Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-14 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 14, 2004 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION January 15, 2004 ASSIGNMENT Call to Order. · Meeting was called to Order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Do[tier. All BOS members present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Georgina Smith. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. ° Sherry Buttdck, in reference to Item # 5.2, suggested the Board amend the ACE Ordinance to prevent similar situations in the future. · Linda Lloyd thanked the Board for proceeding with the affordable, housing policy. , Forbes Reback, spoke about paving Route 795 and introduced Tom Sullivan, the property owner. ° Peter Mellon, spoke in opposition to paving Route 795. 5.2 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Waiver of Income Determination Method. · APPROVED staff's recommendation that the purchase price for the Henley Forest, Inc. ACE easement be $237,644 by applying the weighted income approach, rather than the aggregate income approach set forth in the ACE ordinance and ° REQUESTED staff to review the need for an ordinance amendment and to work with the ACE Committee in providing a recommendation back to the Board. 5.3 SP,-2003-7t. Vernon, or Jackie Shifiett-AIItel (Si.qn # 56.) · ACCEPTED the applicants request to refer back to the Planning Commission. 5.4 Set public headng for February 4, 2004 on Community Development Block Grant Citizen Participation. · SET public hearing for February 4, 2004. 6. SP-2003-64. Verulam Farm-VA32344 Omnipoint (Si,tins 13 & 14). · APPROVED SP-2003-064, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the twenty-five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and amended at the Board meeting.' 7. SP-03-68 Northridqe Community Church Amendment (Sian ° APPROVED SP-30-68, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and amended at the Board meeting. 8. SP-03-70 Gre.qory R. Gallihu.qh-Nextel Partners {Si,qn #59). ° DEFFERED, to February 11, 2004 Board meeting. 9. SP-2003-73 Foundations Child Development, Day Care (Si~n #90). ° APPROVED SP-2003-73, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and amended at the Board meeting. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Sally Thomas: Ches Goodall: Proceed as directed. Plannin,q Staff: Reschedule for agenda when ready to move forward. Clerk: Advertise the public hearing. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 1). Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 1). Clerk: Schedule on February 11, 2004 agenda. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 1). · Mentioned that she attended a meeting of the Foundation for Virginia. She said the main topic of discussion was education Ken Boyd: Would like the Board to revisit joining the Thomas Jefferson Economic Partnership. He also -would like to schedule a public hearing to receive comments for sometime in June, 2004. 11. Adjourn. · At 7:40 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. /(gas Attachment 1 - Conditions of Approval. Attachment APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS SP-2003-64. Verula, m Farm-VA32344 Omnipoint (Si,qns #12~13&14). Public hearing on a request to allow construction of personal wireless fac w/wooden monopole, approx 101 tt in total height & 10 ft above height of tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel antennas & ground equipment. This application is being made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM74, P17, contains 356.26 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Rt 677 (Bloomfield Rd) approx .75 mis from the intersec of Rt 637 & Rt 677. Samuel Miller Dist. The facility shall be desi.qned, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crown Communications CAP Operations, LLC (McGuire #2)", dated July 24, 2003 and provided with Attachment A; 2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation; 3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. In no case shall the pole exceed ninety-eight (98) feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit; The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color;, 5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans; 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches; No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one (1) inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the 'pole. No guy wires shall be permitted; No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor iuminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted; The plans shall be revised so that information identified as APN# on the cover sheet of is labeled as the tax map and parcel number;, The electrical transformer and telephone pedestal shall be located within the confines of the lease area; The locations and heights of all trees within frl~j (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon for screening and camouflaging shall be shown on the plans; Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment and concrete pad shall be included in the construction plan package; Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets; and Details and cross sections for any plans to upgrade the existing dirt logging road shall be provided in the construction plan packet and is subject to review and approval by the County's Engineering Department. Pdor to the issuance of a buildin.q permit, the followin.q requirements shall be met: 18. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator;, 19. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; and 20. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met: 21. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed one (1) foot above the monpole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1) inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; and No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that aro steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer aro employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 24. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, aro associated with each provider; and 25. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wirofess service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attomey. SP-2003-68. Northridqe Community Church Amendment (Sign #7). Public hearing on a request for an amendment to SP-2000-58 Northside Community Church, to allow pre-school/day care & an after school program, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ord. TM21, P11A, contains 9.92 acs. Znd PA. Loc at 5100 Rt 606 (Dickerson Rd) approx 1,200 ft mis from the intersec of Dickerson Rd & Rt 20N (Seminole Trail). White Hall Dist. 1. Extedor changes to the extedor building and site except for those depicted on and approved as part of the final site plan, SDP-2001-022, are prohibited unless authorized by an amendment to this special use permit. Prohibited extedor changes include changes to any architectural feature, color, texture or materials, play aroa, and landscaping, but do not include repairing or replacing any portion or element of a building provided that the repaired or replaced portion or element has the same architectural feature, color, texture and materials approved as part of SDP-2001-022; 2. The maximum enrollment for the pro-school/day care shall be restricted to eighty (80) children and the maximum enrollment for the after school program shall be restricted to sixty (60) children; and 3. The hours and days of operation shall be restricted to the following: day care/pre-school program 7;30 AM to 2:00 PM, Monday through Friday; after school program from 2:30 PM - 6:00 PM Monday through Fdday. SP-2003-73. Foundations Child Development Day Cato (Siqn #90). Public hearing on a request to allow a day cato center in accord w/Sec 16.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ord. TM45, P112F, contains 1.541 acs. Znd R-6. Loc on Rt 1403 (Berkmar Dr), approx .5 mis N of the intersec of Berkmar & Woodbrook Rd. Rio Dist. 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled, Foundations Child Daycare Center, dated September 25, 2003; 2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-five (125) or the number of students as approved by the Virginia Department of Social Services, whichever is less; 3. VDOT approval of a commercial entrance; 4. The remaining slopes should not be more than 3:1 to allow for re-vegetation and stability, provided that the slope may be increased to a maximum of 2:1 if approved by the County Engineer. 5. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained: thirty (30) foot building and ten (10)foot parking setback from Berkmar Ddve and fifteen (15) feet building setback from the southern property line. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Waiver of Income Determination Method SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval to waive a requirement in the ACE ordinance that makes income determination subject to aggregate AGI instead of weighted AGI AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2004 ACTION: IN FORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENT: "A" - Income Grid for determining purchase price "B" - Income determination for Henley Forest, Inc. STAFF CONTACT(S): ~~~ Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Banish, Goodall REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: / As per section A. 1-110(I) of the ACE ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may wawe or extend any requirement or deadline if, for good cause, it is shown that circumstances exist which warrant such action. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character". natural resources". Goal: 2.2 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's DISCUSSION: Per the Executive Summary of August 13~, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved the appraisals of five (5) properties from the ACE applicant pool for FY 2002-03. One of these appraisals was for the 483 acre Henley Forest, Inc. property, located in the Blue Ridge Mountains 3 miles west of Boonesville. Based on the ranking evaluation criteria, it is the second highest ranked property in the applicant pool and has tourism value because a portion of the property lies within a mountain "ridge area boundary". Before the County can extend the owner an "Invitation to Offer to Sell", staff must determine the purchase price, which is calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value set forth in the income gdd on page 9 of the ACE ordinance (see Attachment "A"). In the case of an "S" corporation, such as Henley Forest, Inc., "the average adjusted gross income shall be based on the a_~reqate annual adjusted gross income of the shareholders". The Henley Forest, Inc. property is held by fifteen (15) different shareholders, all of whom are part of the extended Henley family. According to accounting rules for "S" corporations, income taxes are paid by the individual shareholders of the corporation rather than by the corporation. In addition, profits and losses are allocated according to a shareholder's proportionate share of stock. Of the fifteen individual shareholders, 58% of the average annual adjusted income is concentrated in two (2) of the shareholders, whose interest in the family corporation is only 3%. Under the calculation required by the ACE ordinance, which considers only the aggregate income of all shareholders, Henley Forest, Inc. would receive only 4% of appraised value because the aggregate ~ncome exceeds $200,001 (by a substantial margin). In fact, the aggregate income of the two shareholders alone, who control only 3% of-the family corporation, e~(ceeds this threshold. Though the aggregate income approach may be appropriate in other cases of multi-person ownership, it is the opinion of staff and the ACE Committee that this approach unfairly penalizes the Henley family corporation and those shareholders (including seven children) whose average annual income falls within the range necessary to earn 100% of appraised value. One of the original objectiVes of the ACE program was to give landowners of modest means a financial incentive for placing their property under easement since current tax laws provide little or no benefit from donating an easement. Since the corporation's net profit and taxable income is not based on the shareholder's aggregate income, staff believes it would be inconsistent to base the determination of (easement) purchase price on the shareholder's aggregate income. If AGENDA TITLE: Acquisition of Conservation Easements(ACE)Waiveroflncome Determination Method January 14,2004 Page 2 the vast majority of shareholders of Henley Forest, Inc. have insufficient income to benefit from a donated easement, the purchase of an easement is the only financial incentive available to these shareholaers of modest means. A more equitable solution would be to use a "weighted average" approach whereby payment is based on a shareholder's proportionate share or contribution of income (see Attachment "B"). The purchase price of the easement would be determined by multiplying the appraised value of the easement ($242,000) by an individual shareholders proportionate share of the corporation. The resulting value would then be adjusted according to the income grid. The individual payments for each of the fifteen (15) shareholders would then be added up to produce the tota ACE payment. This approach would follow the accounting standard for "S" corporations and minimize the disproportionate influence of two (2) high income shareholders to a level that more appropriately reflects the relative contributions (in income) of each of the shareholders. Using the weighted average approach, the net ACE payment would be $237,644 or 98.2% of the total appraised value. Those with incomes below the minimum threshold would be entitled to the full appraised value while those with incomes above it would be appropriately discounted. Clearly, the Henley Forest, Inc. property has significant conservation value. In addition to qualifying for tourism funds (because it has 76 acres and 2,250 feet of ridgeline within the mountain "ridge area boundary"), the property has 11,494 feet of common boundary with the Byrom property (put under an ACE easement in August, 2003) and 5,400 feet of common boundary with the Shenandoah National Park. Placed side by side, easements on both Henley and Byrom would create a 1,083 acre contiguous block of protected property that runs from Blackwells Hollow Road to the Shenandoah National Park. Since neither property would permit any future division, this large block of unfragmented forestland would help to preserve the rural character of Albemarle County, conserve and protect biodiversity and wildlife habitats, and provide a permanent wooded buffer to protect the quality of water flowing into the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Therefore, ACE staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors waive the aggregate income method for determining income for the Henley Forest, Inc. property and allow the determination of AGI and purchase price to be based on the weighted average of the shareholders of the corporation as described above and shown on Attachment "B". RECOMMENDATION: Approve staff's recommendation that the purchase price for the Henley Forest, Inc. ACE easement be $237,644 by applying the weighted income approach, rather than the aggregate income approach set forth in the ACE ordinance. 04.001 ATTACHMENT "A" ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE scoring at least fifteen (15) points, 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 ~4CE committee. The ACE committee shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the program administrator and shall rank the parcels in the 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 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 appendix may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good cause, it is shown that exigent circumstances exist to warrant consideration of an otherwise untimely application, or it is shown that the requirements unreasonably restrict the purchase of an easement. Under these circumstances, the board may purchase a conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only those requirements:it deems appropriate. J. Reapplication. An owner whose parcel is not selected for purchase of a conservation easement may reapply in any future year. (Ord. 00-A.I (1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A. 1(1), 12-11-02) Sec. A.l-lll. Purchase of conservation easement. Each conservation easement shall be purchased as follows: A. Identification of initial pool. From the list of applications 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.I-11 I(B). B. Determining purchase price. The purchase price ora 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 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, panners, members, grantor, beneficiaries or decedent, as the case may be. A.l-8 Supp. g9, 1-03 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT "A" Average Annual Adjusted Gross Income Percentage of Appraised Value $ 0 - $50,000 100% $50,001 - $60,000 94% $60,001 - $70,000 88% $70,001 - $80,000 82% $80,001- $90,000 $90,001- $100,000 76% 70% $100,001 - $110,000 64% $110,001 - $120,000 58% $120,001 - $130,000 52% $130,001- $140,000 46% $140,001- $150,000 40% $150,001- $160,000 $160,001- $170,000 34% 28% $170,001 - $180,000 22% $180,001- $190,000 16% $190,001- $200,000 $200,001 or more 10% 4% C. Invitation to offer to sell. The board shall invite the owner of each parcel included in the initial pool to submit an offer to sell to the county a conservation easement on that parcel for the purchase price, 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 subject to negotiation. The invitation 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 include a form offer to be remmed 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 wTitten 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 substantially 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/nv/tat/on to offer to sell." Nothing in this appendix 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 acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the board if the proposed easement would be inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan at the time the offer is received. Nothing in this 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 elects not to do so, or if his 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. 1-110(E). H. Costs. If the board of supervisors accepts an offer to sell, the county shall pay all costs, including environmental site assessments, surveys, recording costs, grantor's tax, if any, and other charges A.1-9 Supp. #9, 1-03 ALBEM~4RLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT "A" associated with closing. Provided, however, the county shall not pay fees incurred for independent appraisals, legal, financial, or other advice, or fees in connection with the release and subordination of liens to the easement purchased by the county. I. Reapplication. An owner 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; Ord. 02-A.1 (1), 12-11-02) Sec. A.l-l12. 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 the ACE program. (Ord. 00-A.I(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.l(1), 12-11-02) Sec. A.I-113. 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 limitations on land use or development. This 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; Ord. 02-A.l(1), 12-11-02) AA-10 Supp. #9, 1-03 Income Determination for Henley Forest~ Inc. Appraised Value of Easement = $ 242,00.00 Attachment "B" Owner % Ownership Average Income Joseph & Joan Henley 3.600% Charles T. & Sara 12.000 Jacquelin V. Heney 6.600 Timothy S, Henley 4.000 Charles B. Henley 4.000 Joseph Henley, IH 12.000 Temple Jenson 14.200 Matthew Jenson 6.600 Sophie Jenson 6.600 Tracy Barnett 14.200 Brittany Barnett 6.600 Kable Barnett 6.600 Clark Henley 1.500 John Henley 1.500 Total 100.00 % Appraised Value Payment $ 23,903 (husband & wife) 100% $ 8,712 59,767 (husband & wife) 94% 27,298 0 (daughter of Charles & Sara) 100% 15,972 0 (daughter of Charles & Sara) 100% 9,680 0 (daughter of Charles & Sara) 100% 9,680 42,135 100% 29,040 15,899 100% 34,364 0 (son of Temple) 100% 15,972 0 (daughter of Temple) 100% 15,972 12,439 100% 34,364 0 (daughter of Tracy) 100% 15,972 202 (daughter of Tracy) 100% 15,972 97,314 70% 2,541 1 I2,037 58% 2,105 $ 20,267 $237,644 $237,644/$242,000 -- 98.2% of appraised value Aggregate Income (of 15 shareholders): Income contributed by Clark Henley & John Henley: Weighted Income: $ 363,696 $ 209,351 (58%) $ 20,267 Notes: i) There are 15 shareholders of Henley Forest, Inc. A 16th shareholder (Ian Henley, child) is deceased 2) Joseph T. and Joan H. Henley incomes were combined since they filed together. Each owns 1.8% of Henley Forest, Inc. JOHN K. TAGGART, III M.E. Gm,SON. JR. THOMAS E. ALBRO PATRICIA D. MCGRAW IL LEE LIVINGSTON RAC~L L. Rus"r LAW OFFICES TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box 1585 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585 105.109 E. HIGH STREET TELEPHONE (434) 977-4455 FACSIMILE (434) 979-1221 Via Hand Delivery 'I~cE¥ C. Hov~,m PET~ ]. CA~mU, aS RETIRED E. OE~_<m TREMBLAY 1922 - ?003 LLOYD T. SMITR, JR. January 5, 2004 Steven Waller Albemarle County Planning Dept. 401 Mclntire Road Cha rlottesvilte, VA 22902 RE: ALLTEL / Crossroads (Shifflett) Dear Steven: As I have previously discussed with you, ALLTEL has been thoroughly examining all possibilities to make its Crossroads application more favorable to the County. Obviously, having one tower on site, rather than two, would alleviate most if not of the stated concerns with our application. Therefore, ALLTEL is currently investigating the possibility of an agreement with nTelos whereby ALLTEL would construct a new tower on the Shifflett designed to accommodate ALLTEL's and nTelos's antennas. As part of the agreement, nTelos would agree to take down its existing tower. Comments from the County seemed to indicate the location of the existing tower was not favorable and that there were bet-Ler locations on the same parcel to locate a tower. There were multiple comments throughout the zoning process that one tower on the site was okay, but two were questionable. This proposal would allow for one tower and for that tower to be located in a more favorable location than the existing tower. Of course, this plan requires a number of details to be worked out, which ALLTEL has not had time to accomplish to date. Preliminary indications are that the details should be able to be agreed upon. Therefore, on behalf of ALLTEL, I hereby request an indefinite deferral of the above-referenced special use permit application to allow the necessary time for this investigation and discussion. Please confirm for me that this request will be honored. Also, as always, if you have any questions, just let me know. Thanks. Best regards. Very truly yours, I'RECEIVED / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Citizen Participation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to set Public Hearing for information on CDBG funding opportunities STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White AGENDA DATE: Janua~ 14,2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROU N D: No J Local citizen participation is encouraged throughout the process of developing Community Improvement Grant (CIG) proposals funded through the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. To facilitate participation two public hearings are required. The first hearing is to provide information on the availability of CDBG funds, past activities funded with CDBG, and to solicit input for potential CDBG projects. Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CIGs over the years, the most recent being a multi-year funded grant for housing and neighborhood improvements for the Porters Road and Yancey Mill neighborhoods. This project was awarded the Best Housing Project in Virginia in 2003. DHCD staff has encouraged the County and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program to submit another housing rehabilitation project. Staff, in consultation with staff from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), request this first public hearing to receive input on community needs that may be eligible for a CIG. DISCUSSIO N: Staffwill provide a brief description of eligible activities under the CDBG program, Albemarle County's past performance with CIGs, and potential funding available to Albemarle County for fiscal year beginning July 1,2004. Staff may also present some options under consideration for a CIG proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends setting a public hearing for the first Board meeting in February to provide information on CDBG funding that may be available and to obtain input from Iow- and moderate-income persons or persons representing Iow- and moderate- income communities for potential eligible needs for improvements. 04.003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 40t McIntire Road, Room 2t8 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 December 16, 2003 Ambre Blatter Omnipoint T Mobile 5029 Corporate Woods Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23462 RE: SP-2003-64 Verulam Farm-VA 32344 Omnipoint (Sign #12, 13, 14) Dear Ms. Blatter: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The facility shall be desiqned, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crowq Communications CAP Operations. LLC (McGuire #2)", dated July 24, 2003 and provided with Attachment A. 2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation 3. The top of the pole. as measured.Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five feet. In no case shall the pole exceed 98 feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this speciat use permit or personal wireless facility permit. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the ~ole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However. in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches 7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. 8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole, No guy wires shall be permitted. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield orshielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Page 2 December 16, 2003 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The plans shall be revised so that information identified as APN# on the cover sheet of is labeled as the tax map and parcel number The electrical transformer and telephone pedestal shall be located within the confines of the lease . area. The locations and heights of all trees within 50 feet of the facility that are relied upon for screening and camouflaging shall be shown on the plans. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment and concrete pad shall be included in the construction plan package. Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets. Details and cross sections for any plans to upgrade the existing dirt logging road shall be provided in the construction plan packet and is subject to review and approval by the County's Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 18. 