Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-11 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 11, 2004 February 12, 2004 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to Order. o Meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members except Mr. Rooker were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Georgina Smith. 4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. · Mr. Robert Hague, a resident of Forest Lakes North, said the lakes in Forest Lakes use to be crystal clear and now they are brown. This was caused by the construction in Hollymead. He asked the Board to put off any other major projects. 5.2 Resolution to accept road(s) in Running Cedar Court Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. ° ADOPTED, the resolution. 5.3. Approval of Department of Fire and Rescue's EMS License Change. · APPROVED the Fire/Rescue Department changing its EMS license from ~Advanced Ufe Support - non- transport~ to "Advanced Life Support - transport". 5.4 Adopt resolution accepting landowners' offer to sell conservation easement under the ACE Program. ADOPTED the resolution, accepting the offer to sell a conservation easement to the County, for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement and AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for this property. SP-2003-07. Gregory R. Gallihugh-Nextel Partners (Sign #59). DEFFERED to the March 17, 2004 Board meeting. SP-03-72. Linda Vest - Alitel (Sign ~7). APPROVED SP-03-72, by a vote of 5:0, subject to the 23 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 7. Public Hearing: Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 2004-2010 and County's Priority List for Road Improvements. ° DEFFERED consideration of the approval of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan until March 3, 2004. · DEFFERED any recommendation to VDOT on the paving of Route 795 until March 3, 2004. 8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda. Sally Thomas · Reminded Board members of a meeting to be held at the Holiday Inn on the next phase of the consultants report on Route 29 North. ASSIGNMENT Clerk: (Attachment 1) Forward signed resolution and SR-SA form to Steve Snell in Engineering. Clerk: (Attachment 2) Forward adopted resolution to Ches Goodall in Planning and County Attorney. County Attorney: Proceed as directed. Clerk: Advertise the public hearing. Clerk: Set out conditions. (Attachment 3) Clerk: Schedule on March 3, 2004 agenda. -Page 1- .4. Adjourn. The meeting was adjoumed at 9:56 p.m. /gas Attachment I - Resolution to accept road(s) in Running Cedar Court Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. Attachment 2 - Resolution accepting landowners' offer to sell conservation easement under the ACE Program. Attachment 3 - Conditions of Approval. -Page2- ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Running Cedar Court Subdivision, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 11, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the read(s) in Running Cedar Court Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 11, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. -Page 3- RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the ACE Program from the owner of the following properties: Tax Map 6, Parcel 15 (Henley Forest, Inc. Property) Tax Map 6, Parcel 17 (Henley Forest, Inc. Property) WHEREAS, owner offered to sell conservation easement on the respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase pdce, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attomey and agreed to by the owner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offer to sell conservation easement described above, and authorizes the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owner of the properties identified herein, or their contact person. -Page 4- ATTACHMENT 3 CONDITIONS SP-03-72. Linda Vest - AIItel (Si.qn #87). Public headng on a request to allow construction of personal wireless fac w/wooden monopole, approx 85 It in total height & 10 ft above height of tallest tree w/in 25 ff. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel antennas & ground equipment, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning. TM 109, P 43C, contains 2.16 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 718 (Murrays Lane), approx I mile N of intersec of Murrays Lane & Rt 29. Samuel Miller Dist. The facility shall be desi,qned, constructed and maintained as follows: 11. 12. 13. 14. W"rth the exception of all 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, "AIItel- Hardware River Site", last revised January 8, 2004 and provided herein as Attachment I. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation; 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 shall not exceed seventy-three (73) feet above the finished ground level contour of seven hundred and ninety-five (795) feet, nor shall it exceed a top height of eight hundred and sixty-eight (868) feet, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL); The wooden monopole shall be a brown wood color that is 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 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 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 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 corn plete 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; Site grading and graveling around the site shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment shelter; All proposed grading and construction shall be held :outside the dripline of trees to remain. Additional methods of tree protection, including but not be limited to tree protection fencing, shall be provided for the trees that are identified as numbers fifty-three (53), fifty-five (55), ninety-seven (97), two hundred and eighty (280), two hundred and eighty-two (282), two hundred and ninety (290), two hundred and ninety-two (292) and seven hundred (700) on the tree survey; and The tree conservation area shall be shown on the construction plans. -Page 5- 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 23. Pdor to the issuance of a buildin.q permit, the followin.q requirements shall be met: 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 tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet that will used to justify the final height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Ad ministrator. 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 road 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 forthe 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 on the subject parcel. 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 pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the followin.q shall be met: 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 one foot above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; and 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: 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; and 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 Attomey. -Page 6- The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 11 th day of February 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Running Cedar Court Subdivision, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 1'1, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivisio..n Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the read(s) in Running Cedar Court Subdivision, as described on the attachedAdditions Form SR-5(A) dated February 11, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street, Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ,.Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Absent: A Copy Teste: Ella W.'~areY, Clerk, cMC'' .... Board of County Supervisors The mad(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Running Cedar Cou.rt (State Route 1038) from the intersection of Route 1033 (Bentivar Drive) to the end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded 05107/2003 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2505, page 734, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 mile. Total Mileage - 0.14 mile. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fire/Rescue's EMS License SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of the Fire/Rescue Department's initiative to move from "Advanced Life Support - Non Transport" to "Advanced Life Support - Transport." STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Eggelston AGENDA DATE: February 11,2004 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: IN FORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At the request of Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Albemarle County Fire/Rescue began staffing Scottsville's station with career personnel beginning October 2003. The career staff provides advanced life support EMS services from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. In addition, the volunteer members of Monticello Fire/Rescue Station have been working with County Fire/Rescue staff to plan for the addition of an ambulance to the Monticello Fire/Rescue Station. STRAGEGIC PLAN: Goal 3.1: Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. Goal 4.1: Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. DISCUSSION: Because the department's career members are trans porting patients via ambulance at Scottsville and with the plan to add an ambulance at the Monticello Fire/Rescue Station, the Virginia Office of EMS (OEMS) has requested that the Fire/Rescue Department revise its EMS license from "Advanced Life Support- non-transport" to "Advanced Life Support- transport" to be in compliance with the OEMS rules and regulations. The Fire/Rescue Department has submitted an application to the OEMS requesting that the Department be re-licensed. Before the re-license request is approved, the OEMS is requiring that the Board of Supervisors first approve the Fire/Rescue Department's to move from "Advanced Life Support- non-transport" to "Advanced Life Support - transport". According to the Virginia Office of EMS (OEMS), moving to an "Advanced Life Support- transport" agency does not obligate the County to any further requirements. The department currently staffs the volunteer ALS ambulances; therefore, no additional equipment is needed. The department also utilizes a regional training process to ensure that all EMS career providers have experience with treating patients in a transport environment. In addition, VML states that our liability insurance policy will cover employees that are involved in EMS transport and that no increase in premiums will occur because of this change. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the board approve the Fire/Rescue Department changing its EMS license from "Advanced Life Support - non-trans port" to "Advanced Life Support - transport". 05-02-04A03:31 RCVD 04.025 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 05-02-04A03:31 RC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ACE Program - Acceptance of Landowners' Offer to Sell a Conservation Easement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt a resolution accepting a landowners' offer to sell a conservation easement STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Kamptner AGENDA DATE: February 11, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes,// .// , REVIEWED BY: ~/ BACKGROUND: / ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a conservation easement to submit a written offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, determined by an appraisal and subject to an adjustment based on adjusted gross income. Said easement is also subject to the terms and conditions contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties. The regulations also require that, if the Board accepts the offer, it must do so in writing and only after an action by the Board authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement. Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority ("PRFA") or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") may be co-holders of the easements. Regulations also require the ACE Committee to recommend which parcels, from an initial pool of applicants, the board should invite to submit offers to sell conservation easements on. In the event a higher ranked applicant(s) drops out of this initial pool, the Committee may slide down the ranking list and substitute another parcel(s) that is lower ranked provided it is still eligible. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character". the County's natural resources". Goal: 2.2 - "Protect and/or preserve DISCUSSION: On January 14th, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved staff's recommendation to waive the existing method (according to the ACE ordinance) of determining income for Henley Forest, Inc., applicant from th a 2002-03 pool. Upon receiving this approval, the County Attorney extended the landowner an "Invitation to th Offer to Sell" a conservation easement to the County. On January 26 , the County received an offer to sell a conservation easement from Henley Forest, Inc. on the following property consisting of two (2) individual tax parcels: Owner Tax Map-Parcel Number Henley Forest, Inc. TM 6, Parcel 15 296.370 acres Henley Forest, Inc. TM 6, Parcel 17 186.630 acres Total 483.000 acres Price Co-holder $237,644 PR FA PRFA RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution accepting the offer to sell a conservation easement to the County, for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement and authorize the County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the property. 04.023 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the ACE Program from the owner of the following properties: Tax Map 6, Parcel 15 (Henley Forest, Inc. Property) Tax Map 6, Parcel 17 (Henley Forest, Inc. Property) WHEREAS, owner offered to sell conservation easement on the respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms 'and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the owner. NOW, THEREFORE BE ~IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offer to sell conservation easement described above, and authorizes: the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to send copies .of this resolution to the owner of the properties identified herein, or their contact person. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of SuPervisors of Albemarle County by vote of five. to zero, as recorded belOw, at a meeting held on February ! !, 2004. "~"'~r ,t~Board of CoUnty Sup4~rviso~'s~ Aye Nay Mr, Bowerman X Mr. Boyd X Mr. Dorrier X Mr. Rooker Absent Ms. Thomas X Mr. Wyant X COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 05-02-04A03:31 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: FEMA Updated Flood Study & Maps SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Inform BOS of the updated FEMA floodplain study and mapping. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham, Kelsey AGENDA DATE: February 11, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X Summary~ BACKGROUND: The FEMA floodplain study & maps, currently being updated, identify areas of"detailed study" where the 100-yr flood elevations have been determined at specific stream cross-sections and delineate the floodplain limits (no elevation) along other reaches or streams within the study area. Currently there are separate studies and map sets for Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the Town of Scottsville. The Albemarle County study was adopted in 1980. It was updated in 1990, but only included changes resulting from the Scottsville levee. Due to significant changes within the "urban ring" (including the City) and increased development in the growth areas, an update to and expansion of our study and maps had been needed for many years. Despite our need, request for updates had been hampered by limited Federal funding for flood studies as well as the competition for that funding. Fortunately the investments made by the County, City and the ACSA in the develo pment of GIS and aerial mapping facilitated the process of updating the flood study and mapping of our community. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2 - Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources. Goal 3 Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens. DISCUSSION: There have been a number of improvements made to the FEMA Study Report and Mapping. A set of the "preliminary" study and maps are available for perusal in the Engineering Department. The most noticeable improvement is that the study and mapping for Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, and Town of Scottsville have been consolidated into one set. Other significant improvements are described below: · Report expands and updates the community description and flood history. · Maps reflect the "Letters of Map Revision" FEMA has issued since 1980. · Maps are based on the topographic mapping provided by the County, City and ACSA and reflect the changes in topography and land development activity since 1980. Map scales were improved. The current ma p scales are 1 inch to 2000 feet. The new map scales are 1" = 500' within the urban ring, Crozet Development Area, and Scottsville. The map scales are 1" = 1000' for the remaining maps, except for the few maps along the edges of the outer perimeter of the County where the scales are 1 in. to 2000 feet. · Current "detailed study" areas were expanded along the Rivanna River and North Fork Rivanna River. New"detailed study" areas were added in the Crozet Development Area (Lickinghole Creek, Powells Creek, Slabtown Branch), in Page 1 of 2 Urban Neighborhood 4 (Cows Branch), and in Hollymead/Piney Mountain Comm unity (Herring Branch, Flat Branch and Tributary to Flat branch). Changes in the elevation and limits of the 100-yr. floodplain, due to the expanded "detailed study", will impact properties along the streams. The Engineering Department has visually compared the "preliminary" maps to the current maps and has summarized the more noticeable changes in the attached summary. The FEMA Regional Office met with Albemarle, Charlottesville and Scottsville staff members (27 January 2004) to outline their process and schedule for finalizing the study. In approximately two months, FEMA will publish two public notices of the study/map update in the local newspaper. This notice wil initiate the ninety (90) day appeal process. Community representatives are encouraged to submit their concerns and comments any time before or during the appeal period. After the appeal period, FEMA will address the appeals received and then proceed with an ordinance review pedod. The targeted "effective date" for the new study/maps is 1 January 2005. RECOMMENDATION: This update is provided for information only. Engineering. Please forward any concerns or comments to Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of 04.020 Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY OF FLOODPLAIN CHANGES 26 JANUARY 2004 THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY OF THE FLOODPLAIN CHANGES BASED UPON A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FEMA