310 Fourth Strc,~t N.E,, ~uim 300 P.O. Box 12~ Charto~ville, VA 22902-~2~8 Phon~: 804,977.2500 Fax: ~.980.2222 ~w. mcguirew~ds.col~ McGUIREW(_X3DS April 19, 2001 The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris Albemarle County Board of Su pervJsors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: SP 2000-82 University of Viminia Reel Estate Foundation ACAC at North FOrk Dear Ms. Humphris: At the Board of Supervisors hearing on Wednesday, April 25, I will be presenting an application for a special use permit on behalf of the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation for an indoor athletic facility at the University of Virginia Reseamh Park at NoAh Fork (SP 2000-82). The Foundation submitted a joint application for the permit with Atlantic Coast Athletic Clubs of Virginia, inc, ("ACAC"). One of the overall goals of the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork is to create a people-oriented community of interactive offices and businesses. A component of that goal is the incorporation of a variety of uses within the Park, including certain commercial uses to support the businesses and employees within the Park, such as restaurants, financial institutions and · copy center. The proposed ACAC fitness and wellness center is a wondedul example of the type of business that will help mai~e the Park a truly interactive community. tf the permit is granted, AGAC will design, construct, own, operate and manage a full,service fitness and wellness center in the heart of the Research Park, adjacent to the Town Center. Consistent with its existing facilities in downtown Charlottesville and at Albemarle Square Shopping Center, ACAC will provide superior customer service, a first-class facility, and diverse .activities and programs for all age groups and interests. What makes the proposed facility at the Park truly unique, however, is ACAC's plan to further enhance its services and programming by creatively utilizing the Park's resources. The amenities the proposed center would provide will encourage employees within the Park to utilize its resources throughout the day. This would result in the retention of a greater number of the worldorce within the Park during the day, and will augment the other services and amenities within the confines of the Park. For your additional reference and information I have enclosed a short fact sheet about the existing and proposed development at the Park. On March 27, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit application subject to a list of conditions. The Commission also unanimously approved a critical slopes waiver pursuant to Section 4.2.5 of the zoning ordinance. For your reference ! have enclosed a copy of a letter from Michael Barnes, the Planner handling the application, detailing the Planning Commission's actions and the re,remanded conditions of approval. Both the Foundation and ACAC are agreeable to l~e conditions as approved, and ACAC will incorporate the conditions into its site plan application. 0~/19/01 16:12 '~8049802222 ~ ~L? ~005/007 April 19, 2001 Page 2 Once you have had the opportunity to review the enclosed materials and those in your hearing package, please do not hesEata to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns you may have regarding this application. In addition, Bruce Stouffer of the Foundation will contact you by telephone to discuss the application. Please do not hesitate to contact either Bruce or me if we can be helpful to you in any way. Bruce can be reached at the Foundation at 982-4844, and I can be reached at my office at 977-2545 or at home at 293-8407. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this proposal and will look forward to discussing it with you in more detail on April 25. Sincerely, Valerie W. Long Enclosures Tim R. Rose, University of Virginia Foundation Bruce B. Stouffer, University of Virginia Foundation Robin Cordie, Legacy Management John V, Little, Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen and Tweel, P.C. Michael Barnes, Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 04/19/01 15:15 98049802222 MW LLP ~ 004/007 SP 2000.82 UVA Real Estate Foundation and ACAC North Fork Special Use Permit for Indoor Athletic Facility The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Foundation") and Atlantic Coast Athletic Clubs of Virginia, Inc. ("ACAC") have applied for a special use permit for an indoor athletic facility at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork. The University__of Vir~nia Research Park at Noah Fork: The University of, Virginia Research Park at North Fork is a 562-acre, 3-million square-foot, fully master planned, mixed-use development, The Park is a people-oriented corporate village complete with a Town Center, pedestrian-friendly streets and shops, a boulevard, green spaces, and other amenities designed to unite the h~rrnony and community of Jefferson's Academic Village with a fully functioning office and research environment to create an interactive community where people come together to work and socialize. · The Park was rezoned to Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) in 1996, Two hundred acres within the Park will be protected as permanent open space. The ~xisting proffers and sp~ial use permits allow for a variety of uses within the Park, including general offices, light industry, a hotel and conference center, laboratory and medical space, and retail and supporting commercial uses. Examples of approved supporting commercial uses, to be enjoyed by all the users of the Park, include, among others: restaurants, financial institutions, day care facilities, a copy center and a tailor, Existing businesses at the Park include Motion Control Industries, MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Pharmaceutical Research Associates, QualChoice of Virginia, ANGLE Technology, Inc., and Battelle Memorial Institute. Pro_oosed Fi.tn. ess and Wellness Facilit_,c · ACAC will design, construct, own, operate and manage a full-service fitness and wellness center within the Park. · The complete facility will be similar to ACAC's existing facility at Albemarle Square Shopping Center. 04/19/01 16:15 ~/~8049502222 MW LLP ~005/007 ACAC will provide superior service, a first-class facility, and diverse activities and programs, consistent.with its existing facilities at Albemarle Square Shopping Center and in downtown Charlottesville. Creative programming will include utilization of the resources at the Park, such as jogging trails and open space. The proposed facility will likely include cardiovascular equipment, weight training equipment, a lap and group exercise pool, a gymnasium for basketball and volleyball, a walking/jogging track, ehildcare facilities, snack bar, reMbilitation and physical therapy facilities, medical facilities, and group exercise room, among others. The facility will be accessible to employees within the Park during the early morning, lunehtime and evening. This will result in the retention of~ great number of the worlfforce within the Park during the day, and augment the other services and amenities provided within the Park. A network of sidewalks and jogging paths will connect the facility with the existing and future development within the Park, ,,Special Use Permit Application: In connection with the special use permit application, the Foundation and ACAC have also requested waivers regarding critical slopes, curvilinear parking, loading spaces, and cooperative parking. The County staff has determined that with the exception of the waiver for ~fical slopes, it is most appropriate to address the waivers fluri~ the site plan process. [] The facility will be developed on approximately 7 acres of the Park property. The building will be subject m the existing North Fork Design Guidelines, which are e. aforced by an active Design Review Committee dedicated to representing the University with the highest level of tmilding design and quality. \\REA~3'~ 13.3 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & CommUnity Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 April 3, 2001 Valerie W, Long, Esqu re McGuire Woods. LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4218 RE: SP-2000-82 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation; Tax Map 32, Parcel 6A Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 27, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subjeCt to the following conditions: Approval of this special use permit shall be in general accord with the updated Application Exhibit plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates and dated March 2, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001), (Attachment A). The following conditions (2 through 5) are deemed additional elements to the Application Exhibit and must be included on an approved s te plan. The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access in the'following locations: a. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the Fitness Center and the planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System-Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1 of ZMA 95-04). This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the ~ssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. b. Pedestrian access shall be provided along the full extent of the unnamed driveway. The driveway is shown on the plan between the Qual Choice building and the Fitness Center and connecting Lewis and Clark Drive to the Fitness Center. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center, c. Pedestrian access shall be provided across the full extent of frontage and completely around the Fitness Center building. The pedestrian access shall provide access from Lewis and Clark Drive to the building's entrance, which is planned to face the parking lot on the lower level. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the ~ssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. The final building design shall provide an entrance facing onto Lewis and Clark Drive. This entrance may be closed or used as emergency access while the building is used for the proposed Fitness Center use. Pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and Town Center shall be provided in a manner that encourages pedestrian traffic in an efficient and inviting manner. This pedestrian access shall be provided either at the time of construction of the Fitness Center or during the construction of the Town Center's parking areas. The Agent shall approve that this pedestrian access · between the Fitness Center and the Town Center meets the intent of condition 2-e. Page 2 April 3, 2001 3. The applicant shall provide stream ban k stabilization along the remaining exposed, natural stream. Furthermore, this stabilization shall occur in a naturalized manner and shall be supplemented with additional plantings in sufficient enough quantity to provide protection for the stream. The County's Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. 4. All reconstructed slopes shall be at 3:1 or 2%:1 slopes (with the use of 2%:1 slopes to be restricted to areas where a 3:1 slopes would either necesstate the excessive use of retaining walls or would cause the fill slope toe to encroach into the "No Grading Zone"). These reconstructed slopes shall be designed to allow for the revegetation of the fill slopes with a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover. If retaining walls are utilized as part of the fill slope design, preference will be given to a terraced design with series of shorter walls instead of a single, large wall. Special consideration will be given to both screening the Hike/Bike Trail from the negative aesthetic impacts of the fill slope and/or its retaimng walls and to protecting the stream from water quality impacts through the use of the aforementioned revegetation. The County's Landscape Planner and Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. 5. The design of the building and/or site shall accommodate the concerns of the Albemarle County Service Authority relative to the proximal waterline and th rustblock. Furthermore, if the building's redeslg n is significant enough to cause the fill slope's toe to encroach, closer than five (5) feet from the "No Grading Zone", which is depicted on the Schematic Grading Plan, prepared by Draper Aden and dated February 28, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001) (see Attachment D), this encroachment shall cause the applicant tO seek an amendment to this special use permit. that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will rev ew this petition and receive Please be advised their meeting on April 25, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your public comment at application must be submitted to the clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing aate. The Corn mission a Iso took the following actions: . Unanimously approved a request for waiver of critical slopes in accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. · Requested that the preliminary site plan be presented to the Commission for their review. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Planner MB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Bob Ball COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: bo Co DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Michael Barnes, Planner Update on Recommended Conditions for SP 00-82 ACAC at North Fork Research Park and Request for Critical Slopes Waiver March 27, 200t RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff feels that a Fitness Center is an appropriate use in the North Fork Research Park. Its centralized location within the Park is also advantageous. Furthermore, the' outstanding issues from the Planning Commission's March 13th meeting have been resolved satisfactorily. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions. The following conditions are recommended to ensure that the project provides sufficient pedestrian access, adequate stream bank stabilization and fill slope design, and successfully resolves the ACSA water line question. 1. Approval of~his special use permit shall be in general accord with the updated Application Exhibit plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates and dated March 2, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001), (Attachment A). The following conditions (2 through 5)are deemed additional elements to the Application Exhibit and must be included on an approved site plan. 2. The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access in the following locations: a. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the Fitness Center and the planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1 of ZMA 95-04). This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. Pedestrian access shall be provided along the full extent of the unnamed driveway. The driveway is shown on the plan between the Qual Choice building and the Fitness Center and connecting Lewis and Clark Drive to the Fitness Center. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. Pedestrian access shall be provided across the full extent of frontage and completely around the Fitness Center building. The pedestrian access shall provide access from Lewis and Clark Drive to the building's entrance, which is planned to face the parking lot on the lower level. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. d. The final building design shall provide an entrance facing onto Lewis and Clark Drive. This entrance may be closed or used as emergency access while the building is used for the proposed Fitness Center use. e. Pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and Town Center shall be provided in a manner that encourages pedestrian traffic in an efficient and inviting manner. This pedestrian access shall be provided either at the time of construction of the Fitness Center or during the construction of the Town Center's parking areas. The Agent shall approve that this pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and the Town Center meets the intent of condition 2-e. 3. The applicant shall provide stream bank stabilization along the remaining exposed, natural stream. Furthermore, this stabilization shall occur in a naturalized manner and shall be supplemented with additional plantings in sufficient enough quantity to provide protection for the stream. The County's Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. 4. All reconstructed slopes shall be at 3:1 or 2V2:1 slopes (with the use of 2½:l slopes to be restricted to areas where a 3:1 slopes would either necesstate the excessive use of retaining walls or would cause the fill slope toe to encroach into the "No Grading Zone"). These reconstructed slopes shall be designed to allow for the revegetation of the fill slopes with a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover. If retaining walls are utilized as pan of the fill slope design, preference will be given to a terraced design with series of shorter walls instead of a single, large wall. Special consideration will be given to both screening the Hike/Bike Trail from the negative aesthetic impacts of the fill slope and/or its retaining walls and to protecting the stream from water quality impacts through the use of the aforementioned revegetation. The County's Landscape Planner and Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. 5. The design of the building and/or site shall accommodate the concerns of the Albemarle County Service Authority relative to the proximal waterline and thrustblock. Furthermore, if the building's redesign is significant enough to cause the fill slope's toe to encroach closer than five (5) feet from the "No Grading Zone", which is depicted on the Schematic Grading Plan, prepared by Draper Aden and dated February 28, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001) (see Attachment D), this encroachment shall cause the applicant to seek an amendment to this special use permit. Critical Slopes As concluded in the our original report, staff does not feel that disturbance of critical slopes posses as significant negative impact because all of the slopes are man-made, constitute less than 4% of the site, and erosion and sediment control measures can adequately protect water quality. