HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-13 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 13, 2002
November 14, 2002
5.2.
5.3.
5.4
.7.
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. Thomas. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis,
Ella Carey and Wayne Cilimberg.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· John Martin mentioned an editorial in the Daily
Progress accusing the public office of engaging
tactics to limit water supply, in an effort to control
growth. His suggestion is that the board ignore the
article.
· Tom Loach suggested the county look at eliminating
the land use tax program, to make up the 2.8 million
deficit. Instead of cutting into the funding of ACE and
the schools.
Set public hearing for December 11, 2002 on
proposed ordinance to amend Appendix A.t,
Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
pertaining to ACE regulations.
· APPROVED.
Request to transfer donation funds from General
Fund to Fire & Rescue Department.
· APPROVED
Authorize County Executive to execute deeds for
Colonial Auto Regional Stormwater Basin.
· APPROVED
SDP-02-022. Pavillion at Riverbend Preliminary Site
Plan.
· APPROVED SDP-02-022 subject to the eleven
conditions recommended by staff with condition #1
amended as set out below.
SP.2002-40, Central Telephone Company of Virginia
- AIItel (Sign #89).
· APPROVED SP-2002-40 subject to the seven
conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
8/9. SP,2002-t4. Habitat Services - Garden Center (Sign
SP-2002-42, Habitat Services Garden Center
Contractors Storage (Sign #33).
· APPROVED SP-2002-14 and SP-2002-42 subject to
the twelve conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
10. SP-2002-043. Crown Orchard (Signs #26& 27).
DEFERRED until December 4, 2002 to the consent
agenda, to see if it is feasible to collocate the ECC
tower in this facility.
ASSIGNMENT
Clerk: Prepare letter acknowledging speaker's
comments for Chairman's signature.
Clerk: Advertise the public hearing,
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
Melvin Breeden, Roger Hildebeidel and
appropriate staff persons.
Jack Kelsey: After getting all signatures
provide a fully executed copy of documents
and recording receipt to Clerk.
Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
(Attachment 1)
Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
(Attachment 1)
Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
(Attachment 1)
Clerk: Reschedule for December 4 consent
agenda.
County Attorney: Provide information as
requested.
11.
From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Walter Perkins:
· Reported on his attendance at the VACo conference
on a session on a Rural Rustic Roads Pilot Program.
Suggested this be a discussion item at the December
4 Board meeting. Also suggested that staff look at
including this in the Six Year Road Program.
· Also attended session where the legislative package
was adopted. The session included reports of the
resolutions committees that will go to the General
Assembly and sOme of the items VACo is supporting.
He will be happy to share the information with
anyone.
Lindsay Dorrier:
· At the VACo conference he attended a session on
natural resources where they discussed the
Governor's emergency water measures. There was
a lot of discussion about groundwater runoff and
groundwater needs. Suggested next time the Board
discusses water-related issues they invite David
Paylor.
· Also attended a session on economic development
where they looked at Hanover County and
Washington County policies. He will provide Mr.
Tucker with a copy of the information he received.
The information was very thorough and informative.
Dennis Rooker:
· The University will be undertaking about $900.0
million in construction over the next couple of years.
They also plan to add 4,000 to 7,000 new students
over the next five years or so. He recently spoke
with Blake Caravati and the City thinks this means an
additional 15,000 to 20,000 people to the community.
That could result in significant growth in the
community in both population and economics.
David Bowerman:
· Discussed the status of Buck Mountain. Mr. Tucker
commented that the County is not disposing of the
property.
Sally Thomas:
· At the November 12 MPO meeting, the MPO
approved the Transportation Improvement Program
which included the Route 29 Western Bypass. The
Secretary of Transportation and CTB member are
supposed to be working on alternatives and will be
arranging for funding of the study of the interchanges
or however they can get traffic moving on the present
corridor without a bypass.
· The Un Jam Round 2 workshop will be held on
Wednesday, November 20. This is a hands on road
. planning exercise for the public.
Clerk: Include on December 4 agenda for
discussion. Notify Jim Bryan. Provide copies
of program to staff.
2
· The Isle of Wight County is requesting endorsement
from other counties for a local cigarette tax option
same as that for cities. They would like to know if
Albemarle is interesting in joining that endorsement.
Mr. Davis said the TJPDC legislative packet includes
a request that counties have the same taxing
authority of cities which would be inclusive of this
request. He suggested mentioning it to legislators if
Board members support.
The land use tax has various categories but
aquaculture is not one of them. There will be a move
in the General Assembly by Stafford County to add
that category.
· She spent a few days working with people on the
referenda from Hampton Roads and Northern
Virginia. Some people think there will be some
inCreasing interest from legislators in growth
management tools. Senator Chichester is gong to
offer an affordable public facilities bill and Delegate
Bill Howell is also interested.
· A discussion at the VACo conference had to do with
whether we wanted to urge the General Assembly to
abolish the Compensation Board because the
Compensation Board has announced that it will no
longer work with Constitutional Officers' budgets just
pass through the money.
· There is going to be a push to take the
telecommunications taxes away from localities
because Virginia is a high telecommunications tax
state. The telecommunications industry does not like
the complexity of dealing with all the local taxes.
· Three of Albemarle County's items from its legislative
program got boosted in this session at the
Homestead. Unfundated mandates is back in
VACds program. The Transportation Committee
endorsed subdivision road standards this year. The
County Engineer will be appointed to VACo's task
force that is looking at subdivision road standards.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations endorsed our visual quality overlay distdct
enabling legislation.
Other Actions:
VOTED to temporarily remove the drought stamp
from going on building permits conceming the
ability to connect to wells in line with the
Governor's restrictions.
· AUTHORIZED purchase of the Wachovia
Operations Facility on Fifth Street Extended that
would allow a 60-day study and inspection pedod
with anticipated closing within 90 days.
· AUTHORIZED staff to move forward with IDA
financing for the Wachovia property.
· AUTHORIZED public headng on lease
agreement with Wachovia.
12.
Adjoum.
· Meeting was adjoumed at 8:32 p.m.
/ewc
Attachment I Conditions of Approval
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 6. SDP-02-022. Pavillion at Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan, Request to
construct 2,770 sq ft bldg & parking for purposes of operating vehicle rental & maintenance fac (i.e. U-
Haul) w/in Rt 250 EC. Two SUPs (one for motor vehicle sales & rental in urban area) & the other for
outdoor storage & display were recently approved by the BOS. TM78, P17A, contains 2.478 acs. Znd
C1. Loc on Newhouse Dr just off* Rt 250 by Rivanna River. Rivanna Dist.
A landscape plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions
of the special use permit;
Provide standard water and sewer general plan notes on the cover sheet;
Provide plumbing fiXture information for sizing the water meter;
Provide a note stating that a backflow prevention device is required on the domestic water
service;
Reference the special use permit numbers on the site plan and note all conditions of the special
permit on the site plan;
An erosion control plan, narrative and computations;
A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management;
A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water
quality;
A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee;
Drainage computations; and
Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over fn/e (5)
feet in height.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2002-40. Central Telephone Company of VirRinia - AIItel (Si,qn #89).
Public hearing on a request to allow replacement of microwave dish on existing personal wireless service
facility by amending a special use permit condition (SP-98-21) that prohibits the attachment of additional
dishes, in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.3. TM 61, P 129C contains approx 1.366 acs. Znd CO. Loc on S sd of
Rio Rd E (Rt 631), approx 1/8 mi E of intersec w/Rt 29 N '& near Fashion Square Mall. Rio Dist.
The tower shall not be increased in height;
All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for personal
wireless service providers;
Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall .be permitted; no new antennas shall project from the
structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. The
replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel antennas in existing antenna
arrays shall be subject to this condition;
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets that
separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain. Provided,
however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall be flush-mounted
as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to the maintenance and/or
replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or is in need of repair.
Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one time, and
only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter gdd dish that is subject to this request may be replaced
5
by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height that is not more
than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the same
type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed the
diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement dish matches the tower,
and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish being replaced;
c. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a different
type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet below that of the dish
being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed that of the dish
being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be repladed by a different type of dish
if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy the height
requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning Administrator. This
approval shall only be granted after the submission of a microwave path survey indicating
that the proposed replacement dish will be mounted at the lowest possible height that
allows the system to function. In such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the
reason(s) why the proposed height is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the face of the
pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall the distance
between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than eighteen (18)
inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall provide
engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to be removed
and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating the mounting distance
between the pole and the dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once (1) per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user is a
personal wireless communications service provider;
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a
bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attomey.
Agenda Item No. 8. 8P-2002-14. Habitat Services - Garden Center (Si;In #25). Public
hearing on a request to allow outdoor storage, display & sales of landscaping materials, including mulch,
compost, topsoil, firewood, fence rails, posts~ lumber, trees, shrubs, plants & various garden & landscape
products, in accord w/Secs 30.6.3.2 & 24.2.2.8 (SP-2002-42)contractors office & equipment storage yard
of the Zoning Ord regulations in the HC & ECOD. TM 78, P 33B, contains 2.219 acs. Loc on Rt 250 E, S
of 1-64 & adjacent to Seminole Produce. Scottsville Dist.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-42. Habitat Services Garden Center Contractors Storage (Si.qn
#33); Public hearing on a request to allow contractors office & equipment storage yard, in accord w/Sec
24.2.2.8. A special use permit (SP-2002-14) is being processed concurrently for outdoor storage, display
& sales of landscaping materials, induding mulch, compost, topsoil, firewood, fence rails, posts, lumber,
trees, shrubs, plants, & various garden & landscape products, in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2. TM 78, P 33B,
contains 2.219 acs. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250 E), S of 1-64, & adjacent to Seminole Produce. Znd
HC. The Comp Plan designates this property as RA & it is w/in an ECOD. Scottsville Dist.
6
10.
11.
12.
The site shall be developed in general accord with the site layout plan rifled, "SP 02-14 Habitat
Services Stewart Stevens Phase I and Phase 2" and dated May 28, 2002, and revised July 22,
2002;
The wayside stand permitted under SDP 02-42 shall be voided, upon the commencement of SP-
02-14 and/or SP-02-42;
No tree removal or clearing shall be permitted beyond that expressly stated in the site layout plan
titled "Site Layout Plan SP 02-14 Habitat Services Stewart Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2" and
dated May 28, 2002, and revised July 22, 2002;
A separation of a minimum of four (4) feet between parking stalls and structures shall be required;
A final site plan approval shall be required;
Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the equipment storage area shall be
screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor;
The height of stored equipment shall not exceed the screening;
Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the piles of landscape material shall be
contained and displayed neatly and/or screened from the Entrance Corridor;
The area for the storage/display of non-plant materials (other than the f'n/e [5] piles) shall be
appropriately screened from the Entrance Corridor as determined by the Architectural Review
Board;
Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the storage of landscape materials
shall not occur within thirty (30) feet of the front property line and must be appropriately screened;
The plant materials may be displayed within thirty (30) feet of the front of the property line with the
display approved by the Planning Department Design Planner; and
The use authorized by SP 02-14 shall only operate during daylight hours,
To:
From:
Subject:.
Date:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cle~¥
Reading List for November 1'3, 20'~2'
November 5, 2002
March 25 (A), 2002
August 7, 2002
August 14, 2002
September 4, 2002
Ms. Thomas
- Pages I - 17 - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 18 - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. Martin
Pages I-~18 (end at Item #/ I) - Mr. Dorrier
Pages 18 (beginning with Item # t I) - end - Mr. Perkins
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT
READ THEM.
~WC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend Appendix A. 1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program, Pertaining to
the ACE Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule proposed ordinance for public hearing
and authorize Clerk to advertise proposed
ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Goodall
AGENDA DATE:
November 13, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGEN DA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Ordinance
//"
BACKGROUND:
The ACE program's regulations are set forth in Appendix A. 1 of the Albemarle County Code. The program is now in
its third application cycle and the experiences from the first two cycles (the second of which is now at the appraisal
stage) have prompted County staff and the ACE Committee to recommend changes tothe ACE regulations as
reflected in the attached draft. The substantive changes are narrow in scope, addressing very specific issues. A
number of minor non-substantive changes are also recommended.
DISCUSSION:
The draft ordinan ce would make the following substantive changes to the ACE regulations:
1. Section A. 1-103(A)(2) and (9): The proposed amendment would replace the defined term "development right" with
"diwsion rights" in order to eliminate confusion with the term "development rights" as used in the Zoning Ordinance.
The term "retained division rights" would be added and be defined to mean the number of parcels into which a parcel
under an ACE easement could be divided. In awarding points to an application for ran king purposes, section A. 1-
108(B)(3) awards 1/2 point for each division right eliminated, which is determined by subtracting the number of
retained division rights (as determined under section A. 1-109(A)) from the number of division rights.
2. Section A. 1-105(B)(3): The proposed amendment would expand the ACE Committee's current authority to annually
review the ACE program's eligibility and ranking criteria to enable it to periodically review the program's regulations,
guidelines, administrative procedures and promotion. This amendment is recommended to more fully use the
Committee's expertise and experience.
3. Section A. 1-106(A)(1 ): This subsection currently requires that the Appraisal Review Committee be comprised of 3
real estate professionals, the county assessor, and a member of the ACE Committee. The proposed amendment
would reduce the total membership of the Committee from 5 to 3 by reducing the number of real estate professionals
from 3 to 1. By waiver from the Board in prior years, the Committee has acted with 3 members and this size has
proven to be practical.
4. Section A. 1-108(C)(1 ): In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes, 1 point may be awarded under the
current regulations for each 1000 feet of mountain ridge. The proposed amendment would award a point for each 20
acres within a "ridge area boundary," a term defined to mean the area that lies within 100 feet below designated
ridgelines shown on County maps. The change to this criterion is recommended because it more accurately describes
the resource having value.
5. Section A. 1-108(C)(6): In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes, points may be awarded for
various class soils on a parcel. The proposed amendment would more accurately describe the various soil classes.
6. Section A. 1-108(C)(11): The proposed amendment would allow 2 points to be awarded to an application for ranking
purposes if the parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district.
1i-0~-02P04:52 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend Appendix A. 1, Acq uisition of Conservation Easements Program, pertaining to the ACE program
November 13, 2002
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors to advertise the proposed ordinance for public hearing on December
11, 2002.
02.174
Draft: 10/29/02
ORDINANCE NO. 02-A.l( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX A. 1, ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS PROGRAM, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Appendix A. 1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. A.I-100
Sec. A.I-101
Sec. A.l-102
Sec. A.l-103
Sec. A.l-104
Sec. A.l-105
Sec. A.l-106
Sec. A. 1-107
Sec. A.l-108
Sec. A.l-109
Sec. A.I-ll0
Sec. A.I-lll
Sec. A.l-l12
Sec. A.I-113
Short title.
Purpose.
Applicability.
Definitions and construction.
Designation of program administrator; powers and duties.
ACE committee established; powers and duties.
Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties.
Ehgibility criteria.
Ranking criteria.
Easement terms and conditions.
Application and evaluation procedure.
Purchase of conservation easement.
Program funding.
Program non-exclusivity.
APPENDIX A.1.
Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
Sec. A.I-100. Short title.
This ehaptev appendix shall be known and may be cited as the "acquisition of
conservation easements ("ACE") program."
(Ord. 00-A. 1(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.I-101. Purpose.
The board of supervisors finds that between 1974 and 1992, twenty-five thousand
(25,000) acres of farmland in the county were lost to development; that at present, almost one-
[hird of the acres of forest land in the county is considered by the Virginia Department of
orestry to be too densely populated for timber production; that regulatory land-use planning
tools acceptable to date have not been able to stem the conversion of farm and forest land to
other uses; and that farm and forest land, clean water and alrsheds, biological diversity, scenic
vistas and rural character have a public value as well as a private value. Therefore, the specific
purposes ofthi~ chaptcr the ACE program include, but are not limited to:
Draft: 10/29/02
1. Establishing a program by which the county can acquire conservation easements
voluntarily offered by owners to serve as one means of assuring that the county's resources are
protected and efficiently used;
2. Establishing and preserving open-space and preserving the rural character of
Albemarle County;
3. Preserving farm and forest lands;
4. Conserving and protecting water resources and environmentally sensitive lands,
waters and other natural resources;
5. Conserving and protecting biodiversity and wildlife and aquatic habitat;
6. Assisting in shaping the character and direction of the development of the
community;
7. Improving the quality of life for the inhabitants of the county; and
8. Promoting tourism through the preservation of scenic resources.
(Ord. 00-A. 1(1), 7-5-00)
State law reference- Va. Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.
Sec. A.l-102. Applicability.
The ACE program shall be available for all lands in the county, except those lands under
the ownership or control of the'United States of America, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or an
agency or instrumentality thereof. Any conservation easement acquired purauant tc, ~l:~a chaptcr
under the ACE program shall be voluntarily offered by the owner.
(Ord. 00-A.I(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-103. Definitions and construction.
A. The following defmitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of
......... ~,,,,~ the ACE pro~ram.
(1) Conservation easement. The term "conservation easement" means a
nonpossessory interest in one or more parcels of one or more qualified easement holders under
section A. 1-109(E) acquired under the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et
seq.), whether the easement is appurtenant or in gross, voluntarily offered by an owner and
acquired by purchase pursuant to the ACE program, imposing limitations or affirmative
obligations for the purpose 0fretaining or protecting natural or open-space values of the parcel
or parcels, assuring availability for agricultural, forestal, recreational or open-space use,
2
Draft: 10/29/02
protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the
historical, architectural or archaeological aspects of the parcel or parcels.
(2)
~ Division rights: The te~ "~hsion fi~hts" me~s the nmber ofp~cels ~to whch
parcel could be divided under the ~al ~eas zonin~ ~s~ct re~lations stated ~ Section 10 of
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albem~le Co.tv Code, where each potential parcel could comply
with all applicable requirements of Chapter 14, Subdivision of L~d, ~d Chapter ] 8, Zonin g, of
the Albemarle Co~V Code.
(3) Forced sale. The term "forced sale" means a sale of a parcel with unused
development rights m a manner prescribed by law that is conducted under a judgment, order or
the supervision of a court of competent jurisdiction, other than a sale arising from a partition
action; a sale resulting from foreclosure under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; or, a
sale that is not the voluntary act of the owner b/it is compelled in order to satisfy a debt
evidenced by a mortgage, judgment, or a tax lien.
(4) Hardship. The term "hardship" means an economic hardship, other than a
circumstance causing a forced sale, experienced by the owner of the parcel so as to compel him
to place a parcel with unused development rights for sale or to use such development rights.
(5) Immediate family. The term "immediate family" means an owner's
spouse and his or her offspring residing in the same household as the owner.
(6) Owner. The term "owner" means the owner or owners of the freehold
interest of the parcel.
(7) Program administrator. The term "program administrator" means the
director of the department of planning and community development.
(8) Parcel. The term "parcel" means a lot or tract of land, lawfully recorded
in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle.
(9) Retained division rights: The term "retained division rights" means the
number of parcels into which a parcel subject to a conservation easement may be divided
provided in section A. 1-109(A).
B. Construction. Because a conservation easement may contain one or more parcels,
,t.:, ,,,,,~v~,,, the ACE program the term "parcel" shall include all parcels covered
for purposes of ....~""~*~
by, or proposed to be covered by, the conservation easement.
(Ord. 00-A. 1 (1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-104. Designation of program administrator; powers and duties.
A. Designation. The director of the department of planning and community
development is hereby designated as the program administrator.
Draft: 10/29/02
B. Powers and duties. The program administrator, or his designee, shall administer
the ACE program and shall have the powers and duties to:
1. Establish reasonable and standard procedures and forms
for the proper administration and implementation of the program.
2. Promote the program, in cooperation with the ACE committee, by
providing educational materials to the public and conducting informational meetings.
3. Investigate and pursue, in conjunction with the county executive, state,
federal and other programs available to provide additional public and private resources to fund
the program and to maximize private participation.
4. Evaluate all applications to determine their eligibility and their ranking
score, rank applications based on their ranking score, and make recommendations thereon to the
ACE committee.
5. Determine the number of ............ v ......... r~,L~ division fi~hts
existing on each parcel subject to an application, after obtaining the number of theoretical
development rights from the zoning administrator.
6. Coordinate the preparation of appraisals.
7. Provide staff support to the appraisal review committee, the ACE
committee and the board of supervisors.
the public.
o
Provide educational materials regarding other land protection programs to
9. For each conservation easement, assure that the terms and conditions of
the deed of easement are monitored and complied with by coordinating a monitoring program
with each easement holder, and if the other easement holders are either unable or unwilling to do
so, monitor and assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the deed of easement.
(Ord. 00-A. 1(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.I-105. ACE committee established; powers and duties.
A. Establishment.
follows:
The ACE committee is hereby established, aa v ............. n as
1. The committee shall consist often (10) members appointed by the board
of supervisors. Each member shall be a resident of Albemarle County. The committee should,
but is not required to, be comprised of members who are knowledgeable in the fields of
conservation, conservation biology, real estate and/or rural land appraisal, farming and forestry
and may also include members of conservation easement holding agencies and conservation
organizations.
Draft: 10/29/02
2. The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of the board of
supervisors. The initial term of three (3) members shall be for one (1) year. The initial term of
three (3) members shall be for two (2) years. The initial term for four (4) members shall be for
three (3) years. Each term after the initial term shall be for (3) years.
3. The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the board of
supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member for actual and necessary expenses
incurred in the performance of his duties.
4. The committee shall elect a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary at its
first meeting each calendar year. The secretary need not be a member of the committee.
B. Powers and duties. The ACE committee shall have the powers, and duties to:
1. Promote the program, in cooperation with the program administrator, by
providing educational materials to the public and conducting informational meetings.
2. Review the ranking of applications recommended by the program
administrator, and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors as to which conservation
easements should be purchased.
3. A ..... 11..
....... .~ PeriodiCally review the program's ~:_a.,:, .... ,~ -~_~:__ ~,.:,~
regulations, ~idelines, adminis~ative proced~es ~d promotion ~d reco~end to the bo~d of
supe~isors or the proem adminis~ator, as approphate, any changes needed to m~nt~ the
pro~m's consistency with the comprehensive plan, or to improve the a~i~s~ation,
~plementation and effectiveness of ~e program.
(Ord. 00-A.I(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-106. Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties.
to
herein:
Establishment. The appraisal review committee is hereby established, as provided
1. The committee shall consist of fi-re-(b) three (3) members appointed by the
board of supervisors. The committee shall be comprised of ..... (3) one (1) real estate
professionals, the county assessor, and a member of the ACE committee.
2. The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of the board of
supervisors. Each member, other than the county assessor, shall serve a one (1) year term. The
county assessor shall be a permanent member of the committee.
3. The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the board of
supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member other than the county assessor for
actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
4. The county assessor shall be the chairman of the committee.
Draft: 10/29/02
B. Power and duty. The appraisal review committee shall have the power and duty
to review appraisals to assure they are consistent with appropriate appraisal guidelines and
practices, and to make recommendations thereon to the board of supervisors.
(Ord. 00-A.i(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-107. Eligibility criteria.
In order for a parcel to be eligible for a conservation easement, it must meet the following
criteria: (i) the use of the parcel subject to the conservation easement must be consistent with the
comprehensive plan; (ii) the proposed terms of the conservation deed of easement must be
consistent with the minimum ........ " ..........
......................... terms and conditions set forth in section
A. 1-109; and (iii) the parcel shall obtain at least fifteen (15) points under the ranking criteria set
forth in section A.l-108.
(Ord. 00-A. 1 (1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes ,,ca.:~ ~,. .....
........... v~,,, the ACE program, parcels for which
conservation easement applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria
and the point values ' "-~^*~. .........
assigned ........ ~ ~^* ~'~' ,'.crc, in as provided below. Points shall be
rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: one (1) point for every
five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of .... *-~ -~ .... ~ ....., ,z ~.,.,
....... ,~ .... v ......... s .... division fi~hts to be eliminated
on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point for each .... .o.o,,,*'~^ ~ ~ .... ,*,*v,--*,~ ..... ' fight ~ to be
el~inated, which shall be dete~ed by sub,acting ~e .... a.~ ~r .... ~ ~ ....~ ....., ~ ~,~
retained division rights *~ ~ -~*~:~ ~om the *~*~ n~ber ~r .... ~ ~ ....~ .....,
............................... v ....... fights
division~.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each
..... *~:~ fidg (20) fidg d~
........... e ~entv acres within a e ~ea bo~ , ~
6
Draft: 10/29/02
.......... aps. For purposes of this section, the term "ridge area boundary" means the area that
lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county mountain
overlay district elevation maps
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one
family member's principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the
parcel; three (3) points if at least one family member produces farm products derived from the
parcel.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway
or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County
Code: one (1) point for each six hundred (600) feet of road fi'ontage; or the parcel adjoins a
public road: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a
national or state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic
resource; two (2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on
viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the possession of the county.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage
inventory: five (5) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils ("prime soils") for
agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources
conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of Affriculture Soil
Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such
soils, fc, r up tc, atc, tal to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed or the
Totier Creek Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River,
Moormans River, Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Rivauna
River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Jacob's Run, or the Hardware River: one-half(I/2) point for each
one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to
establish or maintain vegetative buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those
terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one
thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and one hundred (100) feet wide;
two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100)
feet wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a
permanent easement, then the above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a
county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
7
Draft: 10/29/02
11. The parcel is within an a~riculmral and forestal district: two (2) points.
D. County fund leveraging. State, federal or private funding identified to leverage
the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
purchase price for which those funds can be applied.
(Ord. 00-A. 1 (1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.I-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the Open-Space
Land Act of 1966 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this ehap~ appendix. The deed of
easement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum,
the following provisions:
A. Restriction on division. The parcel shall be restricted from division as follows: (i)
if the parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if the parcel is one
hundred (100) acres or larger but less than two hundred (200) acres, it may be divided into two
(2) lots; (iii) if the parcel is two hundred (200) acres or larger, it may be divided into as many
lots so as to maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred (100) acres, plus one additional
lot for any acres remaining above the required minimum average lot size (e.g., an eight hundred
fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided into as many as nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which
maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred (100) acres, and the ninth of which consists
of the remaining acres).
B. Protection of mountain resources. If the owner voluntarily requested in his
application that the parcel be awarded points during the evaluation process purauant tv_, under
section A. 1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall assure that the parcel
is used and maintained in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan and, in particular, the
Open Space Plan as it pertains to mountain resources, and the Mountain Design Standards in
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. No buy-back option. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire any
property rights relinquished under the conservation easement.
D. Other restrictions. ~ ~n~:,:~_ ,~ ,,.^ c ..... :~_ ,~. ......~ ~
...................... ~,,~,, ~,~ The shall be
subject to standard restrictions contained in conservation easements pertaining to uses and
activities allowed on the parcel. These standard restrictions shall be delineated in the deed of
easement and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, restrictions pertaining to: (i) the
accumulation of trash and junk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs and advertisements; (iii) the
management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blasting or earth removal; (v) the number and size
of residential outbuildings and farm buildings or structures; (vi) the conduct of industrial or
commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii) monitoring of the easement.
E. Designation of easement holders. The county and one or more other public
bodies, as defined in Virginia Code § 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of supervisors shall
be the easement holders of each easement. The public body or bodies who may be designated by
8
Draft: 10/29/02
the board shall include, but not be limited to, the Albemarle County Public Recreational
Facilities Authority and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
(Ord. 00-A.I(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.I-ll0. Application and evaluation procedure.
Each application for a conservation easement shall be processed as follows:
A. Application materials to be provided to owner. The application materials provided
by the program administrator to an owner shall include, at a minimum, a standard application
form, a sample deed of easemem, and information about the ACE program.
B. Application form. Each application shall be submitted on a standard form
prepared by the program administrator. The application form shall require, at a minimum, that
the owner: (i) provide the name of all owners of the parcel, the address of each owner, the
acreage of the parcel, the Albemarle County tax map and parcel number, the zoning designation
of the parcel, and permission for the program administrator to enter the property after reasonable
notice to the owner to evaluate the parcel and for the county assessor or an independent appraiser
to appraise the property; and (ii) state his adjusted gross income for the three (3) prior tax years,
as explained in section A. 1-111 (B). The application form shall also include a space for an owner
to indicate that he volunteers to have his the parcel be subject to greater restrictions than those
contained in the standard sample deed of easement, and to delineate those voluntary, additional
restrictions.
C. Additional application information required by program administrator. The
program administrator may require an owner to provide additional information deemed
necessary to determine: (i) whether the proposed easement is eligible for purchase; and (ii) the
purchase price of auch the easement.
D. Submittal of application. Applications shall be submitted to the office of the
program administrator. An application may be submitted at any time. However, applications
received after Julv 1 shall be evaluated in the following year.