STUDY AND MAPS DATED 23 DECEMBER 2003 AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Map 145: Map 228: Map 229: Two existing ponds located east of the US-29 crossing of the North Fork Rivanna River have been removed from the 100-yr floodplain. The Figgy Fire Extinguisher Plant adjacent to the North Fork Rivanna River and US-29 has ben removed from the 100-yr floodplain. At Rivers Edge Road, it appears that additional structures were constructed on the bluff overlooking the North Fork Rivanna River after the 1980 flood mapping. It appears that at least three of these structures may be within the 100-yr floodplain (elev. 386). The North Fork Water Treatment facility located on the west side of US-29 has been removed from the 100-yr floodplain. The existing structure located at 4591 Seminole Trail appears to be within the Herring Branch 100-yr floodplain (elev. 412). As a result of the detailed study along Lickinghole Creek, it appears the existing structures at 1163 Layne Place (adjacent to Jarmans Gap Road) and 1043 Half Mile Branch Road have been removed from the 100-yr floodplain. To reflect the existing topography, the Lickinghole Creek floodplain limits were expanded to the southside of Jarmans Gap Road (across from Blair Park Rd.) and along the southside of Lickinghole Creek near the Jarmens Gap Rd./Half Mile Branch Rd. intersection. In the vicinity of the Killdeer Lane crossing of Lickinghole Creek, the floodplain limits were expanded to reflect the existing topography. As a result of the detailed study, it appears the existing structures at 947 and 972 Haden Lane and 1100 Crozet Avenue have been removed from the Powells Creek 100-yr floodplain. The Powells Creek floodplain limits from a point west of the Crozet Ave./Dunvegan Ln. intersection to the confluence with Lickinghole Creek were expanded to reflect the existing topography. The new- detailed study of Powells Creek removed the approximate floodplain limit from a tributary to Powells Creek that extended under Orchard Drive. As a result, it appears the existing structure at 1205 Orchard Drive has been removed from the Powells Creek 100-yr floodplain. Map 245: As a result of the detailed study, it appears the existing structures at 5019 and 5020 Clearfields Court and 922 Fairwinds Lane have been included in the Lickinghole Creek 100-yr floodplain. This delineation is not consistent with the Lickinghole Creek Dam design/study. Inconsistencies between the stream cross-sections and stream profile that may alter the floodplain elevation through this reach have also been identified. This discrepancy has been forwarded to FEMA for resolution. Map 269: At the confluence of Moores Creek and Biscuit Run the new maps do not reflect the "Letter of Map Revision" issued by FEMA 5 July 2000. This comment has been forwarded to FEMA. Map 278: The new maps specify the elevation and delineate the 100-yr floodplain for the Meadow Creek and Branchlands Channel adjacent to the Millpark, Pebblecreek, Millstone and Rose Arbor developments. However, the delineated floodplain limits do not match the topography. This discrepancy has been forwarded to FEMA for resolution. Map 279: At the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork Rivanna Rivers the floodplain elevation changed from 352 to 356 (4 ft. increase). The backwater from the North Fork Rivanna River (elev. 356) extends up the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with Powell Creek. Map 285: The elevations along Powell Creek were adjusted to reflect the change in the vertical datum referenced (-0.74 ft.). At Profffit Road, the North Fork Rivanna River the floodplain elevation changed from 326 to 328 (2 ft. increase). The existing structure at 2386 Glen Echo Farm is within the current 100-yr floodplain. Since 1980, a new structure has been added to the address and is with/n the current and new floodplain. Map 287: At Free Bridge, the Rivanna River downstream floodplain elevation changed from 335 to 339 (4 ft. increase) and the upstream floodplain elevation remained 340 due the bridge upgrade by VDOT. At the confluence with Meadow Creek, the Rivanna River floodplain elevation changed from 342 to 345 (3 ft. increase). Adjacent to Key West the Rivanna River floodplain increased approximately 4 feet. As a result it appears 1667 Willow Dale Lane, 340 and 342 Key West Drive, and 110 Wendover Lane have been included in the 100-yr floodplain. Map 288: The existing structure at 525 Debenham Court appears to be located in the Cow Branch 100-yr floodplain. The limits of the 1980 mapping did not extend upstream to this location. It appears a portion of US-20 south of Willow Lake will become inundated during a 100-yr flood. Map 289: Map 295: Map 475: Map 450: Upstream of the 1-64 bridge over the Rivanna River the floodplain elevation changed from 324 to 329 (5 ft. increase). At the Rivanna River confluence with Moores Creek, the floodplain elevation changed from 325 to 330 (5 ft. increase). ~, Upstream of the Woolen Mills dam the Rivanna River floodplain elevation changed from 328 to 332 (4 ft. increase). The backwater from the Rivanna River extends up Moores Creek past the Moores Creek Treatment Plant. The floodplain elevation changed from 325 to 330 (5 -ft. increase). The plant remains above the 100-yr floodplain. However, the 500-yr floodplain inundates the treatment ponds and extends into the site. At Riverbend, the Rivanna River floodplain elevation changed from 334 to 337 (4 ft. increase). The unnamed tributary between Stone-Robinson Elementary School and the railroad tracks is removed from the floodplain. The North Milton Road bridge over the Rivanna River was the starting point of the 1980 "detailed study" - floodplain elevation 299 ft. At this location, the new study floodplain elevation is 302 ft. (3 ft. increase). At Luckstone Quarry, the new floodplain elevation of 306 (4 ft. increase) extends the floodplain limits fully into the quarry pit. South of the 64/250 Shadwell interchange the Rivanna River floodplain extends approximately 1000 ft. up the Shadwell Creek and Hickmans Branch, but does not impact either 1-64 or US-250. The structure at the end of Snow Hill Lane appears within Rivanna River floodplain Zone AE. The existing structure at 3361 Carroll Creek Road may be within Rivanna River floodplain Zone AE (flood elev. is 294.5 approx.). FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE I434) 296-5832 30-0~-04P~:79 RCFD TTD (434) 972-4012 January 29,2004 Jeff Dise, L.S. Kirk Hughes and Associates 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 103, Parcel 9 (Property of House and Garden Company, LLC)Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Dise: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 103, Parcel 9 is two separate parcels. Each of these parcels has three (3) development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 103, Parcel 9 contains 12.722 acres and no dwellings. The property is in the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1885, page 443. This analysis begins with a plat made by William S. Roudabush that is dated April 8, 1976 and recorded in Deed Book 605, page 64. The plat shows the division of T.M. 103-9 into Lot 2A, containing 6.579 acres and Lot 2B containing 6.028 acres. The plat also states that a small area containing 0.1159 acres, identified as Parcel a-b-c-d was added to Lots 2A and 2B. It is determined that this plat established Lots 2A and 2B as separate legal parcels. Parcel a-b-c-d is not a separate legal parcel. Rather, it only identifies property owned by Robert Jones that was added to Lots 2A and 2B for the purpose of access to Route 795. The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance, December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 683, page 206, dated September 12, 1979. This deed conveyed five parcels of land from Murl J. Honeycutt and Maxine Flint Honeycutt, a/k/a Maxine R. Honeycutt to' Maxine R. Honeycutt. The tracts that are the subject of this determination are described,~ in part, as those three certain Pots or parcels of land shown on the plat by William Roudabush, as Lot 2A containing 6.579 acres, Lot 2B containing 6.028 acres and a small parcel containing 0.1159 acres. On the basis of I:~DEP'IABCZS~getermin of Parcel~103-9 House & Garden.doc Jeff Dice January 29, 2004 Page 2 this deed, Lot 2A and Lot 2B are each determined to be separate parcels of record as defined in Section 10.3. As stated above, the land containing 0.1159 acres is not a separate parcel of record. Deed Book 967, page 395, dated November 4, 1987, conveyed three lots from Maxine R. Honeycutt to John J. Marquis. The property is described as the same property that was conveyedto the grantor by the deed recorded in Deed Book 683, page 206. This transaction had no effect on the property's status as two separate parcels or on development rights. Deed Book 1041, page 122, dated March 21, 1989, conveyed three lots from John J. Marquis to J.W.K. Properties, Inc. The property is described as the same property that was conveyed to the grantor by the deed recorded in Deed Book 967, page 395~ This transaction had no effect on the property's status as two separate parcels or on development rights. Deed Book 1799, page 605, dated March 18, 1999, conveyed four parcels, including TM 103-9, from J.W.K. Properties, Inc. to House & Garden, LLC. In this deed Parcel 9 is described as four certain lots or parcels; Lot 2A containing 6.579 acres, Lot 2B containing 6.028 acres and two small parcels containing 0.1159 acres in the aggregate. This deed also references Deed book 407, page 155 that contains the conveyance of a strip of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia. That conveyance was not accounted for on the 1976 plat. That conveyance reduces the area of Parcel a-b-c-d. Due to the off conveyance of the strip of land, the property is further described as being a portion of the property conveyed to the grantor by the deed recorded in Deed Book 1041, page 122. This transaction had no effect on the property's status as two separate parcels or on development rights. Deed Book 1885, page 443, dated October 21, 1999, contains a Deed of Correction between J.W.K. Properties, Inc. and House & Garden Company, LLC. Deed Book 1799, page 605 incorrectly identified the Grantee as House & Garden, LLC. This instrument corrects that misnomer. This transaction had no effect on the property's status as two separate parcels or on development rights. These parcels are entitled to the noted'development dghts if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theOretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. I:~DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Pamel\103-9 House & Garden.doc Jeff Dice January 29, 2004 Page 3 If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: House and Garden Company, LLC 3414 Ellerslie Drive Charlottesville, VA 22902 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:~EP'P, BCZS\Determin of Parcel~l.03-9 House & Garden.doc CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE Rauzelle J. Smith, Chair 434 924-4469 (Work) Thomas yon Hemert 434 979-7310 (Work) Janet Warren, Ph.D. 434 924-8305 (Work) Grace Tinsley 434 979-5764 (Home) Juandiego Wade 434 296-5823 January 31, 2004 The Honorable Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Dorrier, I am very pleased to send you a copy of the 2003 annual report from the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Public Defender Office. We are proud of the services we have provided to the community and look forward to another successful year. We feel truly blessed to have the services of Mr. Hingeley and his staff to provide quality legal services to the indigent of this community. We are proud to serve with such committed individuals. We also want to express our sincere thanks to you for your support. Your thoughts and ideas about the work of the Public Defender Office and our Committee are always welcome. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any member of our Committee. Sincerely, 04-02-04P09:26 RCVD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2003 Background At the final meeting for the year December 15, 2002, Nominating Committee Chairperson Grace Tinsley presented a motion that Rauzelle Smith continue to serve as Chair, and Thomas yon Hemert serve as Vice-Chair for 2003. Albie LaFave, Sentencing Advocate in the Public Defender Office, was appointed by James Hingeley, the Public Defender, to serve as Recorder for the Committee. Seven regular meetings and several sub-committee meetings were held during the year, with all meetings having been open to the public. Juandiago Wade, a member of the Albemarle- Charlottesville NAACP, was welcomed as our new appointee from the NAACP. Committee's Activities Committee members have remained committed to making themselves available to members of the community to provide them with information about the services provided by the Public Defender Office. We advocated for the support of "Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act (S. 1091)" via letters to Senators John Warner and George Allen. The Act would provide educational loan forgiveness for prosecutors and public defenders, significantly enhancing our community's ability to recruit and retain qualified attorneys in these important public service positions. The bill was supported by the National Association of Prosecutors. Local Legislators were lobbied for support of HB 1570 for pretrial services and the drug court. At the January 14, 2003 meeting the Committee voted to become a participating member of the Virginia Indigent Defense Coalition (V1DC). The VIDC does not fund direct services, instead focuses on policy reform. Our Committee's inclusion will be documented support of the activities of the Coalition and will to the Coalition's being a community- based citizen group. Members of the Committee worked diligently with the assistance of the Public Defender to inform the local high schools of the celebration of the observance of the fortieth anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. Principals at Monticello High School, Albemarle High School, Western Albemarle High School, Charlottesville High School, St. Anne's Belfield School, The Covenant School and Tandem Friends School were contacted in regards to allowing a presentation to be done in a civic or government class. o At the February 25, 2003 meeting the Committed was informed it had been selected as one of eight programs in the country to participate in a two-year program designed by the Brennan Center for Justice to develop a Community-Oriented Defense Network. (COD) The project requires two members of our Committee to attend these functions over the next two years. Funding for these events have been arranged through a grant. The project has requested that participants develop an objective as to our community- oriented goal. The Committee voted unanimously to participate in the project. The first meeting of the COD was held in Knoxville TN, April 27-28, 2003. Tom von Hermert and Albert Lafave represented the Committee. In Albert's words he reported, "We appeared to be farther along than other programs in terms of making definite decision about the selection of their projects, and that our ambitions seemed relatively high compared to ideas other COD members presented." Various workshops were held for members. The second meeting of the COD was held September 17-20, 2003 in Scottsdale, AZ. Jim Hingeley and Juandiego Wade represented the Committee. A copy of the Committees' article "A Leadership Initiative 2003" was sent to the Arizona Meeting in advance. It was so well received that the Director of the project brought it to her Board to demonstrate how the COD network concept is succeeding. The COD network group was particularly impressed by the partnership between our Office and the legal Aid Justice Center and was very complimentary of our work. The Committee credits Mr. Hingeley for his strong leadership For the second year the work of the Committee has received national recognition by Toby Fey at the Georgetown Law School. All governing documents created by the Committee were entered into a website, thereby making them available to others. Special Guest Attending Meetings Besty Edwards Director of the Virginia Indigent Defense Coalition Alex Gulotta Legal Aid Justice Center (Guest Speaker March 17, 2003) UVA Law Students: Jessica Shapiro (2nd year) Jean Marie Hacker (3rd year) Saijung Lee (2nd year) Scott Commerson (3ra year) Dr. Barbara Haskins, Associate Professor ofNeuropsychiatry (UVA) Psychiatrist, Western State Hospital Reconigation The committee applauds Mr. Hingeley for continued successful operation of the office with limited financial resources, and his participation and leadership in the following organizations. · Attendance at the Virginia State Bar Annual Meeting (June 20, 2003) · Member of the Board of Directors of the Virginia Women Attorneys · Presentation to the American bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent · Participation in the Indigent Defense Study Committee (Virginia State Crime Commission) · Presentations at local schools in the celebration "Commemorating Gideon at 40". Article published in the CHAMPION, The National Association of Criminal defense Lawyers" Gideon Belongs to the Community in Virginia". Prior to Gideon v Wainwright, indigent person accused of crime could be sent to prison without representation by a lawyer. Following the decision issued on March 18, 1963 all accused persons were guaranteed counsel. · Attendance at two Town Hall Meetings sponsored by the Judicial Council of Virginia, an arm of the Supreme Court. · Mr. Hingeley was selected as a member of the "Distinguished Dozen" an honor bestowed upon community leaders for outstanding community service. Issues and Concerns Our Committee remains concerned over the reality: Lower salaries are paid to public defender lawyers versus those paid to lawyers serving in the Commonwealth Attorney's Offices or working in the private sector. We know lower salaries make it difficult to recruit and retain quality staff. In many instances, lawyers trained in the Public Defender office moves on to accept higher-paying positions with Commonwealth Attorneys' Offices and the private sector. Public Defender Offices, offer extensive training to individuals, ultimately losing these individuals to other offices. Budget submissions for years 2003-2004 do not provide funding to address and alleviate these funding disparities. · Virginia Still ranks, "Almost last among the 50 states with regard to fees allowed per charge. · No performance standards administered by an independent authority to determine a lawyer qualification before being appointed by a judge. · Educational debt is a significant barrier for lawyers interested in public service careers. One analysis indicates that members of the law school class of 2000 graduated with an average of $77,000.00 in school loans, with some lawyers making monthly loan payments of $1,000 - $1,500 in 2002, the average public interest legal job paid only $34,000.00. · The current political philosophy to cut funding from relatively costly hospital treatment programs with the rationale of treating the mentally ill in the community. · Only half of the jurisdictions in Virginia have public defender offices, when studies bare out the fact that Public Defender Offices are more cost effective. Future Goals · The Committee embraces the idea of improving minority recruitment. This issue remains a concern to our Committee and Mr. Hingeley. · Continue efforts to explore the development of a Career Defender Program, modeled after the Career Prosecutor Program. Increase awareness of and support for the Public Defender Office and its role in strengthening the Criminal Justice System by offering quality legal service to the indigent and advocating for sentencing alternatives that benefit both the offender and the community. Continue to make available to the public, through public forums and other means, information about public policy issues significantly affecting the welfare and interests of Public Defender clients, continue our support of the Virginia Indigent Defense Coalition and our work with the Brennan Center for Justice. · Explore the quality and quantity of client support services in our community with a view towards improving services and/or advocating for additional services where appropriate. · Continue participation with the Virginia Indigent Defense Coalition (VIDC) and Community-Oriented Defense Network (COD). Approved: Citizens Advisory Committee Rauzelle J. Smith, Chair January 31, 2004 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmcqt of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 3 0 - 0 ] - 0 4 P 0 8: 2 0 RCVD January 28, 2004 M. E. Gibson, Jr. Tremblay & Smith, LLP PO Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-03-72 Linda Vest -AIItel (Sign #87); Tax Map 109, Parcel 43C Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 20, 2004, 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 desi,qned, constructed and maintained as follows: 3. 