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a critical slopes waiver for this site. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntir¢ Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Michael Barnes, Planner Additional Information for SP 00-82 ACAC at North Fork Research Park and Request for Critical Slopes Waiver March 21, 2001 At the Planning Commission meeting held March 13, 2001, the applicant provided additional information in an attempt to alleviate staff's concerns on four major topic areas: pedestrian access to the site, stream stabilization, grade of reconstructed slopes, and the close proximity of an ACSA water line to the proposed building. The Planning Commission felt that staff had not had adequate time ro review the information provided at the meeting. For this reason, the matter was deferred until the March 27th meeting. The applicant's solutions to staff's concerns have been evaluated. Listed below is staff's analysis and updated recommendations. Please note that staff still recommends that the Commission impose the conditions listed at the end of this memorandum to ensure that the resolution of our concerns is followed through on during the site plan review. Pedestrian Access Staff feels that the revised Special Use Permit Application Exhibit (see Attachment A) provides solutions to all of the concerns previously raised by staff. The conditions recommended below are the same as previously recommended. Stream Stabilization In a letter dated March 16th (see Attachment B), the applicant's engineer, Chris Shust, has proposed two actions will to protect both the water quality and stability of the stream bank. They are as follows: A. A forty foot, no-grading zone centered on the stream. This zone will provide three benefits: 1. It will provide an erosion control barrier. 2. It will protect the trees and the aesthetic resources adjacent to the stream. 3. The buffer demarcates a line that constricts the project's encroachment onto the stream. This should alleviate concerns related to the water line issue. B. The stream channel will be stabilized in a "naturalized" manner, in contrast to creating an engineered channel uniformly lined with riprap. This will protect the stream from increased stormwhter velocities while maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the stream. The condition below has been modified to reflect the imprOvements offered by the applicant. Fill Slope Reconstruction In the same March 16th letter, Mr. Shust outlined the applicant's willingness to accommodate staff's concems relative to the fill slope. He states the applicant's willingness to: 1. Revegetated the slope per the County Staff's request; 2. Design the grade to give a "naturalized" appearance and to avoid the look of an engineered slope; 3. To keep retaining walls to a minimum and design them with to respect the terrain; and, 4. Give special consideration to screening the retaining walls and fill slope from the Hike/Bike Trail. Staff~aas one note of concern to bring to the Planning Commission's attention. The retaining walls shown' on the revised plans are 6.5 and 9 feet tall. If built as shown on the plan, it will be difficult to mask the walls from the Hike/Bike trail. The applicant has stated that during the site plan process, they will be investigating the possibility of removing the retaining walls entirely by terracing the parking. Or, if the retaining walls remain a necessity, the applicant will be open to using shorter walls and terracing them down the slope. Staff feels that either of these two options is workable from an aesthetic standpoint and can be dealt with at the site plan stage. Furthermore, staff has adapted the recommended condition below to give the applicant the flexibility to work with the design at the site plan stage, while at the same time ensuring that the retaining walls will not be too tall and obtrusive. After consulting with Mr. Shust and reviewing the plan, the Engineering Department has stated that it is feasible to construct the fill slope as proposed (see Attachment C) on the Schematic Grading Plan (see Attachment D). Albemarle County Service Authority Water Line Proximity At the March 13th meeting, staff could not recommend approval of the project because the applicant had not demonstrated to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) that it could construct the building in the proposed location and not disturb a water line or its easement. The applicant has now demonstrated that, by moving the fagade of the building eight (8) feet back, it can meet the concerns raised ACSA (see Attachment E). As a safeguard to any unforeseen engineering problems, staff has created a fifth condition to protect the stream. The condition requires that the ACAC conform the building or site design to meet the concerns of ASCA without encroaching closer to the stream than is shown on the Schematic Grading Plan (see Attachment D). In the event that ACAC's design team felt that the only solution was to move the eastemmost limit of the site's disturbance (i.e. the fill slope's toe) towards the stream to' accommodate ACSA, then ACAC wouldhave to seek Planning Commission approval through a spdcial use permit amendment. Staff is confident that, between the applicant's efforts to meet ACSA's concerns and the recommended condition, no increased impact to the stream will result than is presently under consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff feels that a Fitness Center is an appropriate use in the North Fork Researeh Park. Its centralized location within the Park is also advantageous. Furthermore, the outstanding issues from the Planning Commission's March 13th meeting have been resolved satisfactorily,. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions. The following conditions/tre recommended to ensure that the project provides sufficient pedestrian access, adequate stream bank stabilization and fill slope design, ~n~ successfUliy resolves the ACSA water line question. 1. Approval of this special use permit shall be in general accord with the updated Application Exhibit plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates and dated March 2, 2001 (Attachment A). The following conditions (2 through 5) are deemed additional elements to the Apphcation Exhibit and must be included on an approved site plan. 2. The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access in the following locations: a. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the Fitness Center and the planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1 of ZMA 95- 04). This pedestrian access Shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. b. Pedestrian access shall be provided along the full extent of the unnamed driveway. The driveway is shown on the plan between the Qual Choice building and the Fitness Center and connecting Lewis and Clark Drive to the Fitness Center. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. c. Pedestrian access shall be provided across the full extent of frontage and completely around the Fitness Center building. The pedestrian access shall provide access from Lewis and Clark Drive to the building's entrance, which is planned to face the parking lot on the lower level. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center. d. The final building design shall provide an entrance facing onto Lewis and Clark Drive. This entrance may be closed or used as emergency access while the building is used for the proposed Fitness Center use. e. Pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and Town Center shall be provided in a manner that encourages pedestrian traffic in an efficient and inviting manner. This pedestrian access shall be provided either at the time of construction of the Fitness Center or during the construction of the Town Center's parking areas. The Agent shall approve that this pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and the Town Center meets the intent of condition 2-e. The applicant shall provide stream bank stabilization along the remaining exposed, natural stream. Furthermore, this stabilization shall occur in a naturalized manner and shall be supplemented with additional plantings in sufficient enough quantity to provide protection for the stream. The County's Water P~esourCes Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. All reconstructed slopes shall be at a 3:1 slope or of an equivalent design that permits the revegetation of the fill slopes with a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover. If retaining walls are utilized as part of the fill slope design, preference will be given to a terraced design with series of shorter walls instead of a single, large wall. Special consideration will be given to both screening the Hike/Bike Trail from the negative aesthetic impacts of the fill slope and/ or its retaining walls and to protecting the stream from water quality impacts through the use of the aforementioned revegetation. The County's Landscape Planner and Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. The design of the building and/or site shall accommodate the concerns of the Albemarle County Service Authority relative to the proximal waterline and thrustblock. Furthermore, if the building's redesign is significant enough to cause the fill slope's toe to encroach closer to the stream than as shown on the Schematic Grading Plan, prepared by Draper Aden and dated February 28, 2001 (see Attachment D), this encroachment shall cause the applicant to seek an amendment to this special use permit. Critical Slopes As concluded in the our original report, staff does not feel that disturbance of critical slopes posses as significant negative impact because all of the slopes are man-made, constitute less than 4% of the site, and erosion and sediment control measures can adequately protect water qu~ity. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a critical slopes waiver for this site. Attachments: A - The Special Use Permit Application Exhibit B - March 16th letter from Mr. Chris Shust, project engineer. C - March 20th letter from Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer. With attached correspondence from Mr. Shust dated March 20th. D - Schematic Grading Plan E - Correspondence between Ms. Lori Garrett, project architect, and Mr. Pete Gorham, ACSA. r ' '" '", '"', " '" ....... x ',.', ', ,' '~ ."' -- -'.~.---' ', '- "-. ~-. - ....... "~ /' ." / ,' ,' I / / ,/ t ';". -% \ FUTURE CARCEL "-. ~--. .- _/.;~ .' ,' / / ' ,' ' '/ ,- .............. "72 ~ ~ ',, , ,'... ' ' ~ -. ,, ......... -... - ../ ./ ED--AG:---. '-- ;S l REQUIREMENTS MET WITH ............... ~-- .... - CONSTRUCTION ClLITY .......... ; ~-- GRAPItlC SC~ ATTACHMENT A .,. '.. ':-"" ' _ .':.'.':: ::.'.L':?: ~,~? X %' -- ' _. '. 01 / ,' / ,~ xx 'X "'% x '. ,~ . ' ; \\ " " " ,, ~ ,., . ~ · , 0 REVISIONS MARCH 16, 2001 5 ORMATION ONLY* WCK II CMS DATE: MAI~OH 2. 2001 1 1 OF1 Draper Aden Associates Blacksburg * Richmond, Virginia Engineering * Sm'veying · Environmental Services 8090 Villa Park Drive Richmond, Virginia 23228 804/264-2228 Fax: 804/264-8773 ATTACHMENT B RECEIVED 1 6 2001 PLANNING AND · ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Michael Barnes, Planner FROM: Chris Shust, PE DATE: March 16, 2001 SUBJECT: North Fork ACAC Fitness Center DAA Project # R99130-39 At the conclusion of the Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, it was decided that additional information would be helpful regarding the grading of the slope below the parking lot and the methods employed to mitigate potential impacts on the adjacent stream channel. It was also agreed that identifying an "envelope of development" would be beneficial to maintain design flexibility within the building and · parking zones. Specifically it would support the ability to study options such as terraced parking, building faCade design and retaining wall needs. The Lewis and Clark Drive envelope boundary would be described by a building/waterline setback agreeable to both the architects and the Albemarle County Service Authority during Site Plan review. The stream channel boundary would be defined by the provision of a 40' "no-grading" zone centered on the channel. No grading would encroach on this area and the no grading zone would be planted and stabilized as indicated below. It is our opinion that this option will be extremely beneficial to the site both functionally and aesthetically. Per discussions with the County staff and based on the University of Virginia Foundation's own strict design guidelines, we feel that the implementation of the following improvements will greatly benefit the site and will enhance the pedestrian experience. All of the issues mentioned below will be further refined during the site plan review process. .Fill Slope · Planted with a native mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover per County staff request: ' · Grading will be "naturalized" to avoid the look of an engineered slop. · Retaining walls will be kept to a minimum and will be designed to respect the terrain. 6 Mr. Michael Barnes March 16, 2001 Page 2 · Special consideration will be given to screening the walls from the pedestrians using the hike/bike trail. · The fill slope will act as a planted visual buffer, further screening the parking from the hike/bike trail. Water 'Quality The fill slope will act as a substantial pervious buffer and BMP between the parking lot and the stream to filter runoff approaching the stream channel. An existing water quality and storm water detention pond is located directly below the outfall of this stream. This pond incorporates wetland benches and has been designed for mitigating runoff from this and other projects within the watershed. The 40' no-grading zone, centered on the stream, will provide an erosion control barrier between the toe of the slope and the stream channel. Stream Stabilization · The remaining Stream channel will be stabilized in a "naturalized" manner as requested by County staff. This would be in contrast to creating an engineered channel, uniformly lined with riprap. · The stabilization'will be designed to provide a visual amenity for the hike/bike trail and will be constructed in concert with the County Water Resources Manager. p :\Projects\R99\R99130\R99130-39\Corres\CMSpc3-16-01 .doc ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 20 Mar 2001 ACAC at UREF North Fork Research Park, slope and stream concerns of the Planning Commission We have met with the applicant and worked out a mutually agreeable sequence.of construction and sediment control measures to protect the proposed 40' no grading zone around the stream in back ofth~ site. In summary, the majority of grading will take place using temporary 2:1 slopes, diversion dikes and the existing/refurbished silt trap. When the site parking area is stabilized, the slopes will be finished at the planned 3:1 and 2.5:1 grades, .with wire reinforced silt fence at the base. Please find attached the applicant's letter outlining the items agreed upon at our meeting. This description addresses the Engineering Department concerns as identified in our letter of 19 March, which is attached for reference. The items discussed will be incorporated in final plans. Please contact me if you have questions. Copy: file 2001 File: ACAC ~ UREF NF csw (3).doc Draper Aden Associates Bj~cksburg ° Richmond~ Virginia ]=ngin~rin§" St~,vcying ' ~i~n~nlal ~i~s 8090 Vffia Park Drive ~ ~ehmond, V~ia 23228 8041264-2228 Fax: 804/264-8773 March 20, 2001 Revised Mr- Glenn Brooks Albemarle County Engineering Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Glenn~ Per our conversation this afternoon in your office, we offer the following general erosion control strategy for your review and approval. The purpose of this letter is to outline the general intent for materials and methods used to stabilize the fill slope above the existing stream. Final Erosion & Sediment control design will be coordinated with your department during Final Site Plan review. As you are now aware, there is an existing sediment trap located generally to fl~e southeast of the ACAC parcel. This trap will continue to be maintained and utilized as described below and diversion dikes v~ll be directed to this trap. Additionally, wire reinforced silt fence will be used in accord with the Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook. The sir fence will be installed at the start of fill slope construction sod shall be maintained through stabilization of the site. The existing sediment trap will continue to be maintained and in service ux~til the parking lot curb and gutter and base stone has been installed at the top of the slope. At this point, erosion control measures including, inlet protection and slope stabilization shall be installed and working prior to or concurrently with silt trap removal. After reviewing tine plan you are now aware that the average upland, overland flow length is less than 100' perpendicula~ to the silt fence and therefore this plan should comply with State requirements. Please feel free to give me a call if you should have any further questions- regarding this project. Sincerely, Christopher M. Shust,. PE Project Manager "WE EXIST TO HELP OUR CLIENTS SUCCEED" g££B ~gg ~0~ XY~ ~0:£T T0/0~/g0 goo/~oo ~ g~--Z~5osgV ~3(IV ~dYRq P'ROPOSEi~ ATHLE~[~C 'x / ../ ]WN AS DISTUR._ BED-D~<~ gR ~EATED.. BY P~REVIO/US-LA~I~-'DISTURBIN~3.< ................ SLOPES ARETOBE~ \. PC ;SIBkE, AND~N ~,O_CAS, E~..,i S BE CR.EATE~/GREATER THA'i~ ~''',. -ZL.7 ........... /' ~. '..