E. Evaluation byprogram administrator. The program administrator shall evaluate
each application received and determine within fifteen (15)'days whether the application is
complete. If the applicatiOn is incomplete, the program administrator shall inform the owner in
writing of the information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed
complete. When an application is deemed complete, the program administrator shall determine
whether the parcel satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in section A.l-107 and, if it does, shall
determine the number of points to be attributed to the parcel by applying the criteria set forth in
section A.l-108. The program administrator shall then rank each parcel scoring at least fifteen
(15) points ,.~^~ *~^ '~:~ ~* c^~,.: .... ~'-~ ^ ~ ~ ~' with the parcel scoring the most points
being the highest ranked and descending therefrom. The program administrator should submit
the list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee by August 1.
F. Evaluation and ranking by ACE committee. The ACE committee shall review the
list of ranked parcels submitted by the program administrator and shall rank the parcels in the
Draft: 10/29/02
order of priority it recommends the easements shall be purchased. The committee should
forward to the board of supervisors by September 1 its recommendation of which conservation
easements should be purchased.
G. Evaluation and ranking by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors shall
review, the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE committee and identify on which parcels
it desires conservation easements. The board shall then rank those parcels on which it will seek
to purchase conservation easements that year. Nothing in this chapter appendix shall obligate the
board to purchase a conservation easement on any property that meets the minimum number of
qualifying points.
H. Appraisal of conservation easement value. Each conservation easement identified
by the board of supervisors to be purchased shall be appraised either by the county assessor or by
an independent qualified appraiser chosen by the county. Each appraisal should be completed by
October 1. Each completed appraisal shall be submitted to the program administrator and the
owner. The program administrator shall forward each appraisal to the appraisal review
committee, which shall review each appraisal and make recommendations thereon to the board
of supervisors by November 1.
I. Requirements and deadlines may be waived. Any requirement or deadline set
forth in this ehaptee appendix may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good cause, it is
shown that exigent circumstances exist that to warrant consideration of an otherwise untimely
application, or it is shown that ..... the requirements unreasonably restrict the purchase of .....
ag__ easement. U der ..... the_se circumstances, the board may purchase a conservation easement
at any time it deems necessary and subject to only such those requirements it deems appropriate.
......................... whose p~cel is not selected for p~chase of a conse~ation
easement may reapply in ~y ~mre year.
(Ord. 00-A. 1 (1), %5-00)
Sec. A.I-lll. Purchase of conservation easement.
Each conservation easement shall be purchased as follows:
A. Identification of initial pool. From the list ofparccls ~ received under
section A. 1-110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified
for conservation easements to be purchased. The purchase price may be supplemented by non-
county funding. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement
purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the
pool established under section A. 1-111 (B).
B. Determining purchase price. The purchase price of a conservation easement shall
be calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value
set forth in the table below. The average annual adjusted gross income shall be based on the
aggregate of the annual adjusted gross income of each owner of record and the members of his or
her immediate family in each of the three (3) most recent tax years. In the case of a parcel
10
Draft: 10/29/02
owned by an entity such. as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or estate,
the average annual adjusted gross income of the owner shall be based on the aggregate annual
adjusted gross incomes of the shareholders, parmers, members, grantor, beneficiaries or
decedent, as the case may be.
Average Annual Adjusted Gross Income
$ 0 - $50,000
$50,001-$60,000
$60,001- $70,000
$70,001- $80,000
$80,001- $90,000
$90,001- $100,000
$100,001- $110,000
$110,001- $120,000
$120,001- $130,000
$130,001- $140,000
$140,001- $150,000
$150,001- $160,000
$160,001- $170,000
$170,001- $180,000
$180,001- $190,000
$190,001- $200,000
$200,001 or more
Percentage of Appraised Value
100%
94%
88%
82%
76%
70%
64%
58%
52%
46%
40%
34%
28%
22%
16%
10%
4%
C. Invitation of to offer to sell. The board shall invite the owner of each parcel
included in the initial pool ^c ........ ,:^~
................ caacmcnts to submit an offer to sell to the county a
conservation easement on that parcel for the purchase price, '-'~-:~*',,,~, v,-,,,,-~ o,,,~,, ~ ~" ,,,~-~* *'~,,, .... o ~,j,,,,t*'~ ~" to
· ,,,~, ...... on, and/or to donate to the county the balance of the fair market value of the
conservation easement, subject to the terms and conditions of a proposed deed of easement. The
purchase price shall not be subiect to negotiation. The invitation to acll shall be in writing and
shall include the purchase price, the proposed deed of easement, and the date by which a written
offer must be received by the program administrator in order for it to be considered. The
invitation also may cc, ntain includ~ a form offer to be returned by the owner if the owner desires
to offer to sell a conservation easement.
D. Offer to sell. Each owner who desires to sell and/or donate a conservation
easement shall submit a written offer that must be received by the program administrator by the
date contained in the invitation to offer to sell. The offer should include a statement that
substantially atatca stating the following: "(The owner_) offers to sell and/or donate a
conservation easement to the County of Albemarle, Virginia for the sum of (purchase price),
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the
invitation to offer to sell." Nothing in this chapter ~ shall compel an owner to submit an
offer to sell.
E. Acceptance. An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted by the
board of supervisors only in writing, and only following an action by the board authorizing
11
Draft: 10/29/02
acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the board if acc, n;¢r;afion the proposed easement
......... ~,J,,,,~ t, .... ,o wo_uld be inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive
plan at the time the offer is received. Nothing in this ehapter appendix requires the board to
accept an offer to sell a conservation easement.
F. Easement established. A conservation easement shall be established when the
owner and an authorized representative of the holder of the easement have each signed the deed
of easement. The deed shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the
County of Albemarle. A single conservation easement may be established for more than one
parcel under the same ownership.
G. Offers not made; offers not accepted; invitation to other owners. If an owner
invited to submit an offer to sell elects not to do so, or if his an owner's offer to sell is not
accepted by the board of supervisors, then the board shall send an invitation to offer to sell to the
owner of the next highest ranked parcel remaining on the list of parcels identified in section A. 1-
~ ~ O(E).
H. Costs. If the board of supervisors accepts an offer to sell ..........
ca:,cmcnt, the county shall pay all costs, including environmental site assessments, surveys,
recording costs, grantor's tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing. Provided,
however, the county shall not pay fees incurred for independent appraisals~ o1' legal, financial, or
other advice, or fees in connection with the release and subordination of liens to the easement
purchased by the county.
I. Re cation. An owner ..........
v ....... who fails to submit an offer to sell or whose offer to sell was not accepted may
reapply in any future year.
(Ord. 00-A.I(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-lI2. Program funding.
The ACE program may be funded annually by the board of supervisors in the county
budget or by special appropriation. The county shall endeavor to seek funds from
federal, state and private sources to effectuate the purposes of ......... ~,~er the ACE program.
(Ord. 00-A.I(1), 7-5-00)
Sec. A.l-l13. Program non-exclusivity.
The ACE program is a non-exclusive means by which the county may purchase
conservation easements or control land use and development, or by which landowners may
establish conservation easements and other self-imposed hmitations on land use or development.
This ehapter appendix shall not be construed in any way as a limitation upon the county's
authority to acquire land for public purposes.
(Ord. 00-A. 1 (1), 7-5-00)
12
Draft: 10/29/02
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dottier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
13
FMS2 l' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE --~--'~APP # I 2003 02.1
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATEr 11/14/02
BATCH NUMBER
EXPLANATION: TRANSFER OF DONATED FUNDS FROM COUNTY FAIR TO FIRE/RESCUE.
i SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJEC'i ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
I 1000 32015 600000 F/R-MATERIALS&SUPPLIES j 1 5,000.00
~ 1000 51000 512008 TRANSFER IN j 2 5,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE j 5,000.00
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION J 5,000.00
I 8405 93010 930009 TRANSFER TO G/F J 1 5,000.00
2 8405 18000 181114 CONTRIBUTIONS
J
2
5,000.00
J
~ 8405 0501 EST REVENUE' j 5,000.00
8405 0701 APPROPRIATION J 5,000.00
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j -
TOTAL 20,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00-
PREPARED BY: [MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 11114/02
BD. OF SUPV. APPROVAL: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 11/14/02
ACCT. APPROVAL: ~ DATE:
ENTERED
BY:
~ .......... DATE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to Transfer Funds
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to transfer donation funds from General Fund to
Fire & Rescue Department
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Eggleston, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
November 13, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1998 an account was established for donations received
residents/public.
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
by the Fire & Rescue Division for services rendered to our
DISCUSSION:
Each year the County Fair gives a $ 5,000 donation to our volunteer fire and rescue companies for their fire and medical
services during the week of the fair. Normally the funds are given directly to the Jefferson Country Fire & Rescue Association
(JCFRA), but due to officer changes within that organization and not having their financial affairs in place, it was g~ven to the
Fire & Rescue Department to hold.
JCFRA's officers now have their financial matters taken care of and would like their reimbursement.
Staff requests the transfer of $5,000.00 from the County's Contribution Fund (code 8405) to Fire & Rescue's account.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the identified needs for JCFRA, staff recommends that $ 5,000 be transferred into the Fire Rescue Division
operational budget code (1-1000-32015- 600000).
02.179
I1-04-02P04:52 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE .SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Colonial Auto Regional Stormwater Basin
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
BOS approval of County Executive authority to execute
the deeds.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Kelsey
AGENDA DATE:
November 13, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: X
ATrACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Location Map, '99 Exec summary &
minutes, Pla~
BACKGROUND:
The Colonial Auto Basin is located on un-named tributary to the Woodbrook Channel, west (upstream) of Rte. 29, east
(downstream) of Berkmar Drive, south of the Colonial Auto Center, and north of the Rio-29 Self Storage (refer to attached
map). The drainage area is approximately 50 acres and includes developed and undeveloped properties. The 1995 study of
the Woodbrook Channel attributed its flooding and erosion to the lack of stormwater controls for the runoff generated, from
upstream developed properties, by the more frequent storms (ex. 2-year storm) or high intensity/short duration storms. The
study also identified retro-fitting of the Colonial Auto Basin and the Rio Hill Basin (to provide additional detention) as essential to
controlling the downstream flooding and erosion.
Rio Hill basin was earlier dedicated to the County. Outlet structure and basin modifications were constructed during the
Summer/Fall of 2002. A request to dedicate the Colonial Auto Basinwas presented to the Board of Supervisors on 20 October
1999 and the Engineering Department was authorized to proceed with the dedication. The 20 October 1999 executive
summary and meeting minutes are enclosed for your reference.
DISCUSSION:
The plats and deeds conveying this basin to the County have been prepared, signed by the owners, and are ready for
execution by the County Executive. Since this stormwater basin is essential to the control of downstream flooding, we urge the
Board of Supervisors to complete the dedication. After the dedication is completed, the Engineering Department will design
and construct the modifications necessary for flood control. In addition, the Water Resources Manager will also explore
opportunities to include a water quality retrofit into the basin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the County Executive to execute the deed.
02.177
Tax Map 45, Parcel 105
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-81 l(A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT is made this
by and between BEARWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC, a. Virginia limited liability company,
Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
__ day of October, 2002
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle
County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;"
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for
public use, and to grant and convey to the Grantee an access easement to the Property across
Grantor's lands; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept Grantor's offer of dedication and grant and
conveyance of easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants,
conveys, and dedicates for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL
WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
All that certain parcel or tract of land sitUated in the Rio Magisterial District of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.5022 acres, more or less, and shown and
designated on the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated August 28,
2000, which plat is attached hereto and recorded with this deed of dedication (the
"Plat").
The Property is a portion of Tax Map 45 Parcel 105, which is the same land acquired by the
Grantor by deed from SUSA Partnership LP, dated November 1, 1999, reCorded in the land records
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1870, Page 119.
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney.
FURTHER, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee the perpetual nonexclusive
right and easement of ingress and egress to and from the Property over and across the retained
portion of the Grantor's lands identified as Tax Map 45 Parcel 105 for the purpose of inspecting,
maintaining and operating its facilities on the Property. The fight and easement of ingress and
egress shall be at a reasonable location determined by the Grantor; provided, ingress and egress
shall be over and across a travelway within the easement located, sized and unobstructed at all times
to allow Grantee's personnel, vehicles and other equipment to access the Property in order to
construct, reconstruct, inspect, maintain and operate the Grantee's facilities located thereon; further
provided, that Grantor shall have the sole obhgation to estabhsh, construct and maintain at all times,
at no cost to the Grantee, the easement travelway (whether the easement travelway is relocated or
not) in the condition, and for the purposes, described herein. This easement shall run with the land
of the Grantor and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns
of the Grantor and of the Grantee.
These conveyances are made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting
constructive notice in the chain of title to the properties conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect
the properties, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise
become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication
made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
BEARWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Name:
Title:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY-OF
The foregoing insu'ument was acknowledged before me this __ day of
, , on behalf ofBearwood Properties, LLC, Grantor.
,2002 by
2
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ., 2002
by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
Grantee.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Approved as to form:
County Attorney
3
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-81 l(A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT is made this day of October, 2002
by and between CMA PROPERTIES, INC, a Virginia corporation, Grantor, and the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Grantee.
WITNESSETIt:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle
County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;"
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the Grantee for
public use, and to grant and convey to the Grantee an access easement to the Property across
Grantor's lands; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantor's offer of dedication and grant and
conveyance of easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants,
conveys, and dedicates for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL
WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the Rio Magisterial District of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.2575 acres, more or less, and shown and
designated on the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated August 28,
2000, which plat is attached hereto and recorded with this deed of dedication (the
"Plat").
The Property is a portion of Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B, which is the same land acquired by the
Grantor by deed from William W. and Carol W. Stevenson and Alton P. Martin, dated October 24,
1986, recorded inthe land records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in
Deed Book 904, Page 627.
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney
FURTHER, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee the perpetual nonexclusive
right and easement of ingress and egress to and from the Property over and across the retained
portion of the Grantor's lands identified as Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B for the purpose of inspecting,
maintaining and operating its facilities on the property. The right and easement of ingress and
egress shall be at a reasonable location determined by the Grantor; provided, ingress and egress
shall be over and across a travelway within the easement located, sized and unobstructed at all times
to allow the Grantee's personnel, vehicles and other equipment to access the Property in order to
construct, reconstruct, inspect, maintain and operate the Grantee's facilities located thereon; ~rther
provided, that the Grantor shall have the sole obligation to establish, construct and maintain at all
times, at no cost to the Grantee, the easement travelway (whether the easement travelway is
relocated or not) in the condition, and for the purposes, described herein. This easement shall run
with the land of the Grantor and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns of the Grantor and of the Grantee.
These conveyances are made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting
constructive notice in the chain of title to the properties conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect
the properties, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise
become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication
made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
CMA PROPERTIES, INC. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Name
Title:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, , on behalf of CMA Properties, Inc., Grantor.
,2002 by
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ,2002
by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Xlbemarle, Virginia,
Grantee.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Approved as to form:
County Attorney
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
located along the full frontage of the Crozet Convenience Stero site in a manner consistent with public
street lighting projects of this nature, and which minimizes the spillover of light onto the public road for the
safety of passing motorists. The lighting shall be subject to administrative approval and shall otherwise
meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins. Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: Mr. Martin and Ms, Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Request to dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA
Stormwater Basin to the County.
Mr. Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, said the Colonial Auto Center and Storage
USA sites are required to have stormwater flood and water quality management programs due to the large
area of impervious surfaces on both sites. When the Colonial Auto Center site was developed in 1989,
the owner constructed a large, three-quarter-acre stormwater detention basin 10cat~d"between the two
adjacent properties. Storage USA also utilized the same basin to fulfill stormwater management
requirements when that site was developed. The basin straddles and is located onboth properties in'the
swale of a small stream. While runoff from upstream properties including Berkmar Drive, the mobile home
park and Greenfield Court passes through the Colonial/Storage USA basin, maintenance and repair of the
basin is the responsibility of the two property owners. Section 17-309 of the Water Protection Ordinance
allows stormwater management facilities to be offered to the County for dedication. The County would
assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the basin if the dedication is accepted by the Board.
Maintenance costs are anticipated to be minimal. Nine similar detention basins are currently controlled by
the County.
The Engineering Department identified the Colonial/Storage USA basin as an important link in a
regional stormwater management program during a study of the Woodbroek Channel in 1995. The study
showed the basin was an important measure'to control flooding and erosion in the channel. The basin
can also provide stormwater management for a larger, 50-acre drainage area designated for futura
development. Dedication of this basin to the County would improve our opportunity to effectively
coordinate stormwater management as development occurs. As a regional basin, contributions from
developers can be used to fund improvements tothe basin. By utilizing one large detention basin, the
requirement for smaller ponds located on multiple sites can be minimized.
CMA Properties has offered to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. Initial contacts with
Storage USA indicate it may also be willing to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County~ The basin
has been recently inspected and is in good condition. CMA Properties is requesting a waiver of the
requirement to sign our standard Stormwafer Basin Maintenance Agreement in view of its offer to dedicate
the basin to the County. The Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement requires CMA Properties to
maintain and repair the basin, and is a normal condition of approval for a site plan revision. CMA
Properties has submitted a revised site plan and is anxious for approval so construction may begin before
the onset of inclement weather.
Staff recommends the Board accept dedication of the Colonial Auto/Storage USA stormwater
basin to the County, contingent upon agreement by Storage USA, allow the Engineering & Public Works
Department to waive the requirement for a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement anticipating
dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA, and require CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater
Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if Storage USA does not
offer its portion of the basin for dedication.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County can require developers who feed into the basin to contribute to
its maintenance. Mr. Tucker replied, "Yes."
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to accept the dedication of the
Colonial Auto/Storage USA Stormwafer Basin to the County, contingent upon agreement by Storage USA,
allowing the Engineering & Public Works Department to waive the requirement for a Stormwater Basin
Maintenance Agreement anticipating dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA, and requiring
CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement before ~ssuance ora Certificate of
Occupancy if Storage USA does not offer its portion of the basin for dedication. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 17(A), 1999.
No minutes were read.
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Perkins suggested lights be installed under the Crozet railroad bridge because of the high
volume of foot traffic. Mr Tucker said Engineering staff will look into this. Ms. Thomas added that there
are many handicapped persons who use that area.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the Paramount Theater. One group has already raised
over $2 million to restore the theater, and they will ask the County for $15 'million toward the restoration
project.. He hopes the Board will make the contribution when it is requested. Mr. Bowerman said
members of the group made it clear that the theater will be available for use by all members of the
community.
Ms. Thomas .asked if other Board members plan to attend a meeting on greenways sponsored by
Rivanna Trails at 6:30 p.m. on October 28, 1999. At least three members said they are going to the
meeting. Mr. Tucker said the Clerk did not have to be present.
Ms. Thomas noted that some Board members attended the Piedmont Regional Education
Program Open House dedication. She said it is a unique building perfectly designed to its use.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Laurel Wood Subdivision is a closed sess,on matter. Mr. Davis said it
can be discussed in a closed session in November.
Mr. Martin gave Mr. Tucker a letter he received providing information from the Virginia Department
of Motor Vehicles regarding collecting monies for the Dog and Cat Sterilization Fund.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn 9:05 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., October 28, 1999 Rivanna meeting.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting to the
Rivanna Trails Association meeting at 6:30 p.m. on October 28, 1999. (Note: Only two Board of
Supervisor members were present on October 28, and, therefore, this was not an official meeting of the
Board.)
Initials
Chairman
Colonial Auto Regional Stormwater Basin Map
Rio Hill Bash
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE sUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE.:
Stormwater Ba~in.Dcdic/~tion
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to Dedicate the Coldiiial Auto/Storage USA
StormWater Basin to the County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer
AGENDA DATE:.
~October 20, 1999~
ITEM NUPd'BER:
ACTION: INFORMATION_:
X
..CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from CMA Properties dated October 18, 1999
2. Site and Drainage Area Map
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Colonial Auto Center and Storage USA sites are required to have storrawater flood and water quality management programs due to
;.-the large area of impervious surfaces on both sites. When the Colonial Auto Center site was developed in 1989, the owner constructed
~'a large, ~A acre stormwater detention basin located between the two adjacent properties. Storage USA also utilized the same basin to fulfill
stormwatermanagement requirements when that site was developed. The basin straddles and is located on both properties in the swale
.... of a small stream. While runoff from upstream properties including Berkmar Drive, the mObile home park and Greenfield Court passes
through the Colonial/Storage USA basin, maintenance and repair of the basin is the responsibility of the two property owners. Section
17-309 of the Water Protection Ordinance allows stormwater management facilities to be offered to the County for dedication The County
would assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the basin if the dedication is accepted by the Board. Maintenance costs are
anticipated to be minimal. Nine similar detention basins are currently controlled by the County.
DISCUSSION:
The Engineering Department identified'the Colon/al/Storage USA basin as an knportant link in a regional stormwater management
program during a study of the Woodbrook Channel in 1995. The studY showed the basin was an important measure to control flooding
and erosion in the channel. The basin can also provide stormwater management for a larger, 50 acre drainage area designated for future
development. Dedication of this basin to the County would improve our opportunity tO effectively coordinate stormwater management
as development occurs. As a regional basin, contributions from developers can be used to fund improvements to the bas/ax By utilizing
one large detention basin, the requirement for smaller ponds located on..multiple sites can be minimized.
CMA Properties has offered to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. Initial contacts' with Storage USA indicate it may also be
willing to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. The basin has been recently inspected and is in good condition. CMA Properties
is requesting a waiver of the requirement to sign our standard Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement in view of its offer to dedicate
the basin to theCounty. The Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement requires CMA Properties to maintain and repair the basin, and
~s a normal condition ofapproval for a site plan revision. CMA Properties has submitted a rev/sed site plan and is anxious for approval
so construction may begin before the onset of inclement weather.
~REcoMMENDATION:'
~;Accept dedication o£the Colonial Auto/Storage USA stormwater basin to the Coun contin entu on
. . . . . . . . . ty, g p agreement byStorage USA. Allow
the Engineering & Pubhc Works Department to wmve the reqmrement for a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement anticipating
dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA. Require CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement
before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if Storage USA does not offer its/Yorfion of the basin for dedicatiOn.
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
located along the full frontage of the Crozet Convenience Store site ir! a manner consistent with public
street lighting projects of this nature, and which minimizes the spillover of light onto the public road for the
safety of passing motorists. The lighting shall be subject to administrative approval and shall otherwise
meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr, Marshall,
NAYS: Mr. Martin and Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Request to dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA
Stormwater Basin to the County.
Mr. Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, said the Colonial Auto Center and Storage
USA sites are required to have stormwater flood and water quality management programs due to the large
area of impervious surfaces on both sites, When the Colon!al. A~Jto Center Site was~ d~eloped in 1989,
the owner constructed a large, three-quarter-acre storrnwater detention basin located b~twesn the two
adjacent properties. Storage USA also utilized the same basin to fulfill storrnwater management
requirements when that site was developed. The basin straddles and is located on.both properties irt the
swale of a small stream. While runoff from upstream properties including Berkmar Ddve, the mobile home
park and Greenfield Court passes through the Colonial/Storage USA basin, maintenance and repair of the
basin is the responsibility of the two property owners. Section 17-309 of the Water Protectiqn Ordinance
allows storrnwater management facilities to be offered to the County for dedication. The. County would
assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the basin if the dedication is accepted by the Board.
Maintenance costs are anticipated to be minimal. Nine similar detention basins ara currently controlled by
the County.
The Engineering 'Department identified the Colonial/Storage USA basin as an important link in a
regional stormwater management program during a study of the Woodbrook Channel in 1995. The study
showed the basin was an important measure to control flooding and erosion in the channel. The basin
can also provide sterrnwater management for a larger, 50-acra drainage area designated for future
developmenL Dedication ofthis basin to the County would improveour opportunity to effectively
coordinate stormwater management as development occurs, As a regional basin, contributions from
developers can be used to fund improvements to the basin. By utilizing one large detention basin, the
requirement for smaller ponds located on multiple sites can be minimized,
CMA Properties has offered to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. Initial contacts with
Storage USA indicate it may also be willing to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County, The basin
has been racandy inspected and is in good condition. CMA Properties is raquesting a waiver of the
requirement to sign our standard Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agraement in view of its offer to dedicate
the basin to the County. The Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement requires CMA Prepedies to
maintain and repair the basin, and is a normal condition of approval for~a site plan revision. CMA
Properties has submitted a ravised site plan and is anxious for approval so construction may begin before
the onset of inclement weather.
Staff recommends the Board accept dedication of the Colonial Auto/Storage USA stormwater
basin to the COUnty, contingent upon agreement by Storage USA, allow the Engineering & Public Works
Department to waive the requirement for a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement anticipating
dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA, and raquire CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater
Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate. of O~cupancy if Storage USA does not
offer its portion of the basin for dedication,
Mr, Bowerman asked if the County can raquire developers who feed into the basin to contribute to
its maintenance, Mr. Tucker replied, "Yes."
~, ~ Mr. Bowe~ ~an offered thp m0tiQn, se~pp~ed by Ms..Humphds; to accept the,dedication of the
Col~ni~i.~t~/§tb~ USA~S't~.~,~: i~:{h~'C~i~nty,~n~ ~g~ht up°n a~r~rfien'tby~S~0mge USA,
allowing the Engineering & public Works Department to wa ve the raquirement for a StormWa~r Basin
Maintenance Agreement anticipating dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA, and requiring
CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy if Storage USA does not offer its portion of the basin for dedication. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following racorded vote:
AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphds, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No, 12. Approval of Minutes: March 17(A), 1999.
No minutes were read,
PLAT NORTH i,~
~ Z ~ 0~<~
OZw ~ O~Z
ZO~
ZO~ Z
OZ
m~o~ ~ ~o~ -o~0~
~ ~ w~ ~w~<
~OZ~ ~< ~ wo~mz~
0<05 ~ ~o o~<z
0~-
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-811 (A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT is made this 28t~ day of October, 2002
by and between CMA PROPERTIES, lINC, a Virginia corporation, Grantor, and the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
YVHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle
County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;"
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the Grantee for
public use, and to grant and convey to the Grantee an access easement to the Property across
Grantor's lands; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantor's offer of dedication and grant and
conveyance of easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of thc mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants,
conveys, and dedicates for public use to thc Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL
WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the Rio Magisterial District of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.2575 acres, more or less, and shown and
designated on the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated August 28,
2000, which plat is attached hereto and recorded with this deed of dedication (the
"Plat").
The Property is a portion of Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B, which is the same land acquired by the
Grantor by deed from William W. and Carol W. Stevenson and Alton P. Martin, dated October 24,
1986, recorded in the land records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in
Deed Book 904, Page 627.
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney.
FURTHER, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee the perpetual nonexclusive
right and easement of ingress and egress to and from the Property over and across the retained
portion of the Grantor's lands identified as Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B for the purpose of inspecting,
maintaining and operating its facilitieS on the Property. The right and easement of ingress and
egress shall be at a reasonable location determined by the Grantor; provided, ingress and egress
shall be over and across a travelway within the easement located, sized and unobstructed at all times
to allow the Grantee's personnel, vehicles and other equipment to access the Property in order to
construct, reconstruct, inspect, maintain and operate the Grantee's facilities located thereon; further
provided, that the Grantor shall have the sole obligation to establish, construct and maintain at all
times, at no cost to the Grantee, the easement travelway (whether the easement travelway is
relocated or not) in the condition, and for the purposes, described herein. This easement shall run
with the land of the Grantor and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns of the Grantor and of the Grantee.
These conveyances are made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting
constructive notice in the chain of title to the properties conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect
the properties, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not othei-wise
become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication
made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
CMA PROPERTIES, INC.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Title:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
-~T~/COUNTY OF ¢
.^. tThle~foregoi.~n,g ir~mment was acknowledged before me this ,,~ ~' day of Oc_~., 2002 by
14
· Notary Pubh'~' '
My Commission Expires: Il I 3 o t o.~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002
by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
Grantee.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Approved as to form:
County Attorney
Tax Map 45, Parcel 105
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-811 (A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT is made this 28t~ day of October, 2002
by and between BEARWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company,
Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle
County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;"
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for
public use, and to grant and convey to the Grantee an access easement to the Property across
Grantor's lands; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept Grantor's offer of dedication and grant and
conveyance of easement.
-NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants,
conveys, and dedicates for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL
WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the Rio Magisterial District of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.5022 acres, more or less, and shown and
designated on the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated August 28,
2000, which plat is attached hereto and recorded with this deed of dedication (the
"Plat").