4. 5. With the exception of all 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, "AIItel- Hardware River Site", last revised January 8, 2004 and provided herein as Attachment I~ The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre- ' existing, natural ground elevation. 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 shall not exceed 73 feet above the finished ground level contour of 795 feet. nor shall it exceed a top height of 868 feet, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), The wooden monopole shall be a brown wood color that is 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 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 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. Page 2 January 28, 2004 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Site grading and graveling around the site shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment.shelter. All proposed grading and construction shall be held outside the dripline of trees to remain. Additional methods of tree protection, including but not be limited to tree protection fencing, shall be provided for the trees that are identified as numbers 53, 55, 97, 280, 282, 290, 292 and 700 on the tree survey. The tree conservation area shall be shown on the construction plans. Prior to the ~ssuance of a buildin,q permit, the following requirements shall be met: 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 tallest tree within 25 feet that will used to justify the final 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 road 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 on the subject parcel. 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 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. or to any facility operation, the followin.q shall be met: 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 one foot above the monopole; and. I~) 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: 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 Page 3 January 28, 2004 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 February 11, 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 McCultey Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Linda M Vest COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 03-072 VEST, LINDA (ALLTEL) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include a metal monopole, approximately 73 feet in total height, with a top elevation of approximately 868 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment I). The monopole would be equipped with one antenna array consisting of three 6-foot long by 1-foot wide, flush-mounted panel antennas at its top. Supporting ground equipment would be contained within two 5-foot tall cabinets on an approximately 100 square-foot concrete pad and a smaller cabinet on a 5 square-foot concrete pad. STAFF CONTACT(S'}: Stephen Waller AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission: January 20, 2004 Board of Supervisors: February 11, 2004 ITEM NUMBER: SP 03-072 INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: 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 the approval of a special use permit that would allow the installation of a Tier II 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 in the Rural Areas. The 1000 square-foot lease area for this proposed facility is located on property, described as Tax Map 109 - Parcel 43C, containing 2.16 acres. This parcel is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of State Route 718 (Murrays Lane), approximately 1-mile north of the intersection with U.S. Route 29. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission first reviewed this proposal with staff's recommendation for denial at its meeting on December 2, 2003. At that time, the Commission voted to accept the applicant's request for deferral pending revisions to the construction plans to address staffs concerns both with the proposed amount of grading and disturbance and visual impacts that were anticipated based on the original balloon test that was carried out. Additionally, staff noted that and there were no trees within 25 feet of the proposed monopole location monopole. The purpose of this executive summary is to provide an analysis of the new information that has been submitted to amend the original special use permit request application. In order to provide additional background information for comparing this revised request with the one that was previously presented, the original staff report is included with this executive summary. The original application proposed the construction of a facility with an 85-foot tall monopole that would be approximately 879 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), and an extensive amount of grading and disturbance was being proposed in close proximity to several of the trees that were identified to remain. Furthermore, the owner of one adjacent parcel had also expressed concerns w/th the possible impacts of the facility upon nearby properties that are held in conservation easements and another owner took issue with the 85-foot tall monopole because its "fall-zone" would have extended onto her property. Petition: The applicant, ALLTEL, has attempted to address the concerns that were significant in staff's recommendation for denial and the Planning Commission's review of the original petition. According to the revised construction plans, the proposed 73-foot tall monopole for this facility would now be 11 feet shorter in height, as measured AMSL, than the 85-foot one that was originally proposed. The revised facility design also replaces the originally proposed 184 square foot ground equipment shelter with two 5.5-foot tall by 4.5-foot wide cabinets on a 100 square-foot concrete pad (Attachment 1). Additionally, the revised plans significantly reduce the proposed amount of site grading and eliminate the need for a fall-zone easement on the adjacent parcel identified as Tax Map 109- Parcel 12. Character of the Area: The subject parcel is surrounded by properties of various sizes that are all zoned Rural Areas. This site shares its northern and southern boundaries with three properties that are similar to it in size. A much larger adjacent parcel that is located to the west (Tax Map 98 - Parcel 15A), on the opposite side of Murrays Lane, is currently held in an easement by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreational Facilities Authority, and some other nearby properties are also held in easements. The proposed site of the facility is in a wooded area, on the side of Cook Mountain, which peaks at 1024 feet AMSL in this area. The nearest dwelling that is not located on the subject parcel is feet 101 south of the proposed monopole location, on property identified as Tax Map 109 - Parcel 43C1, and the proposed site of the monopole is located approximately 73 feet from that boundary line. The facility would be accessed by a proposed 12-foot wide gravel service road extending north from the existing driveway easement that serves the dwelling on the subject property and another on the adjacent parcel to the south. Staff notes that due to the grading of the revised plan, the location of the proposed monopole would have a base elevation of 795 feet AMSL. In order reduce the amount of grading necessary for this site, a retaining wall is also proposed just east of the monopole. The monopole would actually be 5 feet shorter than the tallest tree within 25 feet, a 68-foot Tall Maple (873.2 AMSL), identified as number 262 on the applicant's tree survey and situated uphill from the site. Furthermore, there is a 77.7-foot tall Pine tree identified as number 266 on the tree survey located approximately 27 feet away from the proposed monopole. During a second field visit for the revised plan, staff observed that a balloon floated at the height of the proposed monopole was no longer skylighted above the tree line from Murrays Lane, a matter that had contributed to staff' s concerns for visual impacts (Attachment II). Instead, the balloon could now be seen within the trees situated between the facility and the road and was still visible from various nearby points on U.S. Route 29 well below the ridgeline with substantial backdrop provided by vegetation on the mountain. Due to the presence of vegetation on nearby properties the outside of balloon could not be seen from portions of Mm-rays Lane farther to the north and south of the site. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the relevant amendments to this special use permit request as follows: Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy; Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(IO of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 1. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy identifies conservation easements and Agricultural- Forestal Districts as Avoidance Areas. Avoidance Areas are defined as locations where visible personal wireless facilities should not be located, but are also not prohibited under certain conditions. Staff recognizes that there have been other sites throughout the county where facilities have been approved on properties that are adjacent to conservation easements and/or Agricultural-Forestal Districts. Although the proposed facility site is not located within an easement, staff observed the balloon test from a portion of the Wingspread Farm conservation easement after concerns over possible impacts were brought forth by its owner (Attachment 110. Staff has provided photos from a pasture on that property located adjacent to the southbound lane ofU. S Route 29, which identified as Tax Map 98 - Parcel 15A. From this point the balloon was visible well below the ridgeline of Cook Mountain from a pasture and surrounded by several trees that are similar to its proposed height. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that a brown monopole at this site would blend in with the natural surroundings to an extent that mitigates the visual impacts upon that particular easement. 2. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property_, The nearest dwelling to this site is on the property identified as Tax Map 109 - Parcel 43C1, approximately 106 feet south of the location for the proposed monopole. Based on the observation ora balloon test, which was visible amongst the trees, it is staff's opinion that the top of the monopole now be well screened from nearby points on Murrays Lane, as opposed to the test original proposal. This is a result of the reduction in the proposed height of the monopole and shifting of its location closer to the trees that are similar to its height. However, staff recognizes that the portions of the standard 200-foot tree conservation area would still extend onto adjacent parcels. Therefore, staff has included a recommended condition that would require the applicant to obtain tree conservation easements on those properties. With consideration for the above-cited factors, staff finds that the proposed facility would not impose any additional detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The practice of locating personal wireless service facilities in the Rural Areas zoning district is not uncommon in situations where they can be designed to blend into the natural surroundings or attached to existing structures. By virtue of their design and siting, Tier 11 facilities are anticipated to have limited visual impacts upon the surrounding areas. The monopole serving the proposed facility would have sufficient backdrop when viewed from a distance within the U.S. 29 right-of-way and property located on the west side of the road. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted revised plans that significantly limit the amount of disturbance from that which was originally proposed. Therefore, it is not anticipated that approval of this revised proposal with all of the applicable conditions would not result in changing the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reevaluated this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment), which in pan states, 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..." Due to the changes that have made since this request was originally reviewed and presented to the Planning Commission, and based on the observation of the most recent balloon test, it is staff's opinion that the current proposal for this special use permit could be established in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed facility would not restrict any of the by-right uses that are allowed on other properties within the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safeW and general welfare. The Zoning 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". The applicant had submitted a draft copy of a document creating a fall zone easement on part of the adjacent property to the south, and that would have had to be executed and recorded if the original request had been approved. However, because the height of the proposed monopole has been reduced and its location moved farther north, the issues regarding the monopole's fall-zone have been resolved. Therefore, staff has recognized no additional conflicts with the regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the ordinance that pertain to personal wireless service facilities. 4. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 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 4 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 in any district. 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: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 2. 3. 4. 5. The facility would not restrict any of the permitted and uses on adjacent properties; The facility would have a substantial amount of backdrop when viewed from the Entrance Corridor of U.S. Route 29; The facility would have a substantial amount of backdrop when viewed from the adjacent property that is located to the west and held in a conservation easement; Observation of the balloon test indicates that the proposed monopole would no longer be skylighted at its newly proposed height and location; and, The plans have been revised to significantly reduce the amount of disturbance and grading that is being proposed in close proximity to the trees that are identified to remain. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: An adjacent property and several nearby parcels are held within conservation easements, which are considered by the Wireless Policy to be Avoidance Areas; The 200-foot tree conservation area that would be required by the standard conditions to surround this facility extends beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel; and, The applicant has identified a tree that is actually taller, as measured above mean seal level, than the height of the proposed monopole. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the review of the revised construction plans and observation of a balloon test, the applicant has amended the request for this facility to an extent that mitigates the most significant concerns for visual impacts that originally prompted staff's recommendation for denial. Furthermore, it is staff' s opinion that the additional concerns regarding the amotmt of disturbance in relationship to the trees that will remain at this site could be addressed with additions to the standard conditions. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 3. 4. 5. o 11. 12. 13. With the exception of all 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- Hardware River Site", last revised January 8, 2004 and provided herein as Attachment I. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation. 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 shall not exceed 73 feet above the finished ground level contour of 795 feet, nor shall it exceed a top height of 868 feet, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), The metal monopole shall be painted a brown wood color that is 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 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 .andtwelve (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 t° periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane nmning 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. Site grading and graveling around the site shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment shelter. All proposed grading and construction shall be held outside the dripline of trees to remain. Additional methods of tree protection, including but not be limited to tree protection fencing, shall be provided for the trees that are identified as numbers 53, 55, 97, 280, 282, 290, 292 and 700 on the tree survey. The 200-foot radius for the tree conservation area shall be shown on the construction plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 15. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package. 6 16. 17. 18. 19. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet that will used to justify the final 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 road 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 facihty. 