~ / ,. ' ,,_ ATTACHMENT D × / / / / / / / / / / / / /. / ( z REVISIONS MARCH 16, 200t l0 OM8 R99130-39 C-2 Hat .20 01 05: 32p ATTACHMENT E ENGINEERS DESIGN BUILD -~" L. ' t' -~" '] ~C, tNICAL O P ERATfO N 5 MEMORANDUM TO: RE: DATE: FROM. CC: .Ms. Lori Garrett, AIA Smith Garrett Architects ACAC Fitness and Wellne ts Center North Fork Research Park Proximity of facility to ACSA water main March 13, 2001 Matt Ciskowski, P.E.,~ '~'5' _ Mr. Pete Gorham, P.E., Albemarle County Service Authority Ms, Vaferie Long, McGuir: Woods LLP The following memo summarizes the developments regarding the proxhnity of the proposed ACAC thcility to the water main and 'tee' along Lewis and Clark Drive. Also h]cluded are general accounts of discussions with Albe~narle County Service Authority (ACSA) staff:, and the summarized results of our i~fitial design caiculations tbr adequate support of the water main and its components. Included in the meeting with ACSA were tar. Pete Gotham and Mr. Paul Shoop. The meeting took place on Monday, March 12. Mr. Gorham stated that the ACSA only has authority of their utility easement, and cannot preclude work or excavation outsid ~ of the easement. Comments originally made regarding the proxhnity of the building to the existing water mare stemmed fi'om the ~hct that excavation within the easemem would have been required for construction of the ACAC facility as shown at that time. In response to this con'anent m~d the calculations described fi~rther in item 4, we understand that the exterior wall of the facility along Lewis and Clark Drive was moved as illustrated in the attached sketch. Based upon field measurements takea by C&S staffat the locations of the gate valves on each leg of the 'tee', the water main is approxinaately 11 '-3" froln the face of cra'b, and the top of pipe elevation is approximately 5'-3" below grade elevation. This is further iilustrated in the attached sketch. E:~ roject\3-13-01memo.doc 11 Mar 20 01 05:32p p.3 ACAC - North Fork Research Park March 13,2001 Page 2 ACSA has the ability to isolate the section of water main along Lewis and Clark Dri',e adjacent to the proposed ACAC thcility. They will investigate further the potential to redu,, e pressure in that section of main ft,r occasional short durations (a few hours at a time) durit~g the construction period. Adequate support of the 'tee' thn st block is required to prevent movement of the water during excavation. Design calculations based on the information we have obtained show that a distance of l0 f~et between the water main and the installation of sheet piling is adequate fbr sufficient support of the 'tee' and associated thrust block. The current design shown the attached sketch uses a distance of more than 14 feet. Due to the depth of the building fbundation, sheet piling will likely be required if the exterk.:r wall of the building is located wilhin 15 feet of the ACSA easement. Ei~Project\3-13-01 memo.doc 12 Mar 20 O1 05:32R ~'~ ..__DATE__ SHEET FILE NO,, 13 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: MICHAEL BARNES MARCH 13, 200'O APRIL 11, 2001 SP 00-82 ACAC FITNESS AND WEI,I,NESS CENTER AT NORTH FORKS RESEARCH PARK WITH CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER Applicant's Proposal: The applicants, the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF) and Atlantic Coast Athletic Club of Virginia, Inc. (ACAC), are proposing a Fitness and Wellness Center in the North'Fork Research Park. UREF will retain ownership of the land and lease it to ACAC. ACAC will own and construct the building. The first phase of Fitness Center will provide general fitness facilities (e.g. weight training equipment, looker rooms, etc.) along with associated rehabilitation/physical therapy and medical facilities. Second and third phases would include a pool and gym respectively. These phases might be constructed simultaneouslY, separately, or in any sequence, and might be adjusted or altered in the future. Attachment A shows the proposed layout for the Fitness Center. Petition for Special Use Permit: This petition is for a special use permit to allow a Fitness and Wellness Center in accordance with Section 29.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows uses permitted by special use permit in light industry (LI) districts. In LI .districts, Section 27.2.2.(15) allows for indoor athletic facilities by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 6A, contains 525 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Lewis and Clark Road approximately 1 mile from the intersection of Lewis and Clark and Route 29 North. The property is zoned Planned Development Industrial Park (PD-IP). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in the Hollymead Community. The applicant has chosen to apply for the Fitness Center under a special use permit in order to better allocate their allowable square footage under the industrial park's proffers (see Attachment B~ proffer 5.3, page 6). Under the proffers, the Park is allowed a maximum 3 million square feet ' at build-out. Of that 3 million square feet, only 110,000 square feet can be "support commercial." While a fitness center might be thought of as a support commercial use, the zoning ordinance allows for "indoor athletic facilities" under Section 27.2.2(15). Thus, if the special use permit is approved, the square footage of the Fitness Center will count against the larger general office cap and not against the more limited support commercial. If the special use permit application is denied, the applicant could build the Fitness Center by- right utilizing their support commercial square footage. Waiver Requests: The applicant originally submitted four waiver requests with this application: grading on critical slopes, cooperative parking, curvilinear parking and a reduction in the number of loading spaces. Staff felt that the later three waivers should be handled during the site plan review. The critical slopes waiver is for disturbance of roughly .32 acres or 3 to 4% of the site. All critical'slopes on the site are man-made and were built during construction of Lewis and Clark Drive and a parking lot. Character of the Area: The proposed project is roughly in the middle of the North Fork Research Park in an area that was designated open space during the rezoning for the Park (see Attachment C). To the east, the site is bordered by the Town Center area (Parcel E). At present, only the Qual Choice building has been built in the Town Center. However, there are plans to add several additional buildings including a hotel (see Attachment D). To the south, a hike/bike trail will be installed during Phase 1. This trail will serve as a major pedestrian connection between the Town Center, parcels to the south and the proposed Fitness Center. Beyond the proposed trail, the Motion Control building is located on Parcel B-9. To the west, across Lewis and Clark Drive, there is the PRA building (Parcel B-7). In the near term, UREF is planning for several more large buildings, on parcels B-8 and F-lA. Important environmental features on the site include: man-made critical slopes along the Lewis and Clark Drive and the embankment adjacent to the existing parking area (see Attachment A), and a small stream that will be partially covered during the construction of this project's parking. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant feels that the Fitness Center will give an added dimension to the Park by providing athletic activities on-site. They also feel that by providing this type of opportunity on-site that the Park's employees will not have to venture onto adjoining public roads to f'md this service. They contend that this will reduce congestion on the adjoining roads, like Rt. 29. Recommendation: After revieWing the proposal, staff feels that a Fitness Center is an appropriate use in the North Fork Research Park. The centralized location within the Park is also advantageous. However, staff cannot recommend approval at this time because the Albemarle County SerVice Authority has identified an existing water line which may cause the proposed building location to be shifted away from the water line and towards an intermittent stream. If it is decided that this shift is necessary after approval of the special use permit, the remaining section of the stream could be heavily impacted. Staff has also recommended resolving several design issues through conditions of the special use permit. These conditions are necessary because the applicant is either unable or unwilling to put them into the plan at this time. The design issues fall into three categories: 1). pedestrian access; 2) stream, stabilization; and 3) fill slope design. Zoninq and Subdivision History: With ZMA 95-04, the County rezoned 525 acres to create the North Fork Planned Industrial- Planned Development Park. A long list of proffers accompanied that zoning; the following are proffers that staff feels are germane to this special use permit. (The entire list of proffers is included in Attachment B.) rn 2.2 Desi.~ Standards. This proffer allows the Park to be governed by design and architectural guidelines, which were submitted during the rezoning, but are enforced by a Design Review Committee. The County does not participate on this Design Review Committee. 5.3 Phases of Development. This proffer controls the timing and total gross floor area allowed in the Park. Because of this proffer, North Fork is limited to 3 million square feet of 2 gross floor space. Out of the 3 million square feet, 110,000 square feet can be support commercial. It is important to note that under this proffer, UREF could develop the Fitness Center under the support commercial category by-right. However, a fitness center, due to its nature, would. consume almost half of the support commercial square footage. From a planning perspective, it would be more advisable to have smaller and more numerous commercial businesses spread though out the Park, than to have a single fitness center consume a large fraction of this envisioned space. Cl 4.3 Wetlands. This proffer does not allow disturbance of wetlands except for the installation of roads, permanent retention ponds, utilities and walking trails. Disturbance is only allowed by approval from the County and after obtaining all necessary federal, state and local permits and approvals. There are no designated wetlands in this area. There are, however, jurisdictional streams for which the US Army Corps of Engineers must approve modifications. UREF will need to coordinate with the US Corps of Engineers, the VA Department of Environmental Quality, and the County to ensure that impacts to the stream, which will result from this project, are mitigated somewhere else within the Park. ~ 6.1 Developed Recreational Area~q, This proffer requires UKEF to develop active recreation and picnic areas as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan (Attachment C). This includes the Hike/Bike trail adjacent to this proposed project. Cl 6.2 Open Space. This proffer requires a minimum of 200 acres of open space at build-out. However, the location of open space is not defined at present because the boundaries of the Development Parcel can be manipulated until they are established by plat. Most, if not all, of the Development Parcels have yet to be established by plat. ZMA 98-27 reduced setbacks on most of the roads within the park, including Lewis and Clark Drive, from 50 feet to 10 feet. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan defines the Park as Industrial Service in the Hollymead Community. In its recommendations, the Plan directly addresses the North Fork Research Park stating that the County should, "Develop ail industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space." The proposed Fitness Center meets the first part of this directive. Its centralized location will be adjacent to the Town Center's offices and proposed hotel. Several other buildings are planned to be directly across Lewis and Clark Drive from this project site. Therefore, the project will be within easy walking distance from numerous buildings. In meeting the second part of this directive, this project receives mixed findings. The proposal is in an area shown as open space on the Open Space System Plan (see Attachment C) approved during the ZMA 95-04. The Agent has allowed this project to encroach on this previously designated open space for three reasons. First, there is a proffer that allows any Development Parcels' boundaries to be adjusted until the boundaries are established by plat (see Attachment B, proffer 6.2, page 10). While this proffer mandates that the Park provide a net 200 acres of open space, it only specifies the Green Belt, Buffer areas and recreational areas as designated open space. All other areas shown as open space at the time ofrezoning can be incorporated into the Development Parcels so long as at final build-out the Park maintains a total of 200 acres of open 3 space. The second factor affecting this decision is the relatively poor condition and isolated nature of the designated open space. From an.environmental perspective, the parcel does not contain significant open space resources except for the stream. Finally, the Park is required to undergo a modification of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the VA Department of Environmental Quality permits in order to impact this stream. Upon receipt of a modified permit, this project will be able to go forward. It is staff's understanding that the impacts to the stream will be mitigated on the North Fork property under the approved and revised permits. The Comprehensive Plan also speaks specifically to two additional items: retention of historic features within the park and buffers. UREF has addressed the historic features mentioned in the plan. None of these features are on this site. Secondly, the Plan requires buffering the adjoining residential properties from the Park. This project is in the interior of the Park and should not directly impact neighboring properties. Finally, staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. For informational purposes, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff makes note of the relationship of development proposals with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model that were endorsed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000. These principles are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the Land Use Plan. The 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model are as follows: · Pedestrian Orientation · Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths · Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks · Parks and Open Space · Neighborhood Centers · Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale · Relegated Parking · Mixture of Uses · Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability · Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment · Site Planning that Respects Terrain · Clear Edges Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22 of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Section) 1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain). The proposed plan will severely impact the stream. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must balance carefully two competing and compelling arguments. The first argument states that in our Development Areas certain minor watercourses will have to be negatively impacted in order to achieve a dense, walkable development. In this case, the stream is .a small tributary, which is already in a culvert on either side of the project site. As the impervious cover in the Town Center grows, the stream will bear the brunt of increased stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the large detention facility immediately downstream of this project site is designed to mitigate the impacts of the entire North Fork site, including this proposed project. In addition to the above reasons, the Fitness Center will provide a quality amenity to the park and it has the potential to be easily accessible by foot from most places 4 within the Park. The counter argument maintains that the County must seek to protect streams and water quality as much as possible. In the original rezoning, this area was designated as open space in order to protect this stream. If the site is developed, the rezoning's intent to protect water quality is compromised. Part of this argument is invalidated because the stormwater management pond is downstream of the project location and this tributary might be exposed to erosive amounts of stormwater, especially if left unprotected. Staffhas sought to meet both arguments by suggesting a set of conditions. These conditions ~ should lessen the visual and water quality impacts created from the loss of the designated open space while at the same time meeting the goals of clustering and development. 2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. The proposed Fitness Center is in the interior of the Research Park. The edges of the Park are buffered to protect adjoining properties. 3. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads. The Park's major interior road is Lewis and Clark Drive. The Fitness Center will have a single driveway onto Lewis and Clark: It will also link to other parts of the Town Center. The Town Center will have three points of access onto Lewis and Clark, one of which will be this driveway. 4. A sense of community should be maximized by providing connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks) This project adds to the sense of community by adding to the recreational facilities. However, as mentioned above, pedestrian access remains a major issue with this project. Some pedestrian facilities are being provided. Others are being recommended as conditions. A more comprehensive depiction of the overall pedestrian system for the Town Center is desirable in the future. 5. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks). UREF has not shown how the pedestrian and vehicular traffic will move within the Town Center area or how that traffic will relate to this project. The Town Center is intended to have some sort of integrated/interconnected street pattern. To date, the network has not been fully planned for this area. Staffhas tried to make the pedestrian connections more inviting and accessible by conditioning these connections as part of this special use permit. 6. Underground utilities should be provided in new developments. The development will provide underground Utilities. 7. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. The North Fork Research Park has an approved master stormwater management plan. Stormwater management for the Fitness Center will be accommodated in the detention facility immediately downstream from the proposed project. However, from the information provided, it remains unclear if the small stream at the base of the parking lot will be able to handle the stress from the increase in impervious cover draining towards it. Answers to this question should be provided at the site plan review stage when the site engineering is completed. Again, staff has conditioned the protection and stabilization of this stream as a part of the development of this site. These conditions are intended to protect the remaining stream as much as possible. 8. Building orientation should be to public streets; pa/king areas do not need to be located exclusively in front:of buildings. (Buildings and Spaces of Ituman Scale; Relegated Parking) The Fitness Center desires to have a single point of entry into the building in order to limit access for liability reasons. ACAC wishes to have this entry point facing the parking lot at the rear of the building. UREF recognizes the County's desire for the fagade to face the street and to have pedestrian access directly off the street. In a letter dated February 28, 2001, UREF has stated that they are "committed to providing the highest quality in building fagade, especially since the Lewis & Clark building face is the most visible from other buildings as well as the majority of the vehicular movement through the park." To ensure that a compromise can be reached, staff has recommended, that as a condition of approval, an entrance be incorporated into the building's design on the side facing the street. In the event that' the building is used for another purpose, this entrance would provide pedestrian access directly onto the street. 9. grhere site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used. Lighting will be required to conform to the County s hght~ g ordinance. 10. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment rather than Abandonment) The historic sites existing at North Fork are not on this proposed site. Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2,4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itsel_f 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 qf Supervisors that such use will not be-qf substantial detriment to ad_iacent proper~, The effects of this project on adjacent properties will be minimal because the use is interior to the Park. that the character of the district will not be chan ged thereby, The district is a planned industrial park. If approved, the square footage of the ACAC facility will be deducted from the industrial/general office gross floor area cap. This deduction will limit the amount of potential office or industrial space at full build-out. However, the 50,000 square feet of gross floor space taken up by the fitness center will be insignificant compared to the 3 million square foot limit. It should be noted that the North Fork Research Park provides an inventory of land to support needs for futuie office and industrial uses. Therefore, a reduction of this industrial inventory for support commercial uses may not be supported. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent qf this ordinance, The fitness center will provide for additional recreation space that will support Park employees and increase the mixed use nature of the Park. However, there are certain environmental and pedestrian access issues that are raised through out this report. These issues must be addressed if the project is to meet the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use is supportive of the uses permitted by-right and special use in an industrial district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 qf this ordinance, There are no regulations in Section 5.0 governing athletic facilities Or fitness center. and with the public health, sqfe~_ and general welfare. This project is in general accord with efforts to promote public health, safety and general welfare. Other Staff Comments Staffhas divided these comments into five major issues: pedestrian access, stream stabilization, redesign of the fill slopes, an Albemarle County Service Authority water line, and grading of the critical slopes. The five issues are discussed below: Pedestrian Access/Building Orientation. The applicant has shown a limited number of pedestrian accessways to the proposed building (see Attachment F). Staff's opinion is that additional sidewalk facilities should be provided to ensure that a comprehensive pedestrian access system is established to connect this supPort service facility to the Town Center and the remainder of the Park. Specific connections are as follows: a. There must be a connection directly linking the Fitness Center to the planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan (see Attachment C). This connection must be constructed as part of the Fitness Center even if the Hike/Bike trail has not yet been installed. If the connection to the Fitness Center is not created, users from the south and east of the Town Center will not have direCt pedestrian access to the building. This will discourage pedestrian access to the Fitness Center. b. A sidewalk must be provided along the unnamed access road running between Lewis and Clark and the Fitness Center. This is the most direct access for employees in the PRA building to the Fitness Center. c. If pedestrian access is not provided directly into the building along Lewis and Clark, at a minimum, sidewalks must be provided across the frontage and around the Fitness Center building to allow pedestrians easy access to the entrance next to the parking lot. Furthermore, the building design should incorporate an entrance on the side facing Lewis and Clark Drive. This is necessary so that if and when the building's use changes; there will be an entrance that can become functional. d. It remains unclear how the Fitness Center site will interface with the proposed Town Center. Staffis sensitive to the fact that the concept for the Town Center has not been fully developed. However, the submitted plan shows a single relatively indirect and uninviting sidewalk skirting the back of parking aisles as the connection between the Fitness Center and the Town Center. If pedestrian traffic is to be encouraged within the park, UREF must make an effort to make walking more inviting. Improvements to the plan could range from connecting the buildings with a tree lined pathway to simply providing a more direct connection which does not skirt the backside of parking spaces. Stream Stabilization. As stated above, the proposed Project will impact a small tributary on-site. The stream's headwaters are already covered by Lewis and Clark Drive and the Quat Choice parking lot. This project will continue to impact the stream by covering its middle section. Just before the stream enters into the Park's major retention pond, it is piped through a culvert under an old farm road. This old road will serve as the grade for the Hike/Bike Trail. If this project is approved, only a short section of approximately 400 linear feet will remain exposed. Staff believes it is important to stabilize the remaining waterway for the following reasons. First, the remainder will serve as a visual amenity for the Hike/Bike Trail and more precisely a blown- out stream will be an eyesore. Secondly, if designed correctly, the stream can continue to provide some environmental remediation to the urbanization occurring around it. Staff recommends as a condition of final site plan approval that the applicant provide stream bank stabilization capable of handling the flow from the impervious cover drain~ing to it. Furthermore, this stabilization should resemble a natural stream and not be a regraded.into a riprap lined channel. Fill Slope Redesi~n. The project site slopes towards the on-site stream. As a result of this slope and the need to provide parking, the plan proposes a large 2½:1 fill sl°pe within 30 feet of the stream. Out of concern for water quality and visual impacts to the Hike/Bike Trail, staff recommends that the grade of this slope be at a 3:1 grade. It should be revegetated with woody plants along with a ground cover. The addition of woody vegetation will: serve to minimize the visual impacts of the fill slope's thirty foot vertical drop. This recommendation is based on the fact that the site is currently wooded and was approved as open space under the rezoning for the Park. The Engineering Department has also expressed concern over the proposed large fill slope. The Department states that the fill slope, proposed at 2Vz: 1, is flatter than the Engineering Department's maximum, slope grade requirement of 2:1. However, a flatter slope, such as 3:1, could more easily be vegetated and maintained, and is recommended. The stream at the bottom of the slope is a short section isolated between the culvert which will outlet from this site, and a culvert under an old road on the property, which is proposed to be a pedestrian area. Downstream of this is the lake, which serves as a stormwater management facility. The regulations do not require that this stream be protected, and it is recognized that site grading activities will disturb mOst of it, if not all. However, in light of the pedestrian use of the open space, and the future health of the watershed, it is recommended that this slope and stream be maintained in as natural a state as is possible. Albemarle County Service Authori .ty Concems: The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) is concerned with the proposed building location. ACSA feels that it is too close to the existing 12" water line, which has an operating pressure of approximately 110 psi. Given the height of the wall towards Lewis and Clark Drive, and the excavation required to construct the portion of the wall below the road, they seriously doubt c0nstmction could be accomplished without disturbing the existing water main and the thrust block on the tee in the immediate vicinity of the wall (see Attachment G). Additionally, they feel that placing the building right against the water line easement leaves no room for the proposed landscaping in relation to the water line. ACSA has stated that there can be no earth disturbing activities within the existing water line easement, nor can there be street trees within the water line easement. Finally, ACSA states that even if earth-moving activity remains outside. the easement, there is still significant risk of losing the high-pressure line due to a shifting of the thrust blocking. At present, the applicant has not identified a solution to the problem raised by ACSA. The applicant has suggested several solutions ranging from a change the building's design to reconfiguring the parking, The lack of a solution to the problem has the staff concerned that the cheapest solution might be to shift the entire building to the east and away from Lewis and Clark Drive and the water line. A shift in the building location could lead to further encroachment onto the stream. This high degree of uncertainty and the inability to solve this concern through a written condition has lead staff to conclude that approval of this special use permit before the water line issue is resolved would be premature. Critical Slopes Analysis: The applicant has also requested that a waiver of Section 18-4.2.3.2 of the Ordinance be granted. The Commission may waive the prohibition to grading.of critical slopes upon finding that the strict application of requirements of this section would not forward t.he purposes of this ordinance or otherwise not serve the public interest, would unreasonably restrict the use of the property, and the that waiving this section's requirements are not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. In their comments, the Engineering Department has no concerns which prohibit the approval of the critical slopes waiver. The Department notes that the critical slopes on this site make up roughly 3-4% of the 8 to 9 acre site and are all man-made. The Departments states that the all of the concerns of Section 18-4.2 can be s~fely and effectively'addressed' (see Attachment E). After its review, staff is able to support the proposed project's disturbance to critical slopes as shown on the submitted Schematic Grading Plan (Attachment A). Therefore, staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The Fitness Center supplements the mixed use aspects of the planned industrial park by diversifying the recreation oppommities for Park employees. 2. The centralized location of the Fitness Center will allow it to be easily accessible by foot for most of the Park's employees. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The sufficient number of pedestrian accesses required to make this facility easily~ accessible has not been provided. 2. The applicant has not provided details on how the remaining section of the stream will be restored and/or stabilized after construction is complete. 3. The fill slope adjacent to the parking lot is at too steep a grade to be replanted with woody vegetation. If the slope is not brought to a maximum grade of 3:1, staff is worried about aesthetic impacts tothe Hike/Bike trail and stormwater impacts to the stream. 4. It is unclear how far the building will have to be located off the ACSA water'line running along the southern side of Lewis and Clark Drive. In order to install the building footings, the construction might have to encroach into the water line easement. In staff's opinion, the first three unfavorable factors can be resolved during Site plan review. Below, staff has recommended:conditions to the special use permit that will ensure that the unfavorable aspects can be overcome during the site review process. However, the fourth unfavorable factor is difficult to resolve without further design work. Any attempt to craft a written condition which would allow this issue to be resolved at the site plan review stage and yet ensure the protection of the remaining stretch of the stream is difficult at best. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of this application until this final factor is resolved. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff feels that a Fitness Center is an appropriate use in the North Fork Research Park. Furthermore, its centralized location within the Park is also advantageous. However, staff cannot recommend approval at this time due to the unresolved water line and remaining site design issues. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this matter, staff recommends that the following conditions be applied to the special use permit to ensure that the limited amount of pedestrian access, lack of stream bank stabilization, and inadequate fill slope design will be provided by the applicant. These conditions are as follows: 1. Approval of this special use permit shall be in general accord with the Application Exhibit plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates and dated March 2, 2001 (Attachment F). The following conditions (2 through 4) are deemed additional elements to the Application Exhibit and must be included on an approved site plan. 2. The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access in the following locations: a. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the Fitness Center and the planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupany for the Fitness Center. b. Pedestrian access shall be provided along the full extent of the unnamed driveway. The driveway is shown on the plan between the Qual Choice building and the Fitness Center and connecting Lewis and Clark Drive to the Fitness Center. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupany for the Fitness Center. c. Pedestrian access shall be provided across the full extent of frontage and around the Fitness Center building. The pedestrian access shall provide access from Lewis and Clark Drive to the building's entrance, which is planned to face the parking lot on the lower level. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupany for the Fitness Center. d. The final building design shall provide an entrance facing onto Lewis and Clark Drive. This entrance may be closed or used as emergency access while the building is used for the proposed Fitness Center use. 10 o e. Pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and Town Center shall be provided in a manner that encourages pedestrian traffic in an efficient and inviting manner. This pedestrian access shall be provided either at the time of construction of the Fitness Center or during the construction of the Town Center's parking areas. The Agent shall approve that this pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and the Town Center meets the intent of condition 2-e. The applicant shall provide stream bank stabilization along the remaining exposed, natural stream. Furthermore, this stabilization shall resemble a natural stream and shall be supplemented with additional plantings in sufficient enough quantity to provide protection for the stream. The County's Water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition is met. All reconstructed slopes shall be at a 3:1 slope or of an equivalent design that permits the revegetation of the fill slopes with woody plants and ground vegetation for the purpose of protecting the Hike/Bike Trail from negative aesthetic impacts and the stream at the base of the slope from water quality impacts. The County's Landscape planner and water Resources Manager shall certify that the intent of this condition are met. Attachments: A- Schematic Grading Plan B - Proffer Statements for ZMA 95-04 C - Open Space System Phasing Plan from ZMA 95-04 D - Town Center Plan E - The Engineering Department's comments on Critical Slopes F - The Special Use Permit Application Exhibit G - Plan and Partial Building/Site Section Diagrams with Water Line Added 11 DISTURBANCE / / / . ~ 518 ' C R ITI. CA'~. ATTACHMENT A ¥ , .. . ~ -~ ~ ' , '-'.,.'