19o 20~ Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the followinq shall be met: 21. 22° 23. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole~ measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed one foot above the monpole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 24. 25. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety Page 3 December 16, 2003 (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 14, 2004. 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 (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Senior Planner SW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP DECEMBER 2, 2003 JANUARY 14, 2004 SP 03-064 VERULAM FARM (OMNIPOINT) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is for the installation ora personal wireless service facility, which would include a wood monopole, approximately 101 feet in total height, and with a top elevation of approximately 1077.3 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This would result in a monopole that is approximately 10 feet taller in height AMSL elevation than a nearby 91-foot tall tree identified on the applicant's construction plans at the same base elevation as the proposed facility. The monopole would be equipped with an array of two 6-foot long, 8-inch wide, flush- mounted panel antennas at the top and supporting ground equipment would be Contained within three 4.7-foot tall by 4.3-foot wide cabinets. The site of the proposed facility is a 750 square-foot lease area on property described as Tax Map 74 - Parcel 17, and containing approximately 356.36 acres, zoned Rural Areas (RA) and Entrance Corridor, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (Attachment B). Access to this site is taken from Bloomfield Road [State Ronte 677], approximately 3/4-mile from the intersection with Dick Woods Road [State Route 637]. The property lies within the area designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. Petition: The applicant, Omnipoint Communications, operating nationally as T-Mobile Communications, is in the process of expanding its service into the region including Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. This request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a personal. wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers and their appurtenances by special use permit. Planning and Zoning History,: SP 01-30 Private Equit~ Golf Club - A special use permit request was flied proposing the development of a private golf course and club house in accordance with Section 10.2.2.4 oft he Zoning Ordinance which allows for "swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities." on the subject parcel. This item was deferred indefinitely on October 2, 2001. Character of the Area: The site of this proposed facility is located approximately 165.9 feet north of Interstate Route 64 on a mountain that is approximately 152 feet higher than the right-of-way and connected with the Ragged Mountains ridgeline. The site is accessed from an existing logging road that extends from the farm's main access road and passes through a heavily wooded area. All of adjacent parcels that surround the subject parcel are zoned Rural Areas (RA), including the parcel directly to the east, which contains the Charlottesville Reservoir. There nearest dwelling to this site is the Verulam residence, which is approximately 1800 feet away on the same parcel. The nearest offsite dwelhng is located more than 300 feet away on property identified as Tax Map 74 - Parc61 17E, which is held in common ownership and was a part of the subject parcel as recent as a year ago. The 91 foot tall tree that is being used as the basis for the requested monopole height is located approximately 23.9 feet northwest and situated at the same base elevation as the surveyed site designated for the facility itself(976.3 feet AMSL). Because the proposed site of this facility is located at the top of a mountain, there is no area available to provide a backdrop for its monopole. However, during a field visit staff observed that a balloon floated at the height of the proposed monopole was slightly visible at the top of the treeline from a location that is interior to the subject parcel (Attachment C). Furthermore, when this site was viewed from any locations outside of the property, including points along Bloomfield Road, Dick Woods Road and Interstate 64, the balloon could not be seen. This is due to a combination of the topography surrounding the subject parcel and vegetation immediately surrounding the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Because the proposed facihty would take access from the existing logging road staff does not anticipate that a substantial amount of disturbance will be necessary. Therefore, this request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that mainly focus on the visual impacts that could result from the presence of the facility's monopole and ground-based equipment in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless Service Facihties Pohcy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides specific guidelines for the siting and review of wireless facilities. Both the Open Space Plan and Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provide staff with guidance for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future use. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on reducing the visual impacts of wireless facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The Wireless Policy recommends the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to address criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that can designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts. This proposal qualifies as a Tier Two facility. The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown, treetop monopoles that are no more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment that is painted brown. Open Space Plan and Chapter 2: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use. The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the critical resources are present throughout the County. Some of the resources that have been id.entitled as potentially being impacted by this request are mountains, the entrance corridor overlay district for 1-64 and forests. With consideration for the other relevant components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Wireless Policy has also identified various "Avoidance Areas" which are locations where the unwise siting of personal wireless facilities could result in adversely impacting important resources. The Comprehensive Plan designates mountains as major open space systems that provide scenic views, naturally forested areas and wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, personal wireless facilities should not be located within "Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. Staff's analysis for personal wireless service facilities focuses mainly on the visibility of the site from nearby properties and roadways. The site of the proposed facility is located at approximately 976.3 above sea level and the Mountain Overlay District for the Ragged Mountains starts 800 feet. Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan provides several general standards for protecting mountain resources that are very similar to the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. This includes the minimizing clearing, locating structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape, and designing structures to blend in with the terrain surrounding the site. Although it is located at the top of a ridge, staff recognizes that the proposed site for this facility is largely level and would not require a significant amount of clearing for installation and access. The balloon test indicates that the monopole would only appear as a minor feature among the treetops that would only be seen from a location within the boundaries of the subject parcel. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that a facility in the proposed location and with a brown monopole would not be visible from the nearby properties and roadways. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is, in part, "to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism." The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impact of all development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. The ARB has reviewed this proposal and recommends approval with conditions that are consistent with the design guidelines that are applied to development within the entrance corridor (Attachment D). Based on this recommendation combined with fact that the test balloon could not be seen while travelling in either direction on 1-64, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility would not impose any negative visual impacts upon the entrance corridor. The forests surrounding the proposed site of this facility are another resource that is recognized by the Open Space Plan as being present on the subject parcel. The Open Space Plan identifies forests within Rural Areas as large areas that are contiguous with other forests or farmlands, have the best soils for hard woods, and are not in subdivisions. When existing structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy favor the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles and ground equipment can be designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. This includes the preference for using brown structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are not "skylighted" against the horizon or alter the continuity ofridgelines. Because of the limited amount of disturbance for the installation of this facility, and its distance from property lines, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any of the neighboring properties within the area. RECOMMENDATION Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with the standard conditions of approval and that addition of some conditions that would be applied specifically to the proposal. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(ID oft he Telecommtmications Act of 1996. 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a fmding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, The site of this proposed facility is located nearly 166 feet north of the nearest property line, which is shared with the right-of-way for Interstate Rote 64. The nearest boundary that is shared with other property zoned Rural Areas is more than 1700 feet north of the site and is shared with Tax Map.74 - Parcel 17E access road for the sight and lease areas for the three existing facihties are already cleared of vegetation. The site of the proposed facihty is located on a ridge, within a wooded area surrounded by large trees that would assist in screening and camouflaging views from adjacent properties. In fact, as a result of this site's interior location, staff could not see a test balloon from any of the nearby roads and properties, during a field visit. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility employing a monopole at the requested height would not be designed and situated so that it would appear to be an intrusive feature upon its natural surroundings. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that the scheduled site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. Like the past applicants for the existing facilities of this kind, Omnipoint's representative has confirmed that the proposed facility would be unmanned and that service personnel would only have to travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance visits. It is also anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power for the site has been interrupted unexpected occurrences such as adverse weather conditions. However, staff does not expect this schedule of infrequent site visits to create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. The preservation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the 4 natural, scenic and historic resources are listed among the stated purposes for the Rural Areas zoning district include. Uses allowed by right in the in the Rural Areas are residential, and those related to agriculture and forestal activities, while uses allowed by special use permit are most often those that provide services in support of the by-right activities. Support for locating facilities that comply with the recommendations of the Wireless Pohcy has not been uncommon in the Rural Areas zoning district. The key purpose of the County's Wireless Policy is to site these facilities in locations where there is minimal potential for intrusion upon the naturally existing conditions in surrounding areas. It appears that the proposed facility in this particular case would blend well into the natural surroundings as a result of the tall trees surrounding the site, and its distance and elevation related to the nearby roads and adjacent property line. 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 aiad intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5. Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in their use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service. The establishment of personal wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology.- In the event of emergencies, access to the increased communication the opportunities provide wireless facilities can be consistent with the accepted principles of public health, safety and general welfare. Although wireless facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless Policy are intended to ensure that the facilities are not responsible for intruding upon the important resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing fuse, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the smtabd~ty of property for various use...; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, ~he conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County." When they are designed and sited properly, personal wireless service facilities have not been demonstrated to produce any conflict with any of the other agricultural and forestal objectives that are set forth for the Rural Areas. with the uses permitted by fight in the district, Aside from restrictions on tree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this proposal would not act to restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or by-fight uses allowed on any other property within the Rural Areas district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of the same." The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set forth in the Telecommunications act address the most significant concerns f°r public health and safety regarding personal wireless services. Staffhas attempted to address the concerns for possible impacts upon neighboring properties in the area throughout this staff report and in the recommended conditions. The Zoning Ordinance contains section 5.1.40, which sets the requirements for the submittal, review and approval of applications for personal wireless service facihties. When these regulations are combined with the recommendations of the Wireless Policy and standard conditions of approval, it is staff's opinion that this special use permit can be issued in compliance with the provisions that state the concern for the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(1)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instmmentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate the proposed facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions, These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design of personal wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate the availability, or lack thereof, of any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered by the proposed facility at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: A test balloon floated at the proposed height of the monopole was only slightly visible, at treetop level from a point located within the parcel boundaries; The proposed site for this facihty is located more than 1700 feet from the nearest adjacent rural property line; The test balloon could not be seen from the right-of-way for 1-64, or any of the other nearby public roads; This site is accessed by an existing logging road; and, The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties. 6 The following factors are relevant to this consideration: This site is located within the designated Mountain Overlay District for the Ragged Mountains; and, There are existing and reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has reviewed this request for comphance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with modifications to the standard conditions, as apphcable to this request. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crown Communications CAP Operations, LLC (McGuire #2)", dated July 24, 2003 and provided with Attachment A. 2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. 3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five feet. In no case shall the pole exceed 98 feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. 4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color. 5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. 6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. 7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. 8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole. 9. No guy wires shall be permitted. 10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor lumina/re shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the lumina/re. For the purposes of this condition, a lumina/re is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. The plans shall be revised so that information identified as APN# on the cover sheet of is labeled as the tax map and parcel number. The electrical transformer and telephone pedestal shall be located within the confines of the lease area. The locations and heights ofall trees within 50 feet of the facility that are relied upon for screening and camouflaging shall be shown on the plans. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment and concrete pad shall be included in the construction plan package. Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets. Details and cross sections for any plans to upgrade the existing dirt logging road shall be provided in the construction plan packet and is subject to review and approval by the County's Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 18. 19. 20. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the apphcationreview, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met: 21. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. 22. 23. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above the monpole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 24. 25. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed fi:om the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service pUrPoses is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any t/me that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- Special Use Permit Application and Conceptual Construction Plans Parcel and Location Maps Balloon Test Photos ARB Recommendation 2003 3:52P~ HP LRSER3ET 3200 .;~u~ of ~bm~ ~ ~,. ~. ......, .... ~ --. ~, ~.~_~-.~~. ~ ~ ~ XpPBmfion for ~pe~ Use ~~.' '~ ~' ~""'~"~~r~~~' O~~d..__ ' ~ ' '" /0 20/24/2002 15:36 FA~ 434 972 4126 BLD CODE & ZONING i{ ATTACHMENT A Saction 31.2.4. t .of thc Albem~la County Zoning Ordinance smt~s ~ha~ .,~Th~ b~ard 'of sup~isom' hereby retakes unto imelf ~e ~ght to i~ue all sp~i~ use .pe~t~ pe~t~ hereunder. Sp~iM use peru ~or ~es ~ provided in t~is or~n~ee may be issued ~pon a findin~ by that such use will not be of subs~nfi~ deffim~t to adjacCnt~.propeny, that ihe ch~cter of the di~ct witl nm be changed thereby ~ ~at such use will.-~ 'in h~mony wifl~ thd pu~ose and intent of this' ord~ce, with ~e us~ per,inet., by right in the disidc~ With addition~ mgula~$m pmvi~ in section 5.0 of ~s' ordm~ee, ~d w}~ ~e pubhc h~. Safety ~d gene~ welf~e~ The itc~ which follow will be revlewed by ~e ~ in ~f, ~ys~ of yb~ m~u~c'Ple~e complete ~s" fora ~d provide additionfl :info~on which MII msi~t ~e County i~ im review of yo~'mqu~ If you need ~ist~ filling out~ im~, st~f i~ av~lable. · W~t is ~e ~mprchen~ive Plan d~ign~tion fur ~is p~my ? ~ ~ ~ How will fl~e propos~ ~ci~l use ~f~ th, ch~ter of ~c district surmdnding ~¢'prop~y7 Howi~me~eiah~ohywim*epumb~dinmatof~eZ~ningO~in~m* '~6 ::,~~( ~4q" -- ~ · ': How ~ ~e use in h~mony wilh thc usm p~mitt~ by right in ~e district? ~ I ... :~ · What additional regulations pmvid~ in S~tiah 5.0 of ~ ~ning. O~ia~,o. apply m this .~e?= ,: " How Will ~ ~ promote thc publia h~lth, ~faty, ~d g~ welfare Of 3UH 17 2003 3:S2PH HP LRSER.]ET 3200 ATTACHMENT A l~:ribe your :equcst in deteil and include ell p~inear, infoanadon such as thc numbe~ ofpcrso~ in.v~lv~f in tl~ u~. opc.,'agn§ hour, ami any unique f~ of ~ u~ __ .If th~ appticmt: is a contract ~~, a document acc~ble ~o r~ ComtLy must submitted coataiaiag d3¢ (~w~er's wrRt~a cos~rlT t~ thc' application. If thc applicant is ~e agent of ~ owner, a do,mmen.~ ~__,-c_~ra~lc ~0 ~ Coen~ must submitted tha~ ~ evidence of d~ exLstzacc a=L scop~ of thc agency. OPTIONAL any. Day.tinm phon~ mm'~b~r of Signato~-y ATTACHMENT A /.3 !!l!:q'lON "' NEW ANTENNAS ON . NEW EQUIPMENT WiLL ) EQUIPMENT ,')NS 1-64 TOWARDS D 1-295 NORTH, TAKE ~PPROX. 25 MILES 'TO 114 (RT 637) DICK RD, FOLLOW FOR ~ 30MFIELD RD FOLLOW H 99 BROOMRELD · ND FOLLOW ALL THE iEFORE THE HOUSE. ITE OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP O,PE.RATIONS LLC SITE NAME MCGUIRE SITE NUMBER VA32344C SITE ADDRESS 99 BLOOMFIELD ROAD CHARLOTi'ES LLE, VA 22903 LA'"RTUDE: 38'01'39.84-" (NAD 85) LONGITUDE: 78'55'05.75" (NAD 83) GROUND ELEV.: 976.3' (AMSL) APPROVED FOR ZONING PROPERTY OWNER OR REP. CONSTRUCTION ZONING NE~VORK ORERA~ONS REAL ESTATE OTHER SHEET INDEX. T1 TITLE SHEET N1 GENERAL NOTES N2 GENERAL NOTES N5 GENERAL NOTES C1 SURVEY EXHIBIT C1A ENLARGED SURVEY EXHIBIT CIB ADJACENT PROPERTY INFORMATION C2 SITE DETAIL PLAN C3 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA SCHEDULE C4 CIVIL DETAILS C5 CIVIL NOTES C6 BTS AND PLATFORM PLATFORM SITE LOOATION NOT TO SCALE SITE INFORMATION JURISDICTION: ALBEMARLE COUNTY APN~: 07400 O0 O0 01700 D.B.: 2343 PG 356 CODE: BOCA OCCUPANCY: CO-LOCATION ZONING: PA-RURAL AREA~ CONSTRUCTION TYPE: PREFABRICATED PROJECT SUMMARY LANDLORD VERULAM FARM CONSERVATION GROUP LLC 99 BLOOMFIELD ROAD CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22903 CONTACT: MELTON C. MCGUIRE PHONE: (434) 295-3595 CONSULTANT~ ClVIL/SU RVEYING DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES 8090 VILLA PARK DRIVE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 25228 PHONE: 804-264-2228 FAX: 804-284-8773 APPLICANT OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP OPERATIONS, LLC 5029 CORPORATE WOODS DRIVE, SUITE 225 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 25462 PH: 757-490-7212 FAX: 757-490C5778 CONTACT: AMBRE BLATTER MISS UTILITY CONTRACTOR TO CALL 4,8 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING! PHONE: (800)552-7001 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE OF EXIS~NG. UTiLEIES DURING CONSTRUCTION UTILmE8 DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER ONE JAkIES RIVER PLAZA 701 EAST CARY STREET RICHMONI~, VIRGINIA 23219 PHONE: 1-§68-667-5000 SPRINT CONTAOT: OUSTOMER SERVICE PHONE: 800-370-8105 Draper Aden Associates 80gO Villa Park D~ve Blacksburg, VA Richmond, VA 23228 Charlottesville, VA 804-264-2228 Hampton Roads, VA Fax: 804-264-8773 Raleigh-Durham, NC www.daa.com OMNIPOINT COlqI~IUNICAT~ONS CAP OPERAT~ONS~ LLC 5029 CORPORATE WO00S DR., SUITE 225 VIRGII~A BEACH, VA 23462 PH: (757) 490-7200 FAY.: (767) 49 .0~$195 SITE NO: V~34~C IX~I BY:. SaS QIEC~ED BY;. ddF ~HE~ VAS~ M~I~ ~2 C~O~~, VA ~ R:O/gL/L 026~00~ SNOLLVA,t~SEtO ~d9 ,'SONIb'9~I ..40 "Bg OAVN NO 03~ ~VOIm~A ,OT ONV '£6 O~N NO 'ON~ -I0 Iq~l 3b'vno~ OGL DNINIVJNOD 3qoa .L~n ~- avo~t G'L]L~flOO'iB 68 :S$Gt~N 3JJS :~.~flnN NO .l.¥~lO_qNI J.S3PO~td '9NINNIO3B ~0 3OVgd ON¥ .LNIOd 3nBz 3HJ. OZ-)~OVB ,oo'oR 3.00.O0.OOS 3ON3H~ :lNlOd VOl ,OO'g~ 3.00,00.06N 3ON3H£ :ZNIOd ¥ 0£ ,00'0~ 3.00,OO.OON 30N3~LL :.& 'a'O'd. 039~a4q 'DNINNIO3B ;JO 3DY'Id ONV ZNIOd 3D~U. 3I-U. OJ. ~NI9-311 V DNOgY .Z6'99~ ~.£O,0!~.L!~N 3ONCIH! 'NYgd $1HJ. NO .0NFIO.~ IN3tgFINOIq. 03938'71 .IN3flIgNOH Y J.V ONION3WFiOD v3~ '~s'v"~ NOI_LdI~OS3a 9V03,1 NOI±dEJOS3C] 9V939 1 M.OO, OO. O6N (39VOS--19VH) ,0 I. ./ t / / I I olc~ I i bL°- t l irc i I ! / / / f \ \ \ I I lN3fl3gV3 A~IgLlfl '~ $~:':lOOV .L~lOcllNflO O3gOclOB~ 1 i ! t ! i / t \ V3blV 35¥39 .LNIOdlNPtO / / / / / / / / / / / / ,/ = ,,L :3~vos IlBIHX3 ~^ans ~ SCiOOM ,' ! ! P.O.B. 2 GPS 1 'RO0 SET' N: :~901§39.565 E: 114,56629.168 LAT: N38'02~17.93" LC~,IG: W78'`35'28.57" ELEV.: 656,10 '~.~ GEA,P[-[[C INTERSTATE ROUTE 64 GPS 2 "ROD SET' N: ;~g00366.891 £:11457210.158 tAT: N55'02'05.35' lONG':. W'/8'~5'21 .-~O' ELEV.: 669, tD TM 74--17A3 ,3199 COLD SPRINO RD PAUL T. DIAMOND . ZONING:, RA 21.07 AC.' L16 LINE LINF: LE%b I H BI Lt .'~ :...7~ _ , LE 42h=7 _ L4 ~.43 L6 :~.~3 LIO ' .Ut . , L13 L15 ~6 ~ 50 L17 L18 ~:_z L19 ~4~ !E LEO ~ 9[ LES : ' E ~ 7 L83 .~ ~/.I;~ L~4 ~ [4 LES [.2~:=;~ ,., LE7 LEe _~.;f~ L~9 :: 30 TM 74-.17 99 BLOOMFIELD RD ~ERUt. At~ FARkt COt~SERYKIIOR I~ROUP LLC ZONING: RA 356.26 ,aC, Draper Aden Associates 8090 ~rfl~ Par~ Oxive Blacksbur~, VA Richmond. VA 23228 Charlottesville, VA 604-2~4-2228 Hampton Roads, VA Fax: 804-264-8773 Raleigh-Durham. NC · wv~v.daa,com , ' OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP OPERAT/ONS, LLC 5029 CORPORATE: WOOC)S DR,, SUITE 225 ~qRGINIA BEACH. VA 23462 PH: (757) 490-7200 FA~ (757) 490-6195 susm-r, ALS/R~aONS 3 R~ zee~ D~d~S PE~ {:CUUE~TS $ S1~ #0: VA,323,NC (~IEC~ BY; ROW ENLARGED SURYEY EXHIBIT ~m ¥A32344C McGUI~ $2 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 '0V ~ZL'6L8 ¥~ :0NINOZ ITIIAS3LL0'lb'VH:) ,:10 a~ ~10A~d3S'q~ 0L~.,~ / 'OY 0~"60 L Ybl :ONINOZ 0'I'1 ~19'4 TIIH Alda3HO 3'H.-6g i'LL 'OY Ybl :0NINOZ OTI dn0U0 a0U. V^~r~JSZ,,'O0 ~IUV..-InY'ln~ a)J (~3bliqoo"lg 66 £ P-"k/. PtL ':I'IVOS OJ. J.ON NbI.LV IO-.INI A/ ]clO cl J.N':IOVPCIV ,..,,"~/)" '::)V ../' YU :DNINOZ T13NN000H ~,~IA~N30 O~ ~)Np-ldS (:~OO 9V/..I.-"k/. 'OV ¥~ :ONINOZ O'TI lqa¥.4 )g3U3 ,IAI (i~l Q'13L'IIqOG'18 8/J.--t,/. "DY 99"~' Y~l :E)NINOZ 'd~)O O~qV'l S~NI~dS 6/.9 31.1'10~ g6-~g ru. 'DY g["~'~ V~ :DNINOZ N.~O:4ig 331'}V ~G QUO.~NV'I 91.6~ g L "l,~. ifil / ! ! ~ CONSI~RVATION ~ i( ~REA i / / / / t '/ t :' / t ! I I / ! ! t ! ! ! / I f t ! I / ! ! f i , ! ! 1' / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ /' /' \ t \ i I '" \ I t F'XISTI~ I i ROAD ! \ .,, I I / // Xx.. Ex,s~.G ~ SITE PLAN'" .... "- PROPOSi~"tOI' POI. E "' i i ! NO'~ --.. PROPO~D POLE NdD EQUIPMENT IS TO BE PNNTEI)/'miTE~ BRO~N. Draper Aden Associates 8090 ~lla Pa~ D~e Bla~sburg, VA Richmond, VA ~8 Ch~oE~ville, VA 804-2~2228 H~pto~ Roads, VA ~.daa.com OMNEPOZNT COHHUNI~ONS ~P OPE~ONS, LLC PH: (757) r~ (757) ~~/ONAL ~ BY: ~D \ \ \ \ \ ? / / / / / I t ! , I /x--,/~ ~ / . .// il ( f'x I~ ,// ,{'I,' '",. , / ; ~ ~z~4L .... W ..... ~ ,'~ / / I m '~~ ~~ k ~ ' i ~ ~ / i / ) ~ vL~U~MED/~T THIS/~ME, S~BJECT )0 ~Y ~ATE OF / ~ ~ ~¢~m,'k .... ~ ui~uuu~ / i / / I I .-' ~, 3. ~S P~N ~ PREP¢.ED'~ WmTHCUT THE ~ENEFI~ %. -"' .