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 apphcant shall obtain easements upon the portions of all adjacent parcels that lie within the area designated as the 200-foot radius tree conservation area that is required around the 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: 20. 21. 22. 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 confmuing that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed one foot above the monopole; 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: 23. 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 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. I/the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall fttmish 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: I- Construction Plans, Revised January 8, 2004 1/- Balloon Test Photos for Revised Proposal Ill - Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Original Staff Report 8 CY , JRACY --E£T± llCAL TOWER (NAVD TAKE 1-64 E EXIT 118 ROAD). MILES. LANE). "E IS AT ; LANE RGINIA 22931 AC) BY BVC BVC B'VC SIGNATURES J_ n PROJECT NAM:E: HARDWARE RIVER SITE (VEST PROPERTY) , ¢_._'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'%~_,,:;.~, ! .. .?',~ ~,,;-, _./ /' '~ ~ ~, ~-I I ~ ' ~ ~.~ ,' q '*. · V / .x-- ~ ,,: . .... L,b; ................................ ::z-~Z :7. ...................... VICINI~ NAP 1"=2000~ COPYRIGHT ADC EqE MAP PEOPLE PERMIT~D USE NO. 2039~59 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA APPLICANT / ALLTEL: DATE: AUGUST 19, 2003 TAX MAP #' 109-43C CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: DATE:,_. LESSOR: DATE: DATE: SHEET INDEX NO,' TIMMONS GROUP T1 COVER SHEET ci LOCATION MAP C2 SURV~ ' 'C3 SITE LAYOUT C4 GRADING PLAN C5 EROSION CONTROL PLAN EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAJ;LS ' " C6 ~7 TREE SURVEY ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: HARDWARE RIVER · SITE 5469 HURRAYS LANE COVESVILLE, VIRGINIA COVER SHEET TIMMONS GRouP "" '~iteOevelopment J R~sidential I, Infrastructure J Technology VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRJ(NCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.541.6600 FAX 804,751.0798 www.timmons.com DATE:8-19-03 SCALE: NONE CHECKED BY: D. JOHNSON E£E99 'ON I :AB a3>ID3HD 12) '~] :AS NMV'dO E0~6I-8 099'I~S'~08 ~lsSO~D 09Zt, )i, Ii41.L ~Oq VH O3fOMd -"'--007- 6~ ~Jno~ 's'6- 1333 NI 39VOS 00~ 001~ ,,. ~OPOSED LEASE AREA kTION ON 7--14-200.3. ~G. 126 IRE COMPILED · _'TE 80UNDARY SURVEY. :MENTS & RESTRICllONS ~EPARED WITHOUT THE )lace or parcel of land )emode County, Virginia and 's; commencing at o point approximately 2,100 feet Rte. 29, said point being West a distance of 25.20 E POINT AND PLACE OF f way of S.R. 718 North 17 ~tance of 15.76 feet to the :enterline of a proposed 20 mg said centerline the East a distance of East a distance of East a distance of 84.36 East a distance of ¢7.04 East a distance of 39.17 ~roposed AIItel lease area; 'ees 03 minutes 59 point, said point being thence, (]long said lease East a distance of East a distance of West a distance of West a distance of -- OF BEGINNING and cres of land mare or 0 100 SCALE IN FEET N/F MICHAEL R, NELSON, SR. T.M, 109-430 D.D. 1030, PG 307 D.B. 559, PG 121 (PLAT) T.M. 109-4.3a N/F ROBERT E. JETT D.D. 2481, PG ROD FD. 2O0 i/ ~o~ ,/,-~.~¢~9" ~ '.~'~=. ~0.3 _~,~?~ ROD PROPOSED ,~o~ ' gl- N/F ~oo'~,oo' /~ ' ~ . c. L ~ST ' ALL~L ~ ~d' ~[~ T.M. 109-~C1 LEASE AREA ~ ~s~ ~'1~ D D'-1149, PG 416 "~ ~/ . i~ ' ~.~5 ACRES ' ~, ~~ ~. . 1 STORY FRAME , ~5'46'55" E '~ FD. PROPOSED 20' ~ACCESS ~ UTILITY ,~ o EASEMENT N/F · NELLIE GREEN ~ ~ T.M. 109-43B c~ j/ ~ ~ EXISTING 30' EXISTING ii EXISTING 1-STORY ~ TRAILER FRAME tJ 14-*.74'--.].~ 17'37'4.3" 15.76J MURRAYS LANE ,,, S.R. 718 VARIABLE WIDTH R/W ' - - LINE TABLE . LNE ] DIRECTION DISTANCE~ L1 S_6. 6'20'59"E.. 84.36' s59'oo 4 E L3 N50'59'16"E 39.17' L4 N~.3'O.3'59"W. 26:99' . L5 N46'56'Ol"E 100.00' L6 S45'03'59"E 100.00' L7 S46 56 01 W t00.00 I L8 N43'O3'5.g."W 100.00' _ AU_TEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUTTE' 100 ) VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: :' HARDWARE RIVER SITE - 5469 MURRAYS LANE COVESVlLLF, VIRGINIA SURVEY Site Development _ J Residential ] Znfrastructure YO~JR VISION ACH]lEVCO THROUGH OURS, · VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA r- THIS I~RAWING PREPARED AT TIlE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J PdnceGeorge, VA 23875 TEL 804.541 6600 Ft~O( 804.751.0798 www.timmons.com DATE: 8-19-03 SCALE: 1"--100' DRAWN BY: .... B. cRuTcHFIELD ' '. C2 CHECKED BY: D. JOHNSON , , ..... 'ON ii(.) [ 3 :AG Q::I~DqHD, U~"t] :AG £0-6'i:-8::HVC] 099'~S'~08 qssoJD 09Z~ d SIH± I ¥INIgBIA )idldiJ. [S IYH Ozl[O~id SS3DO~ ,0~ i ! ! S33~J O3QOV ~,0-£-I SNOISIA3B XJNAOO so-gl-El SNOIS]A3N ,LLNAOO £0-I-El NOSY~ ~J. VO SNOISIA3~ 133J NI 39¥0S 01~ OZ 0 I ' S3NDY 91 '~ / £~l Od 'l~l 9l~ Od '6¢'ll '(2;0 10£¢'-60 l 'IN't 0 I 7IVl3O OVd £J3~DNOD ('l'lkl:4::)v8 b, Et ~, '.t'~'~ o'r_~ ~ oT~-~/ta t eVlS 'ONOO ')tm j,--J ?IVJ..~(~ 73A VHO 3J, IE --- >; 3N0i$ O3HSn,o ON:iD:lq HDIVH ~oo~ 4 -..78-9:00 £G 790.00 SG 790.00 EG 790.00 DIT "4: LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT GRADE PROPOSED EDGE OF GRAVEL GRADEI PROPOSED DITCH GRADE EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET 304 I -STORM SE~R SCHEDULE --. "D/I:' // ' EG .--- ',,.....~,.,- 7..,..',/./ :,55...i//" ·/,..,..../ /,:/i"'"":/ / '~ -- . . !"/1~INV.I": /~ 24.00LFiN=776.60,OF 12" CL.iiVV. IIIouT=OOIVO.772.38P/PE -: %,5.,,,'. : -.. ,:-..:,:'../.,?/-: ALLTEL CONNUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 V[RG[N[A BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: .HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 HURRAYS LANE COVESVILLE, VIRGINIA GRADING PLAN TIMMON$ GROUP.*-'".'-. ~i Site Development I Residential I Infrastructure YOUR VISION ACHIEVED "i~IROUGH OUI~S VIRGINIA I NORTH CARO~NA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.541.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www ~ mmons D~WN BY: B.CRUTCHFIE~ -k----~~ ' ' : ,-~ ' C.~C~D .Y: O. ,O.,SO" ~f IVH _D::i ['O~ld )UIA o¢ o~ o 9l# ~d '6-i'11 t0£#-601 't4/2 i $ ~A "7 '.2 N011021 O~td 2291 NOIlO210gd J..~TNI I ~.~A 700 2ONV>-/I N._:/ NOliDf~ISNOO 2ON.~.=I i 71£ =X '"---X ~X= {~ "IO~_LN09 NOISOYB . g£'£ gO °£ 0~'£ ~0 '£ go '£ S22~1 O20OV ~0-£-~: SNOIS~2g AINDOD £O-gt-~/I £NOI£~2gAINDO9 £O-/-ZZI NOS¥~ SNOISIAq ! S._,u~/,2V 9l '~' )F EVENTS E-CONS TRUC ITON MEET/NO "0 BEGINNING 'PERIMETER ElL T FENCE STRAW MULCH AOOORDING ~D BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF EL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.. PRO TEC TION. )SSIBLE AND MULCH ALL HALL BE PERFORMED TO 'ROPER DES. ~' REMOVED UNTIL AN OBTAINED. OL MEASURES SHOWN ON ), MAINTAINED, AND T CURRENT EDITION OF !T CONTROL HANDBOOK~ ~IS RELATIVE TECTED TREES ,., 1976 Pl~fe 5.58-1 ~ECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. SHOULD BE REVIEWED W~TH THE =ROJECT. IPMENT. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. INCLUDING TOPSOIL) SHALL NOT [TO BE RETAINED. TREES BEING LED INTO TREES BEING RETAINED.I ~.RT OF THEIR EQUIPMENT BY BE RETAINED. ~ FEET FROM THE DRIP UNE OF ) IN SIZE TO PREVENT ADVERSE TOXIC MATERIAL SHALL BE F' ANY TREES TO BE RETAINED. ALS FUELS AND LUBRCANTS ;0 INJURE VEGETATION. EROS/ON CONTROL NARRAllVF THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD, GRAVEL LEASE AREA, AND THE INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT CABINETS. APPROXIMATELY 0.07 ACRES OF.LAND DISTURBANCE WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCI70N OF THIS SITE THE LAND DISTURBANCE Wl/LL INCLUDE CLEARING AND GRADING ACI7VITIES. THE SITE SLOPES FROM EAST TO WEST AT AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF 18~,. AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ONTO S:R. 718 WILL BE UTILIZED TO ACCESS THIS SITE. EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS WILL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE IN PLACE PR/OR SITE CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. ALL UNGRAVELLED AREAS ARE TO BE SEEDED ACCORDING TO STATE REGULATION', WITHIN SEVEN (7.) DAYS AFTER ROUGN GRADING OPERA TIONS ARE COMPLETED. PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND CULVERT INLET PROTECTION WILL SERVE AS THE PR/MARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES DURING THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. · TOE OF Fill -~ ir ENDWALL t I · CUL VEt~ T  L TOE OF FlU. $1L T FENCE J ElL T FENCE CULVERT INLET PROTEC770N ~ NO SCALE ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO STAKES OR' POSTS &: EXTEND IT INTO TREN, STAKE OR STEEL POST LENGTH = 5' MIN. EXCAVATED SOIL BACKF1LLED AND COMPACTED I 4"x4" TRENCH--/ SILT FENCE (WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT) NO SCALE SOURCE: \dRGINIA EROS~ON AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, 1995. 3RD ED. PLATE: 3 05-Z EX S'flNG --, /-- EXIS'II~N6 GROUND PAVEMENT ~, / i~ 7°..,.. I ~ / r I ~ RL~ CLO~ NO~: ~N~ACT~ ~ K~ ~IS~N~ E~VA~ON ROADS ~ ~ S~L BUI~-UP AT ~ ~MES. A ~OT, COO.~ ~ ~ * MUST ~D ~ ~m I J .~ ~ IN.SS ~D E~E~ J PLAN VIEW I 12~ ,IN. _J SEC~ON A--A NO SOURCE: VIRGINIA EROS:ON AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. ,3RD ~'D. 19g,3 PLATE 3,02- f CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP EXIS11NG ROADS FREE OF SOIL BUILD-UP AT AU. TIMES. REVISIONS DATE~J REASON 12-15-05J COUNTY REV/S/ONE t ALLTEL CONMUNECATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET S U]-I'E 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PRO.].E~ NAME: HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 MURRAYS LANE COVESViLLE, VIRGINIA EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS TIMMONS GROUP;-'"o'.. Site Development I Residential ]:nfrastructure I Technology ~_~ ¥OgR VISION ACHIEVED TttROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPAEED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE TEL 804.541,6600 FAX 804.751,0798 www.timmons.com DATE:8-19-03 SCA~: NONE BY:B. CRUTCHFIELD CHECKED BY: D. JOHNSON ~:/.~99 'ON gO[ J/ _..~;g EO~ld )NIA % 1~0~c~~6 9~' dd / / SgBEi OBOOV J hO-E-/ £NOI£1A~E AiNRO0 I £O-l-El NOSVg~ glva SNOISIA21~ 133J NI 3"1V3S INOTE: THE STRUCTURE SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC IN NATURE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL coORDINATE WITH THE CM FOR ANTENNA MOUNTS AND COAXIAL CABLE SUPPORT MEANS. OF UONOPOLE=868.0 AMSL ,,C/L PE~OSa) AU.TEL ~rlENNAS O 69.0' A.G.L. FU'fURE CARRIER ANTE]~INAS 0 59,0' A.G.L PROPOSED 73' WOOD MONOPOLE~ LOW VISIBILITY MOUNTED -- PANEL ANTE. NNAS (6) (PAINTE) BROWN) TOWER TO BE BROWN IN COLOR1 ALLTEL EQUIP. CABINETS PAINTED BROWN) 5.5' TOWER DIMENSION /--AT BASE=30,5' DIA. / IU LEN~ = ~4.7- ~DTH = 8.1' DI~3H = 5.7' 1" ^NI~INA TYPICAL {1 PE~ SECTOR) ELEVATION VERT. SCA(l:': 1"=15' REVISIONS DATE I REASON 12-1- OJ COUNTY REVISIONS 12-15-05 COUNTY REVISIONS ALLTEL COMMUNiCATiONS 4'525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGiNTA BEACH, VA. 23462 PRO3ECT NAME: HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 MURRAYS LANE COVESVILLE~ VIRGINIA TOWER. ELEVATION TIMMON$ GROUP --,'i;% Site Development I Residential I InfrastruCture I Technology ~OUR wsm~ ,~cme,~o TH~OU~ ou~s. VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROLiNA t WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PR~NCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.54~.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www.timmons.com DATE:8-19-03 SCALE: AS sHOwN J ...... DRAWN BY:B. ,CRUTCHFtELD CHECKED BY: D..]OHNSON .. ATTACHMENT r~ {' ATTACHMENT III ~r-d 2,1 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP DECEMBER 2, 2003 JANUARY 14, 2004 SP 03-072 VEST~ LINDA (ALLTEL) 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 of approximately 879 feet Above Mean Sea Level (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 would be contained within a 184 square- foot shelter. The 1000 square-foot lease area for this proposed facility is located on property, described as Tax Map 109 - Parcel 43C, containing 2.16 acres. This parcel is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of State Route 718 (Murrays Lane), approximately 1-mile north of the intersection with U.S. Route 29 (Attachment B). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas 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 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 Planning and Zoning History,: There is no previous planning or zoning history on record for this property. Character of the Area: The subject parcel is surrounded by properties of various sizes that are all zoned Rural Areas. This site shares its northern and southern boundaries with three properties that are similar to it in size. A much larger adjacent parcel that is located to the west (Tax Map 98 - Parcel 15A),and on the opposite side of Murrays Lane, is currently held in an easement by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreational Facilities Authority and other nearby properties located to north and east are held in Piedmont Environmental Council easements. The proposed site of the facility is in a wooded area, on the side of Cook Mountain, which peaks at 1024 feet AMSL in this area. The nearest dwelling that is not located on the subject parcel is feet 101 south of the proposed monopole location, on property identified as Tax Map 109 - Parcel 43C1, and the proposed site of the monopole is located approximately 74 feet from that boundary line. The facility would be accessed by a proposed 12-foot wide gravel service road that would extend northeast from the existing driveway easement that serves the dwellings on the subject parcel and an adjacent parcel to the South. Staffnotes that although the applicant's request indicates that the monopole would be 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, the most significantly sized trees site are situated uphill from the site beyond 25 feet in distance. Furthermore, the 77.7-foot tall Pine tree (number 266) that is identified on the tree survey as justification for the proposed monopole height scales at more than 50 feet away from the proposed monopole location. The location of the proposed monopole currently has a base elevation of 791 feet AMSL, and the proposed fmished ground elevation of 794 feet AMSL, indicating a 3-foot total increase in grade. The construction plans also show graveling of the entire area located within proposed fence and an extensive amount of grading around it and the road. During a field visit, staff observed that a balloon floated at the height of the proposed monopole was skylighted above the tree line from Murrays Lane in front of the subject parcel (Attachment C). The balloon could be seen below the ridge line with backdrop provided by the mountain from static points on Route 29. Due to the presence of vegetation on nearby properties the outside of balloon could not be seen from portions of Murrays Lane farther to the north and south of the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that are mainly focused on the impacts that could result from the construction and presence of the facility's service road extension, monopole and ground-based equipment in the proposed location. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides specific guidelines for the siting and review of 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 defines "Avoidance Areas" as areas that have significant resources and those that would be unwise for the siting of wireless facilities. Mountains, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Historic Districts and Conservation Easements are all considered to be Avoidance Areas. Except when strategically sited and designed to substantially minimize their visibility and mitigate their impacts upon the natural landscape, these facilities should not be located within or adjacent to Avoidance Areas. The site proposed for this facility is adjacent to one property that is held in a conservation easement and in close proximity to another area within an easement. Staff analysis is focused mainly on the visual impacts that the proposed facility could have upon the surrounding properties and roadways. In order to address these concerns for visual impacts, the Wireless Policy recommends the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to establish the criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The fn'st 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 to an acceptable extent. 2 27 When siting personal wireless service 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 tops oftreelines. Therefore, 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 within cabinets and buildings that are painted brown. Although the applicant's request states that this proposal has submitted in accordance with the criteria for Tier Two facilities, staffhas determined that the plan shows no trees within 25 feet of the completed facility that have heights that are within 10 feet of the proposed monopole's top elevation above sea level. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that approval of this application, as currently proposed, would be inconsistent with the policies and guidelines that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities. 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 Entrance Corridor Overlay district for Route 29, and is 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 Zoning Ordinance states that the Entrance Corridor Overlay District intended intended, 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 (Attachment D). 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 with the natural surroundings. The construction plans for this facility propose gravel within the fenced confines and a substantial amount of grading through the lease area. While observing the balloon test for this proposal, staffwas able to determine that a large portion of the monopole for this facility would be visible above the trees when viewed from Murrays Lane. Part IV of the Open Space Plan, entitled Protection Techniques, suggests several of the mechanisms that can be used to protect open space resources; this includes, but is not limited to, the implementation of conservation or open space easements, and Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The adjacent property located directly to the east of this site (Tax Map 98 - Parcel 15A), and several other nearby properties are currently held in conservation easements, dedicated to the Parks and Recreational Facilities Authority and Piedmenont Environmental Council, 3 28 respectively. Staffhas included a copy of a letter from that owner of that adjacent parcel and maps showing the locations of nearby the conservation easements as Attachment E. Although the County of Albemarle is not a party to this easements, staffrecognizes that the owners of these properties have voluntarily agreed to incorporate various provisions that are set by the parties holding the easements, including restrictions on certain levels of development that can be undertaken. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this proposal for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. 