The Property is a portion of Tax Map 45 Parcel 105, which is the same land acquired by the
Grantor by deed from SUSA Partnership LP, dated November 1, 1999, recorded in the land records
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1870, Page 119.
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney.
FURTHER, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee the perpetual nonexclusive
right and easement of ingress and egress to.and from the Property over and across the retained
portion of the Grantor's lands identified as Tax Map45 Parcel 105 for the purpose of inspecting,
maintaining and operating its facilities On the Property. The right and easement of ingress and
egress shall be at a reasonable location determined by the Grantor; provided, ingress and egress
shall be over and across a travelway within the easement located, sized and unobstructed at all times
to allow Grantee's personnel, vehicles and other equipment to access the Property in order to
construct, reconstruct, inspect, maintain and operate the Grantee's facilities located thereon; further
provided, that Grantor shall have the sole obligation to establish, construct and maintain at all times,
at no cost to the Grantee, the easement travelway (whether the easement travelway is relocated or
not) in the condition, and for the purposes, described herein. This easement shall run w/th the land
of the Grantor and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns
of the Grantor and of the Grantee.
These conveyances are made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting
constructive notice in the chain of title to the properties conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect
the properties, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise
become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication
made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
BEARWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
COMMONWEALTH OEVIRGINIA
~/COUNTY OF A \ ~-WXo~[.~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
The foregoing~nstmment was acknowledged before me this 2 ~_ day of (~e_~., , 2002 by
L lo~a{ ~ kdo~. ~ ]°,taa , on behalf of Bearwood Prope,.rties, LLC2 Grar}tor.
Notary ub~
My Commission Expires: I t~3 o/ O ~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002
by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
Grantee.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Approved as to form:
CountY Attorney
FAX (434) 972-4126
October 31,2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-40] 2
Allan & Ada Kindrick
4851 Jacobs Run
Earlysville, VA 22936
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax
Map 20, Parcel 10A and Tax Map 32, Parcels I & 2 (Property of Allan & Ada
Kindrick) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. and Ms. Kindrick:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 20, Parcel 10A has one (1) development dght. Tax Map 32, Parcel 1 has nine
(9) development rights; five of these are associated with the 152 ~ acre parcel
described_in Deed Book 366, page 403 and the remaining are associated with the
14.21-acre parcel described in this same deed. Tax Map 32, Parcel 2'has five (5)
development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows.
Our records indicate Tax Map 20, Parcel 10A contains10.390 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in ar: Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 859, page 536. The most recent plat fOr the property
is recorded in the same book on page 542.
Our records indicate Tax Map 32, Parcel 1 contains 155.520 acres and two dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 618, page 642. The most recent plat for the property
is recorded in Deed Book 859, page 542.
Our records indicate Tax Map 32, Parcel 2 contains 87.260 acres and no dwellings The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 1428, page 662.
This analysis begins with Deed Book 366, page 403. This deed, dated September 12,
1960 conveyed 166.71 acres from Alice B. Crenshaw, C.E. Crenshaw & Maude M.
Crenshaw, J.A. Crenshaw & Nellie G. Crenshaw, J.B. Crenshaw, W.Z. Crenshaw &
I:~DEP'RBuilding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~2002 AC~32-1&2 Kindrick.doc
1t-0!-02AI0:56 RCVD
Kindrick
October 31,2002
Page 2
Frances M. Crenshaw, Minnie C. Herrington, Cassie C. Pritchett & M.M. Pritchett, E.B.
Crenshaw & Dolly D. Crenshaw, and H.J. Crenshaw & Miriam S. Crenshaw to C.E.
Crenshaw. The parcels are described as two adjoining tracts containing in the
aggregate 166.71 acres, more or less, consisting of a tract containing 152 ~ acres
conveyed to B. Z. Crenshaw by a deed dated August 19, 1895 and recorded in Deed
Book 103, page 479 with a plat on page 484 and another tract containing 14.21 acres
conveyed to B. Z. Crenshaw by a deed dated April 11, 1899 and recorded in Deed Book
113, page 419.
Deed Book 423, page 46, dated October 27, 1966 conveyed two tracts of land from
Charles E Crenshaw & Maud M. Crenshaw to the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County. One tract was a portion of the 14.2-acre tract conveyed in Deed
Book 366, page 403 containing 0.29 acres. The other tract was a portion of Tax Map 32,
Parcel 2 containing 7.8 acres. As a result of this transaction, Tax Map 32, Parcel 1
contained an estimated 152.21 acres and Parcel 2 contained an estimated 87.26 acres.
The most recent instrument for Tax Map 32, Parcels 1 and 2 recorded prior to the date
of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed
Book 618, Page 642, dated April 12, 1977. This deed conveyed three tracts of land from
Maud M. Crenshaw, Ada M. Kindrick & Allan B. Kindrick, Louise M. Jurgens & Francis
M. Jurgens, Paris E. Crenshaw & Margaree B. Crenshaw, Benjamin Z. Crenshaw &
Ruth S. Crenshaw and Harry L. Crenshaw & Wilda D. Crenshaw to Allan B. Kindrick &
Ada M. Kindrick. The tracts are described as follows:
FIRST: [Tax Map 32, Parcel 2] All that certain tract of land containing 87.7
acres, being the 95.1/2 acres conveyed by a deed recorded in Deed Book 163,
page 326 less the 7.8 acres conveyed to the Board of Supervisors by Deed Book
423, page 46.
On the basis of this description, Tax Map 32, Parcel 2 is determined to be a parcel
of record as provided in Section 10,3 of the zoning ordinance,
SECOND: [Tax Map 32, Parcel 1] Two adjoining tracts that are the same
property in all respects conveyed by deed recordedin Deed Book 366, page 403
less and except the 0.29 acres conveyed to the Board of Supervisors by deed
recorded in Deed Book 423, page 46.
On the basis of this description, Tax Map 32, Parcel I is determined to be
comprised of two(2) parcels of record as provided in Section 10.3of the zoning
ordinance. One tract contained 152 1/2 acres and the other contained 14.2 acres.
I:\DEP~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~2002 ACE~32-1&2 Kindrick.doc
Kindrick
October 31,2002
Page 3
Deed Book 859, page 536 contains a deed of trust dated November 14, 1985. The
Grantor is Allan B. Kindrick and Ada M Kindrick and the beneficiary is United Virginia
Mortgage Corporation. A plat by Morris Foster, titled "Plat showing ReviSion of
Boundary Between Two Parcels Owned by Allan B. or Ada M. Kindrick Tax Map 32-
Parcel 1" is attached to this deed. The plat created what is now TaX Map. 20, Parcel 10A
consisting of 7.39 acres from the 152 ~ acre Portion of Parcel I and 3.0 acres derived
from the 14.21 acre portion of Parcel 1. The plat carries a note that no development
rights are being transferred.
In spite of the development right note on the plat, at least one development right
was used to create Parcel 10A. Therefore, itis determined that Parcel 10A has
one (1) development right that is derived from the parcel of record Containing
14.21 acres as described aboVe. The portion of Parcel I on Tax Map 32 Containing
152.5 acres less 7.39 acres conveyed to Parcel 10A has five (5) development
rights. The portion of Parcel I on Tax Map 32 containing 14.21 acres less 3.0
acres conveyed to Parcel 10A has foUr (4) development rights. Be aware that the
development rights associated with the parcels of record identified in Deed Book
618, page 642 may be reallocated without an appeal of this determination.
Deed Book 902, page 679, dated September 15, 1986 records an agreement in which
Harrison Gilliam, Trustee for Earlysvi le Forest Land Trust grants a right-of-way for the
use and benefit of the Kindrick's land. This transaction had no effect on the
development rights of these parcels.
Deed Book 1428, page 662, dated August 22, 1994, conveyed 87.7 acres from Allan B.
Kindrick and Ada M. Kindrick to themselves as tenants in common. The property is
described as being the same land in all respects as was conveyed in Deed BoOk 618,
page 642. [Tax Map 32, Parcel 2] This transaction had no effect on the development
rights of these parcels.
Deed Book 1848, page 451, dated March 1, 1999 contains a deed of dedication. It
records an agreement between David Pet-tit, Successor Trustee of the Earlysville Forest
Land Trust and Allan B. Kindrick and Ada M. Kindrick. The agreement prOvides that the
access easement described in Deed Book 902, page 679 shall be dedicated to public
use. This transaction had no effect on the development rights of these parcels.
Deed Book 1854, page 381, dated January 26, 1998 contains a plat by Steven Key
showing a 60 foot ingress-egress easement serving Tax Map 32, Parcels 1 & 2. This
transaction had no effect on the development rights of these parcels.
I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~002 ACE~32-1&2 Kinddck.doc
Kindrick
October 31, 2002
Page 4
Based on this history, each of these three parcels is determined to contain the
development rights identified abOve if all other applicable regulations can be met. These
development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of
lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to
the development right lots, as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres
may be created from the four parcels as they will allow, if all other applicable regulations
can be met. A chart showing the_ d.evelopment potential of these parcels is attached.
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 $120.
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 Washington-Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Ches Goodall, A.C.E. Program Coordinator
Reading Files
Attachments: Kindrick 1980 Parcels of Record
Kindrick 2002
I:\DEP~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel'2.002 AC~32-1&2 Kindrick.doc
Kindrick
October 31,2002
Page 5
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF TAX MAP 32, PARCELS 1 & 2 AND
TAX MAP 20, PARCEL 10A.
PARCEL ACREAGE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION TOTAL
RIGHT LOTS RIGHT LOTS POTENTIAL
2 ACRE MIN. 21 ACRE MIN. PARCELS
32/1 155.52
9* 155-18/21= 6 15
32/2 87.7 5 87.7-10/21= 3 8
20/10A 10.39 1 0 . 1
Total 253.61 15 9 24
* Each of the 5 development right lots must contain at least two acres from the 145.11
acre portion of Parcel 1 and each of the 4 development right lots must contain at least 2
acres from the 11.48-a;cre portion of Parcel 1. These areas are shown on the
attachment labeled "Kindrick 2002."
I:\DEPT~uilding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~2002 ACE~32-1&2 Kindrick.doc
45
6
8~.7
IA
IZC '-'
9g
":!"'.,-.fl,""'
98
45
II
2o02..
I0
IA
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (4341 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-4012
October 31, 2002
J.T. Henley, Jr.
1917 White Hall Road
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax
Map 6, Parcels 15 & 17 (Property of Henley Forest Inc.) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Henley:
The County Attorney and have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map6, Parcel 15 is a parcel of record with five (5) development rights. Tax Map 6,
Parcel 17 is comprised of three separate parcels of record. Each of these three parcels
has five (5) development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as
follows.
Our records indicate Tax Map 6, Parcel 15 contains 296.37 acres and one dwelling. The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 1114, page 507. The most recent plat for the property is
recorded in the same book on page 511.
Our records indicate Tax Map 6, Parcel 17 contains 186.63 acres and no dwellings. The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 1114, page 507. The most recent plat for the property is
recorded in the same book on page 511.
Deed Book 611, page 365, dated December 28, 1976 conveyed five parcels from
Joseph T. Henley, Jr. & Joan H. Henley as individual Grantors and Joan H. Henley as
TruStee of Blue Ridge Mountains Land Trust to Henley Forest Inc. Parcel Two 'and
Parcel Five are the subjects of this determination and are described in the deed as
follows:
PARCEL TWO: [Tax Map 6, Parcel 17] All those certain tracts or parcelS of land
together with all improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging
situate in the White Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
l:\DEPT',Buitding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~002 ACE~6-15 & 17 Henley Forest. doc
11-01-02~7.0:56 RCVD
J.T. Henley, Jr.
October 31,2002
Page 2
Blackwell's Hollow, containing 172 acres, being the same property described in
the following deeds to Burton (or Britley) McAllister of record in said Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 120, at page 440, Deed Book134, at page 279 and Deed
Book 137, at page 48, less about 20 acres that was conveyed off by a deed of
record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 167, at page 81, BEING the same
property in all respects as was conveyed to Joseph.T. Henley, Jr. and Joan H.
Henley by deed of Jack N. Kegley and D. B. Marshall, Special Commissioners,
by deed dated July 17, 1964, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 339,
at page 468.
· Deed BOok 120, page 440, dated March 8, 1901 describes 97 1,,~ acres
· Deed Book 134, page 279, dated November 21, 1906 describes 71.25 acres.
· Deed Book 137, page 48, dated May 25, 1907 describes 24 Y2 acres.
· Deed Book 167, page 81, dated June 5, 1917 describes 20.1 acres that was
divided from the 97 ~ acres referenced above.
Deed Book 399, page 468, dated July 17, 1964 conveyed 172 acres
described as being the same land as was conveyed by the four above
referenced deeds.
On the basis of the description in Deed Book 611, page 365 and a review of the
prior deeds referenced above it is determined that the 172 acre portion of Parcel
17 is comprised of three separate parcels of record as provided in Section 10.3 of
the zoning ordinance. The approximate locations of these parcels are indicated on the
attached sketch.
PARCEL FIVE: [Tax Map 6, Parcel 15] All that certain tract or parcel of land,
with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, containing 310
acres, more or less, situate on the Blue Ridge Mountains in the White Hall
Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, about 3 miles east of Brown's
Gap ..... BEING the same land in all respects as was conveyed to Joan H. Henley
as Trustee of Blue Ridge Mountains Land Trust .... By deed dated October 11,
1974 and recorded in Deed Book 563, at page 149.
Deed Book 636, page 541, dated November 17, 1977 conveyed a permanent access
easement from State Route 810 to the properties of Henley Forest. This transaction had
no effect on the development rights associated with the parcels.
I:~Z)EP'l'~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~2002 ACE't6-15 & 17 Henley Forest. doc
J.T. Henley, Jr.
October 31,2002
Page 3
The most recent instrument for Parcel 15 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 665, page
94. This is a certificate of plat that was recorded on February 14, 1979. The plat by
William S. Roudabush is titled "Partial Survey of Tax Map Parcel 6 - 15." On the basis
of this plat, Tax Map 6, Parcel 15 is determined to be a parcel of record as
provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance.
Deed Book 1114, page 507, dated ~July 17, 1990, is a deed of exchange between
Henley Forest, Inc. and Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom. The plat recorded with
the deed by ROudabush, Gale and Assoc., dated May 24, ,1990 and approved on June
9, 1990 has a note stating that the rights of division are not affected by this plat. The
resulting acreage of Parcel 15 is 296.37 acres. The resulting acreage of Parcel 17 is
186.63 acres. No development rights were conveyed with the tracts that were
exchanged on this plat. County records indicate there have been no off-conveyances
since this transaction.
Based on this history, each of these four parcels is determined to contain five (5)
development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development
rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing
less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the
development right lots, as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres may
be created from the four parcels as they will allow, if all other applicabl~ regulations can
be met. A chart showing the development potential of these parcels is enclosed.
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 $120.
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,
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department,
Ella Washington-Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Ches Goodall, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program Coordinator
h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~2002 AC~6-15 & 17 Henley Forest. doc
J.T. Henley, Jr.
October 31,2002
Page 4
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF PARCELS '15 AND '17 ON TAX MAP 6
PARCEL ACREAGE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION TOTAL
RIGHT LOTS RIGHT LOTS POTENTIAL
2 ACRE MIN. 21 ACRE MIN.' PARCELS
15 296.37 5 13 18
17 (#1) 84.88 (71.25 + 13.63) 5* 3 8
17(#2) 24.5 , -' 5 0 5
17 (#3) 77.5 5 3 ' 8
ALL 20 19 39
PARCELS
* Each development right lot must contain at least two acres from the 71.25 acre portion
of Parcel 17 (#1)
I:\DEPT\Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel~2002 AC~6-15 & 17 Henley Forest. doc
/
/
/
g O~f"IILIS'~N · 'rd)L' I~& lb (,,,
Attachment A
We believe the conditions of preliminary site plan approval imposed by the Planning
Commission are excessive and unnecessary. Although the County has not submitted
formal conditions, the following is my understanding of the conditions and our response.
Condition 1 - Provide a minimum of 40 to 50 trees to provide supplemental screening
between proposed site and the G-reenway trail and Rivanna River.
we worked directly with Planning and Greenway staff to create a plan that provides
adequate screening from the Entrance Corridor and the proposed Greenway. The
Planning Commission conditions more than double the landscaping improvements
approved by staff and the ARB. The action clearly does not account for the existing
heavily vegetative buffer that will remain undisturbed on the critical slopes between the
development area and the Greenway, This buffer, which consists of numerous varieties
of deciduous and coniferous trees that' are too numerous to count, fully screens the
development area and the adjacent shopping center from the Greenway-and river. In fact,
the buffer, in it's current state, provides more screening than is found on any other
commercial properties fronting the Greenway or the Rivanna Trail in Charlottesville.
Adding as many as 40 to 50 trees in this buffer area will require cutting down existing
trees just to plant new trees.
We request that the Board uphold the staff's approved plan of providing about 20 trees as
required to screen certain views that may open up after leaf fall.
Condition 2 - Provide a method other than rip-rap channels to convey stormwater into the
proposed biofiker.
The Planning Commission objected to the aesthetic quality ora rip rap channel and
requested a more appealing alternative.
We take exception to this condition for the following two reasons:
1. The size and location of the proposed channels are such that they cannot be seen
without practically standing in therr~ One channel is behind the dumpster fence and
the other in the vehicle storage area. Both channels are below the crest of the slope
facing the Greenway and will not be in line of view, even if no vegetative buffer was
in existed. In addition, the proposed Greenway will cross a rip-rap bank along the
river that is approximately 100 ft. long by 50 ft. wide, covered with rip-rap that is 2 to
three feet in size.
Stormwater conveyance systems are to be shown conceptually on a preliminary site
Plan (Section 32.5.6.k), thus the design of the rip-rap channel (depth, width, size of
stone) is not provided on the preliminary site plan to make a judgement on aesthetics.
We request that the Board uphold the staff's approved preliminary site with staff's
conditions for final site plan approval.
'i 0-1'7-02 A08: 08 RCVD ~.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012
September 19, 2002
Clark Gathright
Daggett & Grigg Architects
1001 E. Market St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-2002-022 Pavillio.n at Riverbend Vehicle Rental & Maintenance Facility Preliminary Site
Plan
Dear Mr. Gathright:
The Planning Commission, at its September, 10 2002 meeting granted approval.to the above-referenced site
plan.
The approval of the preliminary site plan is valid for (1) one year in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section
32.4.3.1. Therefore, the preliminary approval shall expire September 10, 2003. If the preliminary site plan
approval expires, a new application must be filed and processed.
Please address all of the requirements and conditions listed below and submit eight (8) tentative plan copies to
the Department of Planning and Community Development. This letter must be submitted with the tentative
plans, as a checklist, to document that you have addressed all requirements or conditions, or the tentative plan
will be denied. A submission and review schedule is attached for your information.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the BMP Stormwater Management Plan, with the associated
applications and fees, may also be submitted with the eight (8) tentative Plans. Failure to do so will result in a
separate application to be filed with the En~neering Department at a later date.
After the initial tentative plan submittal, each department/agency will contact you to discuss any remaining
conditions. After all aforementioned department/agencies have granted a tentative approval, you may submit
the final mylars (2 sets), one blueprint copy, final site plan application, final site plan fee, and a copy of all
written tentative approvals to the Department of Planning and Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on any
Monday. Assuming that the final site plan mylars reflect all tentative approvals, signing of the plans will occur
within one week.
The final site plan will be subject to all final lite plan requirements (Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6), in
addition to the following conditions.
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
Ao
Planning Department approval to include:
A landscape plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the
special use permit.
An alternative solution shall be developed for the riprap.
A minimum of 40 to 50 native trees at least 6 to 8 feet in height at-planting to be provided for the screening
as determined by the applicant and the Greenways Coordinator. The 40 to 50 trees will nm along the edge
of the pavement and the new property line to protect the greenway experience from the parking lot and the
vehicles that will be parked there.
B. Engineering Department approval to include:
An erosion control plan, narrative and computations.
A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management.
A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and
detention routing for the 2yr and 10yr storms.
A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
Drainage computations.
Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5 feet in height.
C. Albemarle County Building' Codes and Zoning Services approval to include:
Reference the special use permit numbers on the site plan and note all conditions of the SP's on the site plan.
D. Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
Provide standard water and sewer general plan notes on the cover sheet.
Provide plumbing fixture information for sizing the water meter.
Provide a note stating that a backflow prevention device is'required on the domestic water service.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
SincTly,
~(ac~irat'"Am ar~n~ e, Planner
Attachments:
Tentative Approval Process Timeline
Procedure for Final Site Plan Review
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 10, 2002
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 10, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241,401 Mclntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Vice-Chairman; Rodney
Thomas; Bill Edgerton; Pete Craddock and William Finley. Absent from the meeting were Tracey
Hopper and Jared Loewenstein, Chairman.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development;
Dan Mahon, County Greenway Planner; and Susan Thomas, Senior Planner.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Rieley invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Planning Commission Mi nutes- July 30, 2002.
Mr. Edgerton moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - September 4, 2002.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that since the action memo has not been received for September 4th, he
would update the Commission at next week's meeting.
Mr. Thomas stated that there has been a request to move the order of the two items around.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone had objections to changing the order of the agenda. Since there was
no objections, Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission would take up New Business, SDP-02-22,
Pavillion at Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan.
Old Business:
SDP 02-022: Pavillion At Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan The applicant is requesting
approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a 2,770 sq. ft. building and parking for the
purposes of operating a vehicle rental and maintenance facility (i.e. U-Haut) within the Route 250
Entrance Corridor. Two special use permits, (one for the allowance of motor vehicle sales and
rental in the urban area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and the other for the
allowance of outdoor storage and display within an Entrance Corridor), were recently approved by
the Board of Supervisors. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17A, contains 2.478
acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Newhouse Drive just off of Route 250
by the Rivanna River. The property is zoned C-1, Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Development Area.
(Yadira Amarante)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SDP-02-22 with conditions. The
Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative
final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be
signed until the following conditions have been met:
1. A landscape plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of theZoning Ordinance.
2. Provide standard water and sewer general plan notes on the cover sheet.
3. Provide plumbing fixture information for sizing the water meter.
4. Provide a note stating that a backfiow prevention device is required on the domestic water
service.
5. Reference the SP numbers on the site plan and note all conditions of the SP's on the site
plan.
6. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations.
7. A corn pleted application and' fee for erosion control and stormwater management.
8. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water
quality, and detention routing for the 2yr and 10yr storms.
9. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
10. Drainage computations.
11. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5
feet in height.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ms. Amarante was absent and he would fill in for her. He stated that as
a reminder of last week's meeting, there was the primary issue of the area of landscaping that
was being shown and how the conditions of the site plan would provide for that and meet the
intent of the special use permit approval. He noted that staff has provided for the Commission
plans that show the area of landscaping. These were merely as required by the Architectural
Review Board. He pointed out that Dan Mahon, who works directly with our greenway system,
'has been working with the applicant on supplemental landscaping for screening from the
greenway and the dyer. He noted that Mr. Mahon was present to answer questions and help the
Commission in making their decision.
Mr. Rietey asked Mr. Mahon to come forward to address the Commission. He suggested that he
talk about the plantings in addition to those requested by the Architectural Review Board.
Dan Mahon, County Greenways Planner, stated that they have been looking at this application
very closely. He stated that when this plan was submitted, he got involved looking at it very
carefully from the very beginning considering the use that was proposed as well as understanding
the generous dedication of the ground that the applicant and owner were giving the County. He
noted that it made a significant connection to Dalton Towe Park as well as continuing the park
system along the river. He noted that this was probably the most urban and one of the most
visible sections of the greenway and the river park system that they will be developing.
Therefore, they have looked at it very carefully. On the early plans that he saw, they were
concerned with the visual impact of the parked vehicles, the impact of the clearing and how their
supporting structures would appear in the greenway, and the Architectural Review Board's
concerns dealing with the view from the bridge. After he had hiked the property with the
applicant's consultant, it became very clear that it was hard to make a determination or have a
clear understanding of what the impact was going to be until the leaves drop. Then, they need to
get a vehicle or object to simulate the parking along that edge. He noted that there is gong to be
an im pact and you will be able to see. He felt it can be mitigated fairly we!l, but they are not sure
how much landscaping will be required. There is some existing vegetation, but a lot is shrubby
materials and as they start managing this area as a park they might want to replace some of the
vegetation. He noted that a lot of the area was off site of the parcel that they were looking' at. He
stated 'that they had made an agreement that when the leaves do drop we would go back to the
site and come up with a Clear solution of p!ant location and plan material that would work. That
note that is on the plan indicates that. He noted that there were some trees and screening
material recommended that are shown on the plan. He noted that it was put on the plans with the
-understanding that was probably the area where you see the grouping or cluster of Leyland
Cyprus and Uniserperk Langianna. He stated that there would be a real open view from the
greenway into the site. He suggested that they might get better screening if the screening is in
the foreground closer to the trail. As the CoUnty Parks and Recreation Department develops the
park system, they will work on mitigating the views and doing p!antingl This would compliment
the applicant's efforts to ensure it looks good from the greenway.
Mr. Rieley stated that since this was before the Commission last week, the public headng does
net have to be opened tonight. He asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Clark Gathright, of Dagget and Grigg Architect, stated that he visited the site yesterday and took
a few pictures. He passed out photographs for the Planning Commission to review. After last
week's meeting he looked 'at making an attempt to quantify, some of the existing vegetation. He
noted that there were so many types of trees so close together on the site that it was hard to
quantify it other than by showing the tree line. There are Cedars, Maples, Paradise trees,
Mamosias, BlaCk Locust, Sycamores and a lot of Other varieties. He noted that was all that he
wanted to provide this evening.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone has any questions for Mr. Gathright. He asked for clarification, if the
heavy line was the property line and the dividing line after the dedication for the greenway. He
asked if that dedication has already occurred.
Ms. Amarante stated that staff was still wOrking with the applicant on that conveyance, but it
should occur any day now.
Mr. Rieley stated that he raised concern about the absence of the landscape plan which was a
concern of the Commission from the beginning. He stated that he was happy to have the details
of that worked out with staff as Mr. Mahon has outlined, however he was still concerned about
what is on the plan. There are nine trees of any significance along the top slope backed up with
Leyland Cyprus. He strongly urged that they not use the Leyland Cyrus because it was a
bi-generic hybrid that was dying all over the Country with a fatal disease. He suggested that in
this type of situation they would be much better off using native plants as the backdrop. He
stated that the Virginia Cedar is an excellent source because it was on that south facing slope
that would get a lot of heat from that the parking lot. He stated that one of the pictures shows the
winter view and shows how easily you can see the end of the Shell Station in the winter time and
those trees would do very little in the way of screening. He suggested that they establish
between the zone between the pavement and the new property line a minimum number of trees,
preferably native trees. He stated that a Lance Holly would be a wonderful underscoring .tree
that would do well. He suggested that they leave this under Mr. Mahon's direction, but establish
a higher benchmark. He asked if that sounds reasonable. He stated that he was looking to see
what it would take to continue the line of red Cedars one deep. He felt that would be at least 20
trees. He suggested that they come down the slope a little and plant in the underscore area
another 20 trees.
Mr. Thomas suggested staggering the trees.
Mr. Rieley stated that would not matter on the side with the automobiles, but on the side facing
the greenway it should be a naturalistic of a species that would blend into the existing setting.
Mr. Craddock asked if he was talking about the gap in there.
Mr. Rieley stated that the gap would be the beginning point and then plant on that steep slope.
Mr. Mahon stated that due to the fact that there is some existing canopy that is significant and will
remain, the light will be different along there. He agreed that native species would work real well.
He stated that the other thing that he would like to see happen is when you come around the
comer instead of enforcing the boundary of that property with a formal stagger, that it would be an
informal naturalizing, very integrating type of planting. He noted that there was not just one
species, but that they would work very carefully with the applicant on the choices for that location.
Mr. Rieley recommended a condition that would establish a minimum number of trees in the
areas between the edge of pavement and the new property line of at least 40 to 50 specific
locations and species to be worked out with Mr. Mahon.
Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Mahon was saying that they would have to remove some of the existing
trees to put those 20 trees in there.
Mr: Rieley stated that he did not think so. He stated that he thought Mr. Mahon was saying that
there were some undesirable species that they would probably want to be removed, and as a part
of that the replanting would be done with something that would provide better long-term
screening. He stated that there were 14 trees shown there now, and he would suggest 40 to 50
trees to be the minimum amount. He pointed out that Mr. Mahon was not limited to that.
Mr. Mahon stated that because the greenway does not have a design standard for the size of the
trees that will be recommended, will there be a recommendation for the size of the trees at
planting.