~%E REPO~. SUBJEC~O ALL ~HTS, P~N VA32344C McGUIRE ,12 99 BLOOMFIELD ROAD CHARLOTTEEMLLE, VA 229O3 ]NQ3HOS VNN31N¥ 311H~ - BO/D3S VHMVO 3fl98 - BO£D3S ¥i3B o3B - BOIO3S VHdgV '3DN3f1035 NI 3SIMNO09O ~0'1"10_-I VH~YO aNY ¥£38 3Hi (NiBON) $33~93O O~3Z O/ /S3S090 SI BOZ03$ VHdgV 3~LL :~3NNYH 3S~A~oogD ¥ NI O3£¥N91S3a 38 99VHS SBOI03S 'SBOI03$ 33~Hi OZ d~ 3AYH 99~A iLlS V A99¥~BON :NOU¥ONIIN3OI BO/03S :SNOLLOflNISNI ON~AOq~OJ 3Hi ~JBd 'ONIgBVO VNN~LNV JO ONIN~IVI~ H~O31Nn ONV NOuVOIJUN30] iSV3 3a~O~d IS~M ~OlOV~lNO0 NOU¥O~LLN3Ol 398V0 XVOO 39VOS ol iON O VNN3±NV 93NVd BVgOdlB mno~ 3did YNN31NY YNN31NV 93NVd iNnO~ VNN3ZNV-~ 398¥3 \ ('xv.) .~ 1 ~ S"~NN31NV 3d,LL 93NVd 99V BO~ O3~lnb3B ,LgB~43SSV /gLLNMOO B3MO£ (~ aNY [ S~NIq NO ~olo3s a3d d~Z) B31419d~V 3SION MO9 -I I $B30NYH i~OddflS Q3ZIS ~3d0~d 39¥0S Oi iON NOLLVA393 B3MOi Z ..-.I 3:,. 0 Z 390d NMO~8 99vm , LOL:~ OBSOdO~d (gsRv) ,/.,~Ot =F '(qsv) .~o~ · o -~VNN3LNV ~NK)dlN~O 40 B:UN3D OV~ '3SV8 iV ,,0£ aNY dO1 J.V ,,eL a33OX30l iON Si 390d a3SOdO~d :3£0N 'SOY09 a3SOdOBa 9NU~OddnS I ~0 398VdVO SI ~AOl Xdla~A OZ B33NION3 qvan~onais O3SN3DIq V AB O3ZA~VNV 38 /S~ NO~VON~Oa B3MO/ aNV a3MOL 9NE$1X3 'SNOLLOBS ONllNnO~ ONV SYNN3ZN¥ ONIHO¥11V Ol ~OIBd :iLON Area of Interest TM 74 P17 Prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Setvices(GDS). Map created October 2003, Aerial Inlageo/ © 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia SP=03~064 VERULAIVl FARM (OMNIPOINT) 0 4, 000 8,000 12, 000 Feet Note: The map elements depicted are graphic repreaenlations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. W,E 9573 8OO 69¢ 9 687,0 Prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Service$(GDS), Map created October 2003, Aerial Imagery © 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representalions and are not to be construed or used as a legal descfiption~ SP-03-064 VERULAM FARM (OMN~PO~NT) 0 840 1,680 2,520 Feet ATTACH~ENTC ATTACHMENT C ATTACH~ENTC ATTACH~ENTC ATTACHMENT, Albemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment Architectural Review Board s P-2003-064 Verulam Farm-VA32344 Omnipoint PWSF revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision janet miller 8/25/2003 10/6/2003 requested changes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296- 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 October 10, 2003 Ambre Blatter Omnipoint 5029 Corporate Woods Drive #225 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 RE: ARB-2003-115: Verulam Farm (Omnipoint); Tax Map 74, Parcel 17 Dear Ms. Blatter, The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on October 6, 2003, reviewed the above-noted request to construct a personal wireless facility. The Board took the following actions. Regarding the Special Use Permit: The Board voted 3 to 1 to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB expresses no objection to the special use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pole height shall be limited to 10' above the height of the tallest tree within 25' of'the pole, as measured above sea level. 2. Indicate on the plan .all trees that are to be removed. Regarding the Building Permit: The Board voted 3 to 1 to approve the proposal, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Indicate on the plan the trees that are proposed to be removed. 2. Indicate that proposed lighting is only for temporary short-term maintenance use. 3. Include a note on the plan indicating that the antennas will be mounted such that the top of the antennas will not rise above the top of the pole. 4. Show proposed grading and indicate that no trees will be removed along the access route. 5. Clarify impacts to the wooded area resulting from proposed grading. 6. Indicate on the plan the proposed material of the pole. Please provide revised drawings and/or other information addressing each of these conditions at your 11/23/2003 05:31 PM Page 1 of 2 ATTACHNIENT D A~bemarle County Development Departments SPIN Submission and Comment Architectural Review Board S P-2003-064 Verulam Farm-VA32344 Omnipoint PWSF revision 2 reviewer received reviewe decision janet miller 8/25/2003 10/6/2003 requested changes earliest convenience. Include a memo indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions about this action, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner Cc: DFile ARB-2003-115 Steve Waller 11/23/2003 05:31 PM Page 2 of 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning '& Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 December 16, 2003 Rev. Ray A. Stark 5100 Dickerson Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SP-03-68 Northridge Community Church Amendment (Sign #7) Tax Map 21, Parcel 11A Dear Rev. Stark: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003. by a vote of 6:0. recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Exterior changes to the building and site depicted on and approved as part of the final site plan SDP- 200.1-022, are prohibited unless authorized by an amendment to this special use permit. Prohibited exterior changes include changes to any architectural feature, color, texture or materials, play area, and landscaping, but do not include repairing or replacing any portion or element of a building provided that the repaired or replaced portion or element has the same architectural feature, color, texture and materials approved as part of SDP-2001-022. 2. The maximum enrollment for the pre-school/day care shall be restricted to 80 children and the maximum enrollment for the after school program shall be restricted to 60 children. 3. The hours and days of operation shall be restricted to the following: day care/pre-school program 7:30 AM to 2 PM Monday through Friday; after school program from 2:30 PM - 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 14, 2004. 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. f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action please do qot hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, , ~an McDowel Principal Planner JMD/jcf Cc; Ella Carey Jack Ketsey Northside Community Fellowship Church Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Joan D. McDowell December 2, 2003 January 14, 2003 SP 03-68 Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene Amendment Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested an amendment to SP 00-58 (a special use permit to construct a 11,200 square foot church) to be allowed to operate a pre- school/day care for a maximum of 80 children and an after school program for a maximum of 60 children in the existing church facility. Five classrooms with a total of 2,630 square feet would be used for these purposes. It should be noted that the church has changed its name from Northside Community Fellowship Church to Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene, since the approval of SP 00-58. The applicant has requested the following hours/days for operation of the child care facilities: day care/pre-school 7:30 AM - 2 PM Monday through Friday after school program 2:30 PM - 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Children attending the after school program would arrive by bus or van and be picked up by parents. The day care/pre-school children would be individually transported by their parents. Petition: Request for an amendment to a special use permit, SP 00-58 Northside Community Church Fellowship Church, to allow a pre-school/day care and an after school program, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for "Day care, child care or nursery facility." The church name has been changed to Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene. The property, described as Tax Map 21 Parcel 1 iA, contains 9.92 acres and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The church is located at 5100 Dickerson Road (Route 606), approximately 1,200 feet m/les from the intersection of Dickerson Road and Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), in the SP 03-68 Northridge day care White Hall Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as RA Rural Area. Character of the Area: The area surrounding the church contains a mixture of rural agricultural, residential, wooded areas, a church and the G.E. Fanuc Corporation facility. Plannin~ and Zoning History: SP 00-58 was approved in January 2001. The approval was for a 11,200 square foot church building with 200 seats, 101 parking spaces, and outdoor recreational areas. The church has been constructed and is in operation. SP 00'-58 did not include a request for child care operations; therefore, a condition of approval for SP 00-58 required that any child care operation receive an amendment to the special use permit application. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site is Rural Area. Churches provide support to Rural Area residents. The proposed pre-' school/day care and after school care uses are a mission of the church. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit. ~ STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill 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. SP 03-68 Northridge day care 2 The existing church building would accommodate the proposed pre- school/day care and after school care operations without any exterior alterations. The play area would be located at the rear of the churCh, in the location approved with SP 00-58. A copy of the SP 00-58 site plan is attached for your information (Attachment B). Neither VDOT nor the County's Engineering Department offered comments regarding concerns with public safety. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, No exterior changes have been requested that would change the visual character of the district. However, the additional traffic and noise would impact this area. As the outdoor play area is located away from residential dwellings and as it is anticipated that the traffic will use Route 29 to enter Dickerson Road, the impacts would be lessened. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The Rural Area zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for the preservation and protection of agricultural and forestal resources; to provide for water supply protection; to be an area of limited service delivery; and to conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. The proposed child care operations within the existing building would not conflict with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed child care operations would not impact uses that are permitted by right in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, There are no regulations in Section 5.0 governing the proposed use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed child care use would not require any alterations to the existing access and driveway. Currently, the traffic count for this portion of Dickerson Road is 120 vehicle trips per day. Using 4.52 trips per students SP 03-68 Northridge day care 3 per day, the maximum enrollment of 80 children for the day care/pre-school would generate 361.6 trips per day. With an enrollment of 60 children, the after school care program would generate less trips, as the children would arrive by bus and van. Although the increased traffic along Dickerson Road would significantly increase as a result of these childcare operations, both VDOT and the County's Engineering Department did not recommend that the applicant make any improvements to the access driveway or to the road. Approximately 600 feet of Dickerson Road extending from the entrance to the existing asphalt roadway was surfaced by the applicant, as a requirment of SP 00-58. There are sections of the road that remain unpaved. However, it is anticipated that the majority of traffic will enter Dickerson Road from Route 29, using the paved roadway. The unlighted outdoor play area would remain in the same location. Any changes to the location, as a result of a future church expansion would require approval of a special use permit. No negative impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare are anticipated. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to these applications: 1. The childcare operations would provide support to rural area residents. 2. The access and driveway could accommodate the additional traffic and uses. 3. The playground is located in an area separated from neighboring residences. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The traffic along Dickerson Road would significantly increase as a result of the child care operations. 2. Additional noise from children playing and from vehicular traffic would result from the proposed uses. SP 03-68 Northridge day care RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 03-68, subject to the following conditions: Exterior changes to the building and site depicted on and approved as part of the final site plan, SDP-2001-022, are prohibited unless authorized by an amendment to this special use permit. Prohibited exterior changes include changes to any architectural feature, color, texture or materials, play area, and landscaping, but do not include repairing or replacing any portion or element of a building provided that the repaired or replaced portion or element has the same architectural feature, color, texture and materi als approved as part of SDP-2001-022. o The maximum enrollment for the pre-school/day care shall be restricted to 80 children and the maximum enrollment for the after school program shall be restricted to 60 children. o The hours and days of operation shall be restricted to the following: day care/pre-school program 7:30 AM to 2 PM Monday through Friday; after school program from 2:30 PM - 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Attachments: A B C SP 03-68 Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene Application Northside [Northridge] Comm. Fellowship Church Final Site Plan dated March 22, 2001 Location and aerial maps SP 03-68 Northridge day care County of Albemarle ':' Department of Building COde and Zoning Services 1,~' ~'~ ;'..¢~, ~I , ~ Date . Applicatibn for Special Use Permit *Existing Use *Zoning D/strict (*staff will assist you with thcs¢ items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit Cu. ~ ~! ,,,~,, I~ this an amendment to an existing Spedal Use Permit7 late you submitting a site development plan writ this application7 ~_,h *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested ' k..- ./~' IContact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this.,projectT): Address ;5-tOO '~tc~voq..7~.O ~7~. City  DaytimePhone (qSP) ~Z-ZIt~ Fax~ State, ,,,¢.-{ ,, Zip E.mail Owner of land (^, ,;,tee, i, u..e Co,.,my'., ,.'=,.'oras): /~..SzZ)e ~m.-,.,ow ,-tV/ /'~.-6co~>s'.,,? ("~ Address .~/~ ~/~r-W~.qg~ ~1~- City C~,~'..~ State ?.~ Zip 2zq// Daytime Phone q~3c( ) q&q-!,g-geO vax# E-mail lap p [leant (Who ,s tim iAddress Daytime ?hOne ( City ' State Zip , ) Fax # E-maii Tax map and parcel Location of property (~and,,~=~. interg~',,ons, or other). .-~ } - i ~ ~ Physical Addr~s(irassigned) .~, ~~; Hixtory: Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownemhip interest in) any abutting property7 If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers ~ O. · OFFICE USE ONLY Fc~: amount $ 1! C~ "" Date Paid ~ Special Usc Purmits: .,. 4-~ ~} ~" ~gecu~ent revmw or Site Development PI~? ~ ZMAs and Proffers: Receipt # Letter of Authorization UIYcs 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: ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County .must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen~t 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 kno~ledge.~ Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory 7 :ROM :NORTHRIDGE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF FAX NO. :434-964-1500 Sep. 05 2003 10:45AM P2 .NORTHRIDGE Community Church Memo To: Joan McDowell From: Rev. Ray A. Stark CC: Date: 9/5/03 UPDATE TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Please update our application for mi amendment to our Special Use Permit to include the following... We arc requesting to use our current facility for a pre-school: Opcn'ating during the hours of 7:30 ran to 2:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Maximum of 80 children on site per day. The pre-school will be housed in the existing building (classroom and square fbotage to be forwarded to you on Monday. · The school year will be approximately mid-August through early 3rune. In addition, we are requesting to use our currem facility for an after school program: · Operating hours will be 2:30 pm - 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, when public school is in session. Maximum of 60 children on site per day. _~ffter care will be housed in the existing building. · Children will arrive by bus or van and will be picked up by parents. Should you. ha~e any questions, please contact me at 882-2114. ,'~ Thank you,.~-..~ ..j ~~" . .'./~_~_ / _, Rev, Ray A. Stark -7"). _ ~ Senior Pastor "Changing the Wa), People Think About Church" SEPO ~2003 i ROAD 'r'/ D~T~ JOB NUMBER Prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS). Map created October 2003, Aerial Imageo/ © 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and fA rea of Interest TM 21 P 11A SP-03-068 NORTHRIDGE COMMUITY CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE 0 680 1,360 2,040 Feet Prepaced by Albemarle County Office of Geogrephic Data Services(GDS). Map created October 2003. Ae#el Imageo/ © 2002 Commonwealth of VTfginia Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations are not to be conslrued or used es a legal description. SP-03-068 NORTHRIDGE COMIVIUITY CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE 0 240 480 720 Feet COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mc[ntir¢ Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 December 17, 2003 Valerie Long McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, LLP PO Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-03-70 Gregory R. Gallihugh-Nextel Partners (Sgin #59) Tax Map 74, Parcel 2C Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 16, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. However, it was also the consensus of the Planning Commission that in the event that the Board of Supervisors approves the request that the following conditions be included: o With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction plans entitled, "Ne×tel Partners- Gallihugh Site". last revised November 11 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. The top of the pole as measurea Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shal never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25-feet tree identified as T-20 on Sheet C-4 of the construction plans, tn no case shall the pole exceed 85 feet above, the existing ground elevation at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. The metal monopole shall be painted a brown wood color that ~s consistent with the trees surrounding the site. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shal be no larger than the specifications set forth in the aPplication plans. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole. No guy wires shall be permitted. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be timited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that alt ight emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the umina~re. For the purposes of this condition a luminaire Page 2 December 17, 2003 11. is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 12. 13. 14. 15. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site ~ both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shal be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site planS for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation the following shall be met: 16. 17. t8. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed two feet above the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are stee per than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the ~ssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 20. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July I of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the monopole and the ground are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be Page 3 December 17, 2003 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. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January '14, 2004. 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. Please note that the Planning Commission, also by a vote of 5:0, denied the waiver of the setback in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Senior Planner sw/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Gregory and Tammy Gallihugh Nextel Partners. lnc STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP DECEMBER 16, 2003 JANUARY 14, 2004 SP 03-070 GALLIHUGH~ GREGORY lC (NEXTEL) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include a metal monopole, approximately 85 feet in total height, and top elevation that is approximately 720 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This would result in a monopole with a top height that is approximately 8 feet taller in elevation AMSL, than the 76- foot tall tree identified as T-20 in the attached construction plans. The monopole would be equipped with one array consisting of three 6-foot long by 1-foot wide and 7-inch deep, flush- mounted panel antennas at its top and supporting ground equipment would be contained within a 9-1/6-foot tall, 200 square-foot shelter. The 1369 square-foot lease area for this proposed facility is located on property, described as Tax Map 74 - Parcel 2C, containing 2.78 acres. This parcel is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of State Route 637 (Dick Woods Road),between Interstate Route 64 and State Route 637, approximately 1/2 mile southwest of Exit 114 from 1-64 to Ivy (Attachment B). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. Petition: The applicant, Nextel Communication, is in the process of expanding its services along Interstate Route 64 in Albemarle County west of the City of Charlottesville. This request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers and their appurtenances in the Rural Areas, by special use permit. PlanninR and Zoning History,: SP 00-028 AllteFIvy Exit - At its meeting on September 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted approval of a personal wireless service facility with a monopole that 75-foot not exceed five feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, as measured above mean sea level (Attachment C). Because of some specific issues surrounding the expected skylighting of the monopole above the treeline, a 96-foot tall tree located within 25 feet of the facility was disqualified from consideration in determining the monopole's height. Furthermore, due to their importance in providing screening of the monopole from properties located to the south, three additional trees that are far away from the existing site were addressed in the condition requiring a tree conservation plan. Character of the Area: The subject parcel is surrounded by properties that are all zoned Rural Areas, mainly consisting of small, rural-residential lots on each side and those that have been developed within the Rosemont subdivision, which is located on the south side of Route 637. The northernmost property line is shared with Tax Map 74 - Parcel 14A, which is a large, undeveloped part of the original Verulam Farm tract and separates the subject parcel from the right-of-way for 1-64 by more than 350 feet. The site of the proposed facility is located in a sparsely wooded area approximately 170 feet north of the dwelling, which is also located on the same parcel, gradually slopes downward toward the rear property line. The nearest dwelling that is not located on the subject parcel is approximately 320 feet southwest of the site on the property identified as Tax Map 74 - Parcel 2B, and the proposed site of the monopole is located 54 feet from that boundary line. The facility will be accessed by 10-foot wide gravel service road that extends north to the existing Alltel facility site from the driveway serving the residence on the property. The proposed facility would be located near the edge of the woods, and most of the significantly sized trees are situated downhill from the site. The applicant's petition and plans cite the presence of a 76-foot tall Black Walnut tree (712.2 feet ASL), which is approximately 16 feet away from the proposed location of the monopole, as the reason for requesting a monopole height of 85 feet (720 feet ASL). The site of the proposed facility is a sparsely wooded area that is situated at a ground level elevation of 635.6 feet AMSL and a finished ground elevation of 637.2 feet AMSL. The 75-foot tall monopole for the existing facility is situated approximately 50 feet northeast from the location of the monopole proposed for this facility, which is centrally located between the side property lines and at the 630-foot contour interval. During a field visit, staff observed that a balloon floated at the height of the proposed monopole was visible above the tops of the trees from the portion of roadway that spans the distance between the entrances for Rosemont and the subject parcel Route 637 (Attachment D). While observing the test from static points on the property sharing the western boundary of the subject parcel, the balloon appeared to extend well above the treetops. This indicates that a rather large portion of the monopole would be "skylighted" from the road and from some of the properties located to the south and west of the site. Staff also determined that neither the existing monopole nor the balloon could be seen from the right-of-way for 1-64. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff notes that the proposed construction and service road extension for access to the proposed facility would not require the clearing of any substantial vegetation. Therefore, this request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that are mainly focused on the visual impaCts that could result from the presence of the facility's monopole in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides specific guidelines for the siting and review of personal wireless service facilities. Both the Open Space Plan and Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provide staff with the guiding principles for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future use. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on reducing the visual impacts of these facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The Wireless Policy recommends the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to address criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The fn'st tier sets a preference for the 2 development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that are designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts. The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown, treetop monopoles that are no more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment housed cabinets and buildings that are painted brown. When siting these facilities there is preference for using structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are not "skylighted' against the horizon so that they alter ridgelines. Although the applicant has submitted this proposal in accordance with the recommended criteria for Tier Two facilities, staff has not determined that those criteria alone would be adequate enough to mitigate the anticipated negative impacts of the facility. Open Space Plan and Chapter 2: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the goals for preserving and managing those resources and the environment for future use. The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that assists with identifying the areas where critical resources are present throughout the County. This site lies within the area designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan and is part of a larger area designated as forests by the Open Space Plan Concept Map. The Open Space Plan identifies forests within Rural Areas as large areas that are contiguous with other forests or farmlands, have the best soils for hard woods, and are not in subdivisions. When existing structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Wireless Policy favors the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles and ground equipment can be designed to blend in well with the natural sun'oundings. While observing the balloon test for this proposal, staff was able to determine that due to its location in relation to those boundary and tree lines, a large portion of the monopole for this facility would be visible from at least one adjoining parcel and Route 637. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial as proposed. 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)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and, Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, The nearest dwelling to this site that is not located on the subject parcel is approximately 320 feet from the site of the proposed facility proposed facility on property identified as Tax Map 74 - Parcel 2B. Construction plans indicate that this facility would be located closer to the subject parcel's western boundary that is shared with that parcel than the existing facility. The proposed facility site is also near the edge of the treeline, and based on the balloon test there are not any significantly sized trees between it and the adjacent parcel to adequately screen the view of the top half of the proposed monopole from that dwelling. Furthermore, staff has also determined that a rather large portion of the facility would be visible above the trees from parts of the State Route 637 right-of-way, and some properties in the Rosemont subdivision. Staff has determined that a rather large portion of the proposed monopole would extend above the trees tops of the surrounding forests when viewed from at least one adjacent property and the road upon which the subject parcel has frontage. This would result in the introduction of a facility that It is the extent to which the monopole would be extend above the trees from those nearby points that causes the a substantial amount of concern for the visual impacts of this request. With consideration for the visual impacts, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility could be considered to be detrimental to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The applicant's request indicates that Nextel service personnel would normally travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is also anticipated that some unscheduled visits to the site will be necessary when electrical power has been interrupted by any unexpected factors, such as adverse weather. However, once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that any of those site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. Support for locating facilities that comply with the Wireless Policy in the Rural Areas zoning district is not uncommon. The key purpose of the County's Wireless Policy is to site these facilities in locations where there is minimal potential for intrusion upon the naturally existing conditions in surrounding areas. Staff notes that in the review of past proposals for multiple personal wireless service facilities on a single property concern has often been expressed for the adverse impacts that could arise from the proliferation of facilities within a given area. This is because of the likelihood for increasing the impact of existing facilities with marginal visibility by introducing additional ones that could attract attention that would not otherwise be drawn. Whenever requests to allow horizontal co-locations are being reviewed, staff also attempts to ensure that the tree conservation areas for existing facilities are not altered to a extent that the treeline and tree canopy helping to camouflage their mounting structures and ground equipment would be compromised. The applicant has provided a tree conservation plan and tree identification map, both of which were prepared by an arborist to show the locations of trees surrounding the existing Alltel facility. In this case staff also recognizes that the successful screening of the existing facility relies heavily upon three trees that are located well outside of the lease areas for either facility. However, none those trees or nearby trees surrounding the 4 proposed monopole site would provide a level of screening that is comparable to that provided for the existing facility. The implied concerns with horizontal co-locations are magnified even greater in this case because of the relatively small size of the subject parcel and the expanded tree conservation area that was created for the existing facility. Therefore, when compared to the limited visual impacts of the existing well-screened facility, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility could have the effect of changing the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5. Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," as an intent of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service, and the establishment of wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. In the event of emergencies, the increased access to wireless communication opportunities is consistent with the accepted principles of public health, safety and general welfare. Although existing wireless facilities have not often been credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless Policy are intended to ensure that equipment for those facilities are not responsible for negatively intruding upon the important natural resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Section 1.5 (Relation to EnVironment) states, in part, that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses..." Whenever, personal wireless service facilities can be designed and sited properly, it has not been demonstrated that these types of uses present any extensive conflict with the agricultural and forestal objectives that have been set forth for the Rural Areas. Furthermore, there is already an existing facility located on the subject parcel, near the proposed site of this facility that has been strategically designed and installed to blend well with its natural surroundings. However, due to a combination of the size of this parcel and the wooded area surrounding the, there does not appear to be many trees that are similar to the height of the proposed monopole that could provide adequate screening or camouflaging. Therefore, it is staff s opinion that the newly proposed facility would not be appropriate at this site. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Aside from restrictions on tree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this proposal would not act to restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or by-right uses allowed on any other properties within the Rural Areas district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of the same." Staff has addressed the concerns for possible negative environmental and visual impacts upon neighboring properties throughout this staff report. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 address the most significant concerns for the public health and safety related to personal wireless services. The Ordinance also contains section 5.1.40, which sets the requirements for the submittal, review and approval of applications for personal wireless service facilities. Section 5.1.40b(2) authorizes the Director of Planning and Community Development to allow a facility to be constructed closer to any lot line than the height of its mounting structure, if the applicant acquires an easement from the owner of the adjoining property that lies within the facility's "fall zone". However, with this proposal the applicant is instead requesting Planning approval for a waiver of the setbacks related to structure height, in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1 (b) of the Ordinance. Staffhas addressed this request in a separate section of the report. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instmmentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design of personal wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate the availability, or lack thereof, of any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered by the proposed facility at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services. 3. Waiver of the setback in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1 Section 5.1.40.b(2) states: "Notwithstanding Section 4. t 0.3.1 (b) of this chapter, the director of planning and community development may authorize a facility to be located closer in distance than the height of the structure to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement acceptable to the county attorney prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the facility's fall zone." The applicant's proposal includes the installation of the 85-foot tall monopole structure within 54 feet of property line, which is shared with Tax Map 74 - Parcel 2B. Based on the requirements of Section 4.1.3.1 (b) the structure should be set back 85 feet from the western property line. However, instead of pursing a fall zone easement, the applicant is requesting approval of a waiver in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1 (c). This section allows the Planning Commission to modify or waive the setback requirements related to the heights of mounting structures for personal wireless services and similar facilities upon determining that the public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served. It is staff's opinion that the setback provision of Section 4.10.3.1 is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards if a structure should fall. Although staff has received no opposition from the owner of that adjoining parcel, it should be noted that the 31- foot fall zone intrusion of the proposed facility would extend 6 feet beyond the standard 25-foot Rural Areas side yard setback on the adjacent parcel. Furthermore, the parcel line from which this setback waiver would allow relief is shared with the same property that is most likely to be affected by the visual impacts of the proposed facility. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the waiver as requested. If the Planning Commission supports the special use permit on the basis of its evaluation for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1, approval of this modification is appropriate. However, if the Commission votes to deny this request, the applicant may appeal the decision in conjunction, as allowed by Section 4.10.3.1.d(1). SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The facility would not restrict any of the permitted and uses on adjacent properties; and, This site is accessed from an existing driveway that would be extended across a mostly grassed area that requires minimal grading. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: o There is an existing Tier II personal wireless facility located on the subject parcel; The applicant has already submitted tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist to address any expected impacts upon the trees surrounding both facility sites; The parcel proposed as the site for this facility only contains 2.78 acres; The "fall zone" of the monopole proposed with this site extends 31 feet across the boundary line shared with an adjacent property; and, The standard 200-foot tree conservation area surrounding the improvements for this facility would extend beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: The proposed monopole would be at least 10 feet taller than the one serving the existing facility on the subject parcel; The monopole would be skylighted from parts of State Route 637; A large portion of the monopole would be skylighted and unscreened from at least one adjacent property located to the west of the site; and, The fall zone of the proposed monopole extends into the side yard setback of an adjoining property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This request has been submitted in comphance with the criteria that is set Tier II personal wireless service facilities. However, the proposal does not satisfactorily address the policy's goals for limiting adverse visual impacts. It is staff's opinion that the concern for those impacts that would result ~om the proposed facility in this particular location outweigh the level of convenience that would be provided with the increased access to personal wireless services. There is an existing facility on the subject parcel that was designed and located.to take advantage of the vegetation surrounding its lease area as well as other tall trees that are located farther outside of the site, substantially mitigating visual impacts. Due to the rather small size of the subject parcel the proposed facihty would not have a level of camouflaging and screening that is comparable to that for the existing monopole, which is also 10 feet shorter. The applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate the availabihty, or lack thereof, of any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered by the proposed facility. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested special use permit. Should the Board vote to approve the special use perm/t, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply with most of the standard conditions of approval that have been established for personal wireless service facilities. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown ~on the construction plans entitled, "Nextel Partners - Gallihugh Site", last revised November 11, 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25-feet tree, identified as T-20 on Sheet C-4 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed 85 feet above the existing ground elevation at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. The metal monopole shall be painted a brown wood color that is consistent with the trees surrounding the site. o 10. 11. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole. No guy wires shall be permitted. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the lurmnaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 12. 13. 14. 15. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be inclUded in the construction plan package. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met: 16. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or 17. 18. reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed two feet above the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 19. 20. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the monopole and the ground, are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and remoVed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. ATTACHMENT S: B- C- D- E- Application, Construction Plans and Additional Information Parcel, Location and Aerial Maps Approval Letter Existing Alltel Facility Balloon Test Photos Zoning Department Comments 10 County of Albemarle -> Department of Building Code and Application for Special Use Permit J 'Zoning District "Zoning.Ordinance $~:tion aumb~ requited (""stuff will ;rarest you wid~ these items) Number of acrc~ to be covered by Special Use Permit (~ Is this a? am,,ndment to an existing Special Usc Permit? Q Yesx.~ No Are yoh ~ubmitling a site development pl'.us with this application? Q Ye,sC1 No Daytime Phone (t::~ ~"') ,,~,~ - "~cr)~ / o Tax map and parcel [~-~ %Ci3 - O0 - C/~ - CY])~ C Physical Address Does the owner of this property own (or trove any ownership interest in) any. abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers Q Variances: Concum:m review, of Site Dcvctopmcm Plan? C3 Letter of Authorization '~fS' OL ~3Y= ~No ~,01 McIntire Road -: Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 o: ~ax: 972-4126 ATTACHMENT A Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "Thc boa hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use pcrmns 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 usc 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 and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your requeat. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprchcnsivc Plan designation l'or this property? ~..C How is thc usc in harmony with tile uses permitted by right in thc district? ~-.~' ~[~d Wh~[ additional regulations rn'ovided in Section 5.0 of thc Zoning Ordi.ance apply to [his use?~'~ ~-- ~ec~ How will this use promote thc public health, safety, and general welfare of thc community? Describe your request in detail and include ail pertinent information such as the nut, involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only f$r a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name ora corporation, partne, rship or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, .a document acceptable to the County must be submitteal.certifying that..the person signing below has the authority to do so. ~' If thc 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 docume%t acc.eptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: '~ 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. [~ - 4. 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 ~d accurate to the best of my knowledge. Sig~atur~ Printed-Name..) - ' Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ATTACHMENT A Gallihugh (Nextel Partners, Inc. - VA 125) What is the comprehensive plan designation for this property? Rural/Agricultural How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? · The proposed 126ofoot monopole will not adversely affect the adjacent property, as the pole and antennas will not extend more than 10 feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the centerline of the pole, and the proposed facility will be only minimally visible from adjacent properties located to the north, south and east of the pole. How wit the proposed special use affect the character of the dis ..trict surrounding the property? * The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area, since it will be minimally visible from adjacent properties, will not generate additional traffic or development, and preserves the character of the area. ~-. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? II) The proposed facility is consistent with the County's preference for monopole structures, which extend slightly above the treetops as discussed in the County's wireless design manual, and for the use of flush-mounted antenna panels. In addition, wireless telecommunications services provide an important public service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive, and harmonious community," consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. More importantly, wireless telecommunications provides emergency communications for individuals, businesses and tourists in Albemarle County, an important component of public health and safety. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the district? The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses availabld at this property or by-right uses on any other property. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply for this use? Section 5.1.12, which outlines public utility structures and uses, and Section 5.140 regarding Personal Wireless Service Facilities. ATTACHMENT A How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of thin community? The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications services to this portion of Albemarle County, especially emergency communications, and .will increase overall communication services. Emergency communications is an important component of the provision of public health and safety. Describe you request in detail and include aH pertinent information such as numbers.of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and unique features of the use: Nextel Partners, Inc. ("Nextel Partners") requests a special use permit to construct, maintain and manage a wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by Gregory Gallihugh, identified as tax map parcel 74-2C in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. In addition, Nextel Partners requests a waiver of the requirement that no structure be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the .structure, in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1. The facility would be comprised of a wood monopole with flush-mounted antennas, along with the necessary mmsmitting and receiving equipment. The pole will naturally dark brown, or stained dark brown in color. The antennas and ground equipment wouldall be paintex~,.a fiat, dark brown color: Nextel Partners has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for a 40-foot by 40-foot lease area with the facility located entirely within this axea. The facility will be accessed by an existing driveway to a path that will be upgraded and graveled to reach the lease area. The facility will emit no noise, odor, or glare. Nor will it interfere with television or radio reception in the surrounding areas. The facility will not be lit unless so required by the Federal Aviation Administration. The pole will use three panel antennas with the following dimensions: 96" long, 12" wide, and 7" deep. Nextel Partners' FCC license requires it to operate its system in a defined service region using desi .gnated radio frequencies. Each site must be precisely located relative to other facilities within the network to ensure that Nextel Partners complies with the terms of its license. The network requires a facility at this location to avoid a gap in service to this portion of Albemarle County. Nextel Partners carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that provides adequate height and range of coverage, minimizing the visual impact of the proposed facility on adjacent or nearby properties. Location of the facility on this parcel wilt enable Nextel Partners to construct the facility with only a minimal amount of grading and clearing. The subject parcel is zoned Rural/Agricultural. The surrounding properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility are primarily used for rural residential and agricultural purposes. Included with our application is a large copy of the topographical map of the property. On this topographical map, we have drawn a 2000-foot radius around the ATTACHMENT A centerline of the proposed pole. The tract of land on which the site is located contains 2.78 acres. A surveyor has estimated the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed facility to be 116 feet with a base elevation of 633 feet ASL, and a top elevation of 749 feet ASL. The height, location, base elevation and top elevation of numerous other trees within close proximity of the proposed pole are shown on the enclosed plans. Nextel Partners requests a pole 10 feet over the tallest tree within 25 feet of the centerline of the proposed pole, which corresponds to a 126-foot pole. A pole at this height and at the location specified would have a base elevation of 633 feet ASL and a top elevation of 759 feet ASL. This proposed height will enable the signal from the antenna to extend over and beyond the trees around and near the pole. Nextel Partners will work with the Planning Depamnent Staff to conduct a visual impact study analysis with a balloon to demonstrate that the facility will only be minimally visible from State Route 637, Interstate 64, and surrounding properties. The proposed facility was designed to strictly comply with the County's wireless design manual. The antenna panels will be flush-mounted to the pole and will not extend -above the top of the pole. The pole will be dark brown and the antenna panels, equipment cabinet and cables will all be painted a flat, dark brown to match the color of the pole. In addition, the concrete pad will be tinted earth tone. The color of the pole and the ground equipment will enable the facility to effectiv~y blend in with the wooded Once constmctec[, the facility will be visited approximately one time per month for routine maintenance checks. The facility will not impact the provision of services by Albemarle County. As a telecommunications facility, this proposal will serve the public health and safety of the community by fostering increased communications, especially emergency communications. Most importantly, due to its design and precise location and siting, the facility will only be minimally visible from nearby roads and residences. (~$22 Perkins Hollow Lane Faber, VA 22938 www. arboristry, com ARBORISTRY ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT A Office 434-263-4324 Fax 434-263-8908 3? ,..5 .75 15' i¥ I~ q oo II '7 ? / ,? ARBORISTRY ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT A 422 Perkins Hollow Lane Faber, VA 22938 www. arboristry, com ;ustomer: Tree and Shrub Care Proposal Office 434-263-4324 ~ Fax 434-263-8908 .T,~ C Proposal Date ~o ;' -/-¢ zoo ~ePhone: Office Phone: i7 v , ,'? ,' n,,. P ,',~ ~ ff · z ~. Iz 30 i7 Io6' T~ L,'p P~ptat, 'TbL,'p poft~w Tv ~.,'p t'~?