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 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 fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_, The nearest dwelling to this site is on the property identified as Tax Map 109 - Parcel 43C1, approximately 101 feet south of the site of the proposed monopole location. The site of this facility is centrally located on an incline within a wooded area. Based on the observation of a balloon test, staff finds that the monopole serving the proposed facility would have sufficient backdrop when viewed from a distance within the U.S. 29 right-of-way. On the other hand, the monopole would be visible from nearby points on Murrays Lane above the trees that surround the site. This is a result of the fact that the trees located in front of the proposed facility have top elevations that are much shorter than that of the proposed monopole. Although there are some trees behind the proposed site that would be tall enough to provide backdrop from distant points of view, the facilities would be skylighted from at least one nearby location in front of the site. With consideration for the visual impacts resulting from the difference in the heights of the monopole and the trees, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility could be detrimental to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Approval for locating facilities that comply with the Wireless Pohcy in the Rural Areas zoning district is not uncommon. There are several nearby properties within this area that have been voluntarily placed in conservation easements for the purpose of preserving the rural characteristics of the district. Staff recognizes that one of those properties is adjacent to the subject parcel and the wooded area serving as the site of the proposed facility extends east into another. Staffhas not determined the level of visibility or assessed the extent of any possible 4 29 impacts that would be imposed upon the adjacent and nearby properties in conservation easements. The key purpose of the County's Wireless Policy is to site tower facilities in locations where there is minimal potential for intrusion upon the naturally existing conditions in surrounding areas. This facility would be located within a wooded area and accessed by extending an existing private driveway, both of which have be favored approaches in the County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they have limited visual and environmental impacts. However, in this case, staff recognizes that the amount of grading proposed within the fenced site for this facility and its access road would result in the cleating of a large area and likely the additional disturbance of some peripheral trees that would otherwise be relied upon for the screening and camouflaging (Attachment F). This concern is compounded by the fact that several of the trees on the side of the mountain behind the facility are located in outlying areas on adjacent parcels and out of the control of the subject parcel's owner. Therefore, with consideration for the environmental and visual impacts 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 estabhshment of wireless service facilities expands the availability of communications opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. In the event of emergencies, increased opportunities for access to personal wireless communications are clearly 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 add to the attractiveness of the community. Section 1.5 (Relationto 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 an extensive amount of conflict with the agricultural and forestal objectives that have been set forth for the Rural Areas. Due to the amount of disturbance that is being proposed with this request, it is staff's opinion that a large area around the facility that would be lacking vegetation, creating the appearance ora void in the wooded area on the side of the mountain. Furthermore, there is already a note deficiency of trees that would be tall enough to prevent skylighting of the facility when viewed from a nearby point on Murrays Lane. 3O 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 attempted to address concerns for the possible negative environmental and visual impacts that this request could have 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". The applicant has already submitted a draft copy of a document creating a fall zone easement on part of the adjacent property to the south, and it would have to be executed and recorded if this request is approved. 2. Section 704(a)(7)~)(I)i(I!) 0fTheTe!ecommunications 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 in any district. 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: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: o The facility would not restrict any of the permitted and uses on adjacent properties; The facility would have a substantial mount of backdrop when viewed from the Entrance Corridor of U.S. Route 29; and, The applicant has already began the process of obtaining a fall zone easement on an adjacent parcel. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: An adjacent property and several nearby parcels are held within conservation easements, which are considered by the Wireless Policy to be Avoidance Areas; and, The standard 200-foot tree conservation area that would be required to surround this facility extends beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel. Staffhas identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: o None of the trees shown on the construction plans are within 25 feet of the site of the proposed monopole; Observation of the balloon test indicates that the proposed monopole would be skylighted when viewed from points on Murrays Lane at least 10 feet taller than the one serving the existing facility on the subject parcel; and, The construction plans for the facility propose an extensive amount of clearing and grading that would be in close proximity to trees that are identified for preservation; RECOMMENDED ACTION: Although the applicant's request states that the proposed facility has been submitted in compliance with the criteria that is set Tier II personal wireless service facilities, the plans for this proposal do support that not statement. In any case, the wireless policy does not establish that simply complying with the Tier 1I criteria can adequately address the most important task of limiting visual and environmental impacts. Instead this goal must be accomplished through a combination of sound site selection and design. The concern for the adverse impacts that would result from the proposed facility in this location offset the level of convenience that could be provided with the increased access to personal wireless services in this area. Due to the rather extensive amount of disturbance that is being proposed within there is a risk of creating an even larger void within the wooded area that is supposed to provide screening and camouflaging of the facility. Furthermore, the difference between the top of the monopole and the tops of the trees located in front of the facility would leave the facility skylighted. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this special use permit request, as proposed. 7 32 Should the BOard vote to approve the special use permit, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply with several modifications to 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: 11. 12. With the exception of all 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- Hardware River 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 on the downward slope from the facihty. The metal monopole shall be painted a brown wood color that is 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 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 hght 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. Site grading and graveling around the site shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment shelter. 8 33 13. 14. 15. Grading for the access road shall be revised to ensure the health of the trees that are identified as numbers 280, 282 and 292, on the construction plans within close proximity to the new grade lines. This shall include, but not be limited to demonstrating that all of the disturbance will be kept outside of their ddplines. The construction plans shall be revised to address the discrepancy between the ground level elevation that is provided on the tower elevation provided as page C8 and the other sheets provided in the packet. The 200-foot radius for the tree conservation area shall be shown on the construction plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 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 tallest tree within 25 feet that will used to justify the final height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. For the purpose of this condition, that tree shall be located on downward slope from the facility. 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 road 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 obtain easements upon the portions of all adjacent parcels that lie within the area designated as the 200-foot radius tree conservation area that is required around the facility. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the fmal 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 facili _ty operation, the following shall be met: 21. 22. 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 confn'ming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed one feet above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. 9 34 23. 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 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. ATTACHMENTS: B_ C- D- E- F- Application, Construction Plans and Additional Information Parcel and Location Maps Balloon Test Photos ARB Recommendation Letter Conservation Easement Information Zoning Department Comments and Recommendation 10 OFFICE USE ONLY s,g.# 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?): A T,T,rPRT,,/'r--T~ rdw~ rE D ~ v~ r *Existing Use: Residential/Rura~ Proposed Use: Wireless Communications * Zoning District: R A Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: 5.1 . 40 (*staff will assist you with this item) N umber 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? [] YES [~NO Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application? [] YES [] NO Faci] Contact Person ~Vho should w6 call/write concerning this project?): ~[. E. Tremblay & Smith, LLP Address P.O. BOX 1585 Daytime Phone (43 z~ 977-4455 Fax# Owner of Record Linda V_est Address 5567 E. Fountain Circle Daytime Phone ( . ) Fax # Gibson, Jr., Esquire Ci~ Charlottesvill~ate VA Zip 22902 979-1221 E-mail dick.qibson~tremblaysmith.cor State OH Zip 45040 City Mason E-mail Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing? Who is requesting the rezoning?):,3, I,T, · ~'f , U' C 0 m 1111 ~ lq '[ C'. ;q t', q 0 lq ~ Address C/O Contace ~Person City State Daytime Phone ( . .) Fax # E-mail Tax map and parcel: 109 - 43 C oF V~i, NO.. Zip Physical Street Address (ifassigned):. 5469 M~]rr~y~q T,an¢., Oc~vo.~vl 11 ~: VA Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Does the owner of~his property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers OFFICE USE .O_NLY ..o/ /~ -~- ./ 7~ff--~g ~L2/.~ Histow: [] Special Use Permits: '¥~ xc-) [] ZMAs & Proffers: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? [] YES [] NO ity In County of Albemarle Department of Building Code & Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 38 12/1/02 Page I of 4 ATTAC~HMEI~T A Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "Th~ 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 staffin their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you need assistance filhng out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? RA How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? wiIlihave no effect on adjacent property because th~ ~i~ing trees and vegetation will screen t]ie'-,fac] li~,y~From view. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property? In comDliance with the County Tower Policy~ designed so only %he top 10 feet of tho ~ow~r i~ pne~nkia!~y visible, and therefore its effect will b~ minim~l~ if anything. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed facility is designed in accordance with Section 5.1.4'0 and with the County's Tower Pnli~y which the ordinance is intended to implement. Howistheuseinharmonywith theusespermittedbyrightinthedistrict? This proposal is consi~t~n~ wi~h hy right u~es such ~s e!ectri~-~ and telephone pol~s. Uorp important!y, tho f~ility i~ d~igned to blend not only w~th o~her us~q hu~. wi~.h >.he n~t-u_r~_! se~t~n~_ of the area. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? .qpc,{-.i nn -~, ! -- 40 - How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? Increa~ed,~,a~nd,:imp..r..-ovod wir~l~.q~ coverage; as provided proposed facility, may be used for enhanced emergency services via 911. 12/1/02 Page 2 of 4 37 ATTACHMENT A Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: Se~ 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 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 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 of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to the best of my kno.wledge. Signature If O~wn~ser, Agent Date Peter J. O3rmrnmn{.e PrintName Attorney for Applicant z[34-c)77-44~ 5 Daytime phone number of Signatory 12/I/02 Page 3 of 4 38 FEES ATTAChMENt' A Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section 14-106 (15) of the subdivision ordinance = $220 Rural area divisions = $1,240 Commercial use --- $980 [--I Industrial use = $1,020 [] Private club/recreational facility = $1,020 [] Mobile home park or subdivision = $980 [] Public utilities = $1,020 F1 Grade/fill in the flood plain = $870 FI 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 [] For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children = $490 Fl For day care centers - ten (10) or more children = $980 [] Ail other uses except signs = $980 12/1/02 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, NO. 1, INC. HARDWARE RIVER 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 Ma p 109, parcel 43C, owned by Linda Vest. Attached to this application are the following: Two 24"x 36" copies and seven 11"x 17" copies ofthe 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 1194, page 416. A copy of a Declaration of Restriction with respect to the fall zone over a portion of C.L. Vest's proper[y, which has been submi~ed to the County Attorney for approval. Mr. Vest has agreed to execute the necessary document upon approval by the County Attorney. ALLTEL's network currently suffers a gap 'n coverage along Route 29 in the area of the proposed facility. After an exhaustive seamh 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 surroundihg 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 and the tower will be screened from neighboring parcels by the existing trees and vegetation on the property 40 "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 fac~ility 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 low 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 S~ pace 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. · 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 facili~ will blend with the natural surrOUndings thereby minimizing is visual impact. · 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 view 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 wo°ds. ? ATTACHMENT A 42 ATTACHMENT A LAW OFFICES TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box l~ss CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902.1585 105.109 E. HIGH STREET TELEPHONE (434) 977.4455 FACSIMILE (434) 979o1221 Via Hand Delivery August 27, 2003 CHRISTOPHER J. ROBIN~t-r~ Ps~ I. E. Gmuml~ Tlu~mLm LLo~ T. SmT~, Jan Sprinkle Albemarle County Zoning Dept. 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ALLTEL Communications, Inc. Special Use Permit Application SP-2003-072 Hardware River Site Dear Jan: Please find enclosed the following documents which t would appreciate you including with the recently filed special use permit application mentioned above: Certification of Linda Vest providing authorization for Tremblay & Smith, LLP to file the zoning application on behalf of ALLTEL. Fall Zone Easement Agreement. This document should replace the Declaration of Restriction previously submitted with the application. Subsequent discussions with the County Attorney's office have led to this change. The enclosed document is a form approved by the County Attorney and is in the process of being executed by the parties. I will.submit an executed copy to you once I receive one. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Best personal regards. Vep~ truly yours, Peter J. Oarama, nis Enclosures cO: M.E. Gibson, Jr., Esquire ATTACHMENT A CERTZFZCAT'ZON OF L:[NDA VEST ALLTEL / ~ I hereby certify that ! am th.e owner of property located In Covesville/Albemarle County, Virginia desl.g.,nated on the Co~.~!Jl~Z'".A~..eEl.~.r:l:~::.~:eu..n....ty.. tax records as Parcel ID ~ ~.~D~D, and ][ further certify that I have granted to AIItel Communications of Virginia No. 1, ]:nc. a Virginia Corporation, d/b/a ALLTEL, and its attorney, H.E. Gibson, .lt. and the law firm of Tremblay & Smith, U_P, the right to file and pursue the required zoning applications for a telecommunications tower, equipment shelter/cabinet and related facilitles on my property, and do further confirm and authorize all action taken by them in connection with the filing of those applications and the approvai process. ATTACHMENT A This document was prepared by: Tremblay & Smith, LLP 105-109 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tax Map Parcel EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), made this day of ., 2003, between C.L. VEST and ODELL VEST, husband and Wife ("GrantOrs'') and ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA NO. 1, INC, a Virginia corporation ("Grantee"), recites and provides as follows: WlTNESSETH WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners of certain real proPerty located in Albemarle County, Virginia, as more particularly described in a deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Clerk's Office"), in Deed Book 1149, Page 416 and as identified in the Albemarle County tax records as Tax Map 109 Parcel 43C1 (the "Grantors' parcel"); WHEREAS, Grantee holds a leasehold interest in certain real p~-operty located in Albemarle County Virginia, as more particularly described in a deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Clerk's Office"), in Deed Book 1221, Page 126 and as identified in the Albemarle County tax records as Tax Map 109 Parcel 43C (the "Grantee's parcel"); WHEREAS, Grantee intends to construct an eighty-five foot (85') telecommunications tower (the "Tower") on the Grantee's parcel in the area shown on a plat dated August 20, 2003 · and entitled "ALLTEL Hardware' River Site Survey", prepared by Timmons Group (the "Plat") attached hereto as Exhibit A. ~ wHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(2) permits the Director of and Community Development to authorize a structure to be loc_ated closer tn distance than the ATTACHMENT A height of the structure ro an abutting lot line if the owner of the structure obtains from the owner of the abutting parcel an easement prohibiting development of that portion of the abutting parcel that is located within the structure's fall zone (the "Fall Zone"); WHEREAS, pursuant section 18-5.1.40(b)(2), the Fall Zone for the Tower ~s the area extending eighty-five feet (85') in all directions from the base of the Tower (the "Fall Zone") as shown on the Plat, and the Fall Zone includes a portion of the Grantors' parcel; and WHEREAS, Grantors have agreed to grant Grantee an easement prohibiting the development of that portion of Grantors' parcel that is located within the Fall Zone, upon the terms and conditions contained herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, Grantors and Grantee hereby agree as follows: 1. Grantors hereby grant to Grantee a non-exclusive easement over that portion of Grantors' parcel that is located within the Fall Zone, as depicted on the Plat, for purposes of prohibiting the development of that area ("Fall Zone Easement"); for purposes of this Agreement, the term "development" in section 18-5.1.40(b)(2) means the construction or installation of certain buildings and structures. 