Mr. Rieley recommended that they have trees of at least 6 to 8 feet in height to begin with.
Mr. Edgerton stated that was consistent with what the plan suggests for the Cedars. He moved
that they add that as a condition that 40 to 50 native trees be the screen as determined by the
applicant and the Greenways Coordinator. The 40 to 50 trees will run along the edge of the
pavement to protect the greenway experience from the parking lot and the vehicles that will be
parked there. He stated that last week there was a lot of discussion about the riprap and a
suggestion added that an alternative solution be developed. He added to the motion that an
alternative solution be developed for the riprap.
Mr. Kampter stated that his notes suggested that condition one be added at the end of the
conditions of the special use permit. He noted that was not formally added last week.
Mr. Rieley asked if they wanted to add that to the motion.
Mr. Edgerton accepted the amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Edgerton's motion indicated that the plantings would be along the
edge of the pavement, but he knew in their discussion they talked about having them between tl3e
edge of pavement and the new property line which gave a little more flexibility with the location.
He stated that they suggested that it be a minimum of 6 to 8 feet.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was comfortable with that amendment to the motion.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion as modified, which carried unanimously (6:0).
Mr. Edgerton asked if they would see this again.
Mr. Rieley stated that this was the preliminary site plan. He stated that they could call the final
site plan back on the request of any Commissioner.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission would have to do that now.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that by doing that there will be a full final site plan fee similar to the
preliminary plan fee. Basically, the applicant would have to pay the fee again and the adjacent
owners notified. He stated that it would be the same process as the preliminary plan under our
ordinance. He stated that if they call it back in full, then that is what happens. He noted as an
alternative, they could simply provide the result of the plan or any additional information to the
Commission on the consent agenda. He stated that they do need to take that action tonight.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone feels strongly about that.
Mr. Edgerton asked if it was on the consent agenda if the Commission could we call it up for
review again.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that they would not be able to call it up again. It would only be for
informational purposes. He noted that the Commission had put the responsibility on the applicant
and the Greenway Planner to come up with the solution. He noted, that was the way the
ordinance works.
Mr. Thomas stated that he felt comfortable with this.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that when ~they get a copy of the plan, the Commission would not have an
action that they could take except to review it for informational purposes.
Mr. Rieley asked to make one clarification in the motion, and then he would be comfortable in
turning this loose into the normal course of events. He stated that was that he understood the
motion to be a minimal of 40 to 50 trees and not in the range of between 40 and 50 trees.
STAFF PERSON:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION:
YADIRA AMARANTE
9/3/02
'~" SDP 02-022: PAVII.I,ION AT RIVERBEND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary site plan to
construct a 2,770 sq. ft. building and parking for the purposes of operating a-vehicle rental and
maintenance facility (i,e. U-Haul) within the Route 250 Entrance Corridor. Two special use permits,
(one for the allowance of motor vehicle sales and rental in the urban area as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan, and the other for the allowance of outdoor storage and display within an Entrance
Corridor), were recently approved by the Board of Supervisors, (Attachment E).
The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 17A, contains 2.478 acres, and is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District on Newhouse Drive just off of Route 250 by the Rivanna River. The property is
zoned C-1, Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in
Neighborhood 3 of the Development Area.
CHARACTER OF AREA: Parcel 17A is currently a vacant lot adjacent to the Rivanna River and the
Pantops Shopping Center. Most of the areas to the west of the site are wooded along the Rivanna River,
whereas the area directly east of the site is the rear of Pantops Shopping Center.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: Development activity on Parcel 17A has largely been
associated with the Riverbend Garden Apartments. These rental apartments were allowed in the C-1
district under a special use permit (SP-1999-44), which was approved with conditions. On January 31,
2001, the final site plan (SDP-2000-97) for the apartments was approved. A recent subdivision (SUB-
2002-57) has been approved in April of this year that separates the property with the apartments from the
2.478 acre subject to this request. This subdivision also created a parcel which will be dedicated to the
County for Greenway use and created a second out-parcel.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On July 2, 2002 the Planning Commission
recommended denial of the two special use permits and denied the preliminary site plan because the
proposed use on the site plan was inconsistent with the uses that required the special use permits. Due to
an error in the report, staff requested action from the Commission on the preliminary site plan although
it was eligible for administrative approval.
On August 14, 2002 the Board of Supervisors approved the two special use permits and requested that
the Planning Commission reconsider the site plan request.
STAFF COMMENT: The Site Review Committee has reviewed this request for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and the recently approved Special Use Permits, and recommends conditional
approval. The ARB has reviewed the site plan against Entrance Corridor development guidelines and has
~anted a Certificate of Appropriateness, (Attachment D).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SDP-02-22 with conditions. The
Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative final
approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until
the following conditions have been met:
9
1. A landscape plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. t9-4~ 4~e'tr'et~ofl.g
2. Provide standard water and sewer general plan notes on the cover sheet. ~ ~ 6t~'/~/l~.-~..
3. Provide plumbing fixture information for sizing the water meter.
4. Provide a note stating that a backflow prevention device is required on the domestic water service.
5. Reference the SP numbers on the site plan and note all conditions of the SP's on the site plan.
6. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations.
7. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management.
8. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality,
and detention routing for the 2yrand 10yr storms.
9. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
10. Drainage computations.
11. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5 feet in
height.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Vicinity Map
B - Tax Map
C - Preliminary Site Plan
D- ARB Action Letter dated 8/1/02
E - BOS Action Letter dated 8/20/02
2
20 FF. DRAINAGE EASE
EXISTING TRE~LINE,
FIBER OPTIC LINE~
20' SANITARY EASEMENT-~
N33'zS'
243.00'-
\
LATERAL \
\
\
~TAP ,R METER
,~j ¢¢/ F,C. ASEMENT
/
VICINITY MAP & i
OVERALL PARCEL
1" = 100' 5 FT. C.I.
PROPOSED
O~OPMENT:
LOCA~ON:
OWNER &
D~OPER:
PRE}'ARES BY:
,~ DATA:
ZONING:
i~NCHk~RK:
TOPOGRI~HY:
EXISTING
CONDITIONS:
PROPOSED
LAND USE:
SP-02-IO: MOTOR RVEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL
SP-02-11:OUTDO0 STDI~E AND DISPI.AY
~IS SITE PU~__ ~_U~i_CO~PLy~ ~ THE CONDmONS
OUILINED IN 5F-uz- U AND ~P-02-1 I,
RNERBEND AS~I'ES, LLC.
PNIUP GOODPAS~URE
909 E. MAIN'ST.. SUITE 1200
RICHMOND, VA 23219
DAGGET~ & ORI~ ARCltlTE~
1001 E. MARKET ST.
CHARLOT~ V1RGINIA ~2
T~ ~ 78 P~ 17A
P~T: 9.~1207 P~E 4~ '
U.S.C. & G. DI~ ~ F-~8-19~
ON S. W. ~RN~
R~ R~R. ~. ~.]
C~LO~
~. ~R~ HU~ & ~C~
C~O~
(PREU~I~RY PI_AT SUD~L-~ FO~-
CON~ON O~RIS
P~ D~OP~
0 ~.F.
OPEN: 2.4~
~ S~ ~ 2.478
WATER:
REFUSE:
PERIMETER
SETI~KS:
BUILOINOS: 2.770 S.F. 2.57~.)UAXiMUU'
SIDEWALKS: 0 S.F. 4.60 $.F. 460 S.F. 0.43~'IMP. AREA:
PA~J,4EHT: 1,951 S,F, 19,228 S.F. 21,177 S,F. t9.61~)0.56 AC.
OPEN: !.92 ~c. 77.3g~.
TOTAL SITE
"'OTA~ SITE ,~RE;I ~$r'.'9 ~; ?RE/_~JI~A~? ';i.M ~UB~I~E/J ~C~ APPRG;qL½
EMPLOYEES: * MAX.
BUll nlN~
HEIGHT: 22'
PARKING: 8 REQUIRED ('PER ^UTOMO~ILE SEEMCE STATION REQUIREMENTS)
4 SPACES (I SPACE PER EBPLOYEE)
¢ SPACES (2 SP^¢ES PER SE:RW:E STALL)
34 SPAC~ (! SP,'~CE P~R HIGHEST EXPECTED
NUMBER OF' RENTAL VEHICLES)
PROVIDED: 14. SPACES II~CLUDE~ 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACr)
RENTALR/EHIC~RA~E AREA: 10,600 S.F.
THE ~ IS NOT MTHIN 'DIE AIRPORT II/PACT AREA
THE SITE IS NOT Wfl'NIN A RESERVOIR W~TER~HED.
THE S~TE IS W~H~N A DEVELOPMENT ARE, L
A PORTION OF THE PARCEL UES WITHIN ]lie 100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN.
,,'HE PROPOSED DEVE'LOPI, ENT AREA IS B~OND ~E ~00 YR. FLOOD P~N.
S~=,MCE LATEEN. FROM RHOPPIN(~ CENTER
EXIS'flt~M2 - IN SHOPPING CEN]TJ{
SANITARY SEWER ON
SCREENED DUMPST~.
EAS~ENTS:
L~HTING:
ilo OUTOOOR UGtTflNO IS .~..A~N~ FOR THIS F'RO~ECT.
NO PROPO~O U~HI1NO R1LL B~ [QUI~P~ WITH A LUNffWdRE THAT
~IT5 3,0O0 OR t~OqE ~X~bU~t I~Ul, lEN5.
DAGCE T
& GRICG
ARCHITFCTS
1OO1 E. MARK~'T ST.
CHARLO~ESVILLE. VA
VOICE: 804/971-8848
FAX: 804/296-3040
r
ATTACHMENT B
I--
m
0
C
--I
;/
0
c
z
-<
GAPS
. :xA '~ 24"
TCH NTO POSTS
6x6 ;~OST
tEEN DET.-~L
:E TO PREVENT',,
/',~//~//,$/'/,~,:/~/~ DUMP TRUCY REMOVE SOIL IN SOFT AR~'.AS THAT PUMP
x"z/\~(x\ \'/'' ' /' AND qEPLACE NITH PROPERLY COMPACTED FILL
~ IDILVV ALK & PAVEMENT DETAII,
5CAIIC' NONE
iT ON CRITICAL '\
GRADING W!LL '\
!ITiCAL SLOP5
~ ,~ -- SHELL STATION
2.770 S.F.
$£RVICE
BUIL01NG
PF: 353.50
\
/'-"SANITARY LATERAL CONNECTION
~ ,
. ,.'"x\
-\.
OF NEW
BROKEN WHffE LINE-~ii
, :
;"~.-. t ''"
· TERMINATE
AT [XI~INO CURB
\ DRIv~
HARDEES
~Rs' ~ ~,.,, ua ~owE~-,x
TERMINATE cuRar
INTO EXISTING CURB--'~
PAJNTED STRIPING-
DAGGETF
& GRIGG
ARCHITECTS
~ool ¢. ~A~K=-'T ST,
CHARLOTTESV~LL£, VA
VOICE: 80¢/971-8848
FAX: 804/296-.3040
~Z
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢[ntire Road, Room 218
Charlot;esville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ATTACHMENT D
August 1, 2002
Clark Gathright
Daggett & Grigg Architects
1001 East Market Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ARB-2002-53 Vehicle Rental & Maintenance Facility
Dear Mr. Gathright:
As per our review of the revised plans dated August 1, 2002 for the above referenced
project, all of the outstanding conditions of ARB approval as outlined in our letters dated
June 19, 2002 and July 2, 2002 have been addressed. You may consider this letter your
Certificate of Appropriateness.
This approval is predicated oh the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and
exhibited for review~ will be used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant
has a~eed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials,
samples, and other submittal items presented. Any changes in the approved design or
materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved bv
the Architectural Review Board.
'~n~t-L. Miller
L~andscape Planner
c. Yadira Amarante
File
14
COUNTY OF :ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mc[ntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(43-)) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 ~ 4012
August20,2002
ATTACHMENT E
James Morris
P O Box 8043
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE:
SP.2002-010 Riverbend; SP.2002-011 Riverbend and -~"~_" '~"" ""~- ........... ~-'--~=.->.----~.t~
Tax Map 78, Parcel 17A
Dear Mr. Morals:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on August 14, 2002, took the fo. llowing actions regarding
the above:noted petitions:
SP-2002-10 and SP-2002-11 - Approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be stored/displayed only in the areas indicated on the approved site plan;
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by the Architectural Review
Board, including landscape and lighting site plans; and
4. Provide vegetative screening in the area north and west of the biofilter, west of the dumpster, and west of the
parking area to help screen the view from the road, river and greenway. An informal grouping of native
screening trees and shrubs is appropriate.
SDP.2002-022 Pavillion at Riverbend- Requested the Planning Commission to reconsider this request.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be commenced
within twenty-four (24) months after the issuance of such permit; the same shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For. purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be
construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within
two (2) years from the date of the issuance.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning
Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please
call Jan Spdnkle at 296-5832.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
V. Wayne C/limber[],-'""-
Director of Plannin~evelopment
VWC/]cf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Steve AIIshouse
Jack Kelsey
Matt Gdmes, VDOT
TexWeaver
15
Regular Item:
~~~-Riverbend"i~,eiimi~i~l~ - The applicant is requesting
approval of a prelin~'~-ry sit'plan tb-~-c-~n-s'[F~-~- 2~b'-~l. ff. building and parking for the
purposes of operating a vehicle rental and maintenance facility (i.e. U-Haul) within the Route 250
Entrance Corridor. Two special use permits, (one for the allowance of motor vehicle sales and
rental in the urban area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and the other for the
allowance of outdoor storage and display within an Entrance Corridor), were recently approved by
the Board of Supervisors. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 17A, contains 2.478
acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Newhouse Drive'just off of Route 250
by the Rivanna River. The property is zoned C-1, Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Development Area.
(Yadira Amarante)
Regular Item:
SDP 02-022: Pavillion At Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan, - The applicant is requesting
approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a 2,770 sq. ft. building and parking for the
purposes of operating a vehicle rental and maintenance facility (i.e. U-Haul) within the Route 250
Entrance Corridor. Two special use permits, (one for the allowance of motor vehicle sales and
renta in the urban area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and the other for the
allowance of outdoor storage and display within an Entrance Corridor), were recently approved by
the Board of Supervisors. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 17A, contains 2.478
acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Newhouse Drive just off of Route 250
by the Rivanna River. The property is zoned C-1, Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Development Area.
(YadiraAmarante)
Mr. Cilimberg in Yadira Amarante absence presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of
the staff report.) He noted that Condition 4 was modified somewhat by the Board to assure
screening from Route 250, the river and the greenway. On July 2nd the Planning Commission
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 '. Page 13
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
16
recOmrr[ended denial of the special use permits and denied the preliminary site plan because the
proposed use on the site plan was inconsistent with uses that required the special use permit.
On August 14t~ the Board approved the two special use permits and requested that the Planning
Commission reconsider the site plan request. The Site Review Committee has reviewed this
request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the recently approved special use permits
and recommends conditional approval. The ARB has reviewed the site based on Entrance
Corridor Development Guidelines and has granted a Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff has
recommended approval of the site plan with the eleven conditions. He stated that he would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant has a statement.
Clark Gathright, representative with Daggett and Grigg- Architects/Planners, stated'that the
applicant was looking for approval on the site plan. He noted that as Mr. Ciiimberg stated, they
have worked with staff and received all approvals including with the Greenway Planner inthe
Parks Department to try to screen this property from the greenway and the river. He stated that
they have received the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board. He
noted that as a result they feel that the project is well screened from the Entrance Corridor. He
stated that the Board of Supervisors felt that the proposed use was appropriate for the area given
the automobile uses along that area of Pantops. He noted that in addition the property faces the
back Side of the Pantops Shopping Center, loading docks and the convenience store, and the
proximity to the Route 250 area does not make it conducive to outdoor river oriented activities.
He pointed out that the owner had looked into several alternatives in the past.. He stated that at
this point he was not sure why this was still being reviewed at the Planning Commission level. He
requested approval of the request.
Mr. Rieley stated that there is reference in a couple of places that screening will be done to
mitigate the impact of this on the Rivanna Corridor. He stated that he did not see any reference
to specific screening in the preliminary site plan.
Mr. Gathright stated that the bottom portion of his copy was cut off, but that the landscape plan
should be attaChed. He pointed out that the applicant has worked it out with the County Park
staff that they would readdress the issue in the winter to review the site and locate trees
accordingly. He noted that now the full foliage completely screens the site. He stated the
landscape plan shows ten Cedars and ten of another type of evergreen screening tree over on
the riverside towards the vehicle storage area to be planted. This was recommended by Dan
Mahon. In the winter, they would go out and determine where the twenty trees can be placed.
Mr. Thomas asked if he was willing to put in more trees if it was necessary.
Mr. Gathright stated that he could not answer that question.
Mr. Citimberg stated that normally the landscape plans are reviewed as part of the final site plan.
He stated that the condition #1 of the SP-2002-011 calls for adequate screening to be provided.
He noted that the agreement that the site would be reviewed at the time that the leaves are off
the trees was probably a good one. He felt that was when you could determine the most
adequa[e and beneficial screening.
Mr. Rieley stated that there are a couple of places yoo are showing class A-1 rip-rap adjacent to
the parking lot at what appears to be the lip of the bio-filter area. He noted that a lot of people
regard that kind of riprap adjacent to an area where people are walking as somewhat hazardous
and unsightly. He asked if there are other alternatives that would function with the same results.
Mr. Gathright stated that there was a concrete swale down through there with one placed directly
behind the dumpster and the screening for the dumpster was in front of that. He noted that there
is going to be very little foot traffic in that area. The other one is over in the vehicle storage area
which was beyond the parking spaces on the opposite side of the building. He stated that was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Page 14
DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
17
beyond the public access area. He noted that there was~not need to anything sophisticated to
that area since it would grow up in vegetation over time. He stated that certainly there were other
alternatives.
Mr. Loewenstein invited further comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and
the matter placed before the Planning Commission for action.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was concerned about the screening issue. He stated that the backside
of Pantops Shopping Center as you come across Free Bridge in the wintertime is clearly visible.
There will be less vegetation in there after the plan is executed than is in there now. He stated
that the issue was more than screening the cars that are in that parking area. He pointed out that
it was on the front side of the river. He stated that was foremost in thei~- minds when they denied
this use on this property. He noted that the primary issue here was the visibility from freebridge,
the City and the river. He noted that the proposed twenty trees to be planted for screening was
not reassuring. He stated that the Commission needs to know more about this. He stated that
there were two courses of action. He noted that they could simplyask that information be
brought to a higher level of resolution before they act on it or call the final site plan back and look
at it in greater detail. He noted that he would like to see a lot more information about what was
inside that line that says existing tree line. He stated that the other issue was the dprap. He
asked that something other than riprap be used in that location.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if Mr. Gathright wanted to address the Commission.
Mr. Gathright stated that regarding th~ 20 trees that they set aside for the specific purpose of
determining their location in the winter. He pointed out that there was a landscape plan that had
far more than 20 trees that are on that. He stated that they have worked extensively with the
Architectural Review Board in locating the trees. He noted that their disturbed area is not taking
down any significant trees an d most of the existing screening will stay.
Mr. Rieley stated that the area that h e was concerned with only having 20 trees was the sloped
area right next to the river, He noted that was a substantial area and he did not think that 20
trees was enough.
Mr. Thomas asked if the special use permit conditions covered enough to screen the river.
Mr. Loewenstein stated th at he preferred to have a landscape plan in front of him. He stated that
apparently there is one out there and the Commission did not have it. He asked Mr. Cilimberg
what change he had to the condition.
Mr. Ciiimberg stated that he suggested additional language that was still open to interpretation as
to what satisfies this con dition. He noted that the wording was specifically that this vegetation
screening in the area north and west of the bio-filter, west of the dumpster and west of the
parking area helps screen the view from the road, riverand greenway. He pointed out that the
Board added that language to provide that screening which have to be adhered to whether or not
the Commission puts it in the conditions of the site plan. He apologized that since the planner
working with this was ill, he did not know the status of the approvals of the landscape plan. He
noted that the Architectural Review Board has already approved the Certificate of
Appropriateness. He stated that if the landscape plan exists that shows the screening of the
r~ver, then the Commission could review it next week He noted that the Commission could also
wait and review the final site plan. He suggested that if the Commission defers this, then they
could have the benefit of having the plan in hand at the next meeting.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if Ms. Maliszewski had anything to add.
Ms. Maliszewski stated that she could pull out a landscape plan for you, but she could not
guarantee that plan was the most recent one. She pointed out that the Architectural Review
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Page 15
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
Board did not review address those trees in that particular area that you are talking about ·
because that is not part of the Entrance Corridor review.
Mr. Finley pointed out that the applicant had given them verbal information on the screening.
Mr. Rieley stated that they have not information on the most important issue before them.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they he would feel more comfortable to get more information.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they could review this next week, which was a very small time frame.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was not comfortable with approving a landscape plan that they
cannot see.
Mr. Rieley moved for deferral of SDP-02-022, Pavillion At Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan, to the
next meeting on September 10th in which that they will have a landscape plan to react to.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried (6:1) (Mr. Finley voted against the motiOn).
Mr, Loewenstein stated that SDP-02-022 was deferred to September 10"~.
August 20, 2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of' Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Chartottesvill e, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax ~434) 972 - 4012
ATTACHMENT E
James Mords
P 0 Box 8043
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE:
SP-2002-010 Riverbend; SP-2002-011 Riverbend and ~1~ ',nn",
Tax Map 78, Parcel 17A
Dear Mr. Mords:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on August 14, 2002, took the following actions regarding
the above-noted petitions:
SP-2002.10 and SP-2002-11 - Approved subject t~) the following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be stored/displayed only in the areas indicated on the approved site plan;
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by the Architectural Review
Board, including landscape and lighting site plans; and
4. Provide vegetative screening in the area north and west of the biofilter, west of the dumpster, and west of the
parking area to help screen the view from the road, dyer and greenway. An informal grouping of native
screening trees and shrubs is appropriate.
SDP-2002-022 Pavillion at Riverbend- Requested the Planning Commission to reconsider this request.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use ~3ermit is issued shall not be commenced
within twenty-four (24) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be
construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within
two (2) years from the date of the issuance.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning
Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please
call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5832.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
V Wayne CJ1imberg,-,-"~
~;rector of Pl~nni~~velopment
vwc4cf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Steve AIIshouse
Jack Kelsey
Matt Gdmes, VDOT
Tex Weaver
:ONIgb~Vd
:~IOi3H
0N~11118
:3~ ONY1
O3SOdO~d
:SN0~CINO:)
ONILSIX3
'l'O '±Lt § ,00~ = ,,L
-130~Vd q'IV~I3AO
:~ dVtq AIINIOIA
'3Niq23bl 9Nd. SiX3
/
/
/
S311d3dOdd t N3J~, F'(]~
TO qB" BELOW GRADE1
~ DI M1 S 1 LR SCREEN I)ETAII.
'.'-1 ,/s('ai,k
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIOK FENCE TO PREVENT',
ENCROACHMENT OF EQUIPMENT ON CRITICAL
LOPES INSTALL WHERE PROPOSED GRAD,NO WILL
OCCUR ADJACENT TO CRITICAL SLOPES.-~__
· 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK '/DOT CG 2 (OR SG-B CURB
(.I'- ---7-. [ ~ ~_
4" VDOT ~21A / ' '>XX,'/'x. ,/ X,/ ,, ~x~'¢,~,,','," NOTE: PROOFROLL PA"' "G AREA WI" A LOADED
SII)EWAI,K A I'AVEMENT I)ETAII,
SHELL STATION
LATER:~
(W1
'AT EXISTING CURB
HARDEES
DAGGETF
& GRIGG
ARCHITECTS
1001 E, MARKET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
VOICE 804/971-8848
FA~ 804/296-3040
DRAWING NUMBER:
I' .1
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
0~08 03-1B-02
x.
x.
'x
x,
\
v
39nO3HDS ONId¥OSE]NV-'I
~o~__
__ SIN31/~3SIP 03El ONidVOS~t
.)
October 24, 2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o£ Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
10-28-02P05:27 ~CV5
M. E. Gibson, Jr
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
P O Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE:
SP~2002-040 Central Telephone Company of Virginia - Alltel
Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 22, 2002, unby a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1
2.
The tower shall not be ~ncreased in height.
All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for personal
wireless service providers.
Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
c. Only flush' mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project from the
structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. The
replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel antennas in existing antenna
arrays, shall be subject to this condition.
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets that
separate them by more than 12 inches from the structure may remain. Provided..
however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall be flush-mounted
as provided in 3c. This condition shall not pertain to the maintenance and/or replacement
of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or is in need of repair.
Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one time, and
only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be replaced
by the specified six foot diameter High Performance dish at a height that is not more than
95.5 feet.
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the same
type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed the
diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement dish matches the tower,
and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish being replaced.
Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a different
type of dish if the mounting height is no less than 20 feet below that of the dish being
removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed that the dish being
removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the tower.
Page 2
October 24, 2002
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type of dish
if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy the height
requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning Administrator. This
approval shall only be granted after the submission of a microwave path survey indicating
that the proposed replacement dish will be mounted at the lowest possible height that
allows the system to function. In such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the
reason(s) why the proposed height is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing.
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the face of the
pole as structurally and mechanically possible, and, in no case, shall the distance
between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than eighteen (18)
inches.
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall provide
engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to be removed
and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating the mounting distance
between the pole and the dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user is a
pereonal wireless communications service provider.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the permittee sh all furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a
bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 13, 2002. Any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
SW/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
Zoning Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the
submission ora microwave path survey indicating that the proposed
replacement dish will be mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the
system to function. In such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the
reason(s) why the proposed height is the lowest possible height, but in no case
shall the replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing.
All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possib!e, and, in no case, shall
the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater
than eighteen (18) inches.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant
shall provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing
dish to be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information
demonstrating the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
The permittee shall submit a report to.the Zoning administrator once per year, by not
later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that
each user is a personal wireless communications service provider.
The permittee shah comply with section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is
discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall
furnish to the Zoning AdminiStrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory
to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient
for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT (SEPTEMBER 17, 2002):
9
Applicant s Proposal:
This proposal is for the replacement of an existing grid microwave dish, which is mounted at 120
feet high on an existing 250-foot tall self-supporting tower, with a new high performance dish, at
a height of 100 feet (Attachment A). Both the existing dish and proposed one are 6 feet in
diameter. Because all of the ground equipment supporting this dish would be contained within
the equipment buildings that are located within the fenced area adjacent to the tower, no
additional construction or land disturbance is being proposed (Attachment B). The property,
described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C, contains approximately 1.366 acres, zoned CO. This site
is located on the south side of Rio Road East (State Route 631), approximately 1/8 mile east of
the intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall (Attachment C). This
property is located in the Rio Magisterial District, within the area designated as Office Service in
Neighborhood 2 by the Comprehensive Planl
Petition:
The applicant's request is to allow the amendment of the special use permit for the existing
personal wireless service facilities (SP 98-21), which was approved to allow the co-location of
additional antennas on the existing Structure but prohibits any additional microwave and satellite
dishes. In order to allow the proposed dish replacement, the applicant is requesting the following
changes in the language of condition 2(c) of special use permit SP 98-21 from, "Additional
satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited," to the following:
Existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the same or
different type of dish, so long as the diameter of the replacement'dish does not exceed the
diameter of the dish being removed, and so long as the color of the replacement dish
matches the tower.
This request is being made in accordance with Section 23.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, which
allows microwave and radio wave transmission relay towers and appurtenances in the CO,
Commercial Office zoning district. According to the applicant's request, approval of this facility
would allow ALLTEL to upgrade its facilities at this site to handle the increasing wireless
coverage needs along U.S. Route 29, and to accommodate technological advances in digital
wireless communications.
Plannin~ and Zonin~ History.
SP 88-059 Centel Cellular (Rio) - In 1988 a special use permit application was submitted to
allow the replacement of the original non-conforming 150-foot tall tower at this site with a 250-
foot tower that is currently located. However, the Zoning Ordinance at that time did not require a
special use permit for the vertical extension of the mounting structure, provided that there was no
need to expand a facility's site beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land it existed on.
Therefore, the special use permit was withdrawn and the applicant was allowed to build the 250-
foot tall tower by applying for a building permit only.
SP 98-021 CFW Wireless (Rio) - At its September 13, 1998 meeting, the Board of Supervisors
unanimously approved a special use permit allowing the co-location of all future personal
wireless service facilities at this site with building permits provided that they are in compliance
with the conditions of approval (Attachment D). Those conditions regulate the sizes and colors
of the types of antenna that can be attached without requiring an amendment of the special use
permit. Although the tower was already outfitted with five (5) dish-type antennas at the time of
that request, the special use permit was issued with a condition that prohibits the attachment of
any other satellite or microwave dishes.