.,~ . -.. '- . ' ~ 7 ,' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ..~,,. .. . . . ... / ~ . ,, , x ......... · ~,,, ,~ .,/ ~, ~.. /, " - -- - ........... "-.~ ~ .{~'~ .--' / ," ~' ".~.,P ' "' .-' ~OTE' : ~ ' ' ~ ~ .... ~ ... ... ~.. , .... . , ~ / ~IT~SLOPE S~ / ~- ~ -.~ .... ~-.. , .- ~ . . .~ , . .... , . _,_/.---- . S OW~AS~I ' ~ ~ " '~-~ ' ~' ' "" ' '~ E~R' ..... STURBED ~ /~ .. ~ o..-. - ~- .-~ ' / , / ,' ~T~w.~,,~ .. '.' US.LAND DISTURBING , ~ ....... . ~. -..~ .... . .. _-~ .. ,~.. , . ... , .. ~, .. ____.EATED BY,PREVIO .- ~ ' .. ~ '- . -~ / .'" ~" .' ' ~l I 'l'l.,'l/ '- ' , ' ' ' ~ ....... ~ J" / ' ' '- . "-... - ~' .-"~ '"~'.... :'"'...' ;' ,: 2./~LE'~,~'NSTRUCTE.D STEEP SEOPES'~RE ,r., ~..' .. ........ ~ / ~ . ~,. ....... ~ .... i , ~ ~ -. . ' ?L ' ,'. / ATTACHMENTB PROFFER STATEMENT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-95-04 Final Version: March 21, 1996 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"), through its wholly-Owned subsidiary, UREF Research Park, Inc. is the fee simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-95-04 as Tax Map Reference 32, Parcels 4B, 6A, 6, 18 and 19, less and except Parcels F-2 and B9.1 described herein (the "UREF Property"). MicroAire Surgical Instruments, Inc. is the fee simple owner of Parcel F-2, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1.1 (the "MicroAire Property"). Motion Control Industries, Inc. is the fee simple owner of Parcel B9.1, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1.1 (the "Motion Control Property"). The UREF Property, the MicroAire Property and Motion Control Property are referred to collectively as the "Property". Applicant, UREF Research Park, Inc., MicroAire Surgical Instnnnents, Inc. and Motion Control Industries, Inc. hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned .by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the Planned Development Industrial Park CPD- IP"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.i-491.2:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulator3' or code minimum standards, or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance, except as permitted by the regulations of the PD Zoning District. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-78-15. I. REZONING APPLICATION PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant has presented, as part of its Rezoning Application, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning action which it seeks, and to illustrate the process through which the Applicant developed its proposal. Applicant's development of the Property (also referred to herein as the "Project") shall be in accordance with Applicant's Zoning Application Plan (the "Zoning Application Plan"), as provided in the Ordinance. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. 1.2 · Plan Exhibits. These proffers shall include the following plans, which (except for the Zoning Application Plan) are limited to the purpose for which they are referenced in a proffer: · Zoning Application Plan · Stormwater Management Plan, Exhibit 4.2 · Internal Road Network Plan, Exhibit 5.1 · Road Network Phasing Plan, Exhibit 5'.3 · Open Space System Phasing Plan, Exhibit 6.1 OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDrrIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property within six (6) months of the rezoning, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shallset forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by owners within the Project. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County. of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the · PD Zoning District. 2.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural.guidelines for each development area within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious, well-balanced business community. 2.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: 2.4 (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of buildings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Project, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. .Desi,~n Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee on which the Applicant shall have a permanent seat unless or until the University of Virginia occupies at least one seat. (The County of Albemarle' will not participate on such Design Review 2 14 Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review. Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include recommendations to users for water conservation techniques (such as Iow flow showers and toilets, water-conserving landscaping techniques, water reclamation, and water reuse). 2.5 Maintenance of Common Areas, The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining all common areas within the Project, including the following: (a) The Applicant shall either: i) organize a North Fork Owners Association.or such other private, area or business associations as may be neceisary to address specific area or business concerns of the Project (the "Organization(s)") as non-stock organizations under the laws of Virginia for the ownership, care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such associations (the "Common Areas"); or ii) directly control such ownership, care and maintenance of Common Areas, unless or until a public body or a governmental agency assumes control and/or ownership of such Common Areas. (b) The Organization(s), if formed, shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas, including lands, uses and facilities located therein. (c) The Applicant or such Organization(s) shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to identify'common areas in a site development plan or plat. (d) (e) The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not lesS than twenty-five (25.) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. If created, the Organization(s) shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Organization(s) shall not be dissolved nor shall such Organization(s) dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Organization(s) to own and maintain the Common Areas. III. DENSITY 3.1 Total Buildout. Total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet, excluding recycling centers, picnic shelters, fire and emergency response station(s), office trailers for temporary use during construction of permanent structures, small (not to exceed 1500 gross floor area per building) storage buildings, and structures included as amenities within Common Areas (collectively, the "Excluded Areas"). In the first year of development of the Project, from the date of the County's approval Of the Applicant's rezoning, (the "Initial Year") total gross floor area within the Project shall not exceed 500,000 square feet, (excluding the Excluded Areas and the total gross floor area either existing on the MicroAire Property, or as approved on the preliminary site plan for the Motion Control Property). After the Initial Year, the total gross floor area within the Project which may be constructed in any one year shall not exceed 200,000 square feet, plus any accumulated undeveloped square feet of gross floor area. For the purposes of this Section 3.1,' accumulated undeveloped square feet of gross floor area shall mean the sum of any square feet of gross floor area allowed but not developed in the Initial Year and the square feet of gross floor area less than 200,000 square feet not developed in each subsequent year to that date. IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER CONSERVATION 4.1 Flood Plain. The area of the 100-year flood plain within the Project shall remain undisturbed except for road crossings, public utility facilities and their crossings, and pedestrian and riding trails, and only to the extent such exceptions are permitted by County ordinances and regulations. 4.2 Stormwater Manaeement Plan. The Applicant shall implement (as part of the site development plan approvals) an overall stormwater management plan for the Project, ~ncorporating the applicable drainage sheds on the Property and in accordance with the Stormwater Managemem Plan, attached as Exhibit 4.2. Applicant's implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan shall include those modifications that comply with design and engineering standards necessary for approval by the County during the site developmem plan review process for Project development. 4.3 Wetlands. Wetlands, as defined by the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineatina Veaetated Wetlands, in effect on the date of these proffers, shall not be disturbed in the Project except for the installation and use of roads, permanent retention ponds, utilities and walking trails, or any other uses approved by the County after obtaining all necessary federal, state and local permits and approvals. 4.4 Water Conservation. No .single industrial Sr commercial user which proposes a use that will require more than 125,000 gallons per day (average daily consumption) of potable water shall be constructed without obtaining County approval. The County shall consider whether to approve such a user through the same procedures as required in an application for special use permit (including the same notice requirements, public hearings, and Planning Commission review as in the process for considering a special use permit). The County's approval shall be limited solely to issues of water 4 usage and must include a finding that sufficient capacity exists to support such a user. approval may include reasonable conditions relating to water usage. The County' s V. TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Internal Road Network. Applicant shall provide vehicular access within the Project by an internal road network generally in the locations shown on the attached Exhibit 5.1, ("Internal Road Network"). Applicant shall design, construct, and install signs and Signalization for the Internal Road Network in accordance with minimum standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), unless VDOT approves a lesser standard at Applicant's request. Applicant shall make the necessary modifications to previously constructed intersections to the extent that subsequent development of areas within the Project impacts such previously constructed intersections, including modification of the Internal Road Network design and signalization for such intersections. The exact location of roadways depicted on Exhibit 5.1 shall be subject to adjustment during the subdivision plat/site plan approval process. 5.2 Road Construction Standards. (a) All internal roads which serve an area submitted to the County for site plan approval, (and other Internal Road Network improvements which VDOT and the County reasonably determine are necessary for safe and convenient access to such area) shall be constructed or bonded for construction and dedicated for public use, for acceptance into the state highway system at the time of recordation of the final subdivision plat recordation for each applicable area or at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development under a site development plan. (b) Applicant shall construct the Internal Road Network in phases according to Exhibit 5.3. The proffer to construct roads to VDOT standards shall not require completion of construction of such roads, or segments thereof, before the issuance of the first certificates of occupancy for a building served by that road, or segment thereof, so long as adequate bonds are in place and so long as the Zoning Administrator determines that safe and convenient access to public roads is preserved in accordance with Section 31.2.3 of the Ordinance. Before issuance of certificates of occupancy, however Applicant shall complete that segment of road which serves the building for which a certificate of occupancy is sought with at least the base and one (1) layer of plant mix asphalt. The final layer of plant mix asphalt may be withheld until all sewer lines, water lines and other conduits have been placed under the pavement but will be completed to an approved VDOT pavement depth and design before the request for VDOT acceptance of the road. Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the roads within the Internal Road Network until they have been accepted into the state system for maintenance. 5 5.3 Phases of Development. The following schedule shall apply for determirfing the timing of ~ road improvements set forth in 5.4 below: ~.~/ PHASE I Land Use (i) Maximum Cumulative ' · Build-out(2) Maximum Build-out to be ~ccessed by Road A (all uses): 635,000 Support Commercial to 85,000(2) Maximum Build-out to. be:accessed by Rt. 606 (all uses): 345,000 General Office limited tO: 120,000 Support Commercial limited to: 25,000 Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I (all uses) 980,000(3) PHASE II Maximum Cumulative Land Use (1) Build-out (2) General Office: ~: ! 1,068,000 Support Commercial: ' 110,000 Hotel: - 190,000 Maximum Total Build-out, Phase II (all uses) 1,568,000(3) PHASE III · Maximum · Cumulative Land Use (1) Build-out(2) General Office: "~ 2,300,000 Support Commercial: - 110,000 Hotel: 190,000 Maximum Total Build-out, Phase III (all uses) 3,000,000(3) 6 (1) Note: The use categories in the charts above shall have the following definitions for the purposes of this Article V: "General Office" shall mean business and professional office uses as contemplated in the Zoning Application Plan and Zoning Application text.. "Hotel" shall have the definition set forth in the Ordinance. "Support Commercial" shall mean those uses listed on the "Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines" Table, Village and Neighborhood Service Areas, Typical Primary Uses Section, in Section 9.0 of the Ordinance as well as the following uses: copy centers, florists, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, barber and beauty shops and tailor shops. (2) Note: Total gross floor area, in square feet. (3) Note: Nothing contained herein shall restrict Applicant from altering the mix of land use types within any Phase of development in accordance with the Project Zoning Application Plan. Applicant proffers that the total build-out of Hotel, General Office and Support Commercial use for any given Phase shall not exceed the gross floor area limitations shown in the charts above. 5.4 Proffered Road Improvements. Applicant shall design, construct and/or contribute for road improvements in phases. Road improvement proffers in this section 5.4 shall not include dedication of land unless expressly provided for herein. All construction by Applicant of offsite road improvements shall be conditioned upon the County or VDOT obtaining required fight-of-way, (if such right-of-way is not owned in fee simple by Applicant), unless expressly provided herein. So long as Applicant is ready, willing and able to construct an improvement as provided in these proffers, even though the necessary fight-of-way is not available, (and in the instances in which Applicant has proffered to acquire right-of-way, and the Applicant has made good faith efforts to acquire the land necessary for such right-of-way) Applicant shall not be precluded from developing the approved density build-out under the applicable zoning, unless the improvement is otherwise required by applicable regulations or ordinances. Unless an earlier time is required below, the road improvements described in this Section 5.4 for each applicable phase shall be completed or bonded, or contributed for (as set forth below), before constructing each phase's Maximum Total Build-out as set forth in 5.3 above. (a) Applicant shall satisfy the .following Phase I road proffers before the Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I (as shown in 5.3 above) is constructed or earlier if (i) specified in this 5.4 (a), or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study approved by VDOT. In general, the proffered Phase I road improvements shall be as described on Exhibit 5.3 attached hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall be permitted to construct beyond the Total Maximum Build-out, Phase I in advance of satisfying all Phase I road proffers, if a traffic study approved by VDOT demonstrates that the following intersections will function, with the proposed additional building construction, at a Level of Service "D" (LOS D) or better: (i) Route 649 and Road A, (ii) Route 606 and Quail Run, (iii) Route 606 and Route 649, and (iv) Road A and U.S. 29. (1) Applicant shall design and construct a northbound turn lane from Route 606 onto Quail Run .for approximately 150 feet from the existing intersection. 