2. Grantors hereby agree that so long as the Tower constructed by Grantee remains erected, Grantors shall not place within the Fall Zone Easement any buildings or structures, except fences, walls, or other structures specifically permitted by the Albemarle County Director of Planning and Community Development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, agricultural activities such as farming, grazing, and other similar activities may be conducted within the Fall Zone Easement provided that they do not require the use of structures and buildings within the Fall Zone. 3. The Fall Zone Easement granted herein by Grantors to Grantee shall be for the benefit of Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns. Furthermore, this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable by and against Grantors and Grantee and their respective successors and assigns. 4. This Agreement .does not and shall not be construed to create a partnership,~j~oint venture, or joint enterPrise 'of: any kind or nature between Grantors and Grantee with respect to the matters set forth herein. ATTACHMENT A 5. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered by hand, sent prepaid by Federal Express (or a comparable, guaranteed overnight delivery service) or by United Staies mail, certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to Grantors or Grantee at the following addresses: Grantors: Mr. and Mrs. C.L. Vest Grantee: ALLTEL Communications, Inc. One Allied Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Attn: Property Management Dept. Any notice, request, demand or other communication shall be deemed given or made (as the case may be) when actually delivered or sent in the manner aforesaid. Any party hereto may change its address by notifying the other party in a manner described in this paragraph. 6. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 7. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified and no waiver of any provisions hereof shall be effective unless set forth in a written instrument authorized and executed by the then current fee-simple owner(s) of the Grantors' parcel and the then current owner of the Tower. 8. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, the Fall Zone Easement and this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the removal of the Tower from the Grantee's parcel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantors and Grantee have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, this Agreement. 4:? ATTACHMENT A GRANTORS C.L. VEST ODELL VEST GRANTEE ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA NO 1, INC. By: Name: Title: 4¸8 023 ATTACHMENT A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was subscribed before me this 2003, by [SEAL] My commission expires: day o f (Official Notary Signature) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was subscribed before me this 2003, by [S AL] My commission expires: day of (Official Notary Signature) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGiNIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was subscribed before me this __ 2003, by [SEAL] My commission expires: (Official Notary Signature) day of ~RACY ,C# 'EET± FICAL. TOWER ~ NAD 83) JI NAD 8.3) II ~NAVD ? TAKE 1-64 E ;EXIT 118 ROAD). MILES. LANE). E IS AT LANE tGINIA 22931 BY PROJECT' NAME: HARDWARE RIVER SITE VICINITY MAP 1":2000' COPYRIGHT ADC THE MAP PEOPLE PERMITTED USE NO. 20,.T9Z659 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SIGNATURES APPLICANT / AU_TEL: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: LESSOR: DATE: AUGUST 19, 2003 TAX MAP.#' 109-43C DATE: DATE: DATE: SHEET INDEX NO., TI'MMON$ GROUP T! COVER SHEET · C! LOCATION MAP C2 SURVEY C3 SITE LAYOUT C4 GRADING PLAN C5 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C6 EROSI.ON CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS C7 TREE SURVEY C8 TOWER ELEVATION & DETAILS ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAM E: HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 MURRAYS LANE COVESVILLE, VIRGINIA COVER SHEET TIMMONS. GROUP "" Site Development J Infrastructure J Technology YOUR VJSIOI~I AQilEVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA J NORTH CAROLINA J WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4260 Crossings Blvd J Prince.George, VA 23875 TEL 804.541.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www.timmons.com SCALE: NONE j B. CRUTCHFIELD CHECKED BY: D. ,.1OHNSON JOB NO. RR?7? 'ON' EtO[' CF:I)t3:IH3 :Aa NMV'dC] 6'1:-8 ~'t,08 lil. ) 09~ 'INIgISIA II liJ. -- 009 \ 133.:1 NI 39'V'OS V~l :03NOZ ~ .~ -. NOSNHOP".V. 31¥153 'T'I3MO(] 'M N3'T13~,2 S3~JO'130 ~10 "'1 SYRONI',' 3L,-601. //RI ~ ' 9,-601. //RI V~ :O3NOZ /-~ va :O3NOZ ~ O0'k 0 ' P LEASE AREA RO OSED 'ATION ON 7-14-2003,' PG. 126 ARE COMPILEO ,ETE BOUNDARY SURVEY. ;EMENTS & RESTRICTIONS 'REPARED WITHOUT THE piece or parcel Of lend bemarle County, Virginia and rs; commencing at a point approximately 2,100 feet Rte. 29, said point being West o distance of 25.20 JE POINT AND PLACE OF ff ~ay of S.R. 718 North 17 stance of 15.76 feet to the centerline of o proposed 20 ong said centerline the ~s East o distance of ts East a distance of Is East o distance of 84.36 Is East e distance of 47.04 s East o distance of 39,17 proposed AIItel lease oreo; tees 03 minutes 59 o point, said point being thence along said lease East o distance of East o distance of West a distance of West o distance of E OF BEGINNING and cres of land more or 200 N/~ MICHAEL R. NELSON, SR. T.M. 109-43D D.D. 1050, PG 507 O.b, 539, PG 121 (PLAT) T.M, 109-43o 85' TOWER I '"~, ~" SETBACK N/F C. L. VEST T.M. 109-43Cl D.D. 1149, PG 416 2.85 ACRES L=78.50' , f Delta=52'54'59" ~ R=85,00' 1-STORY FRAME WIDTH FALL ZONE ESMT. ROD ._~ ~'46'53" E 30.00' ROD ~- FO. PROPOSED 20' ACCESS & UTILITY I~ EASEMENT m NELLIE GREEN - T.M. lOg- 43B O.D. 1979, PG 035 EXISTING 30' ACCESS EASEMENT / N/F ROBERT E. JETT -D.D. 2481, PG 417 ?--~- ROD, FO /S °",~l ROD PROPOSED .jo~,L bix mo'~mo' /~/~ PROPOSED 85' t / Iz MONOPOLE ~ .~1 ' -~/ ~oo/ ~ . o.f / / LINE TABLE LINE 'DIRECT. ION DISTANCE L1 S66,20'.Sg"E 84.36' L2 s~g'00'44"E 4?.04' L3 ; NS0~Sg'16"E . 59.17' L4 , N43'03'sg"w 26.9g' "L5 N46'56'Ol"E 100.00' L6 ~ S~3'03'59".E 100.00' L7 i S46'56'01"W 100.00' L8 N43'OJ'59"W 100.00' EXISTING j ~.,~AM~ ~ ~ ~ Z~RA~L ~" ~ I I ' R ACCESS ROD I ~ ~Jg~ U. , - , *.'1 FD, _ ~4~4~-..~l ~- ~ __ MUR~YS LANE ~ S,R. 7~8 VARIABLE WIDTH R/W ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100, VTRGINIA BEACH~ VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 MURRAYS LANE cOVESVILLE, V]:RGINIA SURVEY $ite Development ~ Residential I Infrastructure' ~ Technology YOUR V[S]ON ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA I . NORTH CAROLINA J WEST V[RGIN[A THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFF[CE 4260 Crossings Blvd I Prince George~ VA 23875 TEL 804 541.6600 FAX 804.75:[,0798 www.~ mmons.com DATE: 8-:1.9-03 SCALE: " O0 DRAWN BY: B. CRUTCHFIELD C2 CHECKED BY: D. ]OHN~;nN ~9 'ON gO£ ~ a Q::r>I3::IHD _ _.~__. ...... :Ag NM',gq:iCI .......... ~ -61~-8:ELLYQ' ~ 3 09~t~ \ ~INI~IIA IIdI.L / / / 133-1 NI 3"1'V3S j O~ O~ 0 / t S3WDV 91'J 9Zl 9d 'lZgl '0'0 3£ t~-601 't41'1 i IS2A 'IIV '7 3/N A A '"""-'$0V~t3 ~NIJS/X] flkl~Ch~q M~ I ~/I-I : / ' ,8OO~ $NF. L1ER ~ / / 790, O0 $0 7,.00. O0 EO 790 O0 ......... ZgO ~ -r- 0=.,5' MIN:' · '/'./'"' 't t I I 1 t I ~mI PP ,~692-304 LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT GRADE PROPOSgD EDGE OF GRAVEL GRADE PROPOSED DITCH GRADE EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE E.C../S tiNG :,-$T0.?¥ FR.4M£ i~,5 4 7',; N/F C. I. VEST T.M. I09-45C! D.D. 1149, P~ 416 2.85 ACRES .......... DLr'-. - ' STORM SEWER SCHEDULE ! .... / -I-- -77_._0_o~ -- ,-F "/':7! ./-. ~-~ ~...~.'..~."..~. ......... I /'~ 2.00LF OF 15 CL. III CONC. PIPE @ / I ~INV. IN=776.60, INV. 0UT=772.38 ALLTEL COMMUNICATION S 4525. COLUMBUS STREET SUITE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME.: HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 HURRAYS LANE COVESVILLE, VIRGINIA GRADING PLAN TIMMONS GROUP.."".% i;' Site Oevelopment I Residential Infrastructure I ~-~ YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROl. INA I WEST V[RG[NTA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFF:~CE 4260 Crossings Blvd I Prince George, VA 23875 TEL 804.541.6600 FAX 804.751.0798 www.timmons.com DATE:8-19-03 SCALE: 1"=20' DRAWN BY: B.CRUTCHFIELD ..-~ .. CHECKED BY: D..1OHNSON :P~'N08 33/ D 09~N YlNIg~IA ~ldOlaAa(] allS I1,11/ ,[O~d 133J NI 39¥0S Ot~ O-g 0 $380V gl 'Z ............ . ......... . ............ J/N "O~'t6Z ............ . .... ~ ....... ' ~g6£'-- ~ .I .~ tO ......... ' ...... - ..... I 0~'96L ................ .... ' .... ~ , ......... L' /--.,-7 ....... "-.,.".:. .... , OF EVENTS RE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING TO BEGINNING CD PERIMETER SlLT FENCE STRAW MULCH ACCORDING ~IND SWALES, INSTALL CHECK 4S POSSIBLE. PRO TEC nON. :'OSSIBLE AND MULCH ALL SHALL BE PERFORMED TO PROPER TIES, 9E REMOVED UNTIL AN V OB TAINEO, ROt MEASURES SHOI4~V ON ED, MAINTAINED, AND tE CURRENT EDITION OF TNT CONTROL HANDBOOK. mm )NS RELATIVE 3TECTED TREES Va., lg76 Plofe PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCe, S SHOULD BE REVIEWED ~ITH THE : PROJECT. ~)UIPMENT. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. (INCLUDING TOPS0~L) ~HALL NOT ~EE TO BE RETAINED, TREES BEING JLLED INTO I~EES BEING RETAINED. PART ) BE RETAINED. O0 FEET FROM THE DRIP LINE OF rED IN SIZE TO PREVENT ADVERSE 0 TOXIC MATERIAL SHALL BE OF ANY TREES TO BE RETNNED. IICALS, FUELS, AND LUBRICANTS ; TO INJURE VEGETATION. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE'CONSTRUCTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, EOUIPMENT SHELTER, GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD, AND GRAVEL LEASE AREA. APPROXIMATELY 0.11 ACRES OF LAND DISTURBANCE WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SITE. THE LAND DISTURBANCE WIILL INCLUDE CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE SITE SLOPES FROM EAST TO WEST AT AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF 18~ AN ,EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ONTO S.R, 718 WILL-BE UTILIZED TO ACCESS THIS SITE. EXISTING DRAINAGE~PATTERNS WILL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. - EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE IN PLACE PRIOR SITE CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. ALL UNGRAVELLED AREAS ARE TO BE SEEDED ACCORDING TO STATE REGULATIONS WITHIN SEVEN (7,) DAYS AFTER ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED. PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND CULVERT INLET PROTECTION WILL SERVE AS THE PRIMARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES DURING THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. TOE OF FILL --\ /~ ENDWALL SILT FENCE CUL VER T INLET PRO TEC TION ~ NO SCALE ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO STAKES OR POSTS & EXTEND IT INTO TRENCH.-.. :E OR STEEL POST LENGTH - 5' MIN. EXCAVATED SOIL BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED 4"x4" TRENCH-/ SILT FENCE (WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT) NO SCALE SOURCE: VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, 1993, 3RD ED. PLATE: 3.05-2 ' EX~STING /- EXISTING ~OUND PAVEMENT /: I--- ,o.,,,. ~ \ / · r'' M'". I /.~ ......... I ~- FILTER CLOTH - NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP EXISTING ELEVATION ROADS FREE OF SOIL BUILD-UP AT ALL TIMES. A ,~o, ,, co~ --, -'~ 10' ' MUST EXTEND FULL "OTH I OF moREss AND EGRESS PLAN VIEW 12' alN, ~- FIL'~R O.OiH SECTION A-A SOURCE: VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, 3RD ED., 1995 PLATE: CONTRACTOR SHN~ KEEP EXISTING ROADS FREE ~OF-SOIL BUILD-UP AT ALL TIME& ROCK CHECK DAM FOR 2 ACRES OR LESS OF DRAINAGE AREA: (DOWNSTREAM VIEW) VDOT i ~ ALLTEL COMMUN [CATIONS 4525 COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 100 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PROJECT NAME: HARDWARE RIVER SITE 5469 MURRAYS LANE COVESVILLE, VIRGINIA EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS TIMMONS GROUP.--'"o'-. Site Development I Residential I Infrastructure I Technology YOUR V~$IO. ACHIEVED THROUGH OU~. VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROLINA I WEST VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRINCE GEORGE OFFZCE 4260 Crossings Blvd TEL 804.54:1.6600 FAX 804.75:1.0798 www.timmons.com SCALE: NONE CHECKED BY: D..1OHNSON ]OB NO. J/ IVH. L~][O~Jd )~IA 'O3AOU3H 3E 771,4,1 £23~1 ON 'Z 33H1 NO O3$VE IHOI3H EJMOJ '1 :S310N ,~'Z9=IHDI3H '>/VO NL/HJ · J'6Z=l HDI3H 'OOOh~OOO NZ4~_Z '1 ~Z , # '6# =1 HOI3N ~7dVl,'V ,, 01 '61J 1333 NI 3-]¥35 05 0 S3HO V 91 'K 9Jl Od ~1~7~71 'O'O 0£~--60 l ..... J 7'----... ~..t \'/:" :~ ~o~..._..l. % :5~:~>~-~_. ~ .... -, ', - URE ONLY. IE CM ;UPPORT MUfti 120' 1----14.5" LOW VISIBIUTY MOUNTED -- PANEL ANTENNAS (6) {PAINTED DROWN) l'O'R~l~ TO ~ BROV~ IN COL(~I F S' CHAtNUNK F~NCE ~']H IMRE TO~R Dltdl~lgO~ /'-'-AT BASE=.T,Q.$' DIA. ATION ~ ALF: 1,"=1'5' ATTACH FENCE FABRIC TD TENSION WIRE WI~ ~HOO-RINGS I APPROXlLIATELY 24" O.C ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS 1ENSION WIRE NO. 7 CUAGE 4525 COLUMBUS STREET [- GALVANIZED COIL SPRING W1RE ~ ~ STRETCHED TAUT \ \ ,-~/8' .,.. BRACE . ~ fl F "I':IGHF OF BRACE IN ACCORDANCE ~ X t .TH .FG, SPEClr CA.ONS / / / NO.11 GUACE l" : . · · ~ ...... BEVELED GALVANIZED-~ ..... .~_' ' ' )) · i ,J STEEL BAND WITH J -~' '..t.':,. ') - .' - -" ' i;i!;ilill ' SUITE 100 STRANOS BARBED WIRE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 TOP AND BOTTOM SELVAOE TO BE BARBED-~-~ PROJECT NAME: ~~'--'t~. '?iii? HARDWARE RIVER ... ·., ~':iI.',~';,,~.' .' ,, :.ii-:~i:::!~:..~_ O.D. PO~T I~. SITE - ~ ' :' . :, 5469 HURRAYS LANE :.!.J.:,1 .i1' _..',.'.L' i'~'~;,~I°~,,"~x' ~ ,0'T~. - COVESVJLLE, V[RG~N~A END POST BRACE OR GATE POST) LINE POST UNE POST STANDARD CHAIN UNK FENCF NOTE: A MOISTURE-EXCLUDING CAP tS REQUIRED ON ALL LINE POSTS. TUBULAR METAL MATERIAL FOR CAP SHALL CONFORM TO THE ALLOWABLE TYPES FOR OTHER LISTED FITTINGS. TOWER ELEVATION 4" MIN. O.D. METAL GATE ~O~T ~'--~~-~/~", o.o.~ ~_____~' ~o~ ~oo (~,~.) .... '~'. ' -:- ::.":, ~z ........... ~ 2 ~":::', .::: :-'~-: " -'-'":!1t I ~~'~ l tlll~~i~x. ~ 11 .. '".- ~ '.'-'-~~~..:-- ..~,~, TIMMONS GROUP ~x~'~ ':':'" ~ J~, --J~.~ ; ' ' =:' ),"-'" .'~: ............ S~ Development J R~ide~al J Infra~u~ 2-t/2" O,D MIN.~ ~ P~NCE GEORGE OFFZCE ~ 1 ~.~'' 14"~ L 4260 Crossings Blvd , Prince George, VA23875 1 2' TEL 80~.54t.6600 FAX 804.751.O798 www. Ummons.com SCA~: AS SHOWN DOUBLE SWING GATE t, CEUTCHRE~ 36" MIN t ! [-6" ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ' ....... A-'F'I'-A(~HMENT C 83 MENT C November 17, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt o£ Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 ATTACHMENT D Peter J. Caramanis. Esq. Tremblay & Smith, LLP P. O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB-2003-145 Vest (Alltel); Tax Map 109, Parcel 43C Dear Mr. Caramanis: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on November 3, 2003 completed a preliminary review of an amendment to a Certificate of Appropriateness and advisory review for an amendment to a Special Use Permit. Regarding the Special Use Permit, the Board by a vote of 3:0, forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission for the above-noted petition: The ARB expresses no objection to the Special Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Show on the plan a 200'-radius no-tree-cutting area within the current property line. Provide the associated easement documentation. 2. Revise the proposed grading to ensure the health of trees #292. 280, and 282. 3. Revise the plan to show grading held outside the drip line of all trees to remain. 4. Show protective fencing around trees #292, 219, and 266. 5. ndicate on the plan all proposed lighting. 6. Indicate that proposed lighting is intended for temporary maintenance use only. 7. Include a detail in the plan that clearly shows all exact dimensions of the antennas. 8. Indicate on the plan that the "existing edge of woods" is also a "tree line to remain." Regarding the Building Permit, the Board by a vote of 3:0, approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposal, with the following conditions to be administratively approved by staff: 1. Show on the plan a 200'-radius no-tree-cutting area within the current property line. Provide the associated easement documentation. 2. Revise the proposed grading to ensure the health of trees #292, 280, and 282. 3. Revise the plan to show grading held outside the drip line of all trees to remain. 4. Show protective fencing around trees #292, 219, and 266. 5. Indicate on the plan all proposed lighting. 6. Indicate that proposed lighting is intended for temporary maintenance use only. 7. include a detail in the plan that clearly shows all exact dimensions of-the antennas. 8. 'Indicate on the plan that the "existing edge of woods" is also a "tree ine to remain." 