Character of the Area:
4
This site is located between a portion of the Fashion Square Mall parking lot and Rio Road East.
The parcel is surrounded by various properties that are developed with commercial uses in
addition to a church on the adjacent property immediate to the east. Squire Hill Apartments,
which is located approximately 700 feet to the east, are the nearest dwellings to this site. The
nearest personal wireless service facilities are located approximately 1.7 miles northwest of this
site at the Rivanna Water Tank, near the water treatment plant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with amendment of the conditions that were
previously approved in 1998 with the existing special use permit (SP 98-21).
Comprehensive Plan:
This special use permit application has been reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff has recognized that none of the other important resources that are identified for
protection in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan's Plan, entitled Natural Resources and
Cultural Assets, or the Open Space are present at this site. Furthermore, this proposal does not
necessitate any additional, cleating or disturbance because the dish would be attached to an
existing tower that has existing electrical utilities, ground equipment structures and vehicular
access.
Although the tower is .visible from U.S. Route 29, this site is not located within the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. However, because it is the tallest structure within approximately 2
miles, the tower is considered to be a Tier Three structure that is sky-lighted and highly visible
from several nearby points. The Personal Wireless Services Facilities Policy encourages the use
of Oppommity Sites, which are described as those locations where existing sites and structures
can accommodate the placement of new wireless facilities with limited impacts, whenever
possible. The fact that this site can be considered an opportunity site is further SUpported by
special use permit SP 98-21, which establishes the allowance by-right co-locations of certain
whip and panel antennas in the future without the need to amend the special use permit. Because
of structural constraints and increased possibilities for signal interference, the wireless industry
does not often consider the stealth monopole structures that are traditionally favored by the
County as viable options for mounting microwave and satellite dishes.
Staff's review of the request is largely focused on evaluating the possible visual impacts
resulting from the proposed replacement of the 6-foot diameter grid microwave dish with a high
performance dish that has the same diameter but a wider profile. Staff recognizes that the
proposed dish would be more visible from all directions other than directly head-on because of..
the distinct difference in the side depth dimensions. Therefore, staff's recommended conditions
include a language that would require this and all furore replacement dishes of a different kind to
be mounted at lower height and no more than six (6) inches from the structure. Furthermore,
unlike the existing panel antennas, which are currently mounted with set-offbrackets, staff also
recommends additional conditions that would require any furore ones to be flush-mounted so as
to comply with current regulations.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address the issues of this request in four sections:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(ll) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,
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,
Instead of proposing to install an additional dish at this site, the applicant is proposing the
replacement of a dish that is currently attached to the tower so there would still be only five (5)
dish-type antennas mounted on the structure. Although the proposal does introduce a different
style of dish than the one being replaced, the applicant's request indicates that it would be the
same style and size as another existing dish attached to the tower at 95 feet. Furthermore, the
proposed dish at a height 100 feet is intended to replace an existing dish that is currently attached
to the tower of 120 feet, and will be maintained by the same service provider. Staff does not
anticipate that there would a significant increase in visibility or the amount of vehicular traffic
within the immediale area.
Based on the factors that have been cited above, staff finds that the proposed facility would not
impose any additional detriment to adjacent properties. Should the Board find it appropriate to
grant approval of the requested special use permit amendment, staff also recommends additional
language that would limit the mounting heights of any subsequent replacement dishes, and allow
future panel antennas to be flush-mounting on the tower only.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The existing tower and related equipment at this site were nonconforming until 1998, when a
special use permit was issued to allow the co-location of additional personal wireless service
facilities. By virtue of the conditions of approval, the applicant is allowed to install new panel
and/or whip antennas without amending the special use permit. This allows flexibility for
replacing of those types of attachments to accommodate of technological advances in the
personal wireless communications industry. However, the conditions prohibiting the addition of
any new microwave or satellite dishes currently prevents the applicant from replacing any of the
existing dishes for those same technological reasons. This specific condition could be applied
appropriately for the purposes of limiting the number of dishes and the locations at which they
can be attached. Therefore, an amendment of this condition that allows the replacement of
dishes, but also restricts dish sizes and mounting heights allowed for this and all future proposals
should not result in changing the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 1.4.3 states as one of the intents of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community". Although attachment of the proposed high
performance dish does not require the facility site to be enlarged or any additional structural
enhancement of the tower itself, staff recognizes that the existing 250-foot tall tower is a
dominant feature that is Visible from many nearby areas. With the implementation of the
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, the County has promoted the attractiveness of the
community by setting a preference for new facilities with mounting structures that can be
designed to blend in well with the existing surroundings. However, these stealth-type monopole
structures have most often been used for facilities with whip and panel antennas that can be
flush-mounted.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Approval of this proposal would not reStrict the 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 Board of Supervisors adopted the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy to provide
guidehnes for the siting and review of proposals for personal wireless service facilities. Section
5.1.40c of the Zoning Ordinance addresses proposals that are allowed by-right, specifically
concerning the attachment of facilities to existing structures as recommended under Tier One of
the wireless policy. Under those regulations the owner of an existing structure is allowed to
support the collocation of three (3) arrays of flush mounted antennas, by right. Onthe other
hand, the attachment of any number of microwave dishes still requires the issuance of a special
use permit under the recommendations of Tier Three of the policy. Therefore, this proposal to
does not represent a by-right collocation and staffnotes that it does require the correction of the
conditions that cause the nonconforming status of this personal wireless facility.
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 instnunentalitv thereof shall not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following
language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement
construction, and modification ofpersonaI 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 comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are
intended to protect the public health and safety under.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal
wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the siting
and design of wireless facilities. In their current states these existing facilities and their
mounting structures appear to offer adequate support for three providers of personal wireless
communication services. The applicant has not provided any information regarding, the
availability, or lack thereof, for any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with
the new antennas at this site. The applicant's request indicates that the proposed replacement
dish is intended to fulfill and improve service support being provided by the existing dish that
would be to be removed. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor
the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal
wireless services that are currently being provided by ALLTEL's facilities at this site.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
The face of the proposed high performance dish would be the same size in diameter as the
dish that it would replace.
The high performance dish would be mounted at a lower height than the one it is
proposed to replace.
The dish will not restrict any permitted uses or impose any additional impacts on adjacent
properties.
The dish does not necessitate the tower to be extended or structurally improved.
No cleating or other disturbance is necessary for the placement of the dish.
Staff has identified the following factor, which is unfavorable to this request:
The profile of the proposed dish would be larger than that of the one it is intended to
replace, resulting in a higher visibility from certain points of view.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
The proposed dish would be the same size of another existing dish that will remain on the
tower, mounted at 95 feet.
The proposed dish would be painted to match the color of the mounting structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is staff's opinion that the existing approved facility currently complies with the provisions of
the original special use permit and is notin conflict with the Wireless Policy's allowance for Tier
8
Three facihties. Although the side depth of the propOsed dish is wider than the original, it is
staff's :opinion that allowing the replacement of existing dishes would allow existing service
providers at this site to accommodate advances in technology. At the same time, the application
of additional requirements to lower the heights of replacement dishes and mount ail new
attachments closer to the structure provides assistance in mitigating some of the anticipated
visual impacts of this request and other future attachments. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the applicant's request to allow the replacement of the dish with an amendment of
the conditions of approval for the special use permit (SP 98-021), with additional language added
by staff (provided below in bold).
(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:
1. The tower shall not be increased in height.
2. Additional antennas may be attached only as follows:
go
Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height ortwo (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower. Only flush-mounted
antennas shall be permitted; no new antenna shall project from the structure
beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case
shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing
structure.
Additional omni-directional, whip, directional or panel antennas may be installed without
amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are
obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply with these
conditions.
o
Not more than five (5) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at
one time, and only as follows.
Existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the
same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed and the color of the
replacement dish matches the tower. No new dish shall be allowed at a
mounting height exceeding that of the dish that is being replaced.
Existing satellite and microwave dishes may only be replaced on the tower by
a different type of dish, if the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed the diameter of the dish being removed and the color of the
replacement dish matches the tower. Any new replacement dish of a
different type shall be mounted ~at a height that is no less than 20 feet below
that of the dish being removed.
No replacement satellite or microwave dish shall be mounted with more than
six (6) inches of space between its main unit and the face of the pole.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide
engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to be
removed and the replacement dish, and additional information-
demonstrating the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user
is a personal wireless communications service provider.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
6. All antennae added to the tower shall be used for personal wireless service providers.
ATTACHMENTS:
B-
C-
D-
E-
Application and Request for Special Use Permit
Site Plan Showing Existing Site Conditions
Location/Tax Map
Approval Letter for SP 98-51
Additional information Submitted by the Applicant
10
Couaty of Albemarle
. lication for Special Petit
· :- Department of Building Code and Zonir ATTACHMENT A
'~ngUse Personal W~reless Facil~dUse_Persnn~ W~r¢~¢~ ~c~lity
'~ni~ Di$~c~ C0 / '~ning O~ma~S~c~aa numb~ requ~d ~3.2. ~. 3 . $. 1 ':'40 ~
('~f ~il assist ~u wi~ thio i~ms)
Numar o~a~ to be covered by Spe~al U~ P~mit m,~.~~~ 1. 366
I$ this an amendment tu an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a sRe development plan with this application?
~:Y e. sCI Nu
Q Yeg~ No
IOwller Of lard (As liatcd ia thc County's mv. ords):
~&Addmss PO Box ~78~ '
~nkral T¢l~phnn~ Pn. ne ~rginia
Daytime Phone ( ~. ) Fax #
City nh~rlot-~osvi~t3t~ VA Zip22906
E-mail
Applicant (Whe is,.hc con~ac~ p~rso, rcpre~em 6.g? Who is re. questing the special
Address c/o Contact Person above City
Daytime Phone ( .._ ) Fax #
ALLTEL Commun~c~inn.~. Trim.
. State Zip
E-mail
Taxmapand parcel ' 61-1Pgc PhysicalAddress(ir=si~.c~)1530 E. ]~i o Rna'i:]
Locatiooofproperty(la,4mat~.ln(~eaio,~.oromeO j u~-~ ~ ~of tb~ i nfi~r~n~i nn n~ ~o Road and Route 29, north of ~bi,~ S;~,ar~ ~ll
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abuuing property? [fyi. please list
those tax map m'M par~cl numbers ?fin
11
ATTACHMENT A
Section 31.2.4. l of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special, use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be-issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed 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 a~d 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.
Whatisth¢ComprchcnsivcPlande. signadonforthispropcrty? RFF~ c'o ~=rv~
Howwillthcproposcdspccialuscafl'cctadjaccntproperty~ The proposed use will not affect
adjacen% property.
H~wwi~dm~scds~x-~cia~usca~ctth¢charactcr~fthcdistrictsurr~undingth~pr~pcrty? Th'~ .~ prnpn~od
use will not affect the character of the district,..given the existino
.use.
Nowisthcttseinharmonywiththcpurpo,¢andintcntofthcZoningOrdinanc¢7 The us~ %s identical to
the existing use which has proven to harmoniously exist within the
the intent of the ordinance.
Howisthcu~'inh~mony~tlmus~pea-mi{tcdbyrightin~¢distric~? The use is identical to'
~he existinq use which exists harmoniously in the commercial nature
of the district.
What additional regulations providcd in Section 5.0 of thc Zoning Ordinance apply to this usc?_ 5 _ ! _ 4 0
How will this use p¢omotc thc public hcahh, sat%ty, and gemcral welfare o£ thc community? ml~ ~= c= n'n ~ n ~- ~= d , ,
wireless service will provide improved coverage. Such coverage is
often used by emergency personnel or those in need of assistance-
to obtain help.
ATTACHMENT A
DesCribe your request in detail and include ail pertinent information such as the numbers of
involved in the use, operating hours,.and any unique features of.the use: ,
See attached.
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies or' 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 i.s in the namk of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, paxtnership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acc. eptabl~ to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing' below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acc.eptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHM]ENTS:
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 ia
filing this applicafion.:I also certify'that the information'provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowlt~'dge.
13t -q_ C ('
· '~ June 24, ,2002
Date
Signature
'~g~E. Gibson Jr. Esquire
corney for ALLTEL Communications, Inc. (434) 977-4455
Printed Name
Daytime phone number of Signatory
13
ALLTEL Communications, Inc.
Special Use Permit Amendment Application
SP-98-2[
ATTACHMENT A
ALLTEL Communications, Inc. (ALLTEL) desires to replace an existing 6' grid dish at a height of
120' on its tower located on Rio Road, tax map and parcel number 61-129C, with a 6' high
performance solid dish at a height of 100'. In that regard, ALLTEL desires to amend condition 2(c) set
forth in the approval of SP-98-21 as follows:
Existing language:
2. Additional Antennas .may be attached to the tower only as follows:
c. Additional satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Proposed language:
2. Additional Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
Existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the
same or different type of dish, so long as the diameter of the replacement dish
does not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed and so long as the
color of the replacement dish matches the tower.
This amendment will allow ALLTEL to upgrade its microwave dish, which is necessary to handle
ncreased wireless traffic on the Route 29 corridor, and also to properly take advantage of advances
digital technology, thereby enhancing wireless service to residents of Albemarle County.
Attached to this application are the following documents which visually demonstrate the
proposed change:
A map of ALLTEL's microwave system along the Route 29 North corridor. This
application is part of a larger project to upgrade ALLTEL's microwave system between
the Rio Road site and its site in Madison County.
A photo simulation showing the tower with the proposed dish attached, and showing
the existing dish, which will be removed.
A drawing, not to scale, demonstrating the location on the tower of the proposed dish,
as well as the location of all other attachments on the tower, including the grid dish
which will be removed.
Also attached, per the requirements, are two copies of the source deed for the property,
including plat. ALLTEL has received verbal permission from the landowner to submit this application
and will submit wdtten permission to be included with this application. In addition, no site development
plan has been included, because no changes will be occurring on the ground with respect to this
application.
14
ATTACHMENT A
0
C~
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
ATTACHMENT A
N
INQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM
PARCEL # : 06100-00-00-129C0
PARENT PARCEL ~:
OWNER(LAST,FIRST,MI,TITLE): CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO OF V ,
PARCEL LOCATION: (HOUSE #) 1530 (STREET NAME) RIO RD
(CITY) CHARLOTTESVILLE (ZIP) 22901
MAILING ADDRESS
CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO OF VA
P 0 BOX 6788
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA
ZIP CODE: 22906 6788
HOUSING CONDITION : 0
DEED BOOK REFERENCE: /
PLAT BOOK REFERENCE: /
06/25/02 09:00:1
T52B CIS002
CISINQ0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1. S C C//
2. ACREAGE
3.
4.
01/01/2002 OWNER: CENTRAL TE
GROSS LIVING AREA : 0
BASEMENT AREA : 0
BASEMENT(FINISHED): 0
HELP = "Fl" OR PUT CURSOR AT BOTTOM
.LLTEL Communication. s, Inc
}..Microwave Upgrade Prolect
I?
a~
Leon
/
ATTACHMENT A
/
Existing microwave route
to ALLTEL MSC in L3mchb~,'""~..,.,% .,.,.........,,...~
? "',..........
/',
/,
)er
Microwave being upgraded
Existing rn,crowave - no work planned
0 5
.
17
205 S
165
128 ~-
95 $--~)
45 SW ~
ROAD
25O
-- 190
178
153
142
136
120 NNE
ATTACHMENT A
NOT TO SCALE
HORIZONTALLY
ELEVATIONS IN
FEET AGL
18
ATTACHMENT A
8ft lligh Performance
will remain at45fl centerline
Azimuth 253 degrees
ATTACHMENT A
~CAP
PAVED AREA
WALE
SW
~FFICE
GROUNDING
SS
SUMP
CELLULAR GRDG. JACKETED-J,,"~'
4,/0 COPPER GROUND WIRE
(APP. i8" BELOW GRADE)
o'/
/
~CAP
Tc~#mm/d
CO
EX/STING BUlL DING
t4~SS
SW
VA. POW~\
POLE '~ ~11
$44° II'W ~90.20'
OWELL
~ ~l~"~ CU. SUPPt.YLINE
~'q-- -- '--~ I000 GAL.
t__ __ __J FUEL OIL TANK
(GENERATOR)
PLOT PLAN
SCALF: I": 201 ':0" 2 1
ATTACHMENT C
i',/
SP - 2002 - 40
CENTRAL TELEPHONE
COMPANY
1 ~NCH = 325 FEET
F'~$H 1' ON ~
.S~UARE MALL
~LDERSG~TE UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH
22
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
September 28, 1998
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Larry Ryan
CFW Wireless
P O Box 1328
Waynesboro, VA 22980-0909
SP-98-21 CFW Wireless (Rio Road)
Tax Map 61, Prcei 129C
Dear Mr. Kyan:
The Albemarle Coumy Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 16, 1998, unanimously
approved the above-noted request to construct a personal wireless telecommunication facility on
approximately 1.4 acres. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Tower shall not be increased in height.
2. Additional Antennas may be attached to the tower onlv as follows:
Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, .and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
c. Additional satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Additional antennas may be installed without amending this special use permit, provided that all
necessary building permits are obtained fi.om the building official and the antennas otherwise comply
with these conditions.
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1
of that year. The report shallidentify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a
wireless telecommunications service provider.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use
for wireless telecommumcations purposes is discontinued.
23
September 28, 1998
ATTACHMENT D
Ail antennae added to the tower shall be used for' personal wireless service providers.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not
be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes
of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of
construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the
date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year.
Before beghming this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department.
Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this
letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
vwc/jcf
Development
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
JOHN K. TAGGART, III
M.E. G~BSON, JR.
THOMAS E. ALBRO
PATRIC1A O. MCGRAW
R. LEE LIVINGSTON
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1 $85
CHARLO'rrESVILLE, VIRGINIA 229024 585
105-109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (434) 977-4455
FACSIMILE (434) 979-1221
ATTACHMENT E
RACHEL g RUST
CHRISTOPHER J. ROBINETTE
PETERJ. CARAMAN~S
E. GERALD TREMBLAY
LLO'~D T. SMn'H, JR.
Via Hand Delivery
September 24, 2002
Stephen 'Waller, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Department
40:1. Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE:
ALLTEL Communications, Inc.
Central Telephone Company - SP 02-040
Dear Stephen:
Please find enclosed the following documents per our telephone discussions:
1. A draft of proposed language for the SUP conditions which incorporates your proposed
conditions, the comments of the Planning Commission members and a compromise regarding the
height limitation which provides for County oversight while still allowing enough flexibility for the
microwave systems to work;
2. The microwave path survey prepared for ALLTEL for the path which is the subject of this
application. This survey not only indicates that the height of the proposed replacement dish is at its
lowest possible height to allow coverage, but also provides an example of the type of documentation
contemplated by our proposed condition 3c. In response to Commissioner Rieley's question whether
the dish can be moved down to 95' to be equal to the other existing dish on the tower, it cannot be
at exactly 95' like the other dish because the mounts of the two dishes could not co-exist in that
configuration. However, ALLTEL will agree to move the dish down from 100' to a position closer to, but
above, 95' if the Planning Commission thinks that would be helpful.
3. A schematic diagram of the antenna and mounting which should answer all your
· questions regarding dimensions and distances.
Once you have had an opportunity to review this information, please contact me to discuss the
proposed conditions and also to vedfy to that this submission has provided all necessary information.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards.
25
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
Stephen Waller, Senior Planner
September 24, 2002
Page 2
ATTACHMENT E
Very truly yours,
Peter J. Caramanis
CC:
M.E. Gibson, Jr., Esquire
Fred Miller, ALLTEL
26
ATTACHMENT E
Bold = Staffs recommended changes to
original conditions
~ = Applicant's proposed deletions
from original/Staff conditions
Redline = Applicants proposed additions to
Staff recommendations based on the
comments of the Planning Commission
members at the 9/17 hearing
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The tower shall not be increased in height.
2. Additional antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall
project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting
equipment, and in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12)
inches from the existing structure. The replacement of omni-directional,
whip, directional or panel antennas in existing[ antenna arrays, shall not be
subiect to this condition, provided they do not project from the structure further
than the antennas they are replacing.
Not more than five (5) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower
at one time, and only as follows.
Existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the
same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being[ removed-and, the color of the
replacement dish matches the tower and the mounUng height does not exceed
that of the dish being replaced ~' ................ ""-" ......... ~ount~ng
Existing satellite and microwave dishes may otfly-be replaced on the tower
by a different type of dish, if the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed the diameter of the dish being removed-amg, the color of the
replacement dish matches the tower and the mounting height is no less than 20
feet below that of the dish being removed. Any ~w r~p;~c~nt d,~h of o
27
ATTACHMENT E
Existjn~ satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by the same or different
tw)e of dish when the DroDosed mountinA~ei~Jit of the replacement dish does not
satisfy the reouirements of 3a or 3b with the wdtten approval of the Zoning[
Administrator after sUbmission of a microwave [~ath survey Which indicates the
[~ro~ed replacement dish will be mounted at the loWest possible hei~[ht which
aii°~i~~ system to function and demonstrates the reason(s) Why the proPosed
h'ei~t¥~"the lowest possible height.
All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as clOse to
the face of the Dole as structurally and mechanically possible, and, in no
case, shall the distance betWeen the back of the dish and the face of the pole be
greater than eighteen (18) inches,
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall provide engineered
drawings demonstrationing the dimensions of the existing dish to be
removed and the replacement dish, and additional information
demonstrating the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
The Dermittee shal submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July i of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user
is a personal wireless communications service provider.
All antennae added to the tower shall be used for perSonal wireless service providers.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If
the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to
guarantee that thefacility will be removed as required~ the permittee shall furnish
to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the
County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the COunty, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal 'of the facility. The type of surety guarantee
shall be to the Satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the COunty Attorney.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance.
28
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
g. S'
This report consists of the Virginia paths listed below.
Rio Road to Ruckersvflle
RuckersviIle to West Madison
hnportant Information Regarding Coordinates, Distances and Azim'uth,-
The FCC and FAA require all coordinates, distances and aZimUths to be submitted in NAD
83 Datum on all forms and applications. Therefore, except for the Path Profile Data and
Datum.Antenna Centerline Combinations, ~ everything in this report reflects the use of NAD'83
Please be aware, the path distance shown on the Path Profile Data for each path in this
report may be slightly different from the NAD 83 Datum distances and aZimuths shown
elsewhere in this report. The reason for these differences is explained below.
Coordinates in NAD 83 Datum must be converted to NAD 27 Datum in order to plot the
sites and complete the necessary map work on the USGS maps, as the USGS maps are
published using NAD 27 Datum. Due to. the differences between NAD 27 Datum and
NAD 83 Datum the calculated distances and azimuths may differ, between the two datums,
by a few feet which translates into hundredths of a mile; or there may be no difference at
all.
Survey Personnel
The path surveys were conducted December 7 - 13, 2001 by:
Joe L. Thornton
X-DOT, Inc.
4444 Westgrove Drive, #395
Addison, Texas 75001
(972) 248-7243
No one accompanied the X-DOT surveyor on the path surveys.
30
E. SURVEY PROCEDURE
ATTACHMENT E
Purpose
A microwave path survey is performed to collect accurate information required to design a
reliable microwave communications system. The data collected during the survey is then
~processed, employing some or all of the following described techniques and finally
presented in the form of a report.
Method of Survey
Each site is visited to measure its location with reference to known landmarks which are
shown on the appropriate U.S.G.S. topographical map.
For proper system operation, it is necessary for each path to have adequate clearance under
all expected aunospheric conditions. To determine clearances, the actual topography of the
path and also the height and location of any obstacles along the path, such as buildings and
trees, must be known.
If good topographical maps are available, the routes to be studied are then drawn on the
maps and preliminary profiles prepared, i.e., profiles of the terrain are made between the
sites. The actual field survey then becomes a matter of traveling along each path making
checks on terrain elevations at critical points. Information about the types, sizes, locations
and characteristics of any obstacles such as buildings, trees, or water towers along the path,
and for a short distance on either side of it, must be gathered. Other pertinent data such as
the location of large bodies of water or flat bare fields which could provide efficient
reflection zones are also recorded.
The complexity of the required field path studies varies widely depending on a great many
factors. In some instances it may be necessary to conduct extensive field studies of the
terrain using transit, GPS equipment and precision altimeters to locate and describe
obstacles and potential reflection zones along the proposed microwave path or paths.
SITE DATA ATTACHMENT E
RIO ROAD
REFERENCE MAP:
U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC 7.5'
Charlottesville East, Va.
LOCATION: 1530 E. Rio Road, Charlottesville, VA
COUNTY: Charlottesville City
STATE: Virginia
*COORDINATES (NAD 83):
Latitude (North)
Longitude (West)
Deg. Min. Sec:
38 04 39.50
78 28 20.00
*ELEVATION (Feet Above Mean Sea Level): 514'
*STRUCTURE HEIGHT (Feet): 250'
STRUCTURE TYPE: Monopole tower
RECEIVE STATIONS: Ruckersville
* The coordinates, ground elevation and structure height shown above were obtained
from ALLTEL's FAA documentation.
ATTACHMENT E
ROAD
SITE DATA
RUCKERSVILLE
ATTACHMENT E
REFERENCE MAP: U.S.G.S, TOPOGRAPHIC 7.5'
Barboursville, Va.
LOCATION: Route 616, Greene County, Ruckersville, VA
COUNTY: Greene
STATE: Virginia
*COORDINATES (NAD 83):
Latitude (North)
Longitude (West)
..Deg. Min. Sec.
38 12 57.40
78 22 00.70
*ELEVATION (Feet Above Mean Sea Level): 539'
*STRUCTURE HEIGHT (Feet): 400'
STRUCTURE TYPE: Guyed Tower
RECEIVE STATIONS: Rio Road, West Madison
* The coordinates, ground elevation and structure height shown above were obtained
from ALLTEL's FAA documentation.'
3"3
590 000 FEET
(SOUTH)
4z34
~z33
6t5
RUCKERSVILLE ~
ATTACHMENT E
PATH DESCRIPTION
Rio Road to Ruckersville
0 - .5 miles:
.5 - 1.6 miles:
1.6- 1.8 miles:
1.8 - 3.25 miles:
3.25 - 4.5 miles:
4.5 miles:
4.5 miles to path's end:
Commercial area, undeveloped.
Wooded residemial.
South Fork, Rivanna River.
Wooded residential,, woodlands.
Woodlands and small cleared areas.
Critical point. 100 foot trees.
Woodlands and small cleared areas.
ATTACHMENT E
33
RIO ROAD
5 6' "' 7'
PATH LENGTH (Mi.} ~1.13
RUCKERSVILLE
;.~750 GHz GROUND EL. (Ft.) 5~4.0
0.3 A BUILDING HT. (Ft.) 0.0
0.6 ~ TOWER HEIGHT (Ft.) 250
] .0 ~ ANT. HEIGHT (Ft.) ~00
~.3333
GROUND EL.
BUILDING HT.