&,, 2., ~z,',,, 3/ tP, 2.,¢ * 9.5 I have read and understand the above recommendations, work descriptions and prices along with the terms and conditions on the reverse side and agree to these. Customer's Authorized Signature Date Prepared by: Prices quoted are validfor 30 days. ARBORISTRY ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT A ~'~ 422 Perkins Hollow Lane Faber, VA 22938 www. arboristry, com 3ustomer: Tree and Shrub Care Proposal Office 434-263-4324 Fax 434-263-8908 Proposal Date: ~ Phone: 5"-/-0- ?zs'- ~/¢eo q-q: ,z, 7r" / ~ ' 'it, c,'i, I have read and. understand the above recommendations, work descriptions and prices along with the terms and conditions on the reverse side and agree to these. Customer's Authorized Signature Date Prepared by: Prices auoted are valid for 30 day~ /? ATTACHMENT A 422 Perkins Hollow Lane Faber, VA 22938 www. Arboristry.. com ARBORISTRY ASSOCIATES, INC. "Performing the Art of Tree and Shrub Care" TERMS AND CONDITIONS Office: 434 263-4324 Fax: 434-263-8908 Payment Payment !.s,.DUE UPON COMPLETION of work unless otherwise specified. Arboristry Associates, Inc. will bill customers upon completion of work, and payment shall be due upon receipt of invoice. Any payment over 30 days will be subject to a finance charge at the annual rate of 24% which will be applied to the current balance and compounded monthly. The customer is responsible for all costs associated with collecting past due accounts. Written notice will be given on all overdue accounts. Accounts overdue for 60 days ~vill be advised that legal action will be initiated unless full settlemen_t of. th.e_accounti~_received within a specified time frame, There will be a charge of $40.00 per incident for returned checks. Ownership and Access The customer or representative of the customer warrants that all trees and shrubs subject to work are owned by him/her or by whomever he/she is representing. Customer shall provide access to work areas. For access through adjacent land, written permission is required from the landowner. Concealed Items If not stated on the facing page any conditions not apparent during estimating this work shall be billed on a time and materials basis. Conditions such as concrete, rock, pipe, foreign matter, utility lines, or stinging insects in the trees or shrubs are f, ) some of the kinds of concealed items that may require additional work and/or materials and supplies. Labor rate will be $50.00 per man-hour unless otherwise stated. Insurance Arboristry Associates, Inc. and its employees are covered by Worker's Compensation, medical, auto: and liability insurance. ¢,, ce.,"tJfic_,z, te of insurance is available upon request. Cleanup of debris Unless otherwise specified on front, "q.o. mptete cleanup" shall consist of removal of all resulting debris and raking clean. "No cleanup/leave debris as it lays" shall consist of no cleanup of any kind. Firewood shall be cut to a specified size, such as 18" - 24" lengths and left un-split Tree and Shrub Care Services Specifications Arboristry Associates. Inc. follows the American National Standards institute (ANSI) Guidelines for tree care recommendations and services provided. Please see company specification sheets unless described on proposal. Insect and Disease Treatments Arboristw Associates. Inc. business. Any unforeseen and/or responsibility. ~s responsible to make the proper application of formulations commonly used in arboricuitural abnormal reaction resulting from these treatments will not be Arboristry Associates, Inc. Job Cancellation If a job is cancelled once authorization to proceed has been received Arboristry Associates, Inc. reserves the right to charge a minimum cancellation fee of $35.00 or up to 10% of the value of the contracted work_ 4/1/2003 McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300 P.O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 434.977.2500 ~ Fax: 434.980.2222 www. mcguirewoods.com Valerie W. Long Direct: 434.977.2545 McGU[REWC DS ATTACHMENT A vlong@ mcguirewoods.corn Direct Fax: 434.980.2265 November 20, 2003 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Stephen B. Waller Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SP 2003-070 Gallihu,qh (Nextel Partners) Dear Stephen: Thank you for your memorandum of November 14 regarding comments to the Nextel Partners application for a wireless facility on the Gallihugh property (SP 2003-070). In response to your comments Nextel has revised the plans to address the comments of the Planning and Zoning Departments, and I enclose with this letter 16 copies of the revised plans. Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, I would request that a copy of this letter and a set of the revised plans be included with your staff report to the Planning Commissioners so they are aware of the changes to the plans. For your convenience I have also enclosed 16 copies of this letter. Please note the following plan revisions in response to your memorandum of November 14: 1. On sheet C-2, Nextel has removed the note referring to removal of all vegetation within the lease area-, and also the note providing that the lease area will be graveled. According to Nextel's engineers, there will not be a need to clear or grade the lease area. As such, there is no reference to limits of clearing or completed grades. The engineer did include a reference for the finished grade of the concrete slab, which is shown on sheet C-2. 2. Sheet C-5 contains detail drawings of the proposed equipment shelter and antenna panels, including heights, widths and depths. 3. The location of the equipment shelter has been shifted to the edge of the lease area and the cable ice bridge has been extended and routed around tree T-18 to eliminate the need to remove this tree. As such, the conflict with the conditions of approval of SP 2000-028 has been eliminated. 4. The distance from the centerline of the proposed pole to Interstate 64 is apprOximately 900 feet. 5. Sheet C-4 now shows the lease area on the tree plan. ATTACHMENT A November 20, 2003 Page 2 6. The County's tax map and parcel number for the GallihUgh prOPerty is now included in the general information section of sheet %1. 7. As we discussed with you at the balloon test at the Gallihugh property, Nextel has shifted the location of the proposed monopole several feet to the northwest so it is closer to the tallest tree within 25 feet of the pole (tree T-20). The new pole location is reflected on the plans, and is at a ground elevation of 634.9 ASL. Because this is at a slightly lower ground elevation than on the prior plans, the proposed 85 foot monopole would be 7.7 feet above the top of tree T-20., a reduction from 10 feet above tree %20 as shown on the earlier plans. 8. Dave Rosene at Van Yahres Tree Company has reviewed the proposed plans to ensure protection of the surrounding trees and recommended the installation of tree protection fencing around several trees and the fertilization after construction of several trees.. Nextel has incorporated these recommendations into the plans as shown on sheet C-4. Please note that Mr. Rosene reviewed a prior draft of the plans (before it was determined necessary to shift the location of the shelter and ice bridge) as well as an advance copy of the plans that we are submitting today. I have included copies of his correspondence for your review. 9. On sheet C-1, the second paragraph in the box marked "Notes" on the far left side of the page has been revised to reflect that no trees are to be removed during road construction or development. 10. Regarding compliance with section 5.1.40(b)(2) of the zoning ordinance, Nextel will contact the adjacent landowner regarding an easement. Please note however, that our odginal apPlication included a request for the waiver of this requirement. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed plans or any aspect of this application, please do not hesitate to contaCt me at 977-2545. I appreciate your assistance with these issues. Sincerely, Valerie W. Long Enclosures cc: Rolynn Eubank, Nextel Partners, Inc. \\REA\194704.1 From-HEXTEL P^RT~ER$ 540 ?25 ATTACHMENT A V r~% - M~a/r~ Wooct~ Box I28g Chadot~ville, VA 22902-12~ 2003 location for a tower onlfle ~~ d~ ~A-I~-D) ~ Ifyo~ l~m any tmlh~ S/nc, re'ely, C. ert~ A~t~orist V ATTACHMENT A O0:39am From-KEXTEL P^RTHER$ 540 ?25 4950 T-?$8 P.003/003 F-439 TREE ELEVATION TABLE PLAN '%,% ATTACHMENT A Long, Valerie W. From: DaveVYTC@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:27 PM To: vlong@mcguirewoods.com Subject: Re: Nextel Partners Gallihugh Site - revised shelter location Ms. Long, I have reviewed the attachment for the update on the Gallihugh site (VA-125P-D). Shifting the bridge to miss tree # 18 will have no impact on the other trees on the site. My odginal recommendations for fertilizing and tree protection fencing should still be sufficient. If you have any further questions, please call me at 982-8733. Dave Rosene Certified Arborist GREGORY & TAMMY GALUHUGH 3626 DICK WOODS ROAD, CHARLO'FI'ESVILLE, VA 22903 TIM HUBERT 434-531-1337 NeX-r~L P~THERS, ~NC. OD JUDE 5115 BERNARD DRIVE/I~OANQKE, VA 24018 (540) 725-4905/(5.401 725-4950 SEE INDMDUAL SHEET~,, UNMANNED TBEcoMMuNICATION5 FACILITY GROSS 3.F.: 2~qn 3626 DICK WOODS ROAD, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 229nr~ U - UT1LITY AND M15cRIANEOII~ 0740000 00 002C0,~ ~ 2C - NONCOMBUSTIBLE / UNPROTECTFD UNMANNFD NEX'rEL Partners ,Nc. GALLIH UGH SITE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION STRUCTURE /~ 85' MONOPOLE TOWER ~,~JI~OUL I P, PJ I PAHrlCIPANTS: SENIOR ENGINEER: ROBERT PRUETT PROJECT SURVEYOR: JIM GELLENTHIN LOCATION INFORMATION: LATITUDE: 38* 01' 57.694~" (NAD '8 LONGITUDE: 078'"36' 48.070' JNAD '83) ELEVATION: 634.9 (AMSL) TOP OF A TOWER: 85' (AGL) NEXTEL Partners .,..~,~.. ~,~w INC, NEXTEL PARTNERS, NC. Sll5 ~ERNARD. DRY, #2o0 ROANOKE;VA 24018 ($40) 725-4905 3626 DICK WOODS .ROAD DATE OF' ORIGINATION : 08~22-03 DRAWN BY : ADF CHECKED BY : RAP REVISIONS ~. DESCRIPTION Z~ REV. PER NEXTEL REV, PER.NEXTEL 8/27/05 9125/05 11/19/05 CHARLO .TTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ~1 REV. PER NEXTEL SITE #: VA-125P-D , . ~]4 (D~CK WOODS ~O~). ' r 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD LOCATION MAP (~ NOT TO SC,~LE SIGNATURES: THIS DRAWING 15 COPYRIGHTED AND 15 THE SOLE PROPERTY OF NEXT'EL PARTNERS. IT IS PRODUCED SOLELY FOR THE USE BY NEXTEL AND iT'S AFRLIATES. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWING AND/OR THE INFORMATIOI,I CONTAINED IN IT I$ FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF NEXTEL PARTNERS. PROJECT MANAGER: OPERATIONS MANAGER: Pi= ENGINEEPc SiTE AQUISiT1ON: .A.D.A. COMPLIANCE: FACILITY IS 'UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABffATION ,DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: PROJECT N,a~IE .' GALLIHUGH SITE ALBEMARLE CO.,VA VA-125P-D SHEET TITLE ; ZONING EXHIBIT TITLE SHEET & LOCATION MAP SHEET NO.= T-I KCIJOB NO.: 12032044. A ANTHONY PRUETT ~ ' .~..~?'-' 1..:: .-'-e-~-_.:, -..: / CL~. ~N; ,,~.l.~ .".-~ ,,:~',.c/O IV'Y, (Z~j. C"'.'N' ,,~,.'-~'.~ ~ ' ' ...... ~ ,-o ,,~. £v"l Cqg. · .. 'N'. "'-;~ '-.~ .JO ,.~'~ '" ' ............ '. ' ~'~"....~__,l~ viva ;J.3Mo: - Nr'IH J.N I,3 ~-'IIJ. IAI.L Uy NObLDFi~J. gNOD · .: I ' AN'V .NC) J-N3~N~ON31'NINO00J ~OINd' S3UJ'IlIF~ F'.'. J 9NIJ.$1X3 30 NOIJYDO'I ~0_-t ~' ]NO V^,, ~"' NI N011¥00~ A ~OZOV~ZN03 IO0~ ,00[ ,Og ,0 ,00[ - ,j_ :2'IVOS V'id IJ. IS 00600 O0 O0 O0~ZO O/--'~l~g669£.N NId NObll .L2S A J.l'llO¥_J, SNOIIVOIN~O33~3/ 9NIJ $1X2l NId Z6'Lg6669£ ~N NId NOel ONO0~ 9~'9600g-NJ-2 f'g'gz066B~'-N NId NOel X-"g'/~ 30 NId NOel aNRO~ aN:iD:lq ~Z£ 30Vd '00£ ~00~ 0330 ~OOH V d~O~ din 08Z00 OD O0 O0~ZO £N3nano3 O3SOdOad 'S':ILLIAIID¥ IN3PIdO'12A2(] 3J. Ig ~0,0I. 28 OJ DNIDN2J NOIJ~3JO~d 2~tJ (N'O~ 9NI~RO d = _ 3n~/SNO3 . 3AO~ 3El O.L 3~JV S33~J. ON ' ' '~-]Od Q3SOdO~Jct -40 3NI'I~I3J. N3;D 2NJ. _-lO ,00~' NIHJJ/,A ~08~ VA '2']'llAS~J.J.O'INVHO HQNHI'I"IV9 SSO~I k~lO93~O :NOI/¥~O3N! ~3N/~OQNYq 'OOro0 O0 O0 O0tLO~ ~OHVd clV~ XYJ S¥ NMON>f Al~J~dOMd '1'90 39Vd ,'tZ~_, NOO8:3DN3Et232~ 0220 'O3J. ON 3SIMH':IH.LO SS3'lNrl (]NhOHO 2~' S3ONVJ. SIC] '(gg, C]AVN) 9@6L ~0 ~N/3JVO '-IVOIJ.~2A NVDfiY'~INV HAUON 2HJ. NOdD 02SVB N/'AOH$ NOI/V'IN~O,.JNI __ 'E'O0~ '6/, JsngFIV NO Sd9 I/N3;~2~31O NO 03S¥8 '(~g OVN 'S'O'd'S'VA) 7V (J3~O3H3d SNOI-LVA~SSO NVOIS3Ff¢ H/HON 'IN3zsAs 2ZVNI(]HOOD 3NVqd 2i¥.LS ¥1NtOHIA 3~1 SI J.V]d SIHZ H0..:lr S3ZNVI(]HO00 (~N¥ SNVIOIH3IN 2HZ 30 'A3A~JDS 31111 V lN3S3~{d3~ ION S30(] NVqB SIHI _4J~F'_EEt PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE ~'~' ..--" ............ --. '"" · ~ ~ ..- ....... -- .... ~x~/. F~UPERTY LINE /400 O0 O0 002C0 LOCATED IN THE -~ ~/ //// ' '-" '--' -'-'"~ ~ - _ ~~ ~D~ EXIST° UTILITY POLE / / - ::''-... & CONTROL POINT SET .... -~___] "~,' .~X,~T.,RON ~,N~T "E,NG NORTH ~,°~, / ~-' ~ ~' ~ X OINT, CONTINUINO THENCE. / / .,~ x / . --.-~ "-... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, /'- \\ ---- 200-- EXlS~T. CONTOUR LINE ) FEET, TO A POINT, THENCE; / ) FEET, TO THE POINT AND , EXISTING--~~'~'~ / ~.. ~/? EDGE OF PAVEMENT i FENC !~ . ~ __ . ~" ]:.,.~---- ....... '"/ SERVtC~~ RACK ~ .%) ~ I .~ ~ ~ > '-- -SF--SF'- PROP. SILT FENCE .~ "~~. ~- ~r .~ ~. xx ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ // ~ /- EXISTING 10' WIDE ~~-- -- ]~~x SF~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ / ~ / ACCESS DRIVE x ,0 ~ ' ~ / EXISTING ~ TELCO ~ ~ -, -- - F~~' .~'~ _-~ .....  NEXTEL :i~? Partners I NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC. 5115 BERNARD DRIVE, #200 ROANOKE, VA 24018 (540) 725-4905 DATE OF ORIGINATION : 08-22-03 DRAWN BY' : ADF CHECKED BY :RAP REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION z~ REV. PER NEXTEL 8/27/05 //~ REV. PER NEXTEL 9/25/05 /~ REV. PER NEXTEL 11/19/03 6 TECHNOLO~IF, S KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC 4601~SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27609 (919)783-9Z!4 PROJECT NAME : GALLIHUGH SITE ALBEMARLE CO., VA VA-125P-D SHE. ET TITLE: ZONING EXHIBIT COMPOUND DETAIL SHI~J:. f NO.: C-2 KCIJOB NO.: 12032044. A SEAL-' ($¥NN3£N4? 03SOdO~ld $93J.X~N .-I0 .-IO dO.L) (~3~O1 O3SOdO~:i .:10 dOi) ¢.25 =C 0 55 7.75 i2.0 "A~ r,'_OUBL E '5.'.> ) - ! I ;E ELEVATION TABLE ' / / I -18 T'28 T-26 T-16 I' 735 PROPOSED ~5~ TOW£~ T-20 50 40 30 20 730 T-$ T-12 I I I I 10 0 10 20 (DISTANCE - FEET) T-3 T-2 To1 30 .... 725 ........ 720 715 710 -- ..... '705 700 695 69O 685 680 675 670 665 660 655 650 6¢5 6¢0 635 .... 630 625 40 50 NOTE= TREES 10 THROUGH 12, 17 THROUGH 27 SHOULD BE FERTILIZED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE TO REDUCE THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF THE COMPACTION AND ROOT LOSS. Partners ,.c. NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC. 5115 BERNARD DP, NE, #2O0 ROANOI~, VA 24018 (540) 725-4905 DATE OF ORIGINATION ~ 08-22oO~' DRAWN BY : ADF CHECKED BY :RAP REVISIONS ~0.i DESCRIPTION /J~! REV. PER NEXTEL '8/27/05 /~i REV. PER NEXTEL g/25/05 /J~j REV. PER NEXTEL 11/19/03 .5 KCl TECHNOLOGIES, INC 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27609 (919}783-9214 PROJECT NAME = GALLIHUGH SITE ALBEMARLE CO., VA VA-125P-D SHEET TITLE : ZONING EXHIBIT TREE ELEVATION PLAN SHEET NO.: 12-4 KCI,JOB NO.: 12032044 A SEN.: $1F.5 ANTHONY No. o?~-~27 600 577,1 6571~ ,/ 567.3 ./ / SP-03-070 o~ ~~~ *raparedhrAIbemerteCoun~ GREG GALL~HUGH (NEXTEL PARTNERS) ~_(~ Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS). Map created October 2003. 0 190 380 570 ~Z Aerial Imagery © 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia -~ Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. Feet 13 Area of Interes: TM 74 P 2C Prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS), Map created October 2003. Aerial Imagery © 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. SP-03-070 GREG GALLIHUGH (NEXTEL PARTNERS) 0 1,200 2,4O0 ~ 3, 600 Feet ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 September 21,2000 M. E. Gibson, Esquire Tremblay & Smith, LLP P O Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-00-028 Ailtel/Ivy Exit, Tax Map 74, Parcel 2C Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 13, 2000, unanimously approved the above-noted request. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed five (5) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. For the purposes of this condition, the ninety-six (96) foot tall poplar shown on the tree survey shall not be considered when determining the height of the tallest tree. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The metal pole shall be painted the same color as the bark of the trees; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "ALLTEL/Ivy Exit"; e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one.(1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; A RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1); ATTACHMENT C Page 2 September 21, 2000 g~ ho Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1). Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one (I) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The pole shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "ALLTEL/Ivy Exit". Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled "ALLTEL/Ivy Exit"; b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited; c, Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified' arbodst, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed or trimmed on the site, both inside and outside the access easement and lease area, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. Ail construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. The tree conservation plan shall include the tree identified as "H", at the entrance of the site, on the tree location sketch in the plan entitled "ALLTEL/Ivy Exit", and the two trees near the Gallihugh's house which must also be shown on the plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one (1). ATTACHMENT C Page 3 September 2'1, 2000 No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary is a complete lighting unit conSisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 11. The permittee s hall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the lease area is not a requirement of'this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials and height shall be restricted to those shown in the approved plan entitled "ALLTEL/lvy Exit". 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 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, pi.ease 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, David B. Benish Chief of Planning & Community Development DBB/jcf Cc: Amelia McCulley Tex Weaver Bob Ball, VDOT Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse ^ TING LEASE ~REA N ON 5-16-2000 GREGORY GALLIHUGN ROGER W RAY PEON ARE COMPILED BOUNDARY SURVEY. NTS &: RESTRICTIONS ARED WITHOUT THE - ' EXIST. EXIST. ' - / POWER POLE - WOODS LINE---~ ,/ # C175 C . ~ ' EXIST. 48" '~""" ............. "'-" /' ,"X TRIPLE POPLAR /, / /, - ..- ..,/' \ /r-77+' TALL ~ '~"'.-, ~ ~ :4///,'-/ N/F 'x.- / U.td. 279 PG..549 d".'v'..'.:.L'.:t'..'\i-.'..,, ~.,xlb/. SHED ! ,' /~./ . T.M. 74-2C ,fS.i'.i'.'.i?' %".i".:9X ON CONC. PAD-~/ ///~/ ..'~ (.....:v., v.... '., - i! / ~-...v....:-.: :.'.:..'.'~ ~//,' //~' ~ ~ ~' .~ ' '~'.Y'.".~ ;'.'.Y~ ~ ~<"v ,'/.~;'~, ~ _--" ~.:'.i'5~5 ,;..-..v.'..'~ /.~, .~ ',/L.,..f','.' ,- .. ?.~-...~ ...... w..-.~ ~,~ g' ~,,,q,z/ ,' ~,, ,:..-.:.v?.~,~..v:-:v:..:.:-; ~ ~/,' 4/ I .~ -' , ~- EX~ST. ~8" ~....~..,.......:..',..-......-...~..~..-, ~ ~f',¥,,-.,, .,~ TRIPLE POPLAR ~;.,'t/'.' '..i."., v.',i./'..".'..?/ ..////,' .~ ~.""'~ i . ~ 7g,5+' TALL ,i.[.../.).?i,.......~.,.._~_...-.~/S/ '?..~.- ~:~,,~_ .-...... ~¥ 2g"i?'51.~ / ~'~"~'~"'~.~'~_~J-' ~C N/F "~i~:,.:.~,,,. .~ ~09~'~ c / ...~,.'v'..f'.".~'-."2~-'-_..~ ....','~ GENTR~;S RAY ,-.. ~,d:~..,~ --.. ~. .,.. .., '.:~..;-', ~-- ~ ,..,'J '~,',c~'~)~,:~..~., ~ '/ .,.~ ...-'" ...~'~...~- ..-.-/'"~ ~ .... ' D.13. 292 PG, 582 "-. '~'~.:..*~,~ .... .~,~i'..",.:~';''' . -J ,.:' ~ ......... ---_ ~~~x:,;:'~:%,'.-:~.~,,-'~<' ',~ ,' 'x ~.XIbL J2 DBH MAPLE -- '" -- ~':~j, ~(5'1'~ :"" ' ~__ LOCATED OUTSIDE LlUlTS ~.-~"'~"'%','v.;. -, ~ \g5''/' , ~'''''c~ OF CONSTRUCTION /. ' ""'- ~ '"~'"' ,' .- ~'"" (TO REMAIN) 3.6/: MILES SCALE IN FEET NTERSTATE 6~ N,IF ~ / GENTRY S. RAY ~/~ . ~'~'Z<'%% ~ '~' ALLTEL FACILITY ./ 30' x 40' ./' \ ~1,200 sq. ft ..--- / ,~'~'~"'"'~~~~ ' · , ,,. f.-~..-....,...., ~ ,' 4/',~ '~"~""' \ BM SET BRIDGE NAIL~ 16" POPLAR ELEV=627.80 60 120 i N/F VERULAM FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D.B, 751 PG. 605 T.M. 74-14A' REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION BY ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4505 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 104 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: IVY EXIT SURVEY TIMMON$ ENGINEERS * SURVEYORS PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 CROSSINGS BLVD. PRINCE GEORGE, VIRGINIA 23875-1455 TELEPHONE: (804) 458-8685--FAX: ~804) 751-0798 DATE: 4-17-01 SCALE: 1 "=60' J 1 '~Ap 83 / NOTE: TREE NOT TO ~ BE DISTURBED pROPOSED ALLTEL COMPOUND PROPOSED..MOM OPOLE~. .. '~.,~.,.,_..~..,..~.....~ 0 ~0 SCALE IN FEET RIP LiNE POLYETHYLENE FABRIC It FENCE ATTACHED -'N TO METAL POSTS ~'~ MAXIMUM LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING ~ PROPOSED GRADING - - ----- is LESS THAN CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS RELATIVE TO THE LOCATION OF PROTECTED TREES ource: .~ubtc Facilities Manual, VoL I11, Fairfax Co., Va., 1976 Plate 3.38-- 2O GENERAL NOTES ' PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE PERMITTEE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH IN THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN BY BARTLETT TREE EXPERTS, DATED: FEBRUARY 15, 2001. ' PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, TREES C THROUGH. H SHOULD HAVE MULCH APPLIED. AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, THEY SHOULD BE FERTILIZED AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOIL SAMPLE TEST RESULTS, * TREE "H" AS SHOWN HEREON WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE file HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED MONOPOLE. * EXCEPT FOR TREE REMOVAL EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMITTEE SHALL NOT REMOVE ANY TREES 6" OR GREATER, WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. ~ THE EXIST. 32" MAPLE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ACCESS ROAD SHALL HAVE A PROTECTIVE FENCE PLACED AROUND T. AND BE MULCHED AND FERTILIZED, * PLACE fREE PROTECTION AROUND TREES D, F, C, & H. ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4505 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 104 VIRGINIA BEACH. VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: IVY EXIT TREE LOCATION DATE ~--t~--nl REVISIO NS DESCR PYLON IMMO.I $ ENGINEERS * SURVEYORS PRI_NCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 CROSSINGS BLVD. __ PRINCE GEORGE VIRGINIA 23875-1455 . FAX: TELEPHON'~-: (804) 458-8685 (804) 751-0798 DATE: '4-17-01 SCALE: 1"= I0' DRAWN BY: KLS' BY ATTACHN~ENTD ATTACH~/IENTD 0 ~LN~V~O¥££¥ ATTACHMENT D ATTACH~IENT E Albemarle County Development Departments s P-2003~070 SPIN Submission and Comment CregOa, hugh Nextel PartnersVA125 Mechum PSWF Zoning SP for PWSF Monopole revision reviewer received reviewe jan sprinkle 11/3/2003 11t3/2003 decision 1. This entire site is within the 200-foot tree conservation area of the existing Alltel site. Removal of trees by AIItel would violate condition number 5 of SP 2000-028. It would seem that if the trees were considered necessary for that tower's location, they are still needed and should not be removed for a second tower on the same site. The trees in this area may be considered as "backdrop" for the view of the AIItel tower from 164. please give a distance from the proposed tower t° 164. (The proposed ZTA for personal wireless service facilities will recommend a 500-foot separation between towers so that this overlapping and conflicting tree preservation will not be permitted by right but will require SP approval. This may be a good time to consider criteria for evaluation for when it is and is not appropriate.) 2. The plan does not show or indicate any grading. There is a treeline shown that encompasses the entire site, with no proposed treeline. Please have the applicant indicate the treeline after removing and grubbing all vegetation within the lease area. Will the only remaining trees be those noted on the plan? 3. To comPly with section 5.1.40(b2), the applicant must either obtain an easement prohibitiing development within the tower's fall zone, or the Planning Commission must grant a waiver of this requirement. The proposed 85-fo°t tower is shown only 54 feet from the proPerty line to the west~ 4. Please show the lease area on the tree plan on sheet C-4. 5. Please add the County's tax map and parcel number to the general information section on title sheet, %1. Page 5 of 5 11/13/2003 04:15 PM December 16, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296- 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 M. E Gibson, Jr. Tremblay & Smith, LLP PO Box 1585 Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SP-2003-71 Vernon or Jackie Shifflett-AIItel (Sign #56) Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003, by a vote of 6:0. recommended denial of the approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. In a separate motion, by a vote of 6:0, the Commission stated that in the event the Board of Superwsors does not agree with the Commission's recommendation for denial that the Commission recommends the following modified conditions: The Planning Commission sends the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors if they chose to approve the request. The facility shall be desi.qned, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction plans entitled "Alltel - Crossroads Site", last revised September 25, 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A. 2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. 3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25-feet tree, identified as 338 on Sheet C6 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed 85 feet above the existing ground elevation at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. 4. The mono pole s hall be made of wood and of a color that is consistent with the trees surrounding the site. 5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. 6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole. 9. No guy wires shall be permitted. Page 2 December 16, 2003 10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. 12. The plans shall be revised to show the relation ship of the proposed and existing treelines. 13. The existing site grading shall be revised to ensure the long-term health of the trees identified as number 340, 344 and 346 on the plans, and to show that all disturbance will be held outside of the drip lines of the trees that are to remain. Prior to the issuance of a buildinq permit, the followinq requirements shall be met: 14. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package. 15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. 16. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. 17. The applicant shall provide significant evidence to demonstrate that the trees located on the subject parcel can provide sufficient backdrop for the facility or obtain the necessary easements on adjoining properties that will provide for an adequate backdrop, u:) to a distance of not more that 200 feet. 18. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the followinq shall be met: 19. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. 20. Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed two feet above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. 21. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are em ployed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requ rements shall be met: 22. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service prowder Page 3 December 16, 2003 23 that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the monopole and the ground, are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued° The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January '14, 2004. 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 (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Senior Planner SW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Vernon or Jackie Shiflett STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP DECEMBER 2, 2003 JANUARY 14, 2004 SP 03-071 SHIFFLETT (ALLTEL) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include a wood monopole that would be allowed to extend not more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. This would introduce an approximately 85-foot tall mounting structure with a top elevation that is approximately 900 feet Above Mean Sea Level and only 6 feet taller in elevation AMSL, than the tallest tree (Attachment A). The monopole would be equipped with one array consisting of three 6-foot long by 1-foot wide, flush-mounted panel antennas at its top and supporting ground equipment contained within a 184 square-foot shelter. The 900 square-foot, fenced lease area for this proposed facility is located on property, described as Tax Map 87 - Parcel 7A, containing 3.038 acres. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the west side of U.S. Route 29 (Monacan Trail Road), approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection with State Route 692 [Plank Road] (Attachment B). The property is zoned Village Residential (VR) and Entrance Corridor (EC), and designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. Petition: The applicant, Alltel Communication, is currently in the process of expanding its services in Albemarle County along the U.S. Route 29 South corridor. This request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 12.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers and their appurtenances in the Rural Areas, by special use permit. Plannin~ and Zoning History: SP 98-08 CFW Wireless (Crossroads) - Staffhas identified the following actions that were involved in the approval of the existing facility that is located on the subject parcel as paraphrased below (Attachment C): o April 21, 1998 - The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit by a vote of 4-3. At the same meeting a request to allow a waiver of the height- related setbacks from an adjacent property was denied by the Commission, upon hearing opposition from the owner of the property the waiver was being requested. May 20, 1998 - The Board of Supervisors deferred approval the special use permit, in light of new information that had been submitted by the applicant indicating that compliance with the setbacks would increase the visibility of the facility's monopole structure. The Board also sent an appeal of the setback waiver request to the Commission. June 9, 1998 - The Pl~rming Commission deferred action on the setback waiver until after the neighboring property owner, who was not present at the meeting, could be notified and offered an opportunity to be presented the new information. June 23, 1998 - The Planning Commission reconfirmed its denial of the setback waiver request. July 1, 1998 - The Board of Supervisors voted to approve the special use permit allowing the installation of the existing personal wireless facility. SP 98-08 CV143 Crossroads (CFW Amendments) - At its August 18, 1999 meeting, Board of Supervisors, unanimously approved a special use permit allowing CFW to remove the two originally installed whip antennas and attach two panel antennas to the monopole serving the existing facility. This was reviewed as one of several amendment requests for facilities owned CFW throughout the county. Character of the Area: The location of the proposed facility is on the southeastern side of Tom Mountain, which crests at 1,050 above sea level. Although the base elevation of the proposed facility is sited at the 815.5 contour line and well below the ridgeline, the top of the monopole itself would be located just at the mountain resource contour line for Tom Mountain, which is 900 feet ASL. The site of the proposed facility is located at the front of a wooded area that continues onto adjacent parcels on the incline of the mountain. The subject parcel is surrounded by properties of varying sizes that are all similarly zoned as Village Residential or Rural Areas. The nearest dwelling, which is also located on the same parcel, is approximately 210 feet southeast of the facility site, while the nearest dwelling on an adjacent parcel is approximately 410 south on the property identified as Tax Map 87 - Parcel 6. The proposed site of the monopole is located 85 feet from the nearest boundary line, which is shared with the property identified as Tax Map 87 - Parcel 7E, and the nearest edge of the lease area is approximately 58 feet from that same line. The proposed facility will be accessed by the 9-foot wide gravel service road that extends north to the existing facility from the driveway entrance that serves the residence. The disturbance proposed for constructing this facihty, which would extend approximately 30 feet beyond the existing treeline, includes complete gravehng within the fenced area and site grading outside of the lease area. These plans also propoSe the removal of two (2) dead trees and tree protection measures around four (4) significantly sized trees that are identified to be saved. The proposed facility would be located at a ground level elevation of 815.5 feet AMSL in a sparsely wooded area the near edge of the treeline where the most of the significantly sized trees situated uphill from the site. The applicant's petition and plans cite the presence of a 81.9-foot tall (approximately 893.9 feet ASL) Poplar tree identified as number 338 on page C6 of the attached construction plan 25 feet west, as the reason for requesting a monopole height of 85 feet (890 feet ASL). The site of the proposed facility is situated at a finished ground elevation of 637.2 feet AMSL. The monopole serving the existing facility scales at approximately 14 feet east of the location of the monopole proposed for this facility and is located near the 817-foot contour interval. During a field visit, staff observed a balloon that was floated at the height of the proposed monopole was visible high aboVe the tops of thetrees located between the facility and the right- of-way for Route 29 (Attachment D). A shorter stand of trees that is comprised of numbers 288~ 2 318, which have an average height of 40.4 feet lie between U.S. 29 and the site leaving much of the existing monopole exposed. Although the balloon test indicates that the proposed monopole would have backdrop provided by the large trees on the side of the mountain, a large the portion would still be visible from the right-of-way, the adjacent parcel and parcels located on the east side Route 29. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staffnotes that the extension of the service road providing access to the proposed facility would not require a substantial amount of clearing. Therefore, this request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that are mainly focused on the adverse impacts that could result from the presence of the facility's monopole and ground-based equipment in the proposed locations. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides specific guidelines for the siting and review of personal wireless service facilities. The Open Space Plan and Chapter 2 [Natural Resources and Cultural Assets] of the Comprehensive Plan provide staff with the guiding principles for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future use. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The guidelines set tbrth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on reducing the visual impacts that the facilities can pot6ntially impose upon surrounding properties and roadways. The Wireless Policy recommends the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to address criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that are designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts through a combination of screening and camouflaging. The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require facilities that use brown, treetop monopoles that can extend a maximum of 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment housed in cabinets and buildings that are painted brown. When siting these facilities there is preference for using structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are not "skylighted" against the horizon to alter ridgelines or extend high above the tree canopy. Although the applicant has submitted this proposal in accordance with the criteria for Tier Two facilities, staff has not determined that those criteria alone would be adequate enough to mitigate the anticipated negative visual impacts of the facility. This is evidenced by the fact that a large portion of the existing monopole is already visible, and all trees with heights similar to the proposed facility (including the tallest tree within 25 feet) are either located to the side or behind the proposed facility site. Open Space Plan and Chapter 2: Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provides guidance 'for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the goals for preserving and managing those resources and the environment for future use. The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that assists with identifying the areas where critical resources are present throughout the County. This site lies within the area designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan and is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for U.S. Route 29 and contiguous to a larger area designated as forests by the Open Space Plan Concept Map. The Open Space Plan identifies forests as large areas that are contiguous with other forests or farmlands within the Land Use Plan's Rural Areas, have the best soils for hard woods, and are not in subdivisions. When existing structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Wireless Policy favors the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles and ground equipment can be designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. While observing the balloon test for this proposal, staff was able to determined that due to its location in relation to those boundary and tree lines, a large portion of the monopole for this facility would be visible from points nearby. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is, in part, "to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism." The Architectural Review Board [ARB] addresses the aesthetic impact of all development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. The conditions that are normally recommended by the Architectural Review Board recommendations are often used to compliment the standard special use permit conditions that are concentrated toward limiting the anticipated visual impacts. The ARB has reviewed this proposal and recommends approval with conditions that could require offsite easements to ensure that adequate backdrop is preserved and limit the amount.of.grading allowed in the vicinity of the trees that are identified to be saved (Attachment E)7-1:Y6wever, in this case, it is staff's opinion that th-e--neither of those sets of conditions would not lessen the impacts resulting from the distance between in the monopole's top and the trees that are in front of the proposed and existing facility sites to a measurable extent. Again, this is opinion is supported by the fact that the monopole for existing facility already stands out against the vegetative backdrop under present conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning OrdinanCe and recommends denial of the special use permit as proposed. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(lI) of the Telecommunications Act of 19961 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 4 upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, This facility would be located at the front of the existing treehne for a wooded area that extends onto adjacent properties surrounding the site. The nearest dwelling that is not located on the subject parcel is approximately 410 feet from the site of the proposed facility on Tax Map 87 - Parcel 6. Despite the amount of backdrop that exists behind the site, staff finds that there not any trees in front of the proposed facility that would assist in screening a significant portion of the monopole adequately. As demonstrated by the existing facility, instead of being a minor feature that would blend in with the natural features of its surroundings, the proposed monopole would simply have the appearance ora tall man-made structure in front ora group of taller trees. This effect would be magnified as a result of the proposed amount clearing and grading that would act to move the treeline for the wooded area providing backdrop farther away from both facilities (Attachment F). Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility could be considered to be detrimental to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The Village Residential zoning districts were created within the Comprehensive Plan's designated Rural Areas, in part, to encourage compact development and to permit agricultural uses in keeping with the village scale of development. The VR district also permits nonresidential development in order to increase the vitality and attractiveness of such areas as a living environment. In addition to the existing personal wireless service facility on the subject parcel, there are also several nearby properties within the Rural Areas zoning district that contain facilities. Staff notes that in past reviews of proposals for multiple personal wireless service facilities on a single property concern has often been expressed for the adverse impacts that could arise from the proliferation of facilities within a given area. This is because of the likelihood for increasing the impact of existing facilities that are marginally visible by introducing others and attracting additional attention that would not otherwise be drawn. Although this monopole would not be skylighted, it would be visible from adjacent properties and a portion of the right-of-way when traveling north on Route 29. A large segment of the existing facility on this property already has a high level of visibility from those same locations, and it is staff's opinion that the introduction of a new facility of similar height and design would increase the visual impacts that are already prevalent. Normally staff's review of these requests is focused on ensuring that the tree conservation areas for existing facilities are not altered to a extent that the treeline camouflaging their mounting structures and ground equipment would be compromised. In this case there are no trees in front of the existing facility to help significantly screen it, and the proposed monopole would have a level of visibility that is comparable to the one serving the existing facility, which is already visible well above the trees in front of it. Furthermore, the construction plans for this proposed facility present some additional concerns due to the amount of grading that would extend into the existing treeline serving as a backdrop to the facilities. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that due to the visibility concerns expressed with both facilities this proposal could have the effect of changing the character of the district. 5 and that such uSe will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5. Section ~1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community,,' as an intent of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service, and the establishment of wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications oppommities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. In the event of emergencies, the increased access to wireless communication opportunities is clearly Consistent with the accepted principles of public health, safety and general welfare. Although these facilities have not often been credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless Policy are intended to ensure that equipment for those facilities are not responsible for negatively intruding upon the important natural resources that promote the attractiveness of the community. Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states, in part, that the "ordinance is designed to treat' lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses..." Whenever, personal wireless service facilities can be designed and sited properly and in accordance with the goals and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan's Wireless Policy, it has been demonstrated that these types of can be located appropriately in any zoning district, The Wireless Policy provides the Tier II criteria for siting facilities in locations where there is minimal potential for intrusion upon the naturally existing conditions in surrounding areas. This is normally accomplished by approving facilities that can be screened to an extent where only the top few feet of the facility has the potential of being exposed to avoid obstruction of the antenna signals. The applicant's request states that this proposal complies with the height regulations encouraged by the Tier II criteria and that the facility has been designed to blend within the natural surroundings. In this case it is staff's opinion that simply applYing the Tier II criteria for siting personal wireless service facilities and the standard conditions of approval is not be adequate enough to reduce concerns with the visual impacts of the proposed facility. This is because all of the trees with heights similar to that of the monopole are either located to the side or behind the facility's proposed location, thus providing no screening for a significant portion of pole. with the uses permitted by right in the district~ Staff has identified no evidence to demonstrate that the proposed facility would restrict or otherwise adversely affect any of the established uses or other by-right uses allowed on this site or on any of the nearby properties and zoning districts. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the 6 development of the same." The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 address the most significant concerns for the public health and safety related to personal wireless services. Staffhas attempted to addressed the concerns for possible impacts of this proposal, with specific consideration for the supplemental regulations of Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the goals set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, throughout this report. 2. Section 704(a)(7)Co)(I)01) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design of personal wireless facilities. The apphcant has not provided any information to demonstrate the availability, or lack thereof, of any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered by the proposed facility at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The facility would not restrict any of the permitted and uses on adjacent properties; and, This site is accessed from an existing driveway and requiring a minimal amount of disturbance. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: The standard recommended 200-foot tree conservation area for this facility would extend beyond the subject parcel's boundaries; and, The applicant's plans indicate that the proposed facility would be tall enough to accommodate future co-locations. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: The balloon test indicates that a large part of the proposed facility would be visible above the shorter trees in front of the site; A large portion of the existing personal wireless facility located on the subject parcel is already visible fi:om the road and some nearby properties; and, An substantial amount of grading is proposed to extend far into the treeline of the wooded area that provides backdrop for both facihty sites. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Although this request has been submitted in compliance with the criteria that is set Tier 1I personal wireless service facilities, it is staff's opinion that this proposal does not satisfactorily address the policy's goals for limiting visual impacts. The existing facility on the subject parcel that has been designed and located similarly to the proposed facility is already visible from the road and other properties and near the site. The applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate the availability, or lack thereof, of any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered by the proposed facility. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the concern for those adverse impacts that would result fi:om the facility in the proposed location outweigh the level of convenience that would be provided with the increased access to personal wireless services. Staff recommends denial of the requested special use permit as proposed. Should the Board vote to approve the special use permit, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the standard conditions of approval that have been established for personal wireless service facilities and some additional conditions that would be applied specifically to this request. (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-liiSard with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction plans entitled, "Alltel - Crossroads Site", last revised September 25, 2003 and provided herein, with Attachment A. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25-feet tree, identified as 338 on Sheet C6 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed 85 feet above the existing ground elevation at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit. The monopole shall be made of wood and of a color that is consistent with the trees surrounding the site. 11. 12. 13. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole. No antennas or equipment, with the exception ora grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole. No guy wires shall be permitted. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. The plans shall be revised to show the relation ship of the proposed and existing treelines. The existing site grading shall be revised to ensure the long-term health of the trees identified as number 340, 344 and 346 on the plans, and to show that all disturbance will be held outside of the drip lines of the trees that are to remain. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 14. 15. 16. 17. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height ofthe reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a Certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees .to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The applicant shall provide significant evidence to demonstrate that the trees located on the subject parcel can provide sufficient backdrop for the facility or obtain the necessary easements on adjoining properties that will provide for an adequate backdrop, up to a distance of not more that 200 feet. 9 18. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facihty. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met: 19. 20. 21. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed two feet above the monopole; ahd, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 22. 23. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the monopole and the ground, are associated with each provider. All equipment and antennae from any individual personaL.~.'reless service provider shall be disa~iiabled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- E- F- Application, Construction Plans and Additional Information Parcel and Location Maps Approval Letters and Minutes for the Existing Alltel Facility Balloon Test Photos ARB Recommendations (pages 1-2) Zoning Department Comments and Recommendation 10 ATTACHMENT A Application for Special Use Permit Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee (staff will assist, you with this item) Project Name (how should we refer to this application?): AT~T.~F,T,/C ro s s r o a d g *Existing Use: R~ i dent i al/Rura ] Proposed Use: wi re les s Commun i cat ions * Zoning District: ~ A Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: 5.1.40 (*staff will assist you with this item) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application? Facil 3.038 acres [] YES [] NO Contact Person CWh°shouldwecall/writeconcemingthisproject?):l~lo E. Gibson t Jr. t Esquire Tremblay & Smith, LLP Address P=O. Bnw lqR5 CityCharlottesvillagtate VA Zip 22902 Daytime Phone ( 43~I 977a4455 Fax# -~E-maildlck.c~bson(~t-.remblaysmith.com ~wnerofRecord Verno; Shiflett ~ ~--~ · ',~_~--"~ Address 34].8 Monacan Trail Road CityNor%h Garden State VA _Zip..2.2959' Daytime Phone ( 43~ 977-7241 Fax# E-mail Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing? Whoisrequestingtherezoning?):AI,T,TF, l, Commun{ cat-.~ c~ng of' V~.: Address c./o O_c~n t-. ~ c~ k ~ pe r.q on City State Zip Daytime Phone ( ) Fax # E-mail Tax map and parcel: 87-73~ ty In Physical Street Address (ifassigned): 3418 Monacan Trail Road Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): 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 OFF[CE U~LY Feeamount$ ,~1../ DatePaid~Cheok# ~ByWho?i{ist/ff~:~, ~-~ ¢~/~/X~;~Reoeipt#/,~9,~/LBy: /~C ,<~ Variances: ;oncu~e~t review of Site Development Plan? ~ YES ~ NO County of Albemarle Department of Building Code & Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 t2/l/02 Page I of 4 011. 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 section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." The items that 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 you request. [f you - RA proposed facility need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? Th will have no effect on adjacent property because the e×~st~ng- trees and vegetation will screen ~he facility from v~ew~ _ How willthepmposedspecialuseaffectthech~acterofthedistr~t(s)surro~dingtheproperty? In compliance with the County Tower Policy, .this facility is designed so only the top 10 feet of the tower ~s. visible, and therefore its effect w~ll be m~n~mal. {f ~nyth~ng. Howistheusein Mrmonywiththepu¢osea~in~moftheZoningOrdimnce? The proposed facility is designed ~n accordance~wl~h 5.1.40 and with the County's Tower Policy which the ord~fiance is intended to implement. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? This proposal is consistent with by right uses such as electric and telephone poles. More importantly, the. facility/is deg~qn, ed to blend not only with other uses but with %he natural setting the area. WhatadditionalregulationsprovidedinSection5.0oftheZoningOrdinanceapplyto~isuse? of Section 5.1.40 How willthisusepromotethepublichealth, sa~ty, andgeneralwelhreofthecommunity? Increased and improv~d-"wireless coverage, as provided by the _ proposed facility,_may'-be used for enhanced emergency se~ via 911. I2/I/02 Page 2 of 4 012 ATTACHMENT A ' Describe request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numberofpersons involved in your he use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: · q~e attached_ ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each 1. 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 rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name ora corporation, 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 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 acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. 4. Additional Information, if any. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf c f the owner in filing this application. [ also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, tree, and correct to the best o£my knowledge. Signature of Owner, ~ser, Agent Date ~/Z 5"'/t) 2° Peter ,T. Caraman~.= PrintName Attorney for Applicant 43zl-977-44~5 Daytime phone number of Signatory 12/1/02 Page 3 of 4 0!