65 ATTACHMENT D Page 2 November 17, 2003 Please provide 2 copies of the revised drawings or other information addressing each of these conditions at your 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, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner MM/jcf Cc: Stephen Waller M~u lg 03 04:1~ 434 ;'95 7215 7215 ATTACHMENT E To: Steven Waller, Plarm.'mg Staff From: Otto Stolz Date: November 18, 2003 Re: SP 2003-072 In response to our telephone conservation, I respectfully submit the following additional information on the proposed tower on Murray's Lane in Covesville. You indicated that you had no knowledge of the extensive acreage under conservation easements in the immediate area of the proposed tower. Attached you will fmd a copy of the map from the Piedmont Environmental Council showing lands under easement in the area. A number of responsible citizens in this area have donated (not sold) conservation easements to protect this area of the County. Several people, including myself; are considering adding further lands to the easement programs. However, if the County planning staff is not going to support the preservation of this area. it is foolish for residents to continue to support and encourage the donation of further easements in the area. The donation of easements only makes sense as a coordinated effort with County officials to preserve an area. Why should someone restrict their property against towers (and forego the substantial economic rewards) if the County approves towers on neighboring properties? As the owner of an additional 1,000 acres in Covesville not presently under easement, I would never proceed with an easement on that property if the County intends to approve towers or other offensive uses in the area. I am sure othem have the same reaction. I believe that this tower is ina "sensitive area" warranting closer scrutiny, based on the substantial existing easements and the avowed policy ofthe County to preserve the visual attractiveness of the Southern gateway to the County. Irt addition, failure to consider this a "sensitive area" does not consider the historical significance of this area and the efforts to create a historical district. To put it simply, the words and pictures have to go together. 2. You indicated that you did a balloon test and the most significant favorable factor was a backdrop of trees that somewhat shielded the tower. The tree coverage surrounding the tower can only be protected for the approximate ~wo acres on which the tower is located. If the trees on the neighboring property are removed through timbering, natural forces, such as hurricanes, ftres or otherwise, the existing buffer would be dramatically reduced or eliminated. You have no way to control or require the tree coverage on the neighboring parcels. 67 Mov 18 03 04:13.~.~, ...... ~}34 285 7215 .z}3~ ~295 ~7215 ~ ..... /-,_:.::j; ....... :'~27 ~ ATTACHMENT E Further, you indicated that you did not observe the balloon test from neighboring ridges or other points of elevation in the view shed. Thus although the site passed your balloon test from lower points of elevation looking up at the tower, our testing shows marked visibility from neighboring ridge lines and higher points of elevation. Therefore at a minimum you should consider the consequences of removal of trees on neighboring parcels which you cannot control and the visibility issue from neighboring sites of differing elevations. In addition you should consider thc impact on sensitive view-sheds protected by easements. Finally the PEC and others are seeking local support to designate the Covesville area a historic district. You should consider the adverse impact of an approval of this tower on local support for such a historic designation. In fact, an information meeting was held today at noon to solicit support for a historic designation. Representatives from the County Planning Department and the State were in attendance. Finally, there is substantial local opposition to this tower. I did not receive the official notice until Monday, November 17, 2003 and you requested my response prior to Thursday, November 20, 2003. However, we already have a substantial number of signatures on a petition opposing the tower. The County has placed its sign notifying residents of the pending application only on Murray's Lane where it is visible only to those few individuals who live beyond the subject parcel on Murray's Lane, which is a dead-end street. Thus, it is virtually impossible for the area residents to be aware of this matter and the significant impact it will_have on their properties. We r~e6gni~'flie ~iit'~F~r communications towers. Most Of us use cell phones extensively. From a selfish standpoint, the tower would probably facilitate my use of the cell phone. However, I am extremely concerned by the apparent absence of any significant requirements for effectively camouflaging this tower. I know from other counties where I own properties that substantial devices exist to dramatically reduce the visual impacts of these towers. To rely primarily on the backdrop of the hillside and an extremely limited tree buffer, does not appear to provide the degree of effort and protection for the preservation of the view-shed which this area warrants. Also the absence of protections and restrictions will inevitably result in additional towers on neighboring properties. In conclusion, at a minimum, I ask that the Planning staff and Board impose substantial additional camouflage requirements on the tower, and that adequate consideration be given to the sensitive nature of the surrounding area, including the local conservation and historical efforts, and the very adverse consequences of approval of this tower will have on those future efforts. t3¸8 H~u ,i~q IlS 04:14p 424 285 7215 424 285 7215 Plank Road Area Conservation ATTACHMENT E ~ xx 0 Som~cm Base ie~g:lo./q ATTACHMENT E ATTAChMEnT E /- © ATTACHMENT F Albemarle County Development Departments s P-2003-072 SPIN Submission and CommentLindaVest-ALLTELHardware River PWSF Zoning SP monopole PWSF revision 1 reviewer received reviewe decision jan sprinkle 11/20/2003 11/20/2003 This site plan shows much more grading than we normally see. This excessive grading will remove more vegetation and trees than normal. As proposed there will be no trees or other vegetation within 35 feet of the proposed tower due to the grading. The applicant should reassess and attempt to put the tower in a more treed location and to use the site with minimal grading and vegetation disturbance. As proposed there will be a denuded area'that measures approximately 80' by 20' to 40' in width, plus the roadway into the site. There is also a discrepancy in the tower's base elevation. The sheets showing grading indicate that the tower will be located at 794' (C4, C5, &C7) while the Tower Elevation on C8 shows a base elevation of 803.3' 11/23/2003 05:59 PM Page 1 of 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 05-02-04A05:31 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Pdority List- 2004-2010 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 2004-2010 and County's Priority List for Road Improvements STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: February 11, 2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: , BACKGROUND: At its January 7, 2004 work session on the County's Priority List for Road Improvements and VDOT's Six Secondary Road Construction Program (or "Six year Plan") for 2004-2010, the Board of Su pervisors scheduled the public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed plan. The Board also requested staff to address issues regarding several road projects. These projects include the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (rename, consider a lower priority, and the scope of the project), the Southern Parkway and Georgetown Road (consider both for a higher priority), and West Leigh and Corville Farm Roads (delete from priority list, if completed); STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. DISCUSSION: Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II - The Charlottesville Albemarle Area Transportation Study (CHART) Citizen Advisory Committee has renamed the road to Northern Free State Road. The Meadow Creek Parkway Phase 11 will now be referred to as Northern Free State Road unless otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors. At the work session, the Board discussed lowering the priority of this project and studying alternatives to the conce pt for Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II as it has been historically proposed. At its meeting on February 3, 2004, the MPO Technical Committee recommended that the CHART Study indicate that the Northern Free State Road be studied together with the study of the Eastern Connector Road, since there are distinct relationships and impacts linking these two roads. At this tim e, staff does not recommend that the project be lowered in priority. The concern is that lowering its priority and, in particular; moving it out of the VDOT Six Year Plan, may affect the availability of funding which could be used toward the study of the road concept (and alternatives). A total of $1.55 million has accrued to the project to date (FY 04-05), with a FY 04-05 allocation of $27,600 shown in the proposed Six Year Plan. Staff does recommend that the description of the project be changed from a design and construction project to the following: "north-south connector road concept/alternatives to be studied in conjunction with the proposed eastern connector road as recommended in the proposed CHART." Georgetown Road - Staff re-prioritized Georgetown Road as priority 8, just ahead of Old Ivy Road as recommended by the Board. Southern Parkway -The Board of Supervisors requested staff to review the possibility of moving the South ern Parkway up on the priority list. Staff recommends moving the project from priority 12 to priority 9, ahead of the Old Ivy Road, Grassmere Drive, and Old Sunset Road projects. Project priority 10, Grassmere Road, will be completed within the year. All other projects ranked ahead of this project are still considered a higher priority at this time by staff. AGE N DA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Pdority List- 2004-2010 February 11,2004 Page 2 West Lei.qh and Corville Farm Roads - The Board of Supervisors requested these projects be removed from the priority list since they have been completed. Staff conferred with VDOT and was informed that these projects are required to remain in the VDOT Six Year Plan until all the funding is complete. While not required to be retained in the County's Priority List, staff recommends that these roads continue to be shown so that both the County's Priority List and VDOT's Six Year Plan are consistent With one another. Staff removed the County's priority ranking for the projects on the County Pdodty List, but kept VDOT's ranking. Attachment A incorporates all of the changes noted above. Attachment B is VDOT's Six Year Construction Program. Staff will request VDOT to make changes upon final approval from the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff will finalize changes to Draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List 2004-2010 based on input from the public hearing and Board of Supervisors recommendation. Attachments Attachment A County Draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List 2004-2010 Attachment B VDOT Draft Six Year Secondary Construction Program 2004-2010 04.024 DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNT PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2004-05 Through 2009-10 [SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED.DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING] ATTACHMENT A VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Month-Year 0 0 County wide County wide Jun-10 5750,000 0 0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program Jun-10 $300,000 1 1 625 Hatton Ferry Hatton Ferry Jun-10 $120,000 2 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Dec-02 $500,000 3 Corville Farm Road Rt. 691-Greenwood Rd-D.E. Mar-03 $150,000 4 2 Meadow Creek Parkway Melbourne Rd to Rio Road Jun-08 $17,161,852 4 2 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over Meadow Creek Jun-08 $2,204,500 5 3 649 Airport Road Route 29 to Route 606 Dec-03 $12,271,456 6 4 651 Free State Road Free State Road Dec-06 $3,350,000 7 5 Northern Free State Road Route 631 to Route 29 $4,200,000 8 6 691 Jarmans Gap Road Route 240 to Route 684 Dec-08 $10,500,000 9 7 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east Jun-12 $9,500,000 11 8 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 $3,200,000 10 9 Southern Parkway Avon Str. to Fifth Str. 12 10 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250/29 Byp $7,200,000 11 679 Grassmere Road .25 miles south of Rt 738 Jun-04 $100,000 12 781 Sunset Avenue NCL to Fifth St Extended 13 631 Old Lynchburg Road 1.35 MI. S. 1-64 to Rt.708 14 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 15 Hillsdale Drive Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. 16 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Route 790 17 Eastern Avenue Route 240 to Route 250 18 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane 19 708 Dry Bridge Road Railroad overpass Projects in bold are in the Development Area. Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding Staff working with VDOT and Whippoorwill, Hollymead, Forest Lakes for traffic calming improvements operation of ferry rural addition, project complete, VDOT requires it to remain on list until all funding is complete. rural addition, project complete, VDOT requires it to remain on list until all funding is complete. two lane desginapproved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR (associated with project above) widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [13411] proposal to construct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge [420] north/south conn. rd concept/alternatives, to be studied in conj wi the proposed eastern conn. rd as recom.in the proposed CHART. serve increased traf wi min widening, pedlbike access,RS 1999/00 [2,400] improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk,RS 200412005 [2273] spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [17,000] Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000101 [4,800] Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [485] spot and inter. Improve., urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane. RS 2005106, ped/bike access[I,100] spot improvements at various locations,RS 2001/02 [2,100] spot improvement to improve sight distance,RS 2002/03 [2000] new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, to be constructed with urban funds intersection improvement. [670] interconnect future neighborhoods str, proj. to include RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [23,000] school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 20 643 Polo Grounds Road Route 29 to Route 649 public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS 2004/05 [1000] 21 743 Hydraulic Road Intersection with Rt. 29 (29H250) improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study [20,000] 22 866 Greenbrier Drive Intersection with RL 29 (29H250) improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study [8,800] 23 676 Tilman Road Road Intersection of Route 250 intersection improvement, RS 2003/04 [4,800] 24 614 Garth Road Intersection of Rt. 676 intersection improvement, public request [3400] 25 601 Garth Road Intersection of Route 658 add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm. [6,300] 26 738 Morgantown Road at Route 250 close west ramp and construct tapered turn lane [1200] [1200] 27 676 Woodlands Road Intersection of Route 601 intersection improvement [5400] 28 616 Union Mill Road FCL to Route 759 improve alignment [5,000] 29 606 Dickerson Road Route 649 to Route 743 improve to handle projected traffic, CHART recommendation, RS 2002/03 [6,700] 30 654 Barracks Road Intersection of Route 1001 intersection improvement [6400] 31 1403 Berkmar Extension Hilton Heights Rd to Town Center Rd new road to serve as parallel road to Rt. 29 32 Main Street Crozef Avenue to Eastern Avenue new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan 33 Town Center Rd Extended end of Town Center Rd to Airport Road new road to serve Hollymead development area 34 1520 Hollymead Dr Ext Route 29 to Rt. 743 new road to serve hollymead development area 35 Meadows Road Rt. 691 to Rt. 250 new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan 36 678 Owensville Road Intersection of Route 250 intersection improvement [3,400] 37 732 Milton Road Intersection of 762 spot improvement, requested by public [1,100] 38 810 White Hall Road Intersection of Route 789 Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[1,800] 39 795 James Monroe Pky Intersection of Route 53 recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/06 [3,000] 641 Frays Mill Road Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run install box culvert,RS 2005/06, not a County priority,a VDOT recommendedsafety project 641 Frays Mill Road Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run install box culvert, no County Priority,a VDOT recommended safety project 40 Fifth St Connector Rd Fifth Street to Avon Street connector road NORTH of 1-64, urban cross section 41 Rto 29 parallel road Polo Grounds Rd to Hollymead Dr. new road 42 743 Earlysville Road Rivanna River to Rt 643 public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related.RS 2004/05 [8,400] 43 729 Milton Road Rt. 53 to Rt. 1120 improve road geometric, s, two lane rural section [4400] 44 663 Simmons Gap Rd at int. of Rt. 604 - Buffalo River Rd site distance improvement [1000] 45 684 Half Mile Branch Road Rt. 691 to Rt. 797 spot/safety improvement to serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680] 46 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end paving and spot improvements at most dangerous locations [1900] Projects in bold are in the Development Area Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Locaticn Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Month-Year 641 E~urnleyStation Road Norfolk Southern RR 602 Howardsville Tnpk .01 miles south Route 626 640 Gilbert Station Road Norfolk Southern RR 642 Red Hill Depot Road .28 miles northeast Rt.708 671 Miltington Road Intersection of Route 665 692 Plank Road Route 29 to Route 712 708 Red Hill Road Route 20 to Route 29 676 Woodlands Road Route 614 to Route 1050 691 Park Road Park Road to Route 250 678 Decca Lane Intersection of Route 676 743 Advance Mills Road At Jacobs Run 795 Hardware Street Near inter, with Rt. 20 732 Milton Road at Rt. 53 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 795 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 773 680 Browns Gap Tnpk Rt. 240 to Rt. 810 611 Jarmans Gap Road Off Route 691 1310 Ferry Street .05 miles south of Rt. 6 601 Free Union at Tasmania Drive 682 Broadaxe Road Off Dick Woods Road 813 Starlight Road Off Route 712 654 Barracks/ Garth Road Georgetown Rd. to Rt. 601 631 Rio Road Meadow Creek Pwy to Stonehenge 742 Avon Street Ext. City limits to Mill Creek South 13 737 Mountain Vista Road Rt. 6 to Rt. 726 Dec-02 $650,000 14 708 Secretarys Road Route 795 to Route 620 Aug-03 $1,170,989 15 16 bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [340] Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [410] bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [170] Railroad crossing with no gate [80] intersection improvement [370] spot improvements, safety related [1,400] improve alignment [1,700] spot improvements at several points, CATS recommendation [2,600] extend to eastern 240/250 street system [640] improve intersection, located near school, CATS recommendation [140] ~mprove approach to bridge [1,0001 spot improvement, requested by Scottsville [710] intersection improvement, public request [1100] intersection improvement [1000] intersection improvement [1000] spot improvements, public request [700] Railroad crossing with no gate [210] Railroad crossing with no gate [80] install culvert to prevent requent flooding [1000] spot improvements, public request [140] school request, needs turn-around space [60] pave shoulders and/or off road trail [22,000] upgrade to urban x-section, sidewalk and bikelanes [24,000] improve to urban cross section [1200] unpaved road [90] unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [210] VDOT Priority #15 is Reservoir Road. This is now a spot improvement (#46). VDOT will update its Construction Plan for the 2005-06 update. 