TOWER HEIGHT
ANT. HEIGHT
(Ft.) 539.0
(Ft.) 0.0
(Ft.) 400
(Ft.) 29O
DISK NO. ~
FILE NO, ~263_003
FILE ISS. 7
FILE DATE ]2-~4-200~
~4ICROWAVE PATH PROFILE
PATH PROFILE DATA
(Page ! of 2)
ATTACHMENT E
,~_~Customer,: ALLTEL VA
~_~K: 1 File: 1263.003
PATH NAME: RIO ROAD
Date:
12-14-2001
12-14-2001 Iss.#: 7 Eng.: JOE THORNTON
TO RUCKERSVILLE
Distance
(mi)
Elevation
(ft AMSL)
Obst Ht
(ft AGL)
Obstruction Type
0.00
0.05
0.50
0.77
1.00
1.50
1.55
2.00
2.04
2.50
2.65
2.72
3.00
3.22
3.50
3.65
3.80
4.00
4.05
4.34
4.50
4.82
5.00
5.02
5 50
5 76
6 O0
6 50
6 62
6 81
7.00
7.20
7.42
7.50
7.57
7.68
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.64
9.00
9.38
9.50
9.72
10.00
10.29
514.0
520.0
430.0
485.0
468.0
395.0
428.0
443. 0
445.0
370 0
410 0
410 0
450 0
510 0
465 0
502 0
523.0
500.0
508.0
535.0
528.0
522.0
508.0
510.0
370.0
448 . 0
365.0
465.0
515.0
541.0
508.0
563.0
570.0
539.0
565.0
563.0
535.0
590.0
590.0
583.0
460.0
568.0
519.0
535.0
505.0
570.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
85.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90.0
0.0
0.0
90.0
0.0
90.0
0.0
90.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
37
PATH PROFILE DATA
(Page 2 of 2)
ATTACHMENT E
Customer: ALLTEL VA
~_SK: 1 File: 1263.003
PATH NAME: RIO ROAD
12-14-2001
Date: 12-14-2001 Iss.#: 7 Eng.: JOE THORNTON
TO RUCKERSVILLE
Distance
(mi)
Elevation
(ft AMSL)
Obst Ht
(ft AGL)
Obstruction Type
10.56
10.83
1t.00
1t.ll
11.13
570.0 75.0 T
550.0 0.0
475.0 0.0
530.0 90.0 T
539.0 0.0 End
ATTACHMENT E
RECOMMENDED ANTENNA CENTERIJINES
Frequency: 6.175 GHz
Criteria: K= 0:6667 + .3F~ + 10 Feet
and 1.333 + 1F~ + 10 Feet
AGL = Above Ground Level
ARL = Above Roof Level
MSL = Mean Sea Level
Site Name
Rio Road
Required Antenna Height in Feet (AGL)
100'
tO
Ruckersville
290'
39
ATTACHMENT E
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS
I NON;~SP.'A~E!:DIMERSt~:~A:"Fl~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i i:i:i RIO ROAD
VA
LATITUDE (83 Datum)
LONGITUDE (83 Datum)
ELEVATION FEET AMSL
PATH LENGTH MILES
AZIMUTHS
PATH LOSS DB
Atmospheric Absorption
MIDBAND FREQUENCY IN GHZ
ANTENNA HEIGHT AGL
XMISSION LINE LENGTH FEET
XMISSlON LINE TYPE
LOSS/100 FEET
LINE LOSS DB
RADOME LOSS, TYPE DB
RF COMPONENT LOSS DB
JUMPER CABLE/FLEX LOSS DB
CONNECTOR LOSS DB
TOTAL FIXED LOSSES DB
LOSSES (PATH+FIXED) DB
ANTENNA DIAMETER FEET
ANTENNA MODEL NUMBER
FCC ANTENNA CODE
ANTENNA GAIN DBI
TOTAL GAINS DB
NET PATH LOSS DB
CHANNEL LOADING
EQUIPMENT MODEL NUMBER
MINIMUM XMIT PWR DBM
XMIT PAD DB + Transmit Br Ckt Losses
TRANSMIT POWER DBM W/PAD
RECEIVER Br Ckt Loss
MEDIAN RX LVL (+-2DB) DBM
RX SENSlTIVITY(1X10^(-6)BER)
THERMAL FADE MARGIN DB
DISPERSIVE FM IN DB FOR
10^6 BER E/W Adaptive Equalizers
COMPOSITE FADE MARGIN DB
A=WORST FADING MONTH S CONSTANT
C=TERRAIN AND CLIMATE COEFFICIENT
UND=ACTUAL FADE PROBABILITY
PATH RELIABILITY IN % =
PATH OUTAGE SECS/YR
38 04 39.5
78 28 20.0
514
31.00
100
140
EW52
1.18
1.652
0
0
0.3
1
2.952
6
HP6-59
38.9
3 DS3
H RS-CX-06G 155M
29
0.5
28.5
1
-36.45
34.55
11.13
133.35
0.16
6.175
Elliptical
141.65
ANDREW
77.7
-63.95
HARRIS
CONSTELLATION
HS
-71
65
34, 55
1.82298E-06
99.9998177
58
0~2885
0.8447
4/26/2002 9:27
RUCKERSVILLE
VA
38 12 57.4
78 22 00.7
539
211.06
290
330
EW52
1.18
3.894
0
0
0.3
1
5.194
6
UHX6-59
38.8
3 DS3
H RS-CX-06 G 155M
29
0.5
28.5
1
-36.45
34.55
34.55
1.82298E-06
99,9998177
58
RioRoadRu ckersville.xls 4/26/2002 9:27 AM
40
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS
System Performance with Rain Outage
ATTACHMENT E
RIO ROAD to RUCKERSVILLE
Enter Values for next 3 lines
Polarization, (1-Non,2-Vert,3-Horiz)
Rain Zone, ! ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, or 10
Average Temperature degrees F
Rain Outage (two-way)
Following Outages Include Rain Fade Estimates
Net Path Outage---One Way
With Space Diversity
Bell Shod Haul Criteria Seconds/Year
Net Path Outage ..... Two Way
With Space Diversity
Bell Short Haul Criteria Seconds/Year
Ou[age dominated by rain should be
compared to Two Way objective.
Use Space Diversity? 1=Yes, Blank=No
2
5
57.7
0.00
Seconds per Year
57.53
0.33
71.26
115.06
0.65
142.52
Reliability
99.99981758
99.99999897
99.99963515
99.99999794
4/26/2002 9:27
RioRoadRuckersville.xls 4/26/2002 9:27 AM
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS
Microwave Path Data Summary
IiN~)N~SP',~C~Ei D~F-~SI~:PA;T''~:::::::: :i:i: :!:::::::!1
Station Name
Call Sign'
FCC Owner Code
Latitude (83 Datum)
Longitude (83 Datum)
Ground Elevation
Path Azimuths
Path Distance (miles)
RIO ROAD
VA
WLU709
38 04 39.5
78 28 20.0
514
31.00
11.13
Antenna
Primary Tx
FCC Code
Gain (dBi)
C/L (Ft-AGL)
HP6-59
0
38.9
100
ANDREW
Primary Rx
FCC Code
Gain (dBi)
C/L (Ft-AGL)
Same As Transmitter
Diversity
FCC Code
Gain (dBi)
C/L (Ft-AGL)
Equipment
Channel Loading
Power
HRS-CX-06G155M
3 DS3
29
HARRIS
CONSTELLATION
HS
Received Level
Eirp
Fixed Losses
Transmitter Pad (dB) + Transmit Br Ckt Losses
Receiver Br Ckt Loss
Free Space Loss
Frequency Band (GHz)
-36.45
64.448
2.952
0.5
1
133.3462985
5.925-6.425
4/26/2002 9:27
ATTACHMENT E
RUCKERSVlLLE
VA
WMN351
38 12 57.4
78 22 00.7
539
211.06
UHX6-59
0
38.8
290
HRS-CX-06G155M
3 DS3
29
-36.45
62.106
5.194
0.5
1
RioRoad Ruckersville.xls 4/26/2002 9:27 AM
ATTACHMENT E
Pinnade Telecom Group, LLC
14 Ridgedale Avenue, Suite 262
Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927-1106
Page: 1 of 2
Date: April 30, 2002
PCN No. 0402-0331
LICENSEE NAME:
STATION NAME:
CALL SIGN:
GROUND ELEVATION:
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
(PRIMARY) ANTENNA MFG.
ANTENNA MODEL:
ANTENNA CODE:
ANTENNA GAIN BEAMWIDTH ! DEG:
ANTENNA CENTER HEIGHT:
(RECEIVE) ANTENNA MFG.
ANTENNA MODEL:
ANTENNA CODE:
ANTENNA GAIN BEAMWI DTH / DEG:
ANTENNA CENTER HEIGHT:
TX POWER (dBm / Watts):
LINE LOSS:
EQUIPMENT MFG:
FCC CODE:
EQUIPMENT TYPE:
EQUIPMENT STABILITY:
EMISSION DESIGNATOR:
LOADING:
EIRP (DBM / WATTS):
RECEIVE SIGNAL LEVEL:
FREQUENCIES
AZIMUTH:
STATION 1
ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF
VIRGINIA, INC.
RIO ROAD, VA
WLU709
514 FEET/156.7 METERS
38-04-39.5
78-28-20.0
ANDREW CORPORATION
HP6-59J
43302A
38.9 DB / 1.80
100 FEET 1 30.5 METERS
ANDREW CORPORATION
HP6-59J
43302A
38.9 DB / 1,80
100 FEET/ 30.5 METERS
29.0 / 0.794
3.5 DB
HARRIS CORPORATION
HRS-CX-06G155M
TEMB47
0.0003 %
30MODTW
PATH DATA
STATION 2
ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF
VIRGINIA, INC.
RUCKERSVILLE, VA
WMN351
539 FEET/164.3 METERS
38-12-57.4
78-22-00.7
ANDREW CORPORATION
UHX6-59K (LF)
41730A
38.8 DB 11.80
290 FEET/ 88.4 METERS
ANDREW CORPORATION
UHX6-59K (LF)
41730A
38.8 DB / 1.80
290 FEET/88.4 METERS
29.0 / 0.794
5.7 DB
2016 CH DIGITAL
64.4 / 2754.2
-36.3 DBM
6093.45V (16T)
31.000 DEG.
HARRIS CORPORATION
HRS-CX-06G155M
TEMB47
0.0003 %
30MOD7W
2016 CH DIGITAL
62.1 / 1621.8
PATH DISTANCE: 11.132 MI / 17.916 KM
-36.3 DBM
6345.49V (26T)
211.065 DEG.
NOTES: LINE LOSS INCLUDES 0.5 dB TRANSMIT EQUIPMENT LOSS
RECEIVE LEVEL INCLUDES 1.0 dB RECEIVER EQUIPMENT LOSS.
43
JOHN K. TAGGART, III
M.E. GIBSON, JR.
THOMAS E. ALBRO
PATRICIA D. MCGRAW
J~. LEE LIVINGSTON
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1 $85
CHARLOT[ESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585
105-109 EKST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (434) 977-4455
FACSIMILE (434) 979-1221
J~ACHEL L. RUST
CHRISTOPH ER J. ROBINETrE
PETERJ. CARAMANIS
RETIRED
E. GERALD TREMBLAY
LLOYD T. SMITH,
Via Hand Delivery
September 24, 2002
Stephen Waller, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE:
ALLTEL Communications, Inc.
Central Telephone Company - SP 02-040
Dear Stephen:
Please find enclosed the following documents per our telephone discussions:
1. A draft of proposed language for the SUP conditions which incorporates your proposed
conditions, the comments of the Planning Commission members and a compromise regarding: the
height limitation which provides for County oversight while still allowing enough flexibility for the
microwave systems to work;
2. The microwave path survey prepared for ALLTEL for the path which is the subject of this
application. This surv.ey not only indicates that the height of the proposed replacement dish is at its
lowest possible heighl~'to allow coverage, but also provides an example of the type of documentation
contemplated by our proposed condition 3c. In response to Commissioner Rieley's question whether
the dish can be moved down to 95' to be equal to the other existing dish on the tower, it cannot be
at exactly 95' like the other dish because the mounts of the two dishes could not co-exist in that
configuration. However, ALLTEL will agree to move the dish down from 100' to a position closer to, but
above, 95' if the Planning Commission thinks that would be helpful.
3. A schematic diagram of the antenna and mounting which should answer all your
questions regarding dimensions and distances.
Once you have had an opportunity to review this information, please contact me to discuss the
proposed conditions and also to verify to that this submission has provided all necessary information.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards.
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP ~
Stephen Waller, Senior Planner
September 24, 2002
Page 2
Very truly yours,
Peter J. Caramanis
CC:
M.E. Gibson, Jr., Esquire
Fred Miller, ALLTEL
ATTACHMENT E
-Antenna
Rio Road Monopole
& Chain Mount Specifications
Andrew 6fi High Performance Dish
Sidle Vle~e
Dimens~.s in Inches Imm)
Stye. It(m)
I J I[ L M R 0
ii (1 .a)
Typical Monopole
w/Chain type mount
6-7/16' {164 mm)
Total distance from back of antenna to monopole face - 18"
Back of antenna to center of mounting pipe - 11.6"
Center of mounting pipe to monopole face'-6.¥'
4~
October 15, 2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
]0-17-02P04:45
Stewart H. Stevens
5592 Louisa Road
Keswick, VA 22947
RE:
SP-2002-014 Habitat Services - Garden Center
SP-2002-042 Habitat Services - Contractors Storage
Tax Map 78, Parcel 33B
Dear Mr. Stevens:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 8, 2002, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
SP-2002-014 Habitat Services- Garden Center and SP-2002-042 Habitat Services- Contractors
Storage:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the site layout plan titled, "SP 02-14 Habitat
Services Stewart Stevens Phase 1 andPhase 2" and dated May 28, 2002, and revised July 22 2002.
2. The wayside stand permitted under SDP 02-42 shall be voided, upon the commencement of SP 02-
14 and/or SP 02-42.
3. No tree removal or clearing shall be permitted beyond that expressly stated in the site layout plan
titled "Site Layout Plan SP 02-14 Habitat Services Stewart Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2" and dated
May 28, 2002, and revised Juty 22, 2002.
4. A separation of a minimum of four feet between parking stalls and structures shall be required.
5. A final site plan approval shall be required.
6. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the equipment storage area shall be
screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor
7. The height of stored equipment shall not exceed the screening.
8. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the piles of landscape material shall be
contained and dis played neatly and/or screened from the Entrance Corridor.
9. The area for the storage/display of non-plant materials (other than the 5 piles) shall be appropriately
screened from the Entrance Corddor as determined by the Architectural Review Board.
10. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board the storage of landscape materials Shall
not occur within 30' of the front property line and must be appropriately screened.
11. The plant materials may be displayed within 30 feet of the front of the property line with the display
approved by the Planning Department Design Planner.
12. The use authorized by SP 02-14 shall only operate during daylight hours.
Page 2
October 16, 2002
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 13, 2002. Any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely;
Joan McDowell "-'
Principal Planner
JM~cf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Joan D. McDowell
October 8, 2002
November 13, 2002
SP_02-14_Habitat Garden Center and
SP 02-42 Habitat Services Garden Center/Contractor's-Storage
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested two special use permits
on one parcel: a retail garden center in the Entrance Corridor and a
contractor's storage yard.
The garden center would include a 10' by 20' shade structure; a 10' by 20'
building with a metal roof; and a 20' by 48' greenhouse; a shade structure;
and an 8' high arbor. Mulch, compost, firewood, and garden supplies would
also be stored and sold at the site. The business~has been proPosed to be
implemented in two phases. Phase 1 includes the arbor and shade structure.
The remaining buildings would be built in Phase 2. No ~timing of the
phasing has been proposed. Staff review of the project included both
phases. The two phasing plans are included as Attachment A.
The contractor's storage yard would allow equipment storage for the
applicant's other businesses in a fenced area to the rear of the garden center.
The equipment would consist of a 1 ton dump truck; pick-up truck; 2
trailers; 2 small 5" capacity chippers; skid steer; stump grinder; wood
splitter; and 2 lawn tractors.
Access to the property would be from an existing driveWay shared with the
adjacent property that is now occupied by Seminole Produce. Bathroom
facilities located at Seminole Produce also would be: shared with Habitat
Garden Services.
The 2.219-acre site is located on Richmond Road (Route 250 east) south of
1-64. It is zoned Highway Commercial and is within the Comprehensive
Plan Rural Area land use designation. It is also on a designated Entrance
Corridor Overlay District.
SP 02-14 and SP 02-42
PC October 8, 2002
1
Petitions:
SP 02-14 Habitat Services Garden Center: Request for special use permit to
allow for outdoor storage, display and sales of landscaping materials,
including mulch, compost, topsoil, firewood, fence rails, posts, lumber,
trees, shrubs, plants, and various garden and landscape products, in
accordance with Section 30.6.3.2 regulating outdoor storage in the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. A sPecial use permit (SP 02-42) for a contractors
office and equipment storage yard, in accordance .with Section 24.2.2.8
regulating contractors office and equipment storage yards in the Highway
Commercial District is being processed concurrently. The property,
described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 33B, contains 2.219 acres, and is located in
the Scottsville Magisterial District on Richmond Road (Route 250 East),
south of 1-64, and adjacent to Seminole Produce. The property is zoned
Highway Commercial HC. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Rural Area RA and it is within an Entrance Corridor EC Overlay
District.
SP 02-42 Habitat Services Garden Center/Contractors Storage: Request for
special use permit to allow a contractors office and equipment storage yard,
in accordance with Section 24.2.2.8 regulating contractors office and
equipment storage yards in the Highway Commercial District. A special use
permit (SP 02-42) is being processed concurrently for outdoor storage,
display and sales of landscaping materials, including mulch, compost,
topsoil, firewood, fence rails, posts, lumber, trees, shrubs, plants, and
various garden and landscape products, in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2,
regulating outdoor storage in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The
property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 33B, contains 2.219 acres, and is
located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Richmond Road (Route 250
East), south of 1-64, and adjacent to Seminole Produce. The property is
zoned Highway Commercial HC. The Comprehensive PI'an designates this
property as Rural Area RA and it is within an Entrance Corridor EC Overlay
District.
Character of the Area:
The area contains a mixture of rural open space, agricultural, forests,
residential and highway commercial land uses. The east property line
borders Shadwell, a historic property owned by the Thomas Jefferson
SP 02-14 and SP 0242
PC October 8, 2002
1
Memorial Foundation. Seminole Place Produce is located adjacent to this
site on the west.
Planning and Zoning History:
SDP 2002-042 Stevens Family Wayside stand approved April 9, 2002.
ARB 2002,33 Stevens Family Wayside Stand Architectural :Review Board
Certificate of Appropriateness granted for wayside stand
ARB 2002,33 Habitat Garden Center expressed no objeCtion to the special
use permit subject to six conditions:
1. The equipment storage area shall be screened to eliminate visibility from
the EC.
2. The height of stored equipment shall not exceed the screening.
3. The piles of landscape material shall be contained and displayed neatly
and/or screened from the EC.
4. The area for the storage/display of non-plant materials (other than the 5
piles) shall be appropriately Screened.
5. The storage of landscape materials shall not occur within 30' of the front
property line and must be appropriately screened.
6. The plant materials may be displayed within 30 feet of the front of the
property line with the display approved by staff.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is Rural
Area. It is also within an Entrance Corridor District. The garden center use
in the front, the equipment storage behind a screening fence and most of the
trees on the east side and rear of the property would be retained. The limited
size of the garden center, as well as the trees that would be preserved as a
buffer from the adjacent historic property, mitigates and preserves the
character of the rural area, within a HC Highway Commercial zoning
district. The underlying HC zoning on the property is more consistent with
Development Areas land uses. However, a garden center and a construction
equipment storage yard that is screened from view would act as a
satisfactory ,transitional use between the more intense commercial uses and
rural area uses. The garden center use could support horticultural uses in the
Rural Area.
SP 02-14 and SP 0242
PC October 8, 2002
I
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the proposed uses within the
Entrance Corridor and has not opposed the proposed uses, subject to the
conditions of approval, as listed in this report.
The Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that
Route 250 east, east of the 1-64 Interchange "experiences increasingly heavy
congestion during peak hours." Further, the Plan recommended that a study
be conducted to address the issue. The Route 250 East Corridor Study was
presented to the Board of Supervisors, but it has not been adopted. As the
limited size and scope of this operation would not contribute significantly to
the traffic congestion and as an existing driveway would create shared
access for businesses on adjacent properties, the proposed use would not
contribute significantly to the traffic congestion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed these requests for compliance with the provisions of
Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance and recommends approval, based
on consistency with the Comprehensive'Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all
special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as
provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property_.
The proposed retail garden center and construction equipment storage yard
have been located on the site, so as to mitigate impacts on the adjacent rural
area properties. The size of the garden center has been limited by
maintaining trees to the rear and on the east side of the property. The
equipment storage area would been screened from view of the public right-
of-way by a fence and from the properties to the south and east by the tree
preservation areas. The property to the west contains a commercial use and
SP 02-14 and SP 02-42
PC October 8, 2002
1
has agreed to share bathroom facilities, The driveway would provide shared
access to both sites.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The limited size and nature of these requests and the provisions by the
applicant and the ARB to mitigate the uses would not cause the character of
the Rural Area, in this location, to be changed.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Section 1.4.3 states as intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community." The proposed uses
would provide services to the community and impacts on the Rural Area and
adjacent properties would be mitigated.
Section 24.1 Highway Commercial HC states that these districts were
created to "..be established on major highways within the urban area and
communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this
district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial
development by.providing sites with adequate frontage and depth'to permit
controlled access to public streets." The proposed uses would be limited on
this site and retain trees as buffer from adjacent neighbors in the Rural' Area.
It would share an existing driveway with an adjacent commercial use.
Section 30.6.1 Entrance Corridor Overlay District states, "The entrance
corridor overlay district is intended 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...to
ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through
architectural control of development..." The ARB has not objected to these
special use permit applications, subject to the conditions of approval. The
ARB requested conditions of approval have been included in this report.
(Attachment C)
Based on the above considerations, it is staff's opinion that the proposed
garden center and construction storage area would be consistent With the
intent and purpose of this ordinance.
SP 02-14 and SP 0242
PC October 8, 2002
1
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed uses would not prevent land uses permitted by right in the
Highway Commercial district or in the Rural Area district from being
implemented and conducted.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no provisions of Supplementary Regulations contained in Section
5.0 of the Ordinance that apply to the requested land uses in SP 02-14 or SP
02-42.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed garden center and contractor's storage yard would use an
existing commercial entrance, would have a one-way interior driveway, and
would provide a BMP for on-site drainage containment.
The parking spaceS abut proposed structures; therefore, customers exiting
their vehicles would have to cross behind their vehicles and into the
driveway, in order to access the garden center buildings. A condition of
approval has been added that would require a four-foot separation between
the parking spaces and the structures, in order to provide safe access.
The public health, safety and general welfare would not be compromised by
these applications, with the addition of a condition requiring safe,
unimpeded access for pedestrians.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to these applications:
1. The garden center (SP 02-14) would be limited in size, scale, and scope
in keeping to a use that effectively would serve as a transitional use on a
property zoned Highway Commercial in the Rural Area and bordering
both commercial and rural uses.
2. The contractor's storage yard (SP 02-42) would be screened from the
Entrance Corridor and from adjacent Rural Area properties.
3. A tree protection buffer area would screen the operation from an adjacent
historic Rural Area property.
4. An existing driveway would be shared; therefore, the proposed uses
would not require an additional entrance onto Route 250.
SP 02-14 and SP 02-42
PC October 8, 2002
1
5. The garden center could support the local rural area as an outlet for
horticultural products.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavOrable to these applications:
1. The parking spaces abut the proposed buildings and would cause a
pedestrian-vehicle conflict in the driveway.
2. The proposed use is considered more appropriate in a commercial zone in
the Development Area and would not be permitted in the Rural Area land
use designation of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the fmdings contained in this staff report, staff recommends
approval of SP 02-I4 Habitat Services Garden Center and approval of SP
02-42 Habitat Services Garden Center/Contractor's Storage Yard, subject to
the following conditions of approval:
1. The site shall be developed in general.accord with the site layout plan
titled, "SP 02-14 Habitat Services Stewart Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2"
and dated May 28, 2002, and revised July 22, 2002.
2. The wayside stand permitted under SDP 02-42 shall be voided, upon the
commencement of SP 02-14 and/or SP 02-42.
3. No tree removal or clearing shall be permitted beyond that expressly
stated in the site layout plan titled "Site Layout Plan SP 02-14 Habitat
Services Stewart Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2" and dated May 28, 2002,
and revised July 22, 2002.
4. A separation of a minimum of four feet between parking stalls and
structures shall be required.
5. A final site plan approval shall be required.
6. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the equipment
storage area shall be screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance
Corridor
7. The height of stored equipment shall not exceed the screening.
8. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the piles of
landscape material shall be contained and displayed neatly and/or
screened from the Entrance Corridor.
9. The area for the storage/display of non-plant materials (other than the 5
piles) shall be appropriately screened from the Entrance Corridor as
determined by the Architectural Review Board.
SP 02-14 and SP 02-42
PC October 8, 2002
1
10. Subject to the approval of the ,Architectural Review Board, the storage of
landscape materials shall not occur within 30' of the front property line
and must be appropriately screened.
11.The plant materials may be displayed within 30 feet of the front of the
property line with the display approved by the Planning Department
Design Planner.
12.SP 02-14 and SP 02-42 shall only operate during daylight hours.
Attachments:
Attachment A
Site Layout Plans SP 02-14 Habitat Services Stewart
Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2" and dated May 28, 2002
and revised July 22, 2002
Attachment B Location Map and Zoning Map
Attachment C
ARB 2002-100 Letter dated September 24, 2002, from
Janet Miller to Stewart Stevens
SP 02-14 and SP 02-42
PC October 8, 2002
1
~by Seminole Produce)
-
Fencing Cot Equipment Area-
Shade Structure
3' Collection Drain,
Perforated tile 1' Deep
Brownstone Pebbled
area within drive
1/2' cal., 30' O.C.
ATTACHMENT A
X
tent Storage _A_rea
ds with Metal roof
Fire Resistant Coveting
ampe Materials may indude:
~, compost, Topsoi. lFirewood
<ape Ties, Fencing, Posts, Rails
~, Landscape stone
lion Supplies
; apparel, grosses
muses, feeders and baths
· Pots and Planters
tg, Awnings
:ts ad Carts
tto Stakes, cages
m Ornaments
and Fountains, Outdoor fiLmiture
nutS, Honey, Vegetables
sBooks
to dete~ pedestrian traffic
from se_trice drive
Screen Fencin~
shadowbox barrier 8' tall
pseudoacacia, '
.-
to
Equipment
Storage Area
location for BMP
"'~'Dotted line
25' Diameter
.-' -'375
·
bcd and
SITE
LAYOUT
PLAN
May 28, 2002
Rev. 7/22/02
Scale: 0-1"=50
Phase 1
Post and Cha~Barfier--
Swing Gates for Equipment Area Cemis Canadensis, 3 1/z" ""
~ ,~4~ c.~-'x ~ > . , ~by Seminole Produce)
Shadowbox Fencing
to deter pedestfiav, traffic~
from service ddve
Screen Fencing:
shadowbox ban'ier 8' tall
x,
x.
\
to remain..
tent Storage Area
Greenhouse
Equipment
Storage Area
r location for BMP
ds with Metal roof
Fire Resistant Coveting
scape Materials may indude:
a, compost, TopsoOFirewood
scape Ties, Fencing, Posts, Rails
s, Landscape stone
lion Supplies
, apparel, grasses
aouses, feeders and baths
;. Pots and Planters
,g, Awuings
:ts ad Carts
tto Stakes. cages
en Ornaments
and Fountains. Outdoor fumitttre
nuts. Honey. Vegetables
,sBooks
t
/
!
!
/
25' Diameter
Dotted line indicates Existing Berm
,"" 375
,'
!
!
Sign, previously approved
Shade Structure
8' height
3' Collection Drain.
)eep
Brownstone Pebbled
area within drive
1/2" cal., 30' O.C.
and
Ou3an7 nigta), to remain for ~
' 0unip~e ~ms vir,~,' n;), TBR
(Robiuia psuedoacacia), TBR
occidentalis)
/
/
/
/
/
/
SITE
LAYOUT
PLAN
May 28, 2002
Rev. 7/22/02
Scale: 0-1"=5ff
PHASE 2
RIVANNA
RIVER
ATTACHMENT B
LOW!
ILER
N
SP - 2002 - 014 ~
SP - 2002 - 042
HABITAT SERVICES
GARDEN CENTER
1,13rCH = 400 FF_.~T
~2
COUNTY
1/~.-....
Y
SCOTTSV1LLE AND
RtVANNA DISTF~ICTS
SECTION '/"8
SP 02-14 AND SP 02-42
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Architectural Review Board special use permit
S P-2002-014
Habitat Services Garden
Center(Contractor Storage)
revision.6
reviewer received reviewed
janet miller 3/18/02 9/16/02
decision
requested changes
September 24, 2002
Stewart Stevens
Habitat Services
5592 Louisa Road
Keswick, VA 22947
RE:. ARB-2002-100 Habitat Services Garden Center; Tax Map 78, Pamel 33B
Dear Mr. Stevens:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on September 16, 2002, completed a
preliminary review of a site development plan associated with a request for outdoor storage/sales/display
in the Entrance Corridor. The Board offered no objection to the special use permit for ARB-2002-100 for
outdoor storage, sales, and display with the following conditions:
1. The equipment storage area shall be screened to eliminate visibility from the EC.
2. The height of stored equipment shall not exceed the height of the screening.
3. The piles of landscape material shall be contained from all views along the EC. Those piles include the
firewood, mulch, topsoil and compost. The wood shall either be stacked in cords or contained in piles.
4. The storage of any items other than plants shall not occur within 30 feet of the front property line. The
storage of any items -- other than plants and the landscape piles of firewood, mulch, topsoil and
compost -- must be appropriately screened.
5. The plant materials may be displayed within 30 feet of the front property line.
6. Other landscape materials shall be neatly displayed within the structure or screened from the EC.
Th e Board :offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's final submission. Please note
that the follOwing comments ate those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may
be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan.
1. Remove greenhouse detail and note about proposed structures from the Phase 1 plan.
2. If the guardrail is proposed for Phase 1, add the detail to the Phase 1 plan. If the guardrail is not
proposed for Phase 1, remove it from the site plan and include both items on the Phase 2 sheet. Both
details and note on the site plan must be coordinated.
3. Clearly delineate the extent of the gravel area on the plans. Indicate on the plans the paving material
for the parking area.
4. Indicate on the plans how the landscape materials inside the loop drive will be stored/displayed (i.e.
tables, racks, crates, etc.).
5. Indicate how the stored landscape materials will be screened in Phase 1.
6. Clarify the post and chain/cable detail on the Phase 1 plan.
lO/1/02 lO:43 AM
Page 1 of 3
13
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Architectural Review Board
special use permit
S P-2002-014
Habitat Services Garden
Center(Contractor Storage)
revision6
reviewer received reviewed decision
janet miller 3/18/02 9/16/02 requested changes
7. Coordinate tree removal with the location of the BMP. Please clarify the size of the BMP on the plans.
Page 2
September 24, 2002
8. Include the signed tree conservation checklist on the plan. Specifically, show on the plan a) trees to be
saved, b) limits of clearing, and c) location and type of protective fencing as reqUired by checklist item #1.
Provide a detail showing how the trees will be protected.
9. Provide information on the plan for Phase 2 regarding the color and material of the fire resistant
covering for the greenhouse. Clarify the roofing material for the shrubber's hut.
10. Indicate the colors for all proposed structures.
11. Clearly delineate the area on the plan for equipment storage and include square footage.
12. Provide screening shrubs around the parking area.
13. Provide shade trees on the plans at 3 y2 caliper, 35' on center parallel to the EC. Intersperse
ornamental trees among the shade trees.
14. Coordinate the proposed plantings with underground utilities and overhead wires. Show all utilities on
the plan.
15. Accurately identify and clearly label the shade and arbor structures for Phase 1 on the plan and
elevations.
16. Label Phase 2 shade structu res on the plan and elevations.
17. Label the shaded area south of the arbor and shade structure on the Phase I plan.
18. Label the proposed storage sheds on the plan for Phase 2. Indicate building materials on the
elevation. Provide color samples.
19. Regarding the elevations, clarify the height of the greenhouse.
20. Show how the landscape piles will be appropriately contained.
21. Revise the note reading: "Area for storage of plants only" to read "Area for display of plants only".
22. Provide additional landscaping to the west of the area for the storage/display of non-plant materials
(other than the 5 piles) to appropriately screen it from the Entrance Corridor.
23. In addition, revise the drawings to clarify the structures that are open to the Entrance Corridor.
You may submit your application for final ARB review at you r-earliest convenience. A Submission and
Review Schedule is attached.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Please include a memo outlining
how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made,
identify those changes in the memo also.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
10/1/02 10:43 AM
Page 2 of 3
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Architectural Review Board
special use permit
S P-2002-014
Habitat Services Garden
Center(Contractor Storage)
revision 6
reviewer received reviewed decision
janet miller 3/18/02 9/16/02 requested changes
Sincerely,
Janet Miller
Landscape Planner
JM/jcf
Cc: File
10/1/02 10:43 AM
Page 3 of 3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Commumty Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
October 15, 2002
Gregory S. Duncan
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-2002-043 Crown Orchard; Tax Map 91, Parcel 28
Dear Mr. Duncan:
The Al'bem arle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 8, 2002,' unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
o
10.
The facility including the tower and the ground equipment building renovations shall be sized,
located14, 2002. and built as shown on the application plan, dated June 7, 2001 and last revised on March
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site
drawings 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.
The Engineering Department shall grant approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for this
site prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The height of the tower structure shall not exceed 250 feet and the top of the digital antenna shall
not exceed 300 feet above ground level. No equipment, with the exception of any FAA required
flight safety lighting, shall extend more than 50 feet above the top of the tower.
No additional antennas that sul~port services other than television broadcasting shall be attached
to extend above a total height of 250 feet on the digital tower or the existing guyed tower that
holds the analog antenna.
The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at its base, and five (5) feet at
the top.
Only those satellite and microwave dishes that are necessary to the support the transmission of
the digital television signal shall be permitted on the tower.
No guy wires shall be permitted.
Should the existing guyed tower that holds the analog antenna be used for mounting additional
antennas after the analog signal is discontinued, the owner shall comply with the regulations for
attachment of facilities to an existing structure set forth in Section 5.1.40c of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
-its use for digital television transm issions is discontinued If the Zoning Administrator determines
at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the
permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety
satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in. an amount sufficient
~0-17-02A08:0; R
11.
12.
for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
The use, structure or activity for which this permit is issued shall commence no later than
December 31, 2006. The term "commence" shall mean commencement of the structure that is
necessary for mounting the digital antenna.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 13, 2002, Any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stephen Waller, AICP
Senior Planner
SW/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Ketsey
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
STEPHEN WALLER
OCTOBER 8, 2002
NOVEMBER 13, 2002
SP 02~043 CROWN ORCHARD CORPORATION
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant's proposal is for the construction of a digital broadcast television facility using a
250-foot tall lattice tower structure mounted with a 50-foot tail antenna at a site maintained by
the Virginia Broadcasting Corporation for its WVIR-TV television station (Attachment A). The
proposed lattice tower would be 30 feet wide at its base and taper to a width of 4 feet, 7 3/4 inches
at its top, and construction would also include the removal and replacement of a portion of the
existing equipment building at the site (Attachment B). The property, described as Tax Map 91,
Parcel 28, contains 234.165 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas (Attachment C). This site is located in
the Scottsvitle Magisterial District, on Carter's Mountain Trail, approximately 1 mile southeast
of the intersection with the Thomas Jefferson Parkway [State Route 53]. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this site as Rural Area 4.
Petition:
This petition is for a special use permit to allow the construction of the new tower and its related
transmission facilities, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows radio wave transmission and relay towers in the RA zoning district. According to the
applicant's request, approval of these facilities will enable WVIR to undertake the transition
from its current analog system to the federally mandated digital broadcast that must be functional
by no later than December 31, 2006.
Plannin~ and Zoning History:
Several towers, satellite dishes and various other communications facilities are currently located
within the existing "tower farm" at the top of Carter's Mountain. Staff has identified that the
following actions that have been taken to approve several of those facilities since 1978:
SP 78-42 Motorola - On October 4, 1978, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use
permit request to allow a 200-foot tall communication tower.
SP 79-76 Jefferson Cable - On January 18, 1980, the'Board of Supervisors approved a special
use permit request to allow a 5-meter satellite receiving dish.
SP 80-02 Shenandoah Valley TV - On March 19, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approVed a
special use permit request allowing the removal of an existing 230-foot tall tower, and
replacement with a 186-foot tall television tower.
SP 88-14 Central Virginia Educational TV - On May 4, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved
a special use permit request to allow a 293-foot tall television tower.
SP 90-74 Charlottesville Cellular - On September 19, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved a
spe~ia.l use permit request to allow a 150-foot tall cellular telephone tower.
SP 91-23 Charlottesville Quality Cable - On August 7, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved
a special use permit request to allow a 200-foot tall wireless cable transmission tower.
SP 93-10 Crown Orchard Company (WVIR-TV) - On June 9, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
approved a special use permit request to allow a 60-foot tall television reception tower.
SP 93-15 RAM/BSE Communications - On July 14, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a
special use permit request to allow a multi-purpose tower not to exceed 300-feet in height. The
true mounting structure of this tower is 270feet tall, with an attachment at the top that extends
up to 297feet. This tower is the subject of the requested collocation in this proposal.
SP 94-37 Centel Cellular - On March 13, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use
permit request to allow a 200-foot cellular telephone tower.
SP 96-16 Sm-Comm. Inc. - On July 10, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use
permit request to allow a 190-foot multi-purpose tower.
SP 00-88 Carter's Mountain Emergency Communication Facility - On April 18, 2001 the Board
of Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow a 250-foot tower as part of the area
emergency communications system.
SP 00-072 Crown Orchard (NEXTEL/Crown Castle) - On April 16, 2001, the Board of
Supervisors approved a special use permit request to allow the co-location of an additional array
of antennas, on an existing 270-foot tall guyed tower owned by American Tower Corporation,
and a new 9'x16' equipment building.
Character of the Area:
This facility site is located within an existing "tower farm" at the top of Carter's Mountain on
property owned by Crown Orchard Company. The facilities on the portion of the site maintained
by WVIR were originally established when the station began broadcasting on March 11., 1973.
Several other existing facilities with towers that range between 60 and 300 feet in height are
located on this property. The site is accessed from Carter's Mountain Road, which begins at the
east side of Route 53, south of Michie Tavern. Although the outlying area surrounding the tower
farm consists of orchards, there are no significantly sized trees within the immediate area. There
are no dwellings within 2000 feet of the WVIR facilities and the nearest public road is nearly one
mile away.
2
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.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Open Space Plan and Chapter Two
Staff notes that the building area for this proposal is in an area that is already cleared and does
not necessitate any significant distUrbance. Furthermore, vehicular access is already provided to
the site is from the private' access road which begins at State Route 53 and extends south to the
site. Therefore, staff's review of this request for compliance with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan focuses mainly on the possible impacts that could result from the presence
of the new tower and the new equipment building at the proposed location.
The Open Space Plan and the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (Chapter 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan) provide staff with guidance for the protection of the County's natural,
scenic and historic resources, and preservation and management of those resources in order to
protect the environment for future use. Staff has identified the two Open Space resources that
could potentially be affected by this application as the Mountain Resource Area and important
historic sites.
The site is located in the resource area for Carter's Mountain which begins at the 700 foot
contour on the USGS maps and peaks at an elevatiOn of approximately 1,400 feet above sea-level
(ASL). 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. Staff has identified the following general standard that has been set forth for
protecting mountain resources.
Locate houses and structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape. Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy.
Do not locate houses and structures where they will be "skylighted" against the
horizon.
Do not alter the continuity of the ridgeline.
There is no existing tree canopy with close proximity that could provide assistance in mitigating
the facilities within the tower farm. Them are several existing towers located within this area that
are comparable in height to that of the tower proposed to serve as the mounting structure for the
antenna proposed for this facility. Because of the varying terrain, concerns with the possibility of
skylighting (visibility of structures'in against open skies without background) and altering the
continuity of the ridgeline are mainly functions of the locations from which the proposed and
existing structures can be viewed. This tower would be skylighted fram a number of locations.
However, the continuity of the ridgeline has already been altered the facilities that currently exist
within the tower farm, and the proposed tower would be no more prevalent than they are.
The Open Space Concept MaP' identifies several historic sites on properties that are adjacent to
and near the subject property, including the Nationally Registered Historic Properties of
Monticello and Michie Tavern, both of which are located to the north of the tower sites on
Carter's Mountain. Due to fhe presence of vegetation, and the topography of Patterson
Mountain, which lies between those historic properties and the tower farm, the existing towers
and utility structures are not visible from most of those historic sites.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy;
In accordance with the guidelines set forth in. the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy,
staff analysis is focused mainly on the visual impact of proposed facilities fi'om surrounding
properties and roadways. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and
mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, wireless facilities should not be located within
"Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. This includes the recommendation for implementing
structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy, and locating structures so that they are
not "skylighted" against the horizon, and do not alter the ridgeline. As a result of the structure
heights and the fact that they are situated at the top ora mountain, the towers on Carter's
Mountain are already slcylighted, and highly visible from several points throughout the County
and the City of Charlottesville.
Although the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy does not apply directly to this proposal,
it does encourage other types of facilities to adhere to the policy to the extent possible.
Therefore, staff attempted to address some of the concerns that are set forth in the policy manual
for mitigating viSUal impacts through several suggestions such as co-locating the digital antenna
on 'the existing guyed tower. However, the applicant has responded that engineering studies have
determined that the 30-year old tower, which currently holds the 4,000-pound analog antenna, is
incapable of accommodating the additional 4,000-pounds toad of the proposed digital antenna
(Attachment D).
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property,
Due to its elevation and the sizes of the structures in the tower farm, this site is highly visible
from several points throughout the County and the City of Charlottesville. However, because the
existing tower farm is located at the top of Carter's mountain and near the center of large parcel
that contains many acres, it is physically isolated from the adjacent properties. It is staff's
opinion that the proposed tower and equipment building renovations would not impose any
4
additional, substantial detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural,
scenic and historic resources are important purposes for the Rural Areas zoning district include.
Uses allowed in this district by fight are either residential, or those related to agriculture and
forestal activities. Those uses that are allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district
are most often for services related to by-right activities.
Due to the number of existing facilities at this site, the newly proposed digital television facility
alone would not be have the effect of changing the character of the district. However, concerns
for the possibility of adverse impacts are often increased when several towers and facilities are
established at one location. When addressing these concerns early, staff had requested that the
applicant research possibilities for either structurally fortifying the existing tower to -allow the co-
location of both the analog and the digital antennas, or for constructing a new tower that would
be .sound enough to support both. The applicant has answered that by undertaking either of those
options WVIR would have to cease its television broadcasts and subsequently could lose its
license. This is because the analog antenna would have to be taken down in order to perform the
work that is necessary to do either.
Staff has also discussed the possibility of requiring the removal of the existing toWer once the
analog signal antenna is no longer needed. But the applicant is bound by a contractual agreement
for this site that allows the property owiaer, Crown Orchard Corporation, to assume the control of
the existing guyed tower once it is no longer used as a mount for the analog antenna.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as stated Sections 1.4.4, 1.5 and 1.6, all of which address the provision of public
services. Staff also gives consideration for the concems that these regulations set forth for the
possible impact that public service facihties can have upon the rural areas and the natural
environment. Whenever telecommunication facilities cannot be designed to stealthily blend i'n
with the existing surroundings, staffhas recognized a preference to co-locate on existing
structures within utility'easements or to build new structures in areas where similar facilities are
already present. Both of these practices can be effective for ensuring that new facilities are not
located in a manner that requires extensive environmental degradation in addition to the
perceived visual impacts that are experienced.
Section 1.4~3 states that one of the intents of the Ordinance is, "To facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community." It is clear that the existing facilities on
Carter's Mountain provide a wide range of services to County residents and other people
throughout the area. This includes support for television and radio broadcasts aS well as
emergency and personal wireless telecommunications. Staff recognizes that WVIR TV is the
only nationally affiliated broadcast television station serving the County Albemarle,
Charlottesville and surrounding counties as its core viewing area. In addition to the network
television shows that are geared toward delivering entertainment and news on a national level,
local television broadcasts also allow the public to have access to regionally specialized news
and weather reports. Therefore, staff's opinion is that this request complies with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to utilities.
with the uses permitted by fight in the district,
Because the orchard has been used continually in the presence of the existing facilities within the
tower farm, it is apparent that a new tower for the proposed digital facilities would not have the
effect of restricting the current by-right uses within the district. This has also been demonstrated
in the fact that the existing tower farm has coexisted on the subject parcel with the existing fruit
orchards.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public
health, safety and general welfare.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with all of the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines that intended are protect the public health and
safety from high levels of radio frequency emissions.
By providing various forms of information such as public affairs issues, emergency
announcements and weather advisories, with the capability for broadcasting live, local television
may be considered as contributing to th~ public health, safety and welfare on a regional level.
Because the federal government has mandated local television stations to either switch to a
digital signal or lose their broadcast licenses, the provision of enhanced television broadcasting
facilities can also be considered consistent with these principles.
SUMMARY:
Local broadcast television provides a range of services that are vital to the community. The
federal government requires the applicant to complete a transition from providing an analog
broadcast signal to digital television transmissions prior to December 31, 2006, or risk the loss of
its current license when the analog signal frequencies are abandoned. As a result of existing
contractual obligations, the owner of the property where the applicant's lease site exists is
entitled to take control of the existing guyed tower when the analog antenna is no longer in use.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
The facilities would allow WVIR to retain its FCC license by switching to a digital
broadcast transmission.
The renovation of the ground equipment building would not. be visible from areas outside
of the facility.
No additional clearing of vegetation would be necessary for the placement of the facility.
6
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factors that would result from the approval of this
request:
1. The proposed digital broadcast tower would be skylighted.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
2.
3.
4.
The applicant is required to switch from transmitting its analog broadcast signal to a
digital signal.
The site of the proposed facility is already developed with several facilities and towers
that support various types of wireless communications services.
The applicant has identified no existing towers that are capable of accommodating the
additional 4,000 pounds of the proposed antenna. ' -
Attempting to co-locate the digital and analog antennas on one tower would require the
television station to go off-air during renovations and construction and could possibly
result in the loss of their license.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is staff's opinion that this request is in accord with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 and
should not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties or change the character of the
surrounding Rural Area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special use
permit subject to the with the following conditions:
Recommended conditions of approval:
The facility including the tower and the ground equipment building renovations shall be
sized, located and built as shown on the application plan, dated June 7, 2001 and last
revised on March 14, 2002.
o
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set
of site drawings 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.
The Engineering Department shall grant approval of an erosion and sediment control plan
for this site prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The height of the tower structure shall not exceed 250 and the top of the digital antenna
shall not exceed 300 feet above ground level. No equipment, with the exception of any
FAA required flight safety lighting, shall extend more than 50 feet above the top of the
tower.
No additional antennas that support services other than television broadcasting shall be
attached to extend above a total height of 250 feet on the digital tower or the existing
guyed tower that holds the analog antenna.
o
The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at its base, and five
(5) feet at the top.
No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the tower, as per Section 5.1.40c
' of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. No guy wires shall be permitted.
Should the existing guyed tower that holds the analog antenna be used for mounting
additional antennas after the analog signal is.discontinued, the owner shall comply with
the regulations for attachment of facilities to an existing structure set forth in Section
5.1.40c of the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application and Request for Special Use Permit
Applicant's Graphic Information
Tax/Location Map
Applicant's Additional Information
County of Albemarle o:- Department of Building Code and ATTACHMENT A
OFFICE USE ONL__.Y , -,
Application for Special Use Permit
(*stuff will asist y< wi~ th~c itch)
Number ofa~ to ~ eov~ed by Spedal Use Per~t (~.~"~,~~o 934
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with tiffs appliration?
Ye.~ No
Yea'El No
Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): Gregory S. Duncan
Address 412 East J~ff~rson .q~'r~=~=~- City Charlottesville State VA
~DaytimePhone(434 ) 979-8556 Faxg {434)979-9766 E-mail
Zip .229..0.2_
Owner of land (A~ listed in thc County's records): Crown Orchard Company, L. P .., L. L, P.
Address P.O. Box 299 City Batesville State. VA
Daytime Phone ( 4 3'4 )823-4405 Fax# (434)823-2507 E-mail
Zip 22924
Ap plica nt (Who is thc contact person representing? Who is requesting thc special usc?).V i r g i n i a Br o ad c a s t ing
Address 503 East Market Street City Charlcrttesvi~0ag~ VA
Daytime Phone ( 434 )220-2900 Fax# (434)220-2904 E-mail
CorporatJ
Zip 22902
ra mapandpargel Tax ~ap 9~, Parcel
Location of property (laadmatks. int~rsectio.s, oro, hcr) The Property is located in an "antenna
farm" atop Carter's Mountain off State Route 53.
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
those tax map and parcel nUmbers
OFFICE USE ONLY ..--,~,-- . - .....,/ 4 ~' ....
Fcc a~ount.$_./~/ Date Paid~ -///0/{9 Check# ,~5._~ Receipt ~ f~/O By" ~
0 Variances:
401 Mclntire Road -:. Charlottesville, VA 22902 .:o Voice: 296-5832 -:- Fax: 972-4126
ATTACHMENT A
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding bY the board of supervisors
that 'such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed 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 secti:~n
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare,' --,
The'items which` fo!low will be reviewed by the staff in their'ana[~si~'OfY%ii
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County inits m~!ew of your request. '
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
WhatistheComprel~ensivePlandesignationforfl)isproperty? See paraqrph 9 of atLached letter
See paragraph 10 of attached letter
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
See paragraph 11 of attached letter
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
See paragraph 12 of attached letter
How is the use in harmony with the uscs permitted by right in the district?
See paragraph 13 of attached letter
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
See paragraph 14 of attached letter
Hew will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
See paragraph 15 of attached letter
ATTACHMENT A
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
See attached letter
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please' provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in' the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, parmership
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 signin~ below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
subrnitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acc.eptable 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
. ~'~.? ~. bo, can
Printed Name
Daytime phone number of Signatory
11
ATTACHMENT A
GREGORY S. DUNCAN
Attorney at Law
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
July 15, 2002
County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
telephone (434)979-8556
fax (434)979-9766
Re: Application for Special Use
Permit for Virginia
Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
I have the honor of representing Virginia Broadcasting Corporation in its application for a
Special Use Permit to construct a new tower in the "antenna farm" located atop Carter's
Mountain. To this end, the following summarizes the pertinent facts giving rise to this
application as well as a detailed discussion of what we propose. Your time and consideration of
the following is very much appreciated.
1. Historical overview. Virginia Broadcasting Corporation which trades as WVIR-TV
first became licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to own and operate a
television station in the Charlottesville area in 1972. At that time. Virginia Broadcasting
obtained the necessary County authorizations and constructed a 250 ft. tower on Carter's
Mountain. On March 11, 1973, WVIR-TV signed on the air. In 1993, the station increased its
transmitting power to five million (5,000,000) watts, thus becoming the most powerful television
station in Virginia. After nearly 30 years of service to this community. WVIR-TV continues to
utilize this tower to broadcast its analog signal.
Today, Virginia Broadcasting operates with a staff of 90 and broadcasts 24 hours a day, 365
days a year providing national and local news, weather and sports to viewers in 12 counties in
Central Virginia. According to the A. C. Nielson Television Rating Service, WVIR-TV is
viewed in an average of 117,000 television homes each week.
Recently, the United States Congress mandated that all television stations shall discontinue
their analog transmissions and switch to digital transmissions. Virginia Broadcast~ns s current
analog frequency is to be forfeited to the U. S. Government tO be sold to help reduce the federal
deficit. During the transition to digital, WVIR-TV will transmit in both analog and digital
12
ATTACHMENT A
formats. Analog transmissions will likely cease Only ~:ter a determination that 85% of the
market is able to receive a d~gital signal or on December 31, 2006, whichever shall last occur.
Specifically, and in furtherance of the plan for conversion of the U. S. television
broadcasting system from analog to digital, Section 309 of the Communications Act was
extensively amended by Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Section
309(j)(14)(A) provides that a television broadcasting license that authorizes analog television
services may not be .renewed to authorize such service for a period that extends beyond
December 31, 2006, unless that deadline is extended by the Federal Communications
Commission where (i) one or more of the four largest TV network stations is not broadcasting in
digital mode, or (ii) digital-to-analog converter technology is not available in the market, or (iii)
15% or more of the TV households in the market do not subscribe to a multichannel video
programming distributor (such as cable or a satellite TV system) and do not have at least one TV
receiver capable of receiving a digital signal or capable of converting a digita. 1 signal to an analog
signal.
In order to comply with the mandate of Congress and the Federal Communication
Commission, WVIR-TV must construct a new tower, although we would prefer to avoid this
timely and very expensive endeavor. The transition to digital transmissions will generate no
additional revenue to Virginia Broadcasting.
2~ The Site. Once it became evident that a new tower would be needed, WVIR-TV gave
considerable consideration to numerous possible sites. Several sites would have sufficed from a
technical standpoint and the rent on one of the sites considered would have. been less than half
(1/2) the rent required on Carters Mountain. But because the Carter's Mountain site already is
designated and known as the County's "antenna farm" this site was chosen for its low impact on
the area and for the desire to leave undeveloped areas undeveloped. Additionally, locating at this
site, where there currently exists television transmission towers, will eliminate the need for
viewers to either install a new receiving antenna or adjust their current one.
The proposed site is owned by Crown Orchard Company, L. P., L. L. P., ("Crown Orchard")
a Virginia limited 'liability partnership. A copy of a Statement of Registration from the Virginia
'State Corporation Commission is attached hereto as Exhibit I. Crown Orchard fully supports
WVIR-TV's application for a special use permit to construct the new television tower. A copy of
a letter from Mr, Henry M. Chiles, general partner in Crown Orchard Company, L. P.~ L. L. P. is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
The proposed site is identified as Parcel 28 on Albemarle County Tax Map 91. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. The property is zoned RA Rural
Area 4. A copy of a recorded plat of this property is. attached hereto as Exhibit 3. A site plan
prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates. Ltd., civil engineers, showing the location of
the proposed tower and building addition as well as the topography within 2000 feet of the
proposed site is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The site is approximately 10.8 miles from the
airport.
ATTACHMENT A
Since an existing_-.antenna farm dominates the area, no trees would:be .impacted by the new
tower. The impact 'of this facility on resources identified in ~e Open'Space Plan would be
mitigated, due to th~:Preservation of trees and the liirfi~e~d access to the' pr~pe~tY.'"32nd; the'nOw
tower ~6[ild h°t'~e'~t lbermitted uses on'the sttbj~et Property or on adjacent properties and will
preserve the owner's agricultural activities in conformity with the intent of the Open SpaceP!an.
3. -FFA Approval. A determination that the proposed tower would be of no hazard to air
navigation is required from the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). The FAA-has
completed an aeronautical study and has issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
A copy of this Determination is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
We intend to comply fully with the FAA's lighting and any other requirements.
4. Construction Permit from Federal Communications Commission. The Federal
Communications Act of 1996 requires that prior to construction of digital television facilities a
permit must be obtained from the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). The FCC has
issued' this permit to Virginia Broadcasting Corporation. The original permit expired on May I,
2002~ but an extension has been granted by the FCC until December 1, 2002. A copy of this
construction permit is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
5. The Proposed Tower.
approximately 250 £eet tall.
approximately 4000 pounds.
Virginia Broadcasting Corporation's present guyed tower is
On top of this tower is a 50 foot tall antenna, weighing
The proposed tower would be located adjacent to the present tower and would also be 250
feet tall and support a 50 foot antenna. Thus. the height of the two antennas would be virtually
identical. See.., Exhibit 4 for proposed location: The proposed tower would also be virtually
identical (in both height and appearance) and in close proximity to the self-supporting lattice
tower being constructed by the County of Albemarle in the Carter's Mountain antenna farm, for
which a special use permit was recently granted (SP 2000-88).
The proposed tower would be a self-supporting lattice structure (no guy wires) with a 30
foot wide base (outside to outside). This type tower has been chosen since there exists a plethora
of guy wires and other lines in the proposed area. This type construction is also deemed to have
less impact on wildlife. A drawing of the proposed tower and antenna is attached hereto as
Exhibit 7.
To assist you in visualizing the proposed tower, Virginia Broadcasting's engineers have
inserted the proposed tower in a photograph of the antenna farm. The proposed tower is
identified as "DTV32" on Exhibit 8 attached hereto. This simulation is accurate as to scale and
location to the best of our ability.
6. The need for a new Tower. As noted above, during the transition to digital
transmissions, Vir~nia Broadcasting will be required to transmit in both analog and digital
formats. We had hoped to be able to mount the new digital antenna on our present tower and
then de-mount the analog antenna at the appropriate time.
ATTACHMENT A
Unfortunately, the present tower is not capable of supporting an additional 4000 pound load.
The present tower was designed in 1972 and, according to the manufacturer, "there is no
probability that the tower will accommodate significant additional loading." A copy of the
manufacturer's (Rohn Industries, Inc.) opinion letter is attached hereto asExhibit 9.
Consideration was given to mounting the new digital antenna, atop a vacant tower in the
antenna farm. Unfortunately, no such tower exists; each tower currently is in use by its owner
or a lessee of Crown Orchard L. P., L. L. P. Complicating any such collocation is the fact that
the new antenna will be connected to Virginia Broadcasting's transmitter via a heavy 6 1/8 inch
copper transmission line necessitating that the tower and antenna be as close to the transmitter as
possible. Further, given the age and type towers presently located in the antenna farm. it is
doubtful that any of them would have the structural integrity to handle an additional 4000 pound
load.
7. D.!,sp. ositio,n of. present tower. Pursuant to the terms of its lease, Crown Orchard L. P..
L. L. P., wm nave the right to take over ownership and use of the present tower when Virginia
Broadcasting no longer uses it. If this option is elected by Crown Orchard, this would eliminate
the need to build a new tower in the future; future lessees of Crown Orchard needing tower
space could rent the present tower, thereby eliminating the need to erect a new tower.