° ATTACHMENT A FEES [] Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development fights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section 14-106 (15) of the subdivision ordinance = $220 Ruralarea divisions = $1,240 Commercial use = $980 [] Industrial use = $1,020 [] Private club/recreational facility = $1,020 [] Mobile home park or subdivision = $980 Public utilities ~ $1,020 Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870 [] Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use = $110 [] Extending special use permits = $70 [] Home Occupation-Class B = $440 CI For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children -~ $490 [] For day care centers - ten (10) or more children = $980 [] All other uses except signs = $980 12/1/02 Page 4 of 4 014 ATTACHMENT A APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, NO. 1, INC. CROSSROADS SITE (ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA) DETAILED DESCRIPTION ALLTEL Communications of Virginia, No. 1, Inc., d/b/a ALLTEL, desires to construct An 85' monopole "treetop tower", painted brown, within a grove of trees on the parcel known as Tax Map 87, parcel 7A, owned by Vernon Shiflett. Attached to this application are the following: Two 24" x 36" copies and seven 11" x 17" copies of the site plan for the proposed site, which includes a location map, site plan, erosion control plan, tree survey and tower elevation. A Certification. from the property owners indicating their consent to the filing of this application by ALLTEL. A plat of the subject parcel, recorded in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of Albemarle County at Deed Book 1421, page 125. ALLTEL's network currently suffers a gap in coverage along Route 29 in the area of the proposed facility. After an exhaustive search of the necessary coverage area, ALLTEL determined there were no existing structures on which to co-locate and carefully selected a site where its facility would blend with its natural surroundings for a minimal visual impact. In accordance with the Albemarle County Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, ALLTEL proposes locating its tower in a wooded area where, at'most, the top ten feet of the tower would be above the trees. The Tower Policy expresses a preference for towers 10' taller than the tallest tree within 25' of the proposed location. This tower meets that criteria. The tower would have flush-mounted antennas painted brown to match the tower and to blend with the surrounding trees. The facility also includes an 11.5' x 16' equipment shelter. The 30' x 30' area surrounding the facility will be enclosed by an 8' chain link fence. The fence, the shelter anc~ the tower will be screened from neighboring parcels by the existing trees and vegetation on the property. The proposed facility would be adjacent to an existing similar wireless communications facility which has demonstrated that such facilities can blend well with the surrounding area in this location. 015 ATTACHMENT A More specifically, the proposed site is consistent with the Albemarle County Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy as follows. The bulleted points are taken from the summary of the Policy which is included in the policy itself. The narrative following each bullet indicates how this site complies with the stated goal. · Facilities with limited visibility are encouraged. The proposed facility complies with the height encouraged by the policy, namely 10' above the trees, and therefore has minimal visibility. The facility is specifically designed to blend within the natural setting and the existing woods will screen the entire tower except the top ten feet. · Personal wireless service facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline and they should be provided with an adequate backdrop so they are not skylined. The proposed facility is not located on a ridge and is a Iow enough height that skylining is not a problem. · Personal wireless service facilities should not adversely impact resources identified in the Open Space plan or designated as Avoidance Areas. The proposed facility has no adverse impact on Open Space resources or designated Avoidance Areas. Personal wireless service facilities should 'utilize existing structures where possible. Per ALLTEUs standard practice, the initial stage of site selection involved an extensive search for existing structures within the necessary coverage area to accommodate its antennas, but no such structures existed. The existing pole on the site could not accommodate ALLTEL's antennas at a height which could provide coverage. · Personal wireless service facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any zoning district. The proposed site has been sited and designed so the entire facility will blend with the natural surroundings thereby minimizing is visual im pact. · Ground based equipment should be limited in size and, be designed in keeping with the character of the area. The equipment for the proposed site is all screened from v~ew by existing natural vegetation and woodland. · Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize visibility. The proposed antennas will be flush mounted and painted brown so they will blend not only with the support structure, but more importantly with the surrounding woods. 0!6 J RACY r~CAL. TOWER ~ NAD 85) 11 NAD 8,.3) II ',NAVD 8~ TAKE 1-64 = EXIT 118 ROAD). IILES dUST ~N RIGHT & WHITE TRAIL RD, VA 22959 AC) PRO]ECT NAME: CROSSROADS SITE VICINITY MAP 1"=2000' COPYRIGHT ADC THE MAP PEOPLE PERMITTED USE NO. 20JgJ659 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: AUGUST 18, 2003 TAX MAP #: 87-7A SIGNATURES APPLICANT / ALLTEL: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: LESSOR: . DATE: DATE: DATE: SHEET IND,EX NO. TIMMON$ GI~OUP '" T1 COVER SHEET ...... C1 LOCATION MAP C2 SURVEY C3 SITE LAYOUT C4 'GRADING IA EROSION CONTROL PLAN C5 IIEROSION CONTROL NOTES &'.DETAIL. S. . C6 TREE SURVEY ! TOWER ELEVATION IA DETAILS C7 I ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: C OSSROADS SITE 3418 MONACAN TRAIL ROAD NORTH GARDEN, VIRGINIA COVER SHEET TIMMONS GROUP "" SReDevelopment I'R~sidential I~nfrastructure I Technologl(, YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Bird J Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.54:[.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www,Ummons.com DATE:8-18-03 SCALE: NONE DRAWN BY:B. CRUTCHFIELD -r'./ CHECKED BY: F)_ 1ONNC:F'~Ikl I-L :99 'ON ~]0£ AQ C]::I)t::)::IH~ 9:A9 N M'g'l:lCi :O-B'I:-S:::;J.VC] "[t~S't~08 -I:11 u3 09~b VINIg~IIA ~;~mdOl~A;~O bilJ. )N )][Ol:ld qOPOSED LEASE AREA kTION ON 7-15-2005. :G. 125 IRE COMPILE0 :TE BOUNDARY SURVEY~ :MENTS & RESTRICTIONS :~EPAREO WITHOUT THE piece or parcel of land bemarle County, Virginia and ~s; commencing at o found line of U.S. Route 29, ~d, said rod being THE TRUE .~nce along a said right of seconds West a distance Northern right of way of )posed 20 foot access & line the following courses: Is East o distance of s East o distance of 28,40 Is West o distance of 55.04 s West o distance of 81,79 s West o distance of West o distance of 81.18 West o distance of 43.22 ;dine, thence along said s 09 minutes 45 seconds ;aid point being the ;nt ond the Northeastern being THE TRUE POINT 'd lease oreo the following East o distance of 30.00 West o distance of 30.00 West o distance of .30.00 East o distance of 30.00 [ OF BEGINNING ond s of land more or less. LINE TABLE LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE L1 N 49'02'18" E . ~126,07' L2 N 22'18'02" E 28.40' L3 N ,.23'32'32" _Wi 55.O4' L4 N 34'55'30" .wl 81.79' L5 , N 42'01'22" W 178.76' L6 N 62'10'43" W 81.18', 'L7 N 45'11'44" W 4.3.22: L8 N 29'50'15" W 69.59' L9 S 60"09'45" W 10.001 El0 iS 29'50',15"E `30.00: Lll S 60'09'45" W .30.00,: L12 U 29'50'15" W 30.O0'. ' L1`3 U 60'09'45" E `30,00' N/F EUGENE M. POWELL, JR. T.M. 87-6 D.B. 1445, PO. 719 I N/F ORA M. ATWELL T.M. 87- 7 ' 1 PIPE i W.B, 96, PG. 09 FD. 199, 72' =----- '~'( - ' ~'--N- -65~2. '2 7" r PIPE / I ""~----~D. VERNON L, &3ACKI'E ~"~N,~ UTILITY EASEMENT C, SHIFFLETT ,' ,,\ o~ T.M. 87-7A O.B. :!.42:t, PG. 123 ,,' r, RlVC ~ m 3:: L=72.06' u c ~,li 11 z~ -~ TAN=`36.03' , iJ~l J J ~=2'os'15" ~j/ ~./ CB=S '//; / ~EX. 1,100'~ }O ~'~ ........ CONC. BURTON RD. j a~' TOWER P?B : ,/ SETBACK L13 /-L9 I PROPOSED I , ~ EXISTING DRI~ t~ t Ira: D.B~ 1055, PG. 587 ,~ ~lo BRICK% I ~N~ ~l U,$, ROUTE 29 0 1 O0 200 VARIABLE WIDTH R/W SCALE IN FEET ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH~ VA, 23462 PROJECT NAME: CROSSROADS SITF 3418 MONACAN TRAIL ROAD NORTH GARDEN, VIRGINIA SURVEY 'TIMMONS GROUP .-";'% Site Development I Residential { Infrastructure I Technology YOUR V[S[01q ACH[EVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRG[NIA I THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE i PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Bird J Prince George, VA 23875 TEL804,541.6600 FAX 804.751,0798 www.timmons,com DATE:8-18-03 SCALE: 1"= 100" DRAWN BY:B, CRUTCHFIELD C2 CHECKED AY'_ r~ ~mc~, :99 'ON ~]0~ A~t QaN:DaH:D ON )q fO~ld 133J NI 39¥0S 01~ O~ 0 '1141~3 ,,(.L IT/l l'l ~ $$$~ ,0~ (]N::IDEI-I HDIVH 13NIgVD Odd HO-~ OVd I V3HV 3SV37 L _ 731 77V ,0£x. 0£ OgSOWOHW 03SOdOHW H31 73HS 'din03 ,9lz, g'll  HW lA4 3~N33 NNITNIVHO ,g ~t 3/6 0 i / / ....... o ~ ~'"~ ~ ~ .... -. ". ".. ". ~'. " ! :~ 'z:.__' ........ ' ......... ' ...... ... ........... ~"".. '""-... '"'.. ' i "-,. S~ALE I '-" FIL~D) I ', '"-~ ". ~'~, "J' .',l~ ".,, ". '"" ,~ : ' -, ~ '~ " '~ ~ '~ '~',~ " " I ~ "., ",, ~ ~ ~[ILIm',SUr ",./., i I -SCALE iN FEET ~ ',, ',. ~ '~ ~T~,:~x, ,,, ,,., ~, x, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TREE PROTECTION 40 $. 05 $.20 J. 38 VIRGINIA EROS/ON & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: CROSSROADS SITE 3418 MONACAN TRAIL ROAD NORTH GARDEN, VIRGINIA GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN TIMMOHS GROUP -'" I Residentla~I YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROLINA I WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd I Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.54:l.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www.timmons.com DATE:8-18-03 SCALE: 1"=20' DRAWN BY:B. CRUTCHFIELD CHECKED BY: D. -1OHNSON 99 'ON 90[ 3:A9 NMV~JQ O-SI-8:~J-V(3 0 09Z~ L VINt~IA amdolaAa~ ~IS ON DN )qfO~ld NVH.I. SS39 SI / I -- 3Ntl c~UO ~ # LOaA (M31A ~¥3~1SNM00) -HON3~I .tx.~ 031OVdt4OO ONY 03991J~OYB 910S O31YAYOX3 'NI~ ,g = H/ON39 /SOd 9331S ~JO OINI 11 0N31X3 · SlSOd ~O S3NYLS Ol 31UB¥~ ~J3191J HOVII¥ 2AII VEEVN 70EINO3 NOISOE~ I PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT ~ASEO I IoN TXUE~T TREE W~TH/N ~' Or I ~,~THE PROPOSED MOUNT (TREE ! ! TREE TABLE 249 - 12" MAPLE - 66,4' 286- 4" LOCUST- 49,6' 288- 4" LOCUST- 45,8' 290- 2" LOCUST- 32,5' 292 - 4" LOCUST- 43,2' 294 - 5" LOCUST - 42,2' 296 - 5" LOCUST - 41,4' 298- 5" LOCUST- 47.3' 300 - 5" LOCUST - 49.2' 302 - 4" LOCUST - 39,6' 304 - 5" LOCUST - 41.8' 306 - 3" LOCUST- 37,2' 308- 4" LOCUST- 35.4' 310 - 5" LOCUST- 38.7' 312 - 4" LOCUST- 34.7' 314 - 3" LOCUST - 33.3' 316 - 5" LOCUST - 37.9' 318 - 3" LOCUST - 32,0' 322 - 8" LOCUST - 58,7' 324 - 24" POPLAR - 88,5' 326 - 36" RED OAK - 124.7' 328- 20" DEAD - (REMOVE) 329 - 20" DEAD - (REMOVE) 332 - 15" POPLAR - 93.6' 336 - 6" POPLAR - 30.1' 338 - 12" POPLAR - 81,9' 340 - 18" POPLAR - 69.3' 342 - 15" POPLAR - 75,2' (REMOVE) 344 - 6" POPLAR - 62,1' ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, 23462 PROJECT NAME: CROSSROADS SITE 3418 MONACAN TRAIL ROAD NORTH GARDEN, VIRGINIA IRE E SURVEY TIHHONS GROUP.-"".'-- Site Development I Residential I Infrastructure ' I Technology YOUR V]$1Ofl A£H[EVED THROUGH OURS, VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROLINA ] WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4250 Crossings Blvd I Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.541.6500 FAX 804.75:L.0798 www.timmons.com DATE:S-lB-03 SCALE: 1"=20" DP,AWN BY:B. CRUTCHFIELD CHECKED BY: D, ]OHNSON IhO '9:A9 NMV~IO £O-8I-8:BIYG D099'~1~5't~08 u!ssoJD 09~t7 ] SINI ~ I VIN]D~J]A ]MO1 ti'dON ~ ID~[O%M NID~IA I~T1V ,SIN 3_LV9 9NIMS 3-18130(3 'SONI_LII3 031519 H3H±O $OJ S3dA_L 398VMO¥]V 3H± Ol VNHOJNO3 97VHS dV3 HO3 9Vl~J31¥K~ 9V13?4 ~J¥ggSg_L 'SlSOd 3NI-I 'q-IV NO G:3SlRD3~I SI dV3 ONIC]iq-IOX3-~JlqlSIOH v :qlON 'NIV~ ~'d~Z) ±SOd 3iVO qVi~ 'Q'O 'NI~ ,,~ /SOd 3NI'I a388v8 38 OJ 39VA]35 ~0J/08 0NY d0l 3~IM 038~i¥8 SON¥~S 'VI0 [~lO'lOO HI NMO~i~ (~o~ (~) SVNN: (I3LNIgOI4 'SNV3K~ laOddnS 3qav9 ]VIXVO9 (]NV SINgOI9 VNN3LLNV ~03 tNO 3HI HIIM 3J_VNIO~OOO TIVHS ~JOIOV~LLNOO ',kqNO 3~JnlVN NI OlIVIN3HOS SI NMOHS 3~tFLL:DiqNtS 3HI ATTACHIVlENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C July 13, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ol Planning & Community Developrnen~ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive Waynesboro, VA 22980 SP-98-08 Crossroads Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 1, 1998, approved the above-noted petition. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The elevation at the top of the tower shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: The tower shall be of treated wood; Guy wires shall not be permitted; The tower shall have no lighting; and The tower shall not be painted. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: The tower shall be located as shown on the attached survey entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-143, dated Revised June 30, 1998." Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: ATTACHMENT C Antenna shall be limited to a maximuTM'of two (2) fiberglass antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter.. These antenna shall be painted brown or a color to match the pole; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. o The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: 0) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required. 10 The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report ~ha~l identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. O28 ATTACHk{ENT C 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be forty (40) feet. 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revet~nents, or olher stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section. 15. ~11 other equipment shall be painted brown. 16. Ail lighting shall be shielded from Route 29. 17. Electric power lines shall be buried; and 18. Prior to any construction the site shall be field verified by the Planning Director to assure it is in the location identified by the agreement of the property owner, applicant and County staff 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 shal~ 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 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 296-5875. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. WayngtCilimberg/ ~ Director of Planning(,& Community Development VWC/jcf Cc: Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey ATTACHMENT C SP 98-08 Crossroads - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2(6) to allow the construction of a telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A. This property is zoned VR, Village Residential and is located 260 feet from the west side of State Route 29 South, approximately 1 mile south of State Route 710. This site is located within the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver and a setback waiver~ Mr. Morrisette offered to answer questions about the request. Condition #3(a) was amended to add the date of the plan (2/2/98). In answer to Mr. Rieley's question about fencing, Mr. Fi'itz said fencing is addressed, in all three ,applications, in condition #8. (Thoug~ Mr. Morrisette recommended the addition of a condition to the site plan waiver-- ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriatenesso-Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the site, tough visible from the EC, is not actually in an Entrance Corridor. Mr. Mordsette confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Cilimberg's statement and said the condition would not be needed after ail.) Mr. Richard Oliver, an adjoining property owner (parcel 7C), addressed the Commission. He expressed opposition because he believes the tower is out of character with the VR designation of the property'and will de~/alue adjoining property. He questioned the need for additional service of this kind in the county. - He believed there is "no public interest Mr. David Van Rojen addressed the.Commission. He said the Commission.seems to be "feeling sorry for CFW based on the opinion that they have. given you the best they can give you." He disagreed, because he believes there is alternative technology, using smaller equipment, which could be offered. Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Van Rojen could describe "specific technology, pertinent to the applicant's industry," which would be less obtrusive than what is proposed.- Mr. Van Rojen said in other parts of the country, very small boxes are being placed on "light poles," and the antenna is part of the box. (Mr. Fritz confirmed that such technology exists, but it is predominantly used in urban locations.) Mr. Van Rojen believed the applicant is not willing to pursue different technology because it will cost more money. Mr. Whittaker was allowed to respond to Mr. Van Rojen's comments. He explained CFW chose the present.PCS technology based on the belief that it was best technology to suit "our initial and future needs for our network." He said the driving factor in how much a cell site can cover is not as much the technology as it is physics, and "physics has nothing to do with money." He said he has discussed the possibility of locating on public utility poles with staff but the State Corporation Commission in Virginia will not allow that. He stressed that his company has "handled itself in the best possible fashion, has not been misleading, and has not provided incorrect information." Noting that the proposed tower site is close to Mr. Oliver's property line, Mr. Tice asked Mr. Whittaker if it might moved more to the center of the property, at the same elevation. Mr. Whittaker said the location was chosen by the landowner, but it may be possible to move .it "within a reasonable distance," under the existing lease arrangements. 030 4-21-98 ATTACHMENTC Mr. Oliver asked the Commission to ask Mr. V~ittaker to state the height of the trees in the area where the tower is proposed. Mr. Mo~isette responded: "The applicant has indicated 80 feet on the application." Mr. Tice pointed out that a condition of approval requires that the applicant provided a certified statement on the height of the trees. Mr. Rooker added out that the tower cannot exceed the height of the highest tree, within 25 feet, so if the trees are shorter, the tower will have to be lower. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Ti¢~ said he agrees that the issues raised by Mr. Van Rojen are some of the ones the County should be considering, but given the time constraint which the Commission is under, those are issues which the Board will have wrestle with because they have the luxury of being able to defer action for a longer period of time. Those are the kind of issues a consultant could help us answer. He said he can support this. request, for the Same reasons as the Cook Mountain application. Mr. Tice asked for further comment on the possibility of moving the tower location further away from the adjoining property owner's boundary. Mr. Rieley pointed out that VDOT is concerned that the setback be far enough so that the pole, if it were to fall, would not fall on VDOT right-of-way. He said he feels the setback from adjacent property lines should be'at least the height of the pole. Mr. Tice agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is seeking a waiver of the setback requirements related to falling distance and if the Commission does not grant that waiver, then the applicant will have to keep it away from the property lines a distance that is at least equal to the height of the pole. There was some question as to whethei' or not the pole could be located on the site without the waiver. Later in the discussion, after having reviewed the original "50 scale", Mr. Morrisette said he believes there will be room to put the tower in the center of the site. Addressing frustrations about the length of time it is taking to hire a consultant, Mr. Finley who serves on the committee dealing with this topic, explained how the process has proceeded. He said the interviews have taken place and a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, to discuss negotiations with one of those interviewed. He said: "It is all going to take. time, and even then we will have a lot of sites, as we are having now. However, there will be some standards and there will be policy and well-defined review process. But that is in the future. At this point, frustrated as we all are, I am going to support the application." MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-08, CFW Wireless, Crossroads, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: I. The elevation at the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation at the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height and elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet. Antennae may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. EquiPment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. 03i 4-21-98 ATTACHMENT C The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. b. Guy wires shall not be permitted. c. The tower shall have no lighting. d. The tower shall not be painted. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-144" dated February 2, 1998." .~. 4. Antennae may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antennae shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) fiberglass antennae not to exceed' seven (7) feet in height Or three (3) inches in diameter. These antennae shall be painted brown or a color to match the pole. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennae are prohibited. 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the co4ocati0n of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennae on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: 1. Prior to the. approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site pla.n requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it wil~ make a good faith effort to allow Such location, and will negotiate in- good faith with_~uch other provider .requesting location on the tower or the site. 2. The permittee shall provide'to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to located on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site'owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. 6. Each outdoor lumina~re shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. 7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. 4-21-98 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. the lease area shall not be required. ATTACHMENT C Fencing of 9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its,use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shah identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. Miriimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet. 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. 13. The access road shall, be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. 15. Ali other equipment shall be painted dark brown.'. 16. Ail lighting shall be shielded from Rt. 29. 17. Electric power lines shall be buried. The motion passed (4:3) with Commissioners Washington, Nitchmann and Loewenstein casting the dissehting votes. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved. Mr. Rieley seconded, that the request for a waiver of setback requirements for SP 98-08 CFW Wireless/Crossroads be denied. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the request for a site plan waiver for SP 98-08 CFW Wireless/Crossroads, be approved, subject to the following conditions: I. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Washington casting the dissenting vote 033 ..... -,.* ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 98-08 CFW Wireless at Crossroads: Setback Waiver Request SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: In addition to BOS review of the special use permit request, the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of a side setback waiver for the construction of a telecommunications tower on 3.038 acres zoned VR, Village Residential. Proper'q/, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A, is located on the west side of Route 29 South, approximately 1 mile south north of State Route 710. Property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located wEhin a designated growth area. STAFF CONTACT,S_): ~ Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Morrisette BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: July 1, 1998 ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACH ME NTS: Yes · REVIEWED .BY..~~'''~ / The purpose of this executive summary is to provide additional information for your review. The history of the above referenced application is as folJows: 1) 2) 3) 4) April 2f, f998- The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 98-08, by a 4-3 vote. The Commission also granted approval of the applicant's site plan waiver request, but denied the applicant's request for a side setback waiver. May 20, f998- The Board of Supervisors heard SP 98-08, but deferred approval of the side setback waiver back to the Planning Commission, in light of new informaaon the applicant had presented. The applicant indicated that compliance with the side setback requirements would place the tower in a more visible location by placing it in an open yard or a younger stand of trees. June 09, ~998- The Planning Commission heard the applicant's request for a side setback waiver, with the additional inforrna~don presented to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission deferred aclJon unlJl staff could renofify Mr. Oliva, adjacent property owner to the north, and ask that he attend the hearing. June 23, 1998 - The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for side setback waiver. Commission minutes are attached to aid in you review. Mr. Oliva was in attendance of the hearing. One Commissioner indicated that he would not have recommended approval of the Special Use Permit if they had known that compliance of the setback requirements would place the tower in a highly visible area. Therefore the recommendation of the special use permit would have been denial by at least a 4-3 vote. In addition to the Board of Supervisor's headng of SP 98-08, the applicant is also requesting review of an appeal of the Commission's denial of the setback waiver. The applicant has provided a written appeal and request for BOS review. Attachments: June 23, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Letter of Appeal and Request for Setback Waiver RECEIVED 'J J /2 5 Planning Dept, 034 98.122 / OMMUNlCATIONS - .