7 19 (b) (2) Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring g0vemmental entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design and construct two northbound left mm lanes on U.S. 29 at the intersection of Road A (North Fork Entrance) and U.S. 29. Applicant shall acquire (or reimburse the acquiring governmental entity for acquisition costs, if Applicant is unable to acquire) right of way for, design and construct a channelized southbound right'mm lane on U.S. 29. The Road A exit shall include dedication, "design and construction of two eastbound left mm lanes and two eastbound right mm lanes. The entrance at Road A also shall include dedication, design and construction of two westbound through lanes. (3) Applicant shall install, or pay for the installation of all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the improved intersection at U.S. 29 and Road A no later than completion of the two northbound left turn lanes on U.S. 29 (referenced in proffer 5.4(a)(2) above). If an additional road is added to such intersection to satisfy needs of other development in the County however, Applicant's signalization requirement shall not include improvemems serving such additional road. (4)' Provided that all construction of the mm lanes is completed within 10 years from the date of f'mal approval of this Application, Applicant shall contribute upon completion of two left mm lanes at the intersection of U.S. 29 and Route 649, the total sum of $78,718.00 (Applicant's "Contribution"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant's Contribution may be used, at the County's discretion, to fund prior to completion of the project, a portion of the design and engineering costs in order to expedite the widening of Route 649 from two lanes to four lanes so long as Applicant is afforded the opPortunity to parucipate in such design and engineering process. In the event that the Contribution, after it is received by the County, is not used, within 10 years either for construction of the mm lanes, or for the design and engineering costs for Route 649 widening, then the Contribution shall be returned to the Applicant, Without interest. Applicant shall satisfy the following Phase II road proffers before the Maximum Total Build-out, Phase II is constructed (but not before the Maximum Total Build- out, Phase.I is constructed) (as set forth in 5.3 above) or earlier if (i) specified in this 5.4 (b), or (ii) a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a traffic study approved by VDOT (provided however that if the site development plan review process does not otherwise require Applicant to supply a traffic study, Applicant will provide at least a traffic count upon the County's request for evidence that such need has not been created): (1) Applicant shall design, dedicate, and construct within the Project a two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the North Project within six months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancS~! 8 20 (c) for a building constructed after construction of the Maximum Total Build- out, Phase I (980,000 gross floor area). Applicant shall dedicate and widen to four lanes the two lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to 649 when traffic volumes within the Project create the need for such widening. (2) Applicant shall design, dedicate and construct at the Route 649 entrance: two southbound left turn lanes on Road A, one southbound right turn lane on Road A, and two northbound through lanes on Road A. (3) Applicant shall construct at the intersection at Road A and Route 649: one westbound right turn lane on Route 649, and one eastbound left turn lane on Route 649. (4) Applicant shall design and install all traffic signals necessary for appropriate traffic control at the intersection of Route 649 and Road A as improved in satisfying these Phase II road proffers, but no later than when a need is created by the Project. Construction of improvements may proceed up to the Maximum Total Build-out, Phase III described in 5.3 above if any one of the following conditions shall have been satisfied (but such conditions shall not be conditions for constructing the Maximum Total Build-out for Phases I and II): (1) Applicant shall design and construct (within existing right of way) the addition of a third southbound through lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. In the alternative, if VDOT requires, and at the County's direction, Applicant shall contribute an amount equal to the design and. construction 'costs which would otherwise be contributed by Applicant for an additional southbound through lane on U.S. 29 for the purpose of constructing of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Route 29 and the entrance to North Fork. Nothing contained herein however shall be deemed to be a proffer by Applicant to construct such a grade separated interchange. (2) Before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for improvements in excess of the Total Maximum Build-out, Phase II, VDOT shall have approved funding for the design and construction of the widening of U.S. 29 to six through lanes between the entrance to North Fork at Road A to Route 649. (3) Construction may nevertheless continue in excess of the Total Maximum Build-out, Phase II (but in no event beyond the limitation contained in 3.1) without all the road improvements having been completed as contemplated in (1) and (2) above so long as Applicant can demonstrate to VDOT through traffic studies approved by VDOT that acceptable levels of service (LOS 9 21 (d) "D", or better for U.S. 29 and Route 649 intersection) can be maintained with existing, or alternative improvements. Applicant shall dedicate within its Project, an area necessary for construction of a grade separated interchange. The approximate location shall be as designated on Exhibit 5.3 as "FutUre Right of Way Area for Grade Separated Interchange." Applicant shall dedicate such area without consideration, and when the interchange is to be constructed, It is Applicant's desire to participate in the design for such intemhange so that Applicant may preserve the aesthetic features of the Project's entrance. VI. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE 6.1 Developed Recreational Areas. Applicant shall develop active recreation and picnic areas as shown on the attached Open Space System Phasing Plan (Exhibit 6.1). Phasing of the Open Space System improvements shall follow the phasing schedule of proffered road improvements as set forth in 5.4 above. For example, those open space improvements described for Phase 1 on Exhibit 6.1 shall be completed before construction of the Maximum Total Build-out, Phase I, as set forth in 5.3. Such recreation areas, unless conveyed to the County, shall be maintained by the Applicant or an appropriate Organization for use by users within the Project. Applicant shall convey to the County, without consideration, the ball fields depicted on Exhibit 6.1. Active recreation areas will not be lighted with field or stadium lighting. 6.2 Open Space. Applicant shall restrict development of areas not shown as development parcels on the Open Space System Phasing Plan, subject to boundary adjustment once boundaries are established by plat (and the boundaries later shown on plats may be adjusted from those depicted on Exhibit 6.1): In no event will the total area of such undeveloped areas, including the Green Belt (defined in 6.3 below), Buffer areas (definedin 7.2 below), and recreation areas described in these Proffers be less than a total of 200 acres. These areas shall be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the Project, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Declaration. Applicant may dedicate such undeveloped areas to the North Fork Owners Association or to an appropriate Organization. No structural improvements other than utilities, pedestrian and riding trails, and Common Area amenities shall be constructed in these areas. Applicant does not intend by this proffer to subject these areas to Section 4.7.3 of the-Ordinance, if such areas are not currently governed by such ordinance. 6.3 Rivanna Green Belt. Applicant shall reserve a 100 'foot wide area along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River ("GreenBelt"). No structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails, and utilities) shall be constructed, or erected within the Green Belt without the consent of the County. Applicant may grant across the Green Belt utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River for. the.' users within the Project and their guests, and may at its option, build pedestrian and riding trails or similar uses of the area. The Green Belt shall remain undeveloped except for pedestrian and riding trails and to the extent necessary to accommodate utilities crossings. At such time as the County. decides to establish along the Rivarma River a public area or park within the Green Belt, and upon a request by the County, Applicant shall convey the Green Belt to the County without consideration, provided the uses allowed for utilities, and pedestrian and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be maintained by the Applicant, at its xoption. 22 10 6.4 Cemetery and Ice Pit Site. Applicant shah not disturb the existing family cemetery located approximately in the area as shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan. Applicant shall complete within one year of these proffers, a preservation plan which incorporates the cemetery, ice house and former homestead site into the development of the Project. Once completed, the preservation plan shall be filed with the County to accompany these proffers. The preservation plan shall memorialize the historical significance of this site, consistent with the wishes of the family of those interred in the cemetery. The plan shall include a strategy for.preserving these sites. The plan shall be implemented as the areas surrounding the sites are developed or as necessary in order to prevent further degradation of the sites from the date of these proffers. VII. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING 7.1 Landscaping. The Applicant shall landscape all Project roads in accordance with the standards contained in the "Exhibit D, UREF's North Fork Street Tree Master Plan", filed with the Albemarle County Planning Commission on November 1, 1994. Placement of trees and underground utilities shall be designed to avoid root interference with such utilities. 7.2 Buffer Areas. Applicant shall not disturb the Buffer Areas as depicted on the Zoning Application Plan, other than to: i) construct signage, fences or walls, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. Applicant shall plant additional landscaping in Buffer Areas as reasonably required for screening. Applicant shall plant durable trees on parcel B-7 (as identified on the Zoning Application Plan) prior to commencing construction of improvements on parcel B-7. The purpose of planting additional trees in this area will be to provide screening to adjoining residences. VIII. FIRE STATION 8.1 Fire-Station. Applicant shall dedicate to the County, at County's request, up to a maximum of five acres for the purpose of construction by the County of a fire and emergency response facility; provided however, that Applicant shall not be required to dedicate such land until the County has included such a facility in its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The five acre parcel shall be located on Parcel D in the area designated on the Zoning Application Plan. This proffer may be satisfied by Applicant's acquiring and dedicating an alternative parcel of land located offsite that is acceptable to the County: So that the Project's design integrity, as contemplated in Applicant's Design Guidelines, may be maintained it is Applicant's desire that it be consulted on the exterior design of the fire station if it will located within the Project. Applicant shall contribute funds for, or provide directly through its own programs, hazardous materials training for County fire and emergency personnel. Applicant's contribution of funds shall be limited to funding for up to 2 sessions a year for 3 years, beginning with the completion of the County's fire station. 8.2 Hazardous Materials. No Hazardous materials, including medical wastes shall be disposed within the Project. 8.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated to the County pursuant to proffers 5.4(b)(1) and (2), 5.4(d), 6.1, 6.3, and 8.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be used as open space. 23 11 IX. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 9.1 Proiect Report. Applicant shall submit a report to the Departmem of Planning and Community Development; or its successor, every 3 years. The report shall outline the development activity in the Project over the applicable period. X. SIGNATORY 10.1 Certificate. The undersigned certifies that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 10.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall mn with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's' successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION By: Title: UREF RESEARCH PARK, INC. By: Title: MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC. By: Title: MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC. By:. Title: : 24 12 ATTACHMENT C .o~_= moo· ~z © g~ ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior En~n~eer 30 January 2001 ACAC at UR~F North Fork Research Park, critical slope wa/ver The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slopes received on 26 January 2001 has been reviewed. The critical slope areas are located within the road embankments of Lewis & Clark Drive, and along the edge of an area of previous fill activity at the top of a small drainage swale. As indicated in the applicant's proposal and letter, chtical slopes make up 0.32 acres of the site's 8 to 9 acres, or roughly 34% &the site area. The plan shows all of the critical slopes being disturbed. The disturbance is in the form buildings, parking areas, and associated grading. Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed: Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock;, Proper construction of new slopes w/Il' prevent movement of soil and rock. Excessive stormwater run-oil, The stormsewer system shown on the site plan will prevent excessive runofffrom, or on, critical slopes. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; County inspection and bonding of erosion control measures will address siltation during construction in accordance w/th State and County erosion control regulations. Proper vegetative stabilization will prevent long term erosion and siltation. Loss of aesthetic resource; These slopes are the result of grading activity over the previous couple of years. ,4 greater travel distance of septic effluent This site is serviced by public sewer, so ~septic effluent is not an issue. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the approval of the chtical slope waiver. Please contact me if you have questions. Copy: file File: ACAC ~ UREF NF csw.doe 27 _) ATTACHMENT F ......... ~",~ / / C. ---":% ' Z'-"-.-..~. ? ~i~7 ; ".."~' J ~,' ~, ~ ~ ,~ ..._.. "4:~ ~,.~ ~v ~ '-. "'. ~", '.i .. :'::'::'¥, '"... %-. ~'-- ... ; ': ', "~,' ~ ~,~ -I ~ '-' ~ " " ' ~ '~""'" ~ " '" ~1tI'" '~'"' ~o-- _~ '-"' '- "---'--"'"-'"'- ' .... '--- '"-- ........ Jl'l" \ ! '-.... '~".... - ...... ~__' _~ .. ~ ,, ~ ,. ~'.,. .... .-, .. ., ~ "-.. ' ..... ' ................. -. ~,"--.},x " ' ,,, ....... , x ,'.-~-.'-. > " ~ ~ '. ', ' / ' . '. "-- - " '. '- ' "...~h ...... (:,.,',.~ ...... '/,';'. -~-- 5z - F ~ Fix ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ....... ~.~,~&:'- 4..'/ .............. - '~ ~ ' ",.. : ',"..'~ ~ ~"-- ........ " ...... ~'~ ~-' '::.~ -... -. ---::', ','-. .............. ~,. ,,,.~ .... ......... D-AG '''-~ ......... ~" ..... -~ ,....:-.: ..'"-¥':- REQUIREMENTS MET WITH POND'"-'" lINE ,, .......... "~'~?-ut' 4--~'.~;I ...... ' CONSTRUCTION' Tv GRAPHIC sCALE ~RMATION ONLY* 28 I~. 12_ FT. ATTACHMENT G ACAC at Fork All.marlo CountY, VA PLAN AND PARTIAL BUILDING/SITE SECTION DIAGRAMS o s~[ a~.KE TI' ~mcm-r~cTs, 2o00 I 29 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY01 Budget Amendments SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on Proposed FY01 Budget Amendments in the amount of $2,544,096.43, and Approval of Appropriation #20047, 20054, 20055, 20056, 20057, 20059, 20060, 20061 and 20062 for various school and local government programs and grants. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: April 25, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must hold a public hearing to amend its current FY01 budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds, i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-sustaining, etc., not just the County's adopted operating budget. DISCUSSION: This proposed FY01 Budget Amendment totals $2,544,096.43. The chart below breaks out the estimated revenues and expenditures for the amendment in both the General and School Funds. ESTIMATED REVENUE General Fund/Other Funds Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenue General Fund-Fund Balance Other Funds-Fund Balances 43,253.75 45,250.25 137,402.68 20,835.55 202,859.52 General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue $ 449,601.75 Education Funds Local Revenues State Revenues Fund Balances $ 392,401.06 496,462.47 610,584.02 Education Funds Estimated Revenue $1,499,447.55 Emergency Communications Center Fund State Revenues Fund Balance $ 130,000.00 465,047.13 ECC Estimated Revenue $ 595,047.13 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $2,544,096.43 AGENDA TITLE: FY01 Budget Amendments April 4, 2001 Page 2 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Operating Fund Judicial Public Safety Engineering/Public Works Community Development General Operating Expenditures Education Operating Fund Emergency Comm. Ctr. Operating Fund TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES $ 25,408.30 242,740.63 25,180.00 156,272.82 $ 449,601.75 $1,499,447.55 $ 595,047.13 $2,544,096.43 This budget amendment includes 17 appropriations totaling $591,766.22, which have already been approved by the Board at various meetings since December 1, 2000. These appropriations and the dates of approval are shown on Attachment A. Nine appropriations, totaling $1,952,330.21, are also included in the budget amendment and will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. The pending appropriations are: Approp # Fund 20047 ECC 20054 Education 20055 Education 20056 Education 20057 Education 20059 Grant 20060 Grant 20061 Grant 20062 Grant Purpose of Appropriation Phone system and consultant for radio sys. $ Various School Programs Various School Programs Various School Programs Various School Programs Reapprop. Of Section 8 Housing Grant Reapprop. Of Public Safety Grants Federal and State Drug Seized Assets Fire/Rescue Advertising Grant Appropriation Total 595,047.13 544 015.94 117 315.39 126 041.54 256 543.76 156 272.82 27 817.16 124 126.47 5,150.00 $ 1,952,330.21 A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment B. RECOMMENDATION: Subsequent to the public hearing on the proposed $2,544,096.43 amendment to the FY01 Budget, staff requests approval of the nine pending appropriations, #20047, #20054, #20055, #20056, #20057, #20059, #20060, #20061, #20062, totaling $1,952,330.21 and detailed on the attached appropriation forms. 