If Crown Orchard does not elect to take over ownership of Virginia Broadcasting's cmxent
tower, it will either be leased to others needing tower space, again thereby eliminating
construction of a new tower, or it may be dismantled and removed.
8. Height Limitation. Section 4.10 of' Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code
addresses the height limitations of buildings and other structures. The height limitations of this
chapter do not apply to television antennas or towers, however. See, Secti°n 4.10.3.1(a). As
noted above, the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a Determination of No Hazard to
Air Navigation and two representatives of the Virginia Department of Aviation have indicated to
this writer that once the FAA has issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation the
Virginia Department of Aviation does not do so, thus satisfying the requirements Section
4.10.2.2 to the extent possible.
9. Comprehensive Plan Desi.maation. The' Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Rural Area. The property is zoned RA Rural Area 4. '
10. Affect of use on adjacent property. The proposed tower will be placed in the middle of
an existing antenna farm which is located within a 200 acre apple orchard. There is one rocky.
dirt road serving this area. The tower makes no noise, emits no pollution and will not impact ~y
water supply. It is believed that the tower would have limited visibility from any right of way,
due to the proliferation of existing towers. Thus, the affect on adjacent property would be de
minimis. --
ATTACHMENT A
I 1. Affect of use on the character of the district surrounding the property. The proposed
tower and addition to the existing building would not change 'the character of the district, as they
would be amongst multiple towers in the immediate area.
12. · The .use is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The site
is zoned Rural Area. The use would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
The proposed use would not conflict with the existing uses in the area or be in conflict with the
Rural Axea District.
13. The use is in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed
tower would affect no uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed use is in harmony
with the current agricultural use of the owner.
14. Additional re~J!ations in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance that .apply. No
additional regulations contained in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply directly to the
proposed tower. Section 5.1.12 of the Ordinance addresses public utility towers that are
abandoned, damaged or otherwise in a state of disrepair. This Section does not apply in the
present simatiom
Althougta the Personal Wireless Services Facilities Policy as implemented in Section 5.1.40
of the Zoning Ordinance dOes not appear to be designed for or directed at television stations, we
have attempted to provide the requested information to the .extent reasonably possible at other
places in this letter. See; paragraphs 2 and 5 above and paragraph 16 below as well as Exhibits
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 attached hereto,
15. How will the proposed use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the
Community? For nearly 30 years WVIR-TV has served this community and would like to
continue to do so. In time of local crisis, WVIR-TV has been the.source of critical information
to our citizens. The floods that ravaged portions of Albemarle. Greene and Madison Counties in
1995 come quickly to mind. For several days, WVIR-TV's Dateline 29 News was the only
source of news and information for many isolated residents.
The WVIR-TV weather crew is ever ready to inform our community of weather related
dangers. The severe thunderstorms, high winds and tomadic activity during the week of June 10.
2002 are a recent example.
Virginia Broadcasting airs approximately 30 hours of news per week to keep the citizenry
informed about local events and newsworthy items. WVIR-TV is a member of the Emergency
Alert System which is designed to alert us in times of crisis and which is available to the
President or other appropriate government officials within minutes of a request. The Emergency
Alert System provides the President of the United States with the capability to provide
immediate communications and information to the general public at the national, state and local
levels during periods of national emergency. The Emergency Alert System may also be used to
provide the Governor and local govemment leaders with a means of communication with the
public in times of local crisis. Virginia Broadcasting maintains and tests its Emergency Alert
System capability- each week to assure its readiness in a time of crisis.
16
ATTACHMENT A
Whenever there has been a need, Virginia Broadcasting has given free!y of its time, talents
and unique resources to promote the Welfare of this cOmmunity and would like to continue to do
so. One recent-example of this would be WVIR-TV's 18th Annual broadcast of the Childrens
Medical Center Telethon which aired on June 1-2, 2002. WVIR-TV helped raise approximately
1.5 million dollars to assist the University of Virginia Childrens Medical Center. There are other
examples too numerous to mention here of the benefit provided to this community by WVIR-
TV.
The proposed tower and digital transmission facility will allow Virginia Broadcasting to
continue to serve this community with a clearer picture and better sound. Digital TV allows
delivery to the public of brilliant, high definition pi,ctures, multiple digital-quality program
streams, as well as CD-quality audio programming. While digital technology may change the
nature of television, Virginia BrOadcasting will remain a public trustee. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides clearly that a broadcaster's public interest obligation
will extend tO the digital enVironment.
16. Site and tower specifications. WVIR-TV currently operates on analog TV channel 29
(560-566 MHz) with 5000 kw effective radiated power (ERP) and 363 meters antenna height
above average terrain (HAAT).
Virginia Broadcasting has been allotted and licensed to Channel 32 (578-584MHz) for its
digital operation with a 1000 kw maximum ERP and 363 meters HAAT. We proposed to
operate WVIR-DT on Channel 32 with maximum ERP of 1000kw at 361 meters HAAT.
The proposed tower is a 250 foot Rohn model SSVMW tower which will be hot dip
galvanized. The proposed antenna is a Dielectric Model No. TFU-26GTH-R O4SP and the
following site and specifications apply:
Elevation of site above mean sea level:
445 meters (1459.97 feet)
Overall height above ground level:
95.7 meters (313.97 feet)
Height of radiation center above ground:
83.4 meters (273.62 feet)
Height of radiation center above average terrain:
361 meters (1184.38 feet)
Conclusion
The United States Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have mandated
that all television stations discontinue their analog transmissions and switch to digital
transmissions. In order to comply with this mandate. Virginia Broadcasting needs to construct a
new tower.
ATTACHMENT A
Virginia Broadcasting proposes to construct this tower on Carter's Mountain in the County's
"antenna farm." The proposed use is in harmony with uses permitted by right in the area and the
proposed use will not change the character of the district. Virginia Broadcasting has served the
citi~.ens of this community for nearly thirty (30) years and with your help would like to continue
doing so.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Virginia Broadcasting Corporation respectfully requests
that its application for a special use permit be approved. If you have any questions, or need
anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With kind regards, I am
GSD'/pd
cc: Virginia Broadcasting Corporation
Very Truly Yours,
uncan
7
18
ATTACHMENT A
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
Decembe: 31, 1997
CROWN ORCHARD COMPANY, L.P., L- L. P.
19
ATTACHMENT A
Henry M. Chiles
Owner
SINCE 1912
P.O. BOX 299. BATESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22924
804-823-4396
804-823-4405
FAX 804-823-2,507
May t, 2002
Harold B. Wright, Jr.
Vice President & General Manager
Virginia Broadcasting Corporation
503 East Market Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Carter's Mountain Lease
Dear Harold:
This letter will confirm that Crown Orchard Company, L.P., L.L.P.("Crown Orchard"),
the owner of the property commonly known as "Carter's Mountain" in Albemarle County,
consents to and fully supports the application for special use permit (together with all related
submissions) filed or to be filed with the County of Albemarle by Virginia Broadcasting
Corporation, ck'b/a WVIR-TV Channel 29 ("VBC") for the new proposed television transmission
tower of VBC so be located on Carter's Mountain, on property which Crown Orchard proposes
to least to VBC.
Please let rne know if Crown Orchard can be of assistance with respect to any matters
involved in the permitting process and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
~ORCHARD COMPANY, L.P., L.L.P.
~ H enr~M. Chiles
~General Partner
Cc:
Gregory S. Duncan, Esq.
Robert W. Jackson, Esq.
Atl fruit FRESH packed
Apples ·,- Peaches
20
Nectarines
j~hn p all~n &ipsp~Qe
904 277 365I
ATTACHMENT A
Federal Aviation Administration
Eastern Region, AEA-520
1 Aviation Plaza
Jamaica, NY 11434-4509
ISSUED DATE: 06/28/01
vI~G£NIA BROADCASTING CORP_
P.O. BOX 1008
F~RNANDINA BEACH, FL 32035
AERONAUTICAL STUDY
No: 01-AgA-1399-OS
** DE"I'ERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation AdminisDra~ion has completed an aeronautical study
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Sec=ion 44718 and, if applicable,
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, Concerning:
Description: ANTENNA TOWER
578-584 MHZ 1 KW
Location: CHARLOTTSSVILLE VA
Latitude: 37-59-00.49 NAD 83
Longitude: 078-28-56.78
Heights! 314 feet above ground level (AGL)
1774 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautiCal sEudy revealed that the structure does no~ exceed
obstruction standards and would no= be a hazard go air navigation
provided the following condition(s), if any, i~(are) meu:
-As a condition to this d~uerm~nagion, ~he surucgur¢ should be marked
and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K Change 1,
Obstruction Markin~ and Lighting, Chapters 3(Marked), 4, $(Red), & 12.
-It is reguired the= the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, No,ice of Actual
Consuruc~on or Alteration, be completed and returned to this of~Ce any
~ime the project i~ abandoned or:
~/At ieas~ 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part I)
,~'~Wi~hiu 5 days after construction reaches its g~eates~ height
(7460-2, Part II)
WhAle =he s~ructure does not consi=ute a hazard to air nav~
would he located within or ne .... =~ ....... 'ga=ion, i=
~ = ~-z~uary ~ralnln9 area and/or route.
This determination expires on 12/28/02 unless;
(a) ex=ended, revised or terminated by the issuing office or
[b) the consgruction is subject to ~he licensing authority of
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an apDlication
for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC,
within 6 monshs of the dace of this determine=ion. In such case
~he determination expires on the dose prescribed by the FCC for
completion of construe=ion or on the date the FCC denies thc
application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR ~XTEN$ION OF THE SFF~CTIVE PERIOD OF THIS D=T=RMZNATION
MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO 'ri{IS OFFICE AT LEAST i~ DAYS PRIOR TO
THS ~XPIRATION DATE~. ~
-As a result of this structure boing cri=ical to f!i~ht safety, i~ is
NaU 01 O:~ 03;36p
454 ~ZU X~U~ 904
ATTACHMENT A
required that the PAA be kep~ apprised as ~o the status of this
project. Pailur= to 'respond to periodic FAA inquiries could invalidat~
this determination.
This determination is based, in part, on the fore~oi~
includes specific coordina:es, heights, frequency(ies~ description which
and power. Any
changes in Coordinates, h~ights, frequency(les) or use of greater pow=r
will void this determination. Any ~uture construction or alteration,
incl=di-ng increase in h~i~hts, power, or ~he addition o~ other
transmitters, requires separate notice to =hr FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as
cranes, derricks, etc., which may Be used during actual cons=ruction
of the structure. However, this equipment shall no= exceed ~he overall
heights as indicated above. Equipmen~ which has a height ~rea~er than the
scudie~ suruc~ure requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on ~he safe and
efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the
sponsor of compliance responsibilities rela~ing to any 1aw, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, SZate, or local ~overnmenu body.
A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications
Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at
718-553-3497. On any future correspondence concernin~ ~his matter.
please refer to Aeronautical StudyNumber 01-AEA-1399-OE.
Norman Cain"
Speciai.~st, Airspace Branch (DNE)
7460-2 Attached
22
ATTACHMENT A
tcial Mailing Address:
31NIA BROADCASTING CORPORATION
BOX 769
RLOTTESVlLLE VA 22902
L!ity Id: 70309
Sign: WVIR-DT
lit File Number: BPCDT-19991028AEI
United States of America
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
AuChorizi~ Of ficiat:
Clay C. Pendarvis
Chief. Television Branch
Video Services Division
Mass Media Bureau
This permit expires 3:00 a.m.
· local time, May 01, 2002.
iect to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, subsequent acts and
:les, and all regulations hereto[ore or hereafter made by this Commission, and further subject to
:onditions set forth in this permit, the permittee is hereby authorized to construct the radio
s/c"~'ng apparatus herein described. Installation and adjustment of equipment not specifically
o~,,, t~erein shall be in accordance with representations contained in the permittee's application
onstruction permit except for such modifications as are presently permitted, without application,
~e Commission's Rules.
pment and program tests shall be conducted onJy pursuant to Sections 73.1610 and 73.1620 of
3ommission's Rules.
~ of
.ion Location:
tuency
lnel: 32
-s of Operaslon:
PermiEuee: VIRGINIA BROADCASTING CORPORATION
VA-CF-~RLOTTESVILLE
578 584
Unlimited
23
~n: WlZIR-DT Pe~-mic No.: BPCDT-19991028AEI
%itter: Type Accepted. See Sections 73.1660, 73.1665 and 73.1670
~ Con, mission's Rules.
la type: (directional or non-directional): Directional
scription: DIE, TFU-26GTH-R 04SP .
Beam Tilt: 0.75 Degrees Electrical
ATTACHMENT A
Major lobe directions
(degrees true):
180 280
.~a Coordinates: North Latitude:
West Longitude:'
37deg 59mit 0 sec
78deg 28min 54 sec
aitter output power: As required co achieve authorized ERP.
um effective radiated power (Average):
1000 kW
30 DBK
c of radiation center above ground: 83.4 Meters
t of radiation center above mean sea level: 528.4 Meters
It of radiaczon center above average terrain: 361 Meters
.la structure regiscran!on number: 1018769
~1 height of annenna structure above ground (including obstruction
~ng if any) see the regis~ratzon for this antenna structure.
zl operating conditions or restricnions:
~e grann of this construction permit is subject to the condition
nat, with amole time before commencing operation, you make a good
aith effort %o identify and notify health care facilities (e.g.,
Dspitais, nursing homes, see 47 CFR i5.242(a) (1)) within your servica
rea potentially affected by your DTV operations. Contact with state
nd/or looal hospital associations and local governmental health care
icensing authorities may prove helpful in this process. Durin~ this
re~broadcast period, you musn provide all notified entities with
elevant tec.hnical details of your operation, such as DTV channel,
argeted on-a~r da~-e, effective radiated power, annenna location, and
ntenna height. You are required to place ~n the sLation's public
nspect~on ~zle documentation of the notifications and contacts made
nd you ma}' no5 commence operauions unti! good faith efforts have been
ade ~o notify affected health care facilities. During uhis
re-broadcast-period and for um to twenty (20) days a~ter commenczng
oerations, should you become ~ware of any insuances ~f medical
evices malfunctioning or that such devices are likely to malfunctien
ue 5o your DTV ooerations, you must cooperate with the health care
acility so that i~ is afforded a reasonable opportunity co restive
he interference'problem. A~ such time as all provisions of this
ondition have been fulfilled, and either uoon the expiration of
wenty (20) days following commencemen~ o~ opera~ions or when al!
town interference problems have been resolved, whichever is later,
his condition laps.es. ~
24
ATTACHMENT A
World Headquart~,.
6718 W. Plank Rd.
Peoria. IL 61604 USA
Ph: 309-697-4400
FAX: 309-697-5612
Industries, Inc.
February 25, 2002
WVIR- TV
503 E. Market Street
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Attn: Mr. Bob Jenkins
Fax: 804-220-2904
Subject: Existing 250' Model 90 tower per ROHN Engineering File 28606MF/11919MF
Dear Mr. Jenkins,
ROHN engineers have reviewed the design of the original guyed tower and have determined that we can
not recommend the addition of any antennas to this structure. The existing tower was designed in 1972
under vastly different standards than those existing today. The structure is 30 years old, and can not be
assumed to be in "as new" condition~ The existing antenna load is at least equal to the original design load
and there is no probability that the tower will accommodate significant additional loading.
Thank you for your inquiry. Ill may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Project Manager
CC File 28606MF
A-Z File
-' 25
ATTACHMENT B
WVIR-DT CH. 32 PROPOSED TOWER
300 ft.
Top of Antenna
1184 ft. Above
Average Terrain
4'-? 3/4'
lOP
Above Mean
Sea Level
~.~. 59.9 ft.
5/24/02
ATTACHMENT B
27
/
I
.I
I
ATTACHMENT B
28
ATTACHMENT B
- ~~ ~ ~
/ ~ ~~~~
/-',-/ ~ "~~-~~/,'~~~ ':~/-"- /.'/I,/.'1 '/I- / '-'/-/ ~-- ~' ~~~ ~ , ~ : ,
,'/,~ // ~~~~~///// ~~///~ /././/~ '//, /.,// ~.'.'// ~~~~ ~~ I ~ ~ I~ I /I
i/,-.~.~~~~/~/~//~<~/ ~/'J.~G~'/',iI/.// /_-. ~/ ~~~ ~ ~ ~1:I ,'~
~}1 I. / ~ ~ ~ ~ j // / / / /~ / / /_- ~ II . I I I. ~ I - // ~. ~ I J ) I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '
-- / ~ /// / / _ / / / / // ///--/ . . /. // / / -- ///. . / . -- I/ ~ ~ ~ , ~ I . ~ I I I I
'~ ~ ~/ / ~ /- - // / - ~ / ///-- // / - - / / / / // / / I ' / / Z~ ~ ~ ~_~ ~ I , I / / .' / / ) I
.~_ _~ ~ ~. ~/ ~ ~ /~ // /,_~// // //. ~ / ~ ~ / // ~ / .~ //'/,'//,'//~
...... //~~/// //-// J/ // / --~// / / / / - ./ / J If/ ~ .~ t / / .I /.///// /,'/,'
. ~: :~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ (/ , / / I ' / , - ~1// / / / / ~o~
_-- ~ ~ . ~ ~ I I.Ii I t I I I ~--'-~ .,~
GRAPHIC SCALE ~"-~00'
· . . -~_~// / / / / / / / / / , ,. ~ ~'/~//, //,//,/,,,/,~~%~ j/~'~il~It
~~~. ~ ~/ / // /TAX/HA~g~/PA,~EL t" fi // / / / ./i ~ / / ~//~Q/./ / /~// ) I IllI
~oo 400 buu ~ - ~ ~/// / / / / ( % ~ / / / ~/ / / / / ///g'/~/ / / / / / / / I I I
-- ~ · ~, / / / // / / /
I'll
Z
X
ATTACHMENT B
3~
ATTACHMENT C
33
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5823, Ext. 3385
Fax (434) 972-4035
MEMORANDUM (FAX)
TO:
Gregory Duncan (979-9766)
FROM:
Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner
DATE:
September 19, 2002
SP 02-043 Crown Orchard Corporation
(WVIR TV Tower)
The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the
above-referenced special use permit and provides the following comments/questions:
There are three other towers shown on plan. Please provide their current uses, heights, and
width dimensions.
Provide the plans with existing topography and spot elevations, as well as proposed grading.
Larger format copies of that plan should also be provided for use as public hearing displays.
Provide more detailed construction/building drawings showing the design of the proposed
tower, the digital antenna, and all other proposed appurtenances.
Was there any research put into the possibility of structurally fortifying the existing tower to
allow attachment of both the digital and the analog antenna?
5;
Can the new tower be built to hold the digital and analog antenna both, until the analog is no
longer needed?
What type of beacons for FAA safety requirements and types other lighting are being
proposed?
With the County's preference for stealth personal wireless service facilities it is Iikeiy that
conditional approval would set a requirement for disassembly and removal of the existing
tower within a certain amount of time after December 1, 2006 or when 85% of the market is
has digital television capabilities.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Attachments: Engineering Department Comments
Copy: File SP 02-043
35
ATTACHMENT D
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comment
Engineering sp
S P-2002-043
Crown Orchard Co. - WVIR
Television Tower
revision 1
reviewer received reviewe decision
Jeff Thomas 8/14102 9/2/02 approved with conditions
The special use permit submittal for the Crown Orchard digital television tower received on August 14,
2002 has been reviewed. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the special use
permit with the following conditions.
1. A site plan is required that addresses all proposed improvements to the site, including any proposed
grading and road improvements necessary for construction equipment to access the site.
2. An E&SC plan will be required if the proposed land disturbance exceeds 10,000 square feet. A
stormwater management plan will be required to detain and treat runoff if there is an increase in
impervious area.
10/1/02 04:12 PM Page 1 of 1 '~/
ATTACHMENT D
GREGORY S. DUNCAN
Attorney at Law
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
October 1, 2002
telephone (434)979-8556
fax (434)979-9766
Stephen B. Waller, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Waller:
Re: Virginia Broadcasting
Corporation Special Use
Application
SP-02-043
I am in receipt of your Memorandum dated September 19, 2002 and I will attempt to
address each of your inquiries.
1. Other Towers. The tower on the far left of the plan prepared by Aubrey Huffman and
Associates, Ltd. is the public television tower; I do not know its height or dimensions. The
tower in the middle of the plan is WVIR-TV's current analog tower; it is approximately 250 feet
tall and has a 50 foot antenna on it.
The third tower shown on the plan is a forty (40) foot tower that holds microwave
equipment for WVIR-TV. A large copy of the plan with these towers identified is attached.
2. FAA Lighting. The Federal Aviation Administration allows several methods of
lighting. Virginia Broadcasting proposes to use Aviation Red beacons. This is deemed to be
much less obvious then the alternative flashing white obstruction lighting.
3. Large Plan Showing Existing Topo~aphy and Grading. A large map of the
topography within 2000 feet of the proposed site has been previously submitted. Another copy is
attached herewith for your convenience. The elevation per the information we have was also
submitted earlier (see page 6 of earlier submission). It is our understanding that the proposed
site is }459.97 feet above mean sea level.
37
ATTACHMENT D
There is no grading proposed. We intend to dig three (3) holes, fortify them with concrete
and erect a tower.
4. More Detailed Drawing Of Proposed Tower and Anteuna~ A more detailed drawing of
the proposed tower and antenna from the manUfacturer is enclosed; This is a typical drawing of
the R01m Tower Model SSVMW.
5. Research into Structurally Fortifying The Existing Tower. Your item number 4
questions whether there "was any research put into the possibility of structurally fortifying the
existing tower to allow attachment of both the digital and analog antenna"?
This was considered and was rejected. In order to attempt such a fortification, WVIR-TV
would have to go off the air and shut down. This we can not do.~ Not only would such a shut
down be financially devastating, it would also be illegal. WVIR-TV can not voluntarily go off
the air without prior specific permission from the Federal Communications Commission.
Additionally, any such shut down would leave thousands of citizens without access to the
Emergency Alert System, which in these unsettled times could prove detrimental. Further, the
fortification to which you refer would not strengthen the anchors. The anchors will not tolerate
the additional load.
6. Can the new tower be built to hold the digital and analog antennas both, until the
analog is no longer needed?
It is my understanding from speaking with the tower manufacturer that the proposed tower
will not safely accommodate two (2) 4000 pound antennas. That would be too much weight to
place on this antenna. Even if this could be done safely, it would not be a viable option.
In order to place both the analog and digital antenna on the new tower,. WVIR-TV would
have to shut down and go off the air to allow the current analog antenna to be moved. As stated
above, we simply cannot do this; it would be illegal without the prior consent of the Federal
Communications Comm/ssion~
7. Your f'mal inquiry deals with disassembly of our present tower once we have gone
fully digital. Please be advised, as pointed out in my initial submission, that when we no longer
use the present antenna and tower that Crown Orchard has the contractual right to take over the
tower and we will be obligated to transfer ownership to Crown Orchard.
If Crown Orchard does not exercise its right to take over the tower, then it will be either
rented to others or disassembled.
8. Engineering Report. The Albemarle County Engineering Department recommends
approval of the special use permit with the conditiOn that a site plan show any grading and road
improvements necessary for construction equipment to access the site. An E&SC plan would be
required if land disturbance exceeds ~10,000 square feet.
38
ATTACH MENT D
In response to the engineering report, please note that there will be no grading to allow
construction equipment to access the site. Similarly, there will be no road improvements for
construction equipment to access the site. Any land disturbance will not exceed 10,000 square
feet.
I hope the above and the attachments herewith have addressed your questions.
anything further or have other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With kind regards, I am
If you need
egor S. Jun. can
Enclosure
GSD/pd
ATTACHMENT D
TYPICAL MOUTING CONFIGURATION SHOWN. ACTUAL MOUNTING CONFIGURATiON MAY VARY.
(To Be Supi31ied By Others])
Lightning Rod
A,
D
E~
/--Tower Top
D=A--3ft
See Drawing--Ant~nn~
Input Details
10500 W. 153rd Street
Ortand Park, Illinois U.S.A. 60462
LJS070'10~-926 Rev. A
.5-
ATTACHMENT D
I
ATTACHMENT D
NOTE: SEE TOWER ASSEMBLY DRAWING FOR FOUNDATION LAYOUT AND
ANCHORAGE EMBEDNIENT DRAWING NUMBER.
CENTERLINE OF TOWER I I
ORIENTATION PLAN VIeW
4'- 0" I_
.., ( ou.d voL oF ¢ONC TE
·0'- C' G_~ROUND LIIN'~ ~ -- -- ~i'--- 3' MAX. - 2" MIN. (for round piers)
I I
~ r- - ~ ~o. 4 c_mc~ rms o~ 3-
' ~- --_~_~ CENTERS FO~ ?O~ 4' - 0'
! F- -- ~2" CENTERS FROM 4' - O" REACTIONS
t I I TO BOTTOM 'WITH 22" LAPS
2//4.9
L__ __ / DOWNLOAD = 347,0 KIPS
] ] SHEAR = 35.6 KIPs
~4' -0" I I,
I ROUGHEN ['- -- -- ''] [ 16 NO. 9 VERTICAL BARS EQUALLY
CONSTRUCTION I i ~ SPACED ON A 39" DIAMETER
3OINT TO A FULL ~- -- -- ~ CIRCLE w/180 ° HOOKS AT BOTTOM
AMPLITUDE I }
r- -- -- q SPACED 12"(max.) O. C. F~CH
'" 13'-0" = SrCE: TYPICAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTI(
ELEVATION
SHFET ! OF 3
No. ~1~ gcvi~.,on EhzscnpLion '~ Da~ · Rev By .a~ ~ '~y ~' AplxJ
THIS DRAWING 15 THE PROPERTY OF ROHN. IT 15 NOT TO BE 1LEPP. ODUCED. ROHN
COPI~D OE TRACED IH WHOLE OR IN PART W~THOLrT OUR WRITTEN CONSF_NT.
s~:,.~o.~ 1 ~. ~'~'~ ~: Pier and Pad Foundation Detail
Drawn: JPG 03/28/02
c~.~ ~/Tq ~/.~/~z IYPICAL NOT FOR CONSIRUCIION
i I ENG. F~LE: 4813 iAE003 ! DRAWING NO.: A020635-1
County of Albemarle
40:L McTntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22902
News
Release
DATE:
CONTACT:
November 13, 2002
Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager
Phone (434) 296-5841, fax (434)296-5800
Icatlin .~.. albemarle.org
For Tmmediate Release
ALBEMARLE SUPERVISORS APPROVE BUILDTNG PURCHASE
TO MEET COUNTY OPERATIONAL SPACE NEEDS
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors today authorized the purchase of the
Wachovia Operations Facility on Fifth Street Extended. This facility will provide space
to meet the county's current and long term operational needs at a substantial savings
compared to other alternatives. The $7 million acquisition provides an additional
100,000 square feet of space for county operations, eliminating the need for a new public
safety building which had been programmed in the county's Capital Improvements Plan
for construction in 2004-05 at a cost orS11.6 million. The newly acquired facility also
provides the flexibility for relocating other services identified as needing more space in
an ongoing space needs analysis.
The opportunity to acquire the Wachovia property emerged as the county was
considering alternatives to meet critical immediate and long term space needs identified
in several studies over the past three years. Alternatives included expansion of the
County Office Building with a public safety facility to be built on the existing site or
expansion of the County Office Building with the public safety facility at a separate
location offsite. The purchase of the Wachovia property will meet the county's space
needs for the next 25 years for substantially less money than any other proposed
alternative.
More...
BUILDING PURCHASE - PAGE 2
Estimated capital costs to purchase and renovate the Wachovia property for
current needs are estimated to be approximately $10.5 million. That figure reflects a total
estimated savings in construction costs of at least $10 million compared to the other
identified alternatives through 2025. The Wachovia building also provides a better
solution to space needs by providing flexibility for future operations and substantial
warehouse and storage capacity. The acquisition also will result in significant savings by
allowing the relocation of the Department of Social Services and general storage from
expensive rental space that is currently being leased to meet those needs.
Said Cotmty Executive Robert W. Tucker, Jr., regarding the purchase, "This is an
excellent opportunity for the County not only because the necessary debt service payment
is akeady programmed into the capital improvements program for additional space needs
but also because extremely low interest rates make this an ideal time to finance such a
project."
The Wachovia property will require some modification before any county
operations will be relocated. While these modifications are being planned, 30,000 square
feet of the facility will be leased back to Wachovia for its use for up to 12 months. When
the building is ready for occupancy by the County, which is anticipated to take
approximately one year, public safety operations including police and fire/rescue
departments will be located there. Other county operations will be relocated atter a
thorough analysis of space needs of individual departments and the efficiency and
effectiveness of providing services t~om the new space.