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 641 to Route 747 $380,000 completed with private resources in conjunction with adjacent development [300] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 17 71 633 Heards Mtn Road Nelson CL to Route 29 Apr-07 $360,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [59] 18 72 606 Dickerson Road Route 850 to Route 1030 Feb-08 $1,336,073 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360] 19 73 769 Beam Road Off Route 20 north Oct-08 $200,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [50] 20 74 623 Woods Edge Rd Route 616 to dead end Mar-09 $414,975 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [420] 21 75 784 Doctors Crossing Route 600 to Route 640 Aug-10 $1,238,105 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [360] 76 643 Rio Mills Road Rt. 29 to I miles west unpaved road - staff request [1900] 77 647 Maxfield Road Rt. 22 to Dead End u~ paved road, public request, P,-O-W undetermined [470] 78 744 Hacktown Road Rt. 250 to Rt. 731 unpaved road -public request [380] 79 606 Dickerson Rd Rt, 1030 to Rt. 763 unpaved road - staff request [1900] 80 643 Rio Mills Road I mile west Rt. 29 to Rt. 743 unpaved road - staff request [530] 81 688 Midway Road Rt. 635 to Rt. 824 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360] 82 787 Gillums Ridge Rd. Route 682 to Route 708 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360] 83 689 Pounding Creek Rd Rt. 250 to Rt. 635 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [340] 84 769 Rocky Hollow Road Rt. 20 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [330] 85 666 Allen Road Route 664 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [270] 86 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 784 to Route 20 unpaved road, R-O-W not available (RRR) [260] 87 685 Bunker Hilt Road Route 616 to Dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [210] 88 790 Holly Road Rt. 795 to dead end unpaved read, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [230] 89 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 692 to Rt. 29 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [200] 90 736 White Mtn Road Rt. 635 to Dead End (incl. section n. of Rt. 636) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [200] 91 640 Gilbert Station Road Rt. 747 to Rt. 784 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [200] 92 734 Bishop Hill Road Route 795 to Rt. 1807 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [170] 93 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [160] 94 760 Red Hill School Road Route 29 to Dead End unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [160] 95 722 Old Green Mtn Road Rt. 6 to Rt. 602 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [150] 96 806 Estes Ri0ge Road 663-Dead End unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] 97 645 Magnolia Rd Rt. 608 to Orange CL unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [140] 98 712 North Garden Lane Route 29 to Route 760 unpaved road, R-O-W not available [140] 99 668 Walnut Level Road Rt. 810 to dead end unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year lOO 682 Broad Axe Road Rt. 637 to to current paved sections 101 678 Decca Lane Route 676 to Route 614 102 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt. 732 to Dead End 103 605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt. 743 to Swift Run (including bridge) 104 704 Fortune Lane Rt. 715 to Dead End 105 672 Blufton Road Rt. 810 to Dead end 106 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 107 674 Sugar Ridge Road Route 614 to Route 673 108 774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end 109 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 110 747 Preddy Creek Road Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 111 707 Blair Park Road Rt. 691 to Dead end 112 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 113 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 mileswest to Rt. 20 114 637 Dick Woods Road Rt. 691 to Rt. 692 115 735 Mt. Alto Road Pt. 602 to Rt. 626 unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road -public request unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved read, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) un )aved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined un )aved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) un )aved road, R-O-W undetermined un )aved read, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) un )aved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined un )aved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) un )aved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] [140] [130] [120] [120] [110] [100] [100] [90] [80] [70] [50] [50] [20] [20] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program $77,257,950 Fiscal Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Totals Page 1 of 7 Secondary System County: Albemarle Construction Program Estimated Allocations Incidental Construction Regular Construction Unpaved Construction Total $195,000 $195,000 $1 95,000 $195,000 $1 95,000 $1 95,000 $3,373,349 $3,415,542 $3,386,114 $3,436,709 $3,5O7,927 $3,507,927 $714,330 $719,653 $703,870 $710,578 $721,895 $721,895 $4,282,679 $4,330,195 $4,284,984 $4,342,287 $4,424,822 $4,424,822 $1,170,000 $20,627,568 $4,292,221 $26,089,789 Board Approval Date:: t2/t/03 James L. Bryan VDOT Resident Engineer Date Robert W. Tucker-Co. Exec. Chairman, Clerk, Co. Administrator Date ATTACHMENT B Dist~'ict: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM county: Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding ..... Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 8002 Total County-Wide Allocation PE $0 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: CWI CWI RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Counties, Developers CON $300,000 CON $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Preliminary Engineering 2001-02 Hollymeade Dr. STATE Total $300,000 Total $0 County-Wide incidental Pri#: O 7/1/03 $300,000 $60,000 $60,000 $50,000 $$0,000 $50,000 $60,000 $0 Rt. 8001 Total County-Wide Allocation PE $0 r~E $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: CWI CWI RW $0 r~W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 State Forces New Pipe Install., CON $750,000 CON $0 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 2003-04-$150,000 Signal ~ Rte 631/164 STATE Signs,Seeding otc Total $750,000 Total $3 Rev. Sh 2003-4 $300,000 County-Wide Incidental Pri #: 0 7/1/03 $750,000 $t26,000 $t26,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $126,000 $0 Rt. 0~25 Hatton Ferry PE $0 PE $0 $0 $0 $Q $0 $0 $0 ID: 63912 0625--002-BI RW $0 ~W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 State Forces Operate Hatton Ferry CON $120,000 CON $0 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 STATE Total $120,000 Total $0 Budget Item Pri #: 1 $t20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0 Rt. 1641 West Leigh Dr. PE $20,000 PE $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rural Addition ID: 56085 1641-002-269,C501 RW $20,000 RW $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 250 CON $460,000 CON $460,000 $0 $0 $Q $0 $0 $0 UPGRADE TO STDS. STATE 0.4 Mi. N. Rte. 250 Total $600,000 Total $500,000 Regular 0.4 miles Pri #: 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0868 Corville Farm Road PE $2,000 PE $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rural Addition ID: 0868-002- ,N RW $4,000 RW $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contract Route 691 CON $144,000 CON $144,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rural Addition Funds STATE Monterey Farm Total $150,000 Total $150,000 Regular Pri#: 3 11/1/03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 063t Mclntire Rd. Ext. PE $1,205,000 PE $1,205,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Alignment - 2-lanes ID: 2530 0631-002-126,C502 RW $4,974,000 RW $2,403,000 $1,145,752 $t,354,344 $70,904 $0 $0 $0 31001 Contract .006 km N. Melbourne CON $9,102,352 CON $7,816,600 $0 $0 $635,534 $650,218 $0 $0 STP .075 km N. NS RR Total $15,281,352 Total $11,424,600 Regular 2.137 km Pri ~: 4 6/1/08 $3,856,762 $t,146,752 $1,354,344 $706,438 $650,218 $0 $0 $0 Page 2 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 ' Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments ' Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 i 2007.08 2008-09 200g-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0631 Mclnfire Rd. Ext. PE $150,000 PE $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-lane Bridge ID: 2530 0631-002-128,B612 RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31001 Contract Bridge over Meadow CON $2,054,500 CON $2,054,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S'R'=93'8 & 192'Long BR Creek Total $2,204,500 Total $2,204,500 New Structure Regular gl 010 Pti g: 4 6/1/08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0631 MClntire Rd. Ext. PE $50,000 PE $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: 2530 0631-002-128,B657 RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31001 Contract Bridge over CON $1,830,500 CON $1,830,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 STATE CSX RR Total $1,880,500 Total $1,880,500 S.R.= 89.8 &152'long Regular g6025 Pri #: 4 6/1/08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 Rt. 0649 Airport Road PE $1,237,400 PE $1,237,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-lane divided w/bike lanes and SW ID: 2456 0649-002-156,C501 RW $4,856,550 RW $4,856,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3H003 Contract Route 29 CON $6,177,506 CON $3,600,100 $2,000,000 $577,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue Sh. $1,000,000 1998-9 Paid STP Route 606 Total $'12,27'l,455 Total $9,694,050 $1,200, O00AirportAcceesFund$ Regular 0.83 Mi. Pti #: 5 13411 12/1/03 $2,577,406 $2,000,000 $577,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I Rt. R000 Free State Connector PE $600,000 BE $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-Lane design ID: 52393 R000-002-259,C501 RW $750,000 :~W $640,000 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3J001 Contract Route 631 (Rio Rd.) CON $2,000,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sharing $1,000,000 95.g6 STATE Free State Road Total $3,350,000 Total $1,240,000 Paid Regular 0.7 Mi. Prig: 6 12/1/06 $2,t10,000 $'110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 Rt. R000 Meadow Creek Parkway PE $4,200,000 PE $t,552,051 $27,597 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 New Alignment ID: 12981 ' R000-002-253,PE101 RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $0 $0 3H001 Contract Rio Road (Rt. 631) CON $0 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sh. $800,000 97-98 Pd. STATE Route 29 Total $4,200,000 Total $1,552,051 Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 07-08 Regular 3.80 Mi. PE Only Pri #: 7 $2,647,949 $27,597 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2,520,352 Rt. 0691 Jarmans Gap Road PE $1 200,000 j PE $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reconstruction ID: 11129 0691-002-258,C501 RW $2,700,000 RW $515,758 $90,000 $1,400,000 $694,242 $0 $0 $0 14003 Contract 1.857 km W. Rte 1206 CON $6,600,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $1,305,758 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,294,242 Revenue Sh. $I,000,000 99-00 STP 0.534 km E. Rte 1206 I Total $t0,500,000 Total $1,715,768 2-lane Urban W/SW & Bike Lanee Regular 2.391 km Prig: 8 2118 12/t/08 $8,784,242 $90,000 $1,400,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,294,242 $0 Page 3 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 Dist~ict: Culpeper County: Albemarle Board Approval Date:: Route PPMS ID Accomplishment Type of Funds: Type of Project Rt. 0649 ID: 54415 Contract STATE Regular Pri #: 9 Rt. 0601 ID: 8807 Contract STP Regular Pri#: 10 Rt. 0656 ID: 12982 Contract STATE Regular Prig: 11 Road Name Project # FROM TO Length Traffic Count Profit Road 0649-002.158,C502 1.6 Mi. E. Rt. 29 Route 29 1.60 Mi. 2237 Old IW Road 0601-002-237,C501 Route 250 Route 29 Bypass 0.72 Mi. 4358 Georgetown Road 0658-002-254,C501 Route 654 Route 743 0.86 mi. 13500 12/1/03 Rt. 0679 ID: 17172 Railroad STATE Regular Pri #: 12 Rt. 0737 ID: 54425 Contract STATE Unpaved Pri #: 13 Rt. 07O8 ID: 11130 Contract STATE Unpaved Pri #: 14 Railroad Crossing 0679-002-260,FS7t3 0.25 Mi. S. RT. 738 #224-689E NS Railroad 485 Mountain Vista Rd. 0737-002-P68,NS01 Route 6 0.9 Mi. E. Rte. 6 0.9 Mi. 75 Secretary's Road 0708-002-P77,NS02 Route 620 Route 795 3.08 Mi. 151 Estimated Cost AD Date: PE $1,500,000 RW $3,000,000 CON $5,000,000 Total $9,500,000 6/1/12 PE $950,000 RW $2,500,000 CON $3,750,000 Total $7,200,000 PE $60O,000 RW $600,000 CON $2,000,000 Total $3,200,000 PE $3,0O0 RW $1,000 CON $96,O0O Total $100,000 3/27/03 PE $20,000 RW $20,000 CON $610,000 Total $650,000 12/1/02 PE $30,000 RW $50,OOO CON $1,090,969 Total $1,170,989 8/1/03 Previous Funding PE $1,000,000 RW $0 CON $0 Total $1,000,000 =E $910,000 ~W $993,400 CON $0 To~l $t,903,400 PE $600,000 RW $100,000 CON $0 To~l $700,000 PE $3,000 RW $1,000 CON $96,000 Total $t00,000 =E $20,000 RW $20,000 CON $610,000 To~l $650,000 mE $30,000 ~W $50,000 CON $926,171 To~l $1,006,171 Page 4 of 7 SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars) 2004-05 through 2009-10 Additional Funding Required $8,600,000 $5,296,600 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $164,818 PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS ~ 2005-0=~~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $164,818 $I 64,818 $0 $63,792 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,792 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o 2006-07 $436,208 $223,468 $0 $659,676 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $766,491 $0 $766,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,0o0 $o $1,200,000 $40,000 $247,927 $0 $287,927 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $81o,041 $1,189,959 $2,000,000 $0 $193,685 $0 $193,685 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 Balance to Complete $3,810,041 $4,814,988 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 Scope of Work FHWA # Comments Reconstruction 31003 Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 04-05 Rev. Sh, $1,000,000 05-06 Reconstruction 3h003 Rev. Sh. $993,400 01-02 Pd. 3-lanes W/$W & Bike lanes PE Only Spot Improvements 31004 Rev. Sh. $200.000 97-8 Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 02.03 PE only Flashing Lights & Gates 16012 Authorized 3/27/03 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat 16003 Unpaved Road-R/W Available Grade, Drain & Surface Treat 16003 R/W Available Date: 12/2/03 DiStrict: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (ill dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost r Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work P PMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0702 Reservoir Rd. PE $20,000 PE $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain and Surface Treat ID: 54426 0702-002-P71,NS01 RW $60,000 RW $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 29 Ra'mp CON $1,321,586 CON $918,880 $402,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No RA4/ Available STATE End of Maintenance Total $t,40t,686 Total $998,880 Unpaved 2.40 Mi. Pri#: 15 406 12/1/06 $402,706 $402,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0640 Gilbert Station Road PE $20,000 PE $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54427 0640-002- ,N RW $40,000 RW $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 641 CON $320,000 CON $0 $86,806 $233,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 NoRightofWayAvailable STATE Route 747 Total $380,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0.70 Mi. Pri#: 16 230 10/1/05 $380,000 $146,806 $233,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0633 Heards Mt. Road PE $20,000 ='E $0 $0 $20,000 ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain and Surface Treat ID: 54428 0633-003- ,N RW $40,000 =~W $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Nelson Co. Line CON $300,000 CON $0 $0 $136,200 $163,800 $0 $0 $0 No RightofWayAvallable STATE Route 634 Total $360,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0,50 Pri#: 17 59 4/1/07 $360,000 $0 $t96,200 $163,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0606 Dickerson Road PE $40,839 PE $0 $0 $40,839 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54429 0606-002-P ,N RW $95,234 RW $0 $0 $95,234 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 850 CON $1,200,000 CON $0 $0 $154,186 $438,558 $365,309 $241,947 $0 No R/WAvailable STATE Route 1030 Total $1,336,073 Total $0 Unpaved 1.99 Mi. Pti#: 18 170 2/1/08 $1,336,073 $0 $290,259 $438,558 $366,309 $24t,947 $0 $0 Rt. 0769 Beam Road PE $10,000 PE $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 59273 0769-002- ,N RW $15,000 RW $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 1484 CON $175,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $76,512 $98,488 $0 $0 STATE End of Maintenance Total $200,000 Total $0 No Right of Way Available Unpaved 0.27 Mi. ] Pri#: 19 50 10/1/08 $200,000 $0 $0 $101,512 $98,488 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0623 Woods Edge Road PE $15,000 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 59274 0623-002- ,N RW $50,000 ~W $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 16003 Contract 0.5 Mi. $. Rte 616 CON $349,975 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $149,975 $200,000 $0 No R/WAvallable STATE End of Maintenance Total $414,976 Total $0 PosBibta Pave in Place Unpaved 0.90 Pri #: 20 140 3/1/09 $4t4,975 $0 $0 $0 $2t4,975 $200,000 $0 $0 Page 5 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0784 Doctors Crossing Rd. PE $25,000 ~E $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $25,000 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 52975 0784-002- ,N RW $75,000 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,806 $68,194 $0 16003 Contract Route 600 CON $1,138,105 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,754 $721,895 STATE Route 640 Total $1,238