~50 Shenandoah Village Drive ATTACHMENT C 540 432-6353 EO, Box 1328 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980-0909 FAX: 540 942-4385 June 25, 1998 Aiber/~arle County Planning & Community Development Attn: Eric Morrisette 401 McIntire Rd Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Eric, Per your request, this letter is to inf6rm you that CFW Wireless would like to proceed with the Crossroads site. We would like the Board of Supervisors to hear our request [or the Special Use Permit with waiver of the side setback. In addition, we would like the Board of Supervisors to hear the reading of the minutes from the June 23ra Planning Commission Meeting, which denied the side setback waiver. Sincerely, /Larry Ryan Site Acquisition Agent for CFW Wireless CC: Dick Shearer/CFW RECEIVED 'JUN 2 5 1998 Planning Dept. ATTACHMENT C SP 98-08 Crossroads CV 143 - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a waiver of the 25-foot side setback to construct a telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, Parce! 7A. This property is zoned VR, Village Residential and is located on the west side of Route 29 South, approximately 1 mile south of State Route 710. This site is located within the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. ATTACHMENT C 6-9-98 3 Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, Staff recommended approval. The report explained: The Planning Commission heard the applicant's petition to construct a Personal Communications Tower (PCS). site plan waiver, and reduction of side setback at its April 21, 1998 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 98-08 to allow for the construction of a tree top high tower and granted approval of the applicant's site plan waiver request. The property owner to the north, Mr. Oliver, expressed opposition to the close proximity of the proposed tower. The Planning Commission did not grant approval of the side setback waiver request because it was believed that adequate setback distance could be obtained. Mr. Keeler said the applicant had investigated the possibility of being able to obtain adequate setback and had discovered that if the tower were relocated so as to meet the setback, it would be in an open area and would be clearly visible from Rt. 29 South. VVhen the applicant made that information available to the Board of Supervisors, the Board sent the request for the setback wavier back to the Commission for action. The applicant was represented by Dick Sheeran. He offered to answer Commission questions. He explained: "If we were not granted that setback variance, the pole would be out into the backyard of the property owner's residence." Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant had explored possible locations on properties to the north. Mr. Sheeran said he could not say that his site acquisition people had contacted every property owner because once a willing propertY owner is found, with a site that meets CFVV's criteria, that is the site that is pursued. Mr. Sheeran presented simulated photographs which compared the visibility of the tower with the variance setback, and withouf the variance. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. It as determined Mr. Oliver, the adjoining property owner who had objected to the location of the tower, was not present at the meeting., Mr. Rieley said if the choice is being closer to a neighbor's property who objected, in a location.where, were it to fail. it would fall on the neighbor's property, or a highly visible location with no trees around--it is not a good choice and the reason it is not a good choice is because of the constriction of the property lines--it's a narrow tot. He said: "1 would like to see more exploration of other locations, higher on that ridge, where it's level and there lots of trees .... " Mr. Nitchmann recalled that he voted against this tower because of the feeling that no more towers should be approved until after the county's consultant is on board. However, because it has already been approved, he said he believes granting the setback is better than having the tower visible from the road. He said he would feel 037 ATTACHMENT C 6-9-98 4 differently if the adjoining property owner (Mr. Oliver) was present at the meeting to express his ,,~,,,~,oi~,~, Mr. Keeler said staff'had received no comment from any member of,the public. Mr. Rietey said Mr. Oliver's comments had been very clear for the first hearing. He said he would not want to base a decision on the fact that someone is not present at the meeting, because' there could be many reasons why Mr. Oliver could not attend the meeting, Ms. Washington said she would abstain from voting on the request because she had not been present during the first hearing, and because she, too, is concerned about all the towers that are being approved. Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees with Mr. Nitchmann that guidance is needed from a consultant before more towers are approved. But without that guidance, he said he would prefer the tower be in the trees and not in the open. Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to hear from the adjoining property owner before voting on the variance request, He suggested the item be deferred until staff could contact Mr. Oliver. He said he would support the variance if it is found Mr. Oliver has changed his mind and no longer objects. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP 98-08 for CFW Wireless, Crossroads, Setback Waiver Request be deferred to June 23, 1998, to allow time for staff to contact Mr. Oliver. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rieley said: "In looking at these two, I believed we were looking at the two together, and I would not have voted in favor of this application without proper setbacks from the property line. I am saying that for the applicant's benefit. I think we have to find suitable sites that meet the setback requirements, i hope the applicant will explore some other alternatives in this intervening time." Mr. Nitchmann said: "i think I agree with you because I don't think we have the right to permit something that will infringe upon the neighbor's property rights. That's what we would be saying to Mr. Otiver--'we don't care what you think about your property, we're going to allow this tower to go there and if it falls on your property, so what,' and I don't think that's what we want to do. If Mr. Oliver doesn't care, then it's a whole different stow." The motion to defer to June 23rd passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. DB V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary ATTACHMENT C ~ 6-23-98 1 ! SP 98-08 Crossroads CV 143 - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 4. t0.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a waiver of the 25 foot side setback to construct a telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, parcel 7A. This property is zoned VR, Village Residential and is located 260' from the west side of St. Rt; 29 South, approximately one mile south of State Route 710. This site is located within the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. Deferred from the June 9th Commission meeting. Mr. Morrisette recalled the history of this application. He said the staff report had changed very little since the June 9th meeting. The report concluded: Staff opinion is that the provision of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiring approval of a ..tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure. In this situation the proposed tower is a wooden pole which cannot be designed to collapse in a predictable manner. Relocation of the tower to the south would increase land disturbance with the access road extension and it would also place the tower in an open area with no tree coverage, making it visibly more obtrusive to Route 29 South. Should the tower collapse in the requested location, it would not be near any 039 ATTACHMENT C 6-23-98 2 dwelling on adjacent property. The area of the adjacent property nearest the tower is located uphill from the tower and in areas of critical slopes which cannot be built on. In the event of collapse no improvements would be endangered. Therefore, staff is able to support this request, Staff recommended approval of the waiver request. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Scharer. He presented no new information, but offered to answer Commission questions. Mr. Rieley asked, as he had at the June 9th meeting, if CFW considered any other properties in this area. Mr. Scharer said a lot of sites along the 29 South corddor have been looked at dudng the last year. Based on engineering studies and the terrain of this property, "this site met our needs." Mr. Rieley said he realizes this is the ideal spot from the applicant's perspective, but "what we are looking for is the ideal spot that will serve your needs, but will also meet the public's interests, and if you haven't looked at any other sites, you put us in a difficult position." Mr. Scharer explained the site selection process in more detail. He said once engineering studies have been done to identify sites which will meet the current need, then a willing landowner must be located. More than one landowner was approached. Mr. Scharer concluded: "Yes, we have checked with other locations. We know, because of engineering, studies, that site-the Shiffiett property--will work for us. The issue is the setback. Mr. Shiffiett's property-- because of foliage-in order to meet the setbacks we wout~d be setting it into an open area, and that is not satisfactory for Albemarle County." Mr. Morrisette asked the applicant if complying with the setback requirements would result in the need for a taller tower, given the fact that the elevation would be lower. Mr. Scharer responded affirmatively. Public comment was invited. Mr. Richard Oliva, adjoining property owner to the north, and the property most impacted by the side yard setback, addressed the Commission. He expressed the belief that a tower of any type. will devalue surrounding properties. He said this proposed tower, if granted the setback waiver, will be only 25feet from his property line, and, should it fall,' it will endanger his property. He disagreed with the comparison of this structure to a telephone pole, because a telephone pole is only about 40-45 feet tall, whereas.this pole is 80 feet tall with a lO-foot antennae on top. He asked that the setback waiver be denied. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Oliva how close his dwelling is to the proposed tower location. Mr. Oiiva estimated it to be 1,000 yards, but he said the land between the tower and 040 ATTACHME NTC 6-23-98 3 his dwelling would be developed with possibly two more dwellings. Anything built on that part of his property will be endangered by this tower. Mr. Rooker read a section of the staff report which stated that adjacent property closest the tower was located in an area of critical slopes which could not built on. Mr. Oliva said that statement did not refer to his property, and, to his knowledge, his property did not fall under any critical slope provisions. Mr. Rooker asked staff to comment. Mr. Mordsette said it is difficult to work with 600 scale topos, but "it looks as thoug[~there are some critical slopes in that area, but a more detailed topo would be needed to pinpoint the location." Mr. Rooker was trying to determine how close to this proposed tower site Mr. Oliva might be able to build, and still avoid critical slopes. Mr. Mordsette said: "Fie would have to be 50 feet from the tower-25 on both sides~" Mr. Oliva said the land flattens out as it gets closer to the tower. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley expressed concern about conflicts in the documentation. He explained: "Attachment B shows the wireless location at a scale of 1" = 600'; it shows the location at least 500 feet from the Shiffiett residence. If we are talking about moving it to meet adequate side yard requirements, we are talking about moving it 65 feet, yet we have a simulated photograph which shows it about 50 feet from the back of the house." He concluded: "Either the map is wrong, the parcel is wrong, or the simulation is wrong." He continued: 'q'he fundamental question is if the only suitable site on this piece of property does not meet the setback requirements, is it a good place for a tower? I am exactly where I was the last time we looked at this because the applicant is exactly the same place he was the last time we looked at this. And that is that there needs to be an investigation of the surrounding area to see if a more suitable location can be found which will meet the setback requirements and still serve the applicant's requirements." Mr. Rooker said: "i also have difficulty apl~roving a waiver of the setback when there is objection from the neighboring property owner, and, in fact, he could develop his property within the area where the pole might fall as a matter of right. So we would be negatively effecting his property by waiving the setback. He is not the one dedving the revenue from this tower. The landowner who is renting the site is. If anyone should bear the burden of the tower being close to their improved property, it would seem to me to be the party who is getting the lease payments. So I have a problem with this application because of that." Mr. Rieley said he had a procedural concern, i.e. "We already approved the tower on this site. We just didn't approve the setback waiveri' ~ think we need to communicate very cleady to the Board that we regarded that as a two-pad arrangement and that we do not think they should approve this setback waiver." ATTACHMENTC 6-23-98 4 Mr. Rooker said: "! don't necessarily agree with that. I don't necessarily object to the tower site. I object to the waiver of the setback requirement." Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks the Board is going to want the discrepancies identified by Mr. Rieley cleared up, i.e. "which of the three things is right?" Mr. Rooker said "1 would like to see a simulation of what we would have if that was the proposed tower site." Mr. Nitchmann said he shared Mr. Rooker's concerns about the impact to the neighbor (Mr. Oliva). He said he could not support the waiver request. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-08, Setback Waiver Request for CFW Wireless at Crossroads, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. The motion passed 4:0:1. Mr. Tice abstained because he had not been present at the June 9th meeting when this item was discussed. Mr. Keeler said the Board may wish comment from the Commission on the question of whether or not "you would have recommended approval of this with it depicted in the open area as shown on one of those (simulations)." Mr. Rieley said: "That is precisely the point i was trying to make. i would not have voted in favor of the site if this is the location. If you cannot either meet the setback or improve on this, I think that is an unsuitable tower location and I would have voted against the tower. I think the Board should be aware of that." Mr. Rooker pointed out that if Mr. Rieley had voted against the tower, it would not have been approved because the vote had been 4:3. 0 t2 ATTACHMENTC Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE o! Planning & Community Development 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 April 23, 1998 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-98-08 Crossroads Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A Dear Mr. Ryan: Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 21, 1998, by a vote of 4-3, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: I. The elevation at the top of the tower shall not exceed the height ofthe tallest tree within 25 feet down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. b. Guy wires shall not be permitted. c. The tower shall have no lighting. d The tower shall not be painted. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-143, dated February 2, 1998. 043 ATTACHNIENTC Larry Ryan April 23, 1998 Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of two fiberglass antenna not exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. These antenna shall be painted brown or a color to match the pole. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (l) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by hnother provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a [~luminaireS is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the ~site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such 04'4 ATTACHMENTC Larry Ryan April 23, 1998 construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. 8. .? The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. 10. 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 shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet. 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. 15. All other equipment shall be painted brown. 16. All lighting shall be shielded from Rt. 29. 17. Electric power lines shall be buried. The Planning Commission also approved a waiver of the drawing ora site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Provision of one parking space. 3 045 ATTACHMENTC Larry Ryan April 23, 1998 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 20, 1998. 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. The Planning Commission also granted a waiver ora site plan drawing in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance ora building permit; and, Provision of one parking space. The Planning Commission denied a request for setback waiver. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eric Morrisette Planner EM/jcl CCi Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley December 16, 2003 COUNTY OF-ALBEMARLE Dcpartmcqt of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntirc Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 Bob Pingry Stonehaus Development PO Box 6786 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SP-2003-73 Foundations Child Development Day Care (Sign #90) Tax Map 45, Parcel 112F Dear Mr. Pingry: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003, b)y a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled, Foundations Child Daycare Center, dated September 25, 2003. 2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 125 or the number of students as approved by the Virginia Department of Socia Services, whichever is less. 3. VDOT approval of a commercial entrance. 4. The remaining slopes should not be more than 3:1 to allow for re-vegetation and stability. 5. The following m~mmum setbacks shall be maintained: 30 ft building and 10 ft parking setback from Berkmar Dr and 15 ft building setback from the southern property line. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on Januan] 14, 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Superwsors 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 (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Principal Planner MD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Steve AIIshouse Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Stuard or Margaret Wood David & Margaret Leckrone STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARGARET DOHERTY DECEMBER 2, 2003 JANUARY 14,2004 FOUNDATIONS CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (SP=03-73) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Foundations Child Development Center, is proposing a day care center of up to 125 students in a new building approximately 6,200 square feet in size, on a portion of a parcel located on Berkmar Drive across the street from Planet Fun. The proposed improvements include sufficient area for playground and parking. Petition: Request for special use permit to allow a day care center in accordance with Section [16.2.2.7] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for day care facilities in the R-6 Zoning District. The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 112F, contains 1.541 acres, and is zoned R-6, Residential. The proposal is located on Berkmar Drive (Route 1403), approximately .5 miles north of the intersection of Berkmar and Woodbrook Road, in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional in Neighborhood 1. Please see a vicinity map included as attachment A. Property description: Tax Map 45 Parcel 112F is located on Berkmar Drive (Route 1403), approximately.5 miles north of the intersection of Berkmar and Woodbrook Road, in the Rio Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The property is surrounded by commercial uses: SPCA to the south and Planet Fun across the street. The property adjacent to the north is reserved for right-of-way for the Western Bypass, and includes improvements from the former Faulconer Construction Company site. There are two single family residential properties near the site, one on Woodburn Road northwest of the subject parcel, and one northeast of the site across the street, however, the character of the area along Berkmar Drive is mostly service commercial. By-right Use of the ProperS.: The property is currently zoned R-6, medium density residential. It could be developed with up to six dwelling units per acre, theoretically 6 units (1.5 acres x 6), and a variety of dwelling unit types are available. STAFF COMMENT: Staff's comments present an analysis of how the proposed use meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated Transitional on the Land Use Plan Map and is within Neighborhood One. Following are recommendations fi:om the Comprehensive Plan (page), relative to this property: Due to the potential impact of the Western Bypass, the area north of Rio Road, west of Berkmar Drive and east of Woodburn Road, was designated Transitional. This designation will allow for a wide flexibility of uses and allow uses that would be compatible with the bypass in the long term and provide a transition to the residential property to the west in the short term. The proposed daycare use is a good transitional use between the commercial uses on the south side of Berkmar Drive and the residential uses on WoOdbum Road. In the long term, if the bypass is constructed, the building may be converted to a more commercial use, to avoid the construction and eventual noise from truck traffic. Access to Woodburn Road from properties located between Berkmar Drive and Woodburn Drive will be prohibited. Proposed development which impacts on the bypass development shall be discouraged. The proposal does not include access to Woodburn, nor does it impact bypass development. Consider extending transit service along Berlcmar Drive. The concept plan includes a twelve foot reservation for future right-of-way, which will allow VDOT to improve Berkmar Drive with an additional lane or bikelanes, as necessary. Maintain the wooded ridgeline along Berkmar Drive to buffer the residential properties along Woodburn Road. The proposal does include the removal of trees, which is required for any development of this parcel, however, there are no residential properties along this stretch of Woodbum Road which require buffering. Neighborhood Model Staffhas analyzed the parking structure for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model, and finds it generally in comphance, as follows: Pedestrian Orientation The concept plan shows sidewalks from the parking lot to the building and along Berkmar Drive, however, crosswalks should be shown across the entrance and the travelway, which will be required at the Site Plan stage. Neighborhood Friendly Streets Not Applicable. Sidewalks exist on Berkmar Drive along the entire and Paths frontage. Interconnections The proposal includes a new entrance on Berkmar Drive, which will be shared with any future development on the northern portion of the property. Parks and Open The proposal includes an area for a playground around the bu/lding. Space Neighborhood Not Applicable. Centers Bnildings and Elevations have been provided with Attachment B. The building presents as Spaces of Human a residential structure, one-story with a pitched roof, which will blend into Scale the neighborhood. Relegated The daycare use requires a safe play area, behind the building, which forces Parking the parking to the side, rather than the rear. However, the building has a smaller setback than the majority of the parking. Mixture of Uses The site is so small that it is acceptable to propose one use and it adds to the mixture of uses within this transitional area. Mix/}lousing Not Applicable. Types Redevelopment Not Applicable. Site Planning The concept plan shows a lot of grading into the slope to create a that Respects usable play area. Given the fact that the adjacent parcel is right of Terrain way for the Western Bypass, this is an acceptable solution. The remaining slopes should not be more than 3:1 to allow for re- vegetation and stability. Clear Boundaries Not Applicable. w/Rursl Areas Zoning Ordinance Review Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adiacent property? Adjacent property will find little or no effect from this proposed use. The SPCA facility to the south is setback so far from the street such that there is little or no relationship. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district is a mix of residential and commercial and service uses. A daycare facility will not change this character. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? A daycare facility provides a necessary service use to the residents of this area and therefore is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Will the use be in harmony with the uses. permitted by right in the district? A daycare facility is in harmony with the uses permitted by fight, which include mostly residential uses, and compatible service uses. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? Section 5.1.06 requires that each day care center be subject to the following: No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the I/DSS. It shall be the responsibility of the oWner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; and These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the VDSS, FDH, [7SFM, or any other local, state or federal agency. The additional regulations noted above do not need to be addressed as part of the special permit approval. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The special permit request has been review by the members of the Site Review Committee, to ensure the public health, safety and general welfare of the community will be protected. Finally, the Virginia Department of Transportation is recommending approval of the special permit, but they are requiting that the applicant reserve area for a potential additional lane in Berkmar Drive, which is shown on the concept plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff fmds that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive ?lan, and recommends approval of SP 03-49 with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled, Foundations Child Daycare Center, dated September 25, 2003; 2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 125 or the number of students as approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less; 3. VDOT approval of a commercial entrance; 4. The remaining slopes should not be more than 3:1 to allow for re-vegetation and stability; and The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained: 30 ft building and 10 ft parking setback from Berkmar Dr and 15 ft building setback from the southern property line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Maps B - Foundations Child Daycare Center Concept Plan and elevation drawing, dated November 3, 2003. -Id 'ATTACHMENT A Z © ~--ATTACHMENT A ©