01.088 Appropriations Pre~ious APProVed Attachment A 20030 Education Various Contributions and Grants $ 7,849.00 12/06/00 Funding for analysis of criminal histo~ record 20031 Grant information system $ 16,000.00 11/08/00 20033 General Supplemental funding for Sheriff PT Wages $ 20,000.00 10/08/00 Funding for 2000 Lo~l Law Enfor~ment Grant 20034 Grant $ 32,757.00 1N06/00 20035 General Funding for Jail Construction Inspector $ 25,180.00 01/03/01 Insurance. recove~ for damage to Sheriff's 20036 General vehicle $ 835.55 12/06/00 Funding for SPCA from DMV Animal Friendly 20037 General License Plates $ 990.00 12/06/00 20039 Grant Fire/Rescue Grant $ 7,900.00 ~ 01/03/01 20041 Grant DMV Grant $ 6,700.00 02/21/01 20042 Grant DMV Grant $ 7,800.00 01/03/01 20043 General Town of Scottsville Police Expense for 7/2000 $ 4,572.75 01/10/01 20044 Eduction Contributions and SOL Award $194,676.92 01/10/01 20045 Eduction Contributions and Grants $ 62,955.00 01/10/01 20050 Grant Funding for Holiday Traffic Safety Grant $ 1,500.00 03/07/01 20051 Grant Funding for Criminal Histo~ Records Grant $ 12,000.00 03/07/01 Purchase of Football Equip and English as 2® 20052 Education language class $ 3,000.00 03/07/01 20053 Education Various School Programs $187,050.00 03/07/01 TOTAL $591 ,~66.22 APPROPRIATION #20047 Pending AppropriationS Attachment B $595,047.13 Background: In 1995 the City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia and Albemarle County through the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) Management Board, decided to build a new Communications Center facility. Several components of that project was the purchase of a new emergency 911 telephone system, a community notification system (sometimes called Reverse 911), audio visual equipment for the employee training rooms, and furnishings for the communications center. In addition, the ECC Management Board approved the hiring of RCC Consultants to assist with the 800 MHz Radio System Project, and Harris Microwave Consultants to provide microwave path studies concerning this radio project. Discussion: A competitive negotiation process (RFP) was initiated in December of 2000 and two telephone system providers responded to the process. After careful review the project was awarded to Sprint at a system cost of $409,259.63 which included a one- (1) year warranty and a four- (4) year maintenance agreement. This system will interface with the new Computer Aided Dispatch System and is compliant with the new Phase I and Phase II wireless requirements. These requirements allow the ECC to receive Wireless caller information such as the phone number and the street address and specific sector of the cell site. Harris Microwave Consultants conducted an extensive microwave path study for the 800 MHz Radio Project at a cost of $28,000.00. In March of 2001 the ECC initiated a competitive negotiation process (RFP) for consulting services for the 800 MHz radio project. Three consulting firms responded to the RFP and after careful review the contract was awarded to RCC Consultants of Richmond Virginia. The ECC Management Board has approved $~ 17,287.50 to cover these professional services. The new Emergency Communications Center has two training classrooms to assist with the training of staff. The ECC Management Board approved $4,500 for the purchase of audiovisual equipment for the two classrooms. The ECC Management Board approved $20,000 for the purchase of new 24-hour chairs and other furnishings for the new Emergency Communications Center. The City of Charlottesville presently operates an emergency community notification system called "city watch" which allows them to send pre-recorded messages to it's citizens when needed. The ECC has agreed to take over this system and expand its use to the citizens of Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. The ECC Management Board has approved $16,000 to upgrade and relocate this emergency notification system to the new ECC facility where staff will be trained to operate the equipment. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation totaling $595,047.13 as detailed on Appropriation #20047. APPROPRIATION #20054 $544,015.94 Meriwether Lewis Elementary School - Donation Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received donations from the Parent/Teacher Organization of Meriwether Lewis School in the amount of $1,070.00. These donations will help to fund projects that were partly funded by the Shannon Foundation Grant and the Virginia Commission for the Arts in Residency Grant. Monticello High School - Donation Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $279.00 from Donna and Michael Klepper. This donation is to be used for the gifted program at the school. Miscellaneous Grants The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education Grant fund was not fully expended in the 1999-00 fisCal year. The grant has a fund balance of $4,694.82. These funds need to be re-appropriated in the 2001-01 fiscal year. Henley Middle School received a grant award from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $6,500.00 and a matching donation from Douglas and Sarah DuPont in the amount of $1,000.00. These funds will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists in residences: Sculptor, Storyteller, and Educational Drama. The project will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for students with performing, visual, and musical arts. The Albemarle County Regional Program, Part C Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 received a grant in the amount of $20,000.00. This is a federally funded program designed to locate all eligible migrant students residing in its district (the regional district includes Albemarle, Augusta, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Orange, Madison, Culpeper County, Waynesboro and Charlottesville City) to evaluate their individual educational needs, and offer services to meet those needs. All students are enrolled in school or, if of legal age to drop out or of pre-school age, are offered altemative educational services. The program provides extra in-school instruction, guidance, ho me-school coordination and coordination with and utilization of all available community resources. It also provides after school and evening tutoring sessions in migrant camps and learning activities in the summer. The program supports part-time teaching and administrative staff positions, which serve approximately 240 students. Individualized Student Alternative Education Program The Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) will implement an Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP) according to Virginia Department of Education requirements. This program will provide counseling, academic, and occupational services to address a growing population of students at risk of dropping out of school, not meeting attendance requirements, and/or academically not meeting the requirements for a standard high school diploma. This program will supplement existing GED services by developing specialized services to address this target population. The ISAEP will provide GED, career guidance, employability skills, and occupational training and employment necessary for students to become productive and contributing citizens. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) will administer the ISAEP program. Adult Basic Education Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Revenues in the amount of $600.00 from Virginia Literacy Foundation, $2,500.00 from Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission, $3,417.60 from Farmington Country Club, and $4,187.90 from students in tuition fees for English as a Second Language class have been received. AIMR Rental Since July, the School Board has committed to expanding a portion of its reserve funds to support various projects. Current Board reserves total $139,187.00, prior to appropriation of funds for committed projects. The School Board's reserve could increase following action on the AIMR Rental Re-appropriation agenda item. The School Board approved one-time expenses of $63,176.00 related to the Cale redistricting and one-time expenses of $10,000.00 for a part-time staff member to assist with disciplinary hearing. At the October 12, 2000 School Board Meeting, staff was directed to bring back an agenda item re- appropriating $285,000.00 in excess funds from the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) rental. The Superintendent proposed that revenues from this fund be allocated as follows: $30,000.00 to Monticello High School for School Improvement related projects; $7,500 to Albemarle High School for School Improvement related projects; $1,000 to Murray High School for School Improvement related projects; $15,000.00 to Building Services and $15,000.00 to School Technology for one-time capital purchases that cannot be supported within the normal operating budget; $1,000.00 for the Northern Elementary School redistricting process to address printing and mailing costs; $9,000.00 for additional teacher recruitment initiatives; and $7,500.00 for upgrade of instructional software for the Return II Program. APPROPRIATION #20055 $117,315.39 Crozet Elementary School - Donation Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Crozet School PTO. This donation will be used to help pay for the Literacy Coordinator. Stone Robinson Elementary School - Donation Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation from Gary Taylor in the amount of $250.00. donation will be used to help pay the cost of the Volunteer Coordinator for the school. This Western Albemarle High School - Donation Western Albemarle High School received a donation from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $1,000.00. This is to match a donation made by Sarah and Douglas DuPont. This donation will be used to defray the cost of a speaker for a school-wide assembly. Scottsville Elementary School - Grant The Patricia M. Kluge Foundation made a grant award to Scottsville Elementary School in the amount of $10,000.00. These funds will be used for the continuation of the Volunteer/Book Buddies Program. Henley Middle School - Donation Henley Middle School received a donation from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $1,000.00. These funds will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists in residences: Sculptor, Storyteller, and Educational Drama Consultant. The project will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual, and musical arts. Va. Department of Education - Office of the Virginia Business-Education Partnership - Grant Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Virginia Department of Education, Office of the Virginia Business-Education Partnerships in the amount of $80,570.31. The partnership will provide academic tutoring and mentoring to provide targeted students with adequate academic skills and career planning knowledge to graduate from high school and become productive citizens. Career planning activities include field trips, job shadowing experiences and an entrepreneurial project. The CareerNocational coordinator will coordinate this program. Jefferson Region Destination Imagination The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI) is responsible for providing a regional level DI competition for county students and surrounding school districts. Our regional tournament will be on March 31, 2001 at Western Albemarle High School. About 70 teams of students participate annually. About 25 of these teams will be from Albemarle County. Team registration fees, T-shirt sales, and contributions from corporate sponsors will help to cover the expenses. In addition, the Jefferson Region DI has a fund balance of $1,230.08. Jefferson Region DI requests that Albemarle County continue as fiscal agent for our region. Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant Awards The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to four Albemarle County Public Schools. Teacher Incentive Art Grants were made to Murray Elementary in the amount of $900.00, Stony Point Elementary in the amount of $5,400.00, Woodbrook Elementary in the amount of $2,980.00, and Jack Jouett Middle in the amount of $300.00. In addition to the Teacher Incentive grants, Jack Jouett was awarded a Touring Assistance Grant in the amount of $1,485.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for students with performing, visual, and musical arts. APPROPRIATION #20056 $126,041.54 Monticello High School - Donation Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $150.00 from John and Kristine Bean and a donation in the amount of $2,682.50 from the Monticello High School Athletic Boosters Club. The $150.00 donation will be used for the gifted program at the school. The $2,682.50 donation will be used to pay for a Radar Gun that was purchased for use by the baseball team and half of a sound system that was purchased for the school. Murray Elementary SchOol. Donation Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $300.00, and a donation from the Target School Fund-Raising in the amount of $10.07. The $300.00 donation is to be used to help finance the Virginia Marine Science Museum "Ocean in Motion" program scheduled for April 4, 2001 at the school. Target has designated favorite schools to receive donations equal to 1% of purchases made when shopping at Target or on-line. Through the School Fund Raising Program, Target has donated more than $27 million to eligible K-12 schools across the country. The $10.07 donation will be used to purchase educational materials for the school. Western Albemarle High School - Donation Western Albemarle High School received a donation from Sarah & Douglas DuPont in the amount of $2,000.00 and an anonymous donation in the amount of $2,000.00. The donation from Sarah & Douglas Dupont will be used to defray the cost of a speaker for a school-wide assembly. The anonymous donation will be used to pay for new weight room equipment. Adult Education Program The Adult Education Program, which provides educational opportunities to adults and helps them in preparing for the General Equivalency Diploma exam has received revenue in the amount of $682.50 from book sales to their students. There is also a fund balance from FY99-00 in the amount of $3,557.94. These funds will help to cover instructional materials. Project Return II Grant The Project Return II Grant has a fund balance of $4,291.23 from FY99-00. balance be re-appropriated for FY00-01 to cover teacher salaries. It is requested that the fund Goals 2000 Grant The Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Goals 2000: Educate America Grant in the amount of $48,179.72. This grant award was not fully expended in FY99-00. There is also a fund balance of $1,512.57. It is requested that the grant balance of $48,179.72 and the fund balance of $1,512.57 be re-appropriated for use in FY00-01. Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded two grant awards under funding for the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. One grant was in the amount of $981.05 and will be used to support staff development/training activities for instructional personnel in the integration of technology in all curricular areas. The second grant was in the amount of $47,123.46 and will be used to purchase classroom computers and related technologies to help upgrade elementary schools as they are most directly ~mpacted by the new requirements of state hardware funding. Tree Planting for Virginia's Communities Grant The Virginia Department of Forestry has made a Tree Planting for Virginia's Communities Grant award to Brownsville Elementary School in the amount of $2,969.50. This grant will fund the creation of a native Virginia arboretum on the Brownsville School grounds. Students, teachers and parents will participate in planting 30 additional native species trees. They will develop an inventory of new and existing trees and publication of an instructional brochure and arboretum map. The instructional brochure will give students easy access to scientific and historical information about trees native to the Commonwealth. Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation Grant The Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation in the Amount of $3,500.00 in FY99-00 and donations in the amount of $4,905.00. These funds were not expended in FY99-00. It is requested that the fund balance in the total of $8,405.00 be re-appropriated for use in FY00-01. Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to three Albemarle County Public Schools. Teacher Incentive Art Grant Awards were made to Woodbrook Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Hollymead Elementary in the amount of $296.00, and to Sutherland Middle in the amount of $600.00. These grants will fund programs that will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for the students with performing, visual and musical arts. APPROPRIATION #20057 $256,543.76 Murray Elementary School - Donation Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $250. This donation will assist in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff. Western Albemarle High School - Donation Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Bessemer Trust Company. This donation will be used to pay for new weight room equipment. Reappropriation of School Carry-Over and Building Rental Funds Re-appropriation of $223,773.30 of school carryover and $27,520.46 of building rental funds. Policy DB-E allows schools to carry forward up to 10% of their operational budgets from year to year. Policy KG-R returns 40% of the base fees collected for building rental to be returned to each school. APPROPRIATION #20059 $156,272.82 The Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program operates on the federal October 1 through September 30 fiscal year. The County of Albemarle's financial audit has been completed. A $156,272.82 carryover fund balance remains that should be appropriated for current year operations. APPROPRIATION #20060 $27,817.16 Several Department of Criminal Justice Services and Department of Justice Law Enforcement Block Grants are on-going. The following grants have fund balances that should be appropriated to fund current year operations. The audit has been completed. Grant: Increasing Crime Prevention Grant: Criminal Records Systems Grant: Public Safety Grant: Traffic Safety Grant: 99 Law Enforcement Block Grant Total $ 429.94 628.08 797.00 1,269.83 24,692.31 $ 27,817.16 APPROPRIATION #20061 $124,126.47 Periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. This appropriation requests approval of the receiPts and expenditures for federal and state drug seized assets for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 and fund balance from prior years. APPROPRIATION #20062 $5,150.00 The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant to provide advertising funds to recruit and retain fire and rescue volunteers. The mini-grant is funded by a $2,575.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a 50% local match that will be funded from current operations. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER 20047 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PHONE SYSTEM AND CONSULTANTS FOR RADIO SYSTEM. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 4100 31042 800301 PHONE SYSTEM $409,259.63 1 4100 31041 312210 CONTRACTED SERVICES 28,000.00 1 4100 31041 312700 CONSULTING-800 MHZ 117,287.50 1 4100 31041 800100 AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT 4,500.00 1 4100 31041 800200 FURNITURE 20,000.00 1 4100 31041 800712 REVERSE 911 16,000.00 TOTAL $595,047.13 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 4100 24000 240424 WIRELESS E911 BOARD $130,000.00 2 4100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $465,047.13 TOTAL $595,047.13 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EMERGENCY COMM. CENTER APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MAR 28, 2001 .~"_ ;~_ ~,/ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER 20054 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS. CODE 1 2206 61101 312500 1 2206 61101 601300 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ********************************** ***************************************** Prof. Svc. Consultants $700.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 370.00 $1,070.00 1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 279.00 279.00 1 3502 60606 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 4,694.82 4,694.82 I 3104 60252 312500 ProfiSvc. Consultants 1 3104 60252 550400 Travel-Education 6,000.00 1,500.00 7,500.00 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 I 3103 61101 1 3103 61101 I 3103 61101 1 3103 61311 I 3103 61311 I 3103 61311 1 3103 61311 1 3103 61311 1 3103 61311 1 .-3103 61311 112100 Salaries-Teacher 132100 PTWages-Teacher 210000 FICA 221000 Retirement 231000 Health Ins 232000 Dental Ins 241000 Group Life Ins 312000 Tuition Fees 520100 Postal Services 520302 Telephone-LD 550100 Mileage 580500 Staff Dev 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 115000 Salaries-Office Clerical 210000 FICA 221000 Retirement 231000 Health Ins 232000 Dental Ins 241000 Group Life Ins 601700 Copy Supplies 6,955.00 7,000.00 1,067.56 897.36 439.60 16.00 55.90 465.00 100.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 720.00 1,085.00 82.44 142.64 110.40 4.00 9.10 250.00 20,000.00 1 3142 60410 312700 Prof. S~c. Consultants 24,168.00 24,168.00 1 3116 1 3116 1 3116 1 3116 I 3145 1 3145 1 3145 1 3122 1 3002 1 3002 1 3002 1 2115 1 2211 1 2211 1 2211 1 2301 1 2302 1 2303 1 2304 1 2410 1 2410 I 2410 1 2410 1 2430 1 2430 I 2420 I 2433 I 2433 1 2433 63348 63348 63348 63348 62420 64600 93010 63349 93010 63115 63115 62190 61131 61131 61131 61101 61101 61101 61101 60100 62120 62120 60100 62150 62150 62140 62420 62420 62420 132100 Salaries-Teacher 210000 FICA 550100 Mileage 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 301210 331200 930000 Contract Svcs R&M Equip-Buildings Transfer-AIMR Fund 800710 ADP Software 930000 600200 800100 Transfer-AIMR Fd Svc Food Supplies Machinery & Equipment 800700 ADP Equipment 112100 Salaries-Teacher 210000 FICA 580000 Misc Expenses 580000 Misc Expenses 580000 Misc Expenses 580000 Misc Expenses 580000 Misc Expenses 999981 Transfer-School Bd Rsv 134300 PTVVages-Other 210000 FICA 999981 School Bd Reserve 520100 Postal Services 350000 Printing/Binding 580000 Misc Recruiting Exp 800550 Mobile Classrooms 800700 ADP Equipment 800710 ADP Software TOTAL 7,000.00 535.50 500.00 2,670.00 (77,000.00) (2,518.71) 235,117.33 7,500.00 49,882.67 (10,882.67) ,ooo.oo) 15,000.00 21,065.00 1,611.00 500.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 1,000.00 30,000.00 (73,176.00) 9,289.00 711.00 191,500.00 300.00 700.00 9,000.00 40,000.00 9,000.00 6,000.00 10,705.50 155,598.62 7,500.00 35,000.00 277,500.00 $544,015.94 2 200O 181OO 2 2000 18100 2 3502 51000 2 3104 18000 2 3104 18000 2 3103 24000 2 3142 24000 2 3116 16000 2 3145 51000 2 3122 51000 2 3002 16000 2 2000 51000 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 181109 Donation 181109 Donation 510100 Approp-Fund Balance 189900 Donation 181221 Upton Grant 240257 Migrant Ed Grant 240360 ISAEP Grant 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 510100 Approp-Fund Balance 510100 Transfer AIMR Rental 161247 AIMR Summer Food Svs 510100 Transfer AIMR Rental 24 10 155 7 35 277 $1,070.00 279.00 4,694.82 1 000.00 6 500.00 20 000.00 168.00 705.50 598.62 500.00 000.00 500.00 TOTAL $544,015.94 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MARCH 13, 200 / APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER 20055 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X X ' ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS. CODE I 2203 61101 1 2203 61101 1 2210 61101 1 2210 61101 1 2302 61411 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 132100 Salares-PT Teacher 210000 FICA 135000 PT-Wages 210000 FICA 580000 Misc. Expenses 4,617.50 382.50 230.87 19.13 1,000.00 $6,250.00 1 3104 60209 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1 3104 60252 312500 Prof. Serv-lnst 10,000.00 1,000.00 SI1,000.00 1 3209 61101 112100 Wages-Teacher 1 3209 61101 210000 FICA 1 3209 61101 221000 VRS 1 3209 61101 231000 Health Ins I 3209 61101 232000 Dental Ins 1 3209 61101 241000 Life Ins. 1 3209 61101 420100 Field Trip Mileage 1 3209 61101 520100 Postal 1 3209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1 3209 61101 601700CopyExpenses 1 3209 61101 800100 Mach/Equip-Add'l 42,695.44 3,700.00 6,700.00 3,000.00 500.00 563.32 500.00 4,025.54 14,637.45 3,748.56 500.00 $80,570.31 1 3129 61104 113000 Pro, Other 1 3129 61104 120310 Ove~ime-Sp. Events 1 3129 61104 210000 FICA I 3129 61104 520100 Postal I 3129 61104 580000 Misc. Expenses I 3129 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,000.00 600.00 276.00 150.00 1,500.00 2,904.08 $8,430.08 1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies I 3104 60216 601300 Ed/RecSupplies I 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Re¢Supplies 1 3104 60253 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 5,400.00 900.00 2,980.00 1,785.00 $11,065.00 TOTAL $117,315.39 CODE 2 2000 18100 2 3104 18000 2 3104 18000 2 3209 24000 2 3129 16000 2 3129 18100 2 3129 18000 2 3129 51000 2 3104 24000 2 3104 24000 2 3104 24000 2 3104 24000 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ********************************* ************************************* -~*'~-~¢r*¢c'~'~'~****'~¢c¢c'~* 181109 Donation 181254 Kluge Found. Grant 189900. Donation 240299 BUsiness Ed. Partnership 161260 DI Reg. Fees 181109 Contributions 189918 510100 240355 240344 240328 240356 Proceeds-Sales Approp Fund Balance Grant-Stony Point Grant-Woodbrook Grant-Murray Elem Grant-Jack Jouett $6,250.00 10,000.00 1,000.00 80,570.31 2,500.00 200.00 4,500.00 1,230.08 5,400.00 2,980.00 900.00 1,785.00 TOTAL $117,315.39 TRANSFERS ********************************** **************************************** REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 15, 200 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS. NUMBER ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X SCHOOL EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 20056 I 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 150.00 1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 310.07 1 2302 61411 580000 Misc. Expenses 2,000.00 1 2302 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,000.00 1 2304 61105 580000 Misc. Expenses 2,682.50 $7,142.57 1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 4,240.44 4,240.44 1 3122 63349 112100 Wages-Teacher 3,986.28 1 3122 63349 210000 FICA 304.95 4,291.23 I 3135 60605 580500StaffDev 3,475.42 1 3135 60605 800100Mach/Equip 94,321.38 97,796.80 I 3104 60202 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 2,969.50 2,969.50 I 3143 61101 540410 Rental-Instruments 8,405.00 8,405.00 I 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 300.00 60205 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 296.00 60255 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 600.00 1,196.00 TOTAL $126,041.54 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109Donation $7,142.57 2 3115 16000 161233 Misc. Revenue 682.50 2 3115 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance 3,557.94 2 3122 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance 4,291.23 2 3135 24000 240324 Goals 2000 Award 96,284.23 2 3135 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance 1,512.57 2 3104 24000 240232 Forestry Grant 2,969.50 2 3143 51000 500000 Approp Fund Balance 8,405.00 2 3104 24000 240344Grant-Woodbrook 300.00 2 3104 24000 240367Grant-Hollymead 296.00 2 3104 24000 240368 Grant-Sutherland 600.00 TOTAL $126,041.54 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 15, 2001 s- APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER 20057 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment $250.00 1 2302 61105 601300Ed/RecSupplies 5,000.00 1 2201 61411 601300 Misc. Expenses 9,613.05 1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Re¢Supplies 6,571.29 1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 8,374.43 1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Re¢Supplies 10,948.23 I 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,726.62 I 2206 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 10,233.98 1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 5,749.60 I 2209 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 762.02 1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Re¢Supplies 10,703.50 1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 1,051.01 I 2212 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 9,395.54 1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Re¢Supplies 5,583.81 1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 12,287.96 1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 9,849.67 1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 15,034.53 I 2253 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 13,756.28 1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 7,612.62 1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 13,138.91 1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 42,084.73 1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 3,525.61 1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 51,290.37 TOTAL $256,54'3.76 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109Donation $5,250.00 2 2000 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance 251,293.76 TOTAL $256,543.76 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 15.2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X REAPPROPRIATION OF SECTION 8 HOUSING GRANT. CODE 1 1227 81920 1 1227 81921 20059 GRANT EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ********** ********************************** *************************************** ********************* 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT $105,305.00 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT 50,967.82 CODE 2 1227 51000 TOTAL $156,272.82 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 510100 FUND BALANCE $156,272.82 TOTAL $156,272.82 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OFFINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 16, 2001 .~"- ?-~,/ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER 20060 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FU ND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1525 31013 600100SUPPLIES $429.94 1 1526 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 628.08 I 1530 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 797.00 I 1533 31013 120000 OVERTIME 1,269.83 1 1538 31013 120000 OVERTIME 24,692.31 TOTAL $27,817.16 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1525 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $429.94 2 1526 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 628.08 2 1530 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 797.00 2 1533 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 1,269.83 2 1538 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 24,692.31 TOTAL $27,817.16 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: 'DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 16, 2001 ~. ?.a/ APPROPi~,IATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER 20061 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER X NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1234 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $792.52 1 1235 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 118,742.42 1 1236 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 4,591.53 TOTAL $124,126.47 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1234 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $792.52 2 1235 33000 330205 FEDERAL REVENUE 107,921.68 2 1235 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 10,820.74 2 1236 24000 240403 STATE REVENUE 1,435.25 2 1236 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 3,156.28 TOTAL $124,126.47 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: "DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 16, 2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FIRE/RESCUE ADVERTISING GRANT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X GRANT 20062 AMOUNT I 1555 32020 360000 ADVERTISING $5,150.00 TOTAL $5,150.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1555 24000 240000 STATE GRANT $2,575.00 2 1555 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 2,575.00 TOTAL $5,150.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/RESCUE APPROVALS: 'DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 20, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 The County Executive's recommended amenaments to the budget for FY 2000-01 are prepared and published in synopsis form solely for the purposes of fiscal planning and public information, Publication of these proposed amendments does not constitute an appropriation of funds for those purposes by the Board of Supervisors. Funds cannot be allocated or distributed until they are appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. The amendments consist of estimates and are requests submitted to the County Executive with his recommendations concerning the requests. A PUBEC HEARING will be held by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at 7:00 P.M. on WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, '2001 in Room 241 of the County Office Bldg, 401 Mclntire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia, on these recommended amendments to the FY 2000-01 General Fund and other funds. This public hearing will be held pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2507 and is for the purpose of allowing the public to question and comment on the recommended budget amendments. At the WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25. 2001 meeting, after the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors will consider approving the amendments to the FY 2000-01 operating budget and appropriating funds, as applicable for FY 2000-01. ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues General Fund - Fund Balance School Fund - Fund Balance Other Funds - Fund Balance TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS $ 435,655 $ 671.713 $ 137.403 $ 20336 $ 610,584 $ 667,907 $ 2,544.096 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Judicial Public Safety Engineering/Public Works Community Development School Fund Emergency Communications Center Fund TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 25,408 242,741 25.180 156,273 1,499,448 595,047 $ 2.544,096 To; From: Subje~ Date: Members, Board of $~eMsors~~Mi ~ Washington Carey, CMC, ~~t~,~L E_Jla Reading List for April 25, 2001 April 19, 2001 March 14, 200 t March 2 I, 200 I /ewc Ms. Thomas Mr. Bowerman