The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201400033 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-05-22o A �'j13GII314` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 22, 2014 John Milisitz 422 Fountain Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23454 J.Milisitz(aWelocitel.com RE: SDP201400033 — Rodgers Property — AT &T — CV460 — Tier II PWSF Dear Sir, The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Planning (Planner) — requested changes (attached) Albemarle County Division of Engineering — recommendation (attached) Albemarle County Division of Inspections — no objection Albemarle County Division of Information Services (E911) — approved Virginia Department of Transportation — recommendation (attached) Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit (4) four [11" x 17 "] copies to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Friday, June 6, 2014. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, P J.T. Newberry, Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Planning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Email: jnewberrykalbemarle.org Phone: (434) 296 -5832, ext. 3270 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 of ALBE�r k� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memarandnm To: John Milisitz (J.Milisitz(&velocitel.com) O. Warren Williams, P.E. (wwilliamskwwacorp.net) From: J.T. Newberry - Planner Division: Planning Services Date: May 22, 2014 Subject: SDP201400033 — Rodgers Property — AT &T — CV460 — Tier II PWSF The Planner for the Planning Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review. Comments are preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code. [5.1.40(a)(1)] Application form and signatures. If the contract purchaser signs the application, he shall also submit the owner's written consent to the application. Please submit evidence of the property owner's written consent to this application. 2. [5.1.40(a)(4)(f)] Trees. The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to establish the proposed height or screening, or both, of the monopole or tower. All trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the facility. The site visit for the balloon test on May 9, 2014 revealed that many existing trees within fifty feet of the facility were not noted on the plan. On Sheet TS -1, please update the tree table to show all of the applicable trees. Also, please be aware that Section 5.1.40(c)(4) Tree conservation plan; content and Section 5.1.40(c)(5) Tree conservation plan; compliance; amendment will apply prior to the issuance of a building permit. If there is any proposed grading or improvements (such as retaining walls or fences) that are shown near where an existing tree is to remain, then a certified arborist's report must verify that the tree could survive such impact. Finally, due to the topography of the lease area, as you consider which trees will remain and which will be removed, please keep Section 5.1.40(c)(7) Creation of slopes steeper than 2:1 in mind. It appears likely in the Tower Detail on Sheet SP -1 that some stabilization measures will be necessary to install the ground equipment in its proposed location. 3. [5.1.40(a)(4)(h)] Location of accessways. The location of all existing accessways and the location and design of all proposed accessways. It is not clear that the proposed access easement would go over an existing driveway. On Sheet SP -1, please use arrows to distinguish the limits of the "proposed 20' access and utility easement." Please also label the existing driveway. 4. [5.1.40(a)(5)] Photographs. Photographs, where possible, or perspective drawings of the facility site and all existing facilities within two hundred (200) feet of the site, if any, and the area surrounding the site. Please submit photographs to comply with this section. 5. [5.1.40(b)(5)] Site plan. Notwithstanding section 32.2, a site plan shall not be required for a facility, but the facility shall be subject to the requirements of section 32 and the applicant shall submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other information required by the agent to determine whether the facility complies with section 32. In making this determination, the agent may impose reasonable conditions authorized by section 32 in order to ensure compliance. On Sheet T -1 and Sheet SP -1, the zoning district of the parcel is described as "Rural Areas — Single Family Residential." Please revise this label to show the zoning district as simply "Rural Areas (RA)." Also, this site is described as "raw land" but there is an existing residence on the property. Is this label correct? Also, on Sheet C -2, Note #3 indicates that there will be exterior lighting. Please show where the light will be located and indicate if the bulb will be above 3,000 lumens. If it will be above 3,000 lumens, please submit the necessary information to confirm that it will meet all of the requirements of Section 32.6.2(k) Outdoor lighting [See also Section 4.171. 6. [5.1.40(d)(2)] Screening and siting to minimize visibility. The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. The balloon test on May 9, 2014 showed the proposed facility would be significantly "skylined" from several vantage points, which is discouraged by the County's wireless policy. These areas include points along Dick Woods Road, Murray Lane and Gibsons Hollow Lane. Staff is concerned that this will cause adverse visual impact on nearby residential properties and therefore will not be able to approve the proposal that is currently before the County. If you would like to submit a revised application designed to minimize visibility, then we can review it without a new fee but we will start a new "shot clock" for the revised application. Upon submittal of requested photographs, photo simulations or perspective drawings of the facility from surrounding areas (Comment #4), Staff will be better able to determine the visual impacts of the facility on surrounding property. 7. [5.1.40(d)(7)] Color of monopole, antennas and equipment. Each monopole shall be a dark brown natural or painted wood color that blends into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment shelter, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not closely match the color of the monopole if they are enclosed within a ground equipment shelter or within or behind an approved structure, facade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment, ground equipment shelter, and the concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street. On Sheet C -3, please indicate the material of the fencing. Currently, it states that cedar dog - earred fence boards are "preferred" but it does not specifically identify the proposed material. Please contact J.T. Newberry at jnewberry&albemarle.org or (434) 296 -5832, ext. 3270 for further information. CC: Connie Kalimerakis (C.Kalimerakiskvelocitel.com) Review Comments Project Name: Rogers Property -AT &T- Wireless Facility Personal Wireless Facility Date Completed: Thursday, May 22, 2014 Reviewer: Max Greene Department /Division /Agency: Engineering Reviews There is no information to show the topography of the existing and proposed conditions. Please submit information that shows the existing topography and proposed grading necessary to complete the installation of the proposed monopole and related ground equipment. Should the proposed disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet then an E &SC plan will be required. Review Status: Requested Changes COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, vrgura 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, RE_ Commissioner May 20, 2014 Mr. Johnathan Newberry County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2014 -00033 AT &T Wireless — Rogers Property Dear Mr. Newberry: We have reviewed the site plan for the AT &T wireless facility to be located on the "Rogers Property" known as site CV460 dated 116114 as submitted by Warren Williams & Associates. The existing entrance off of Dick Woods Road at 4717 is acceptable as a low volume commercial entrance, serving no more than 50 vehicle trips per day. VDOT has no objection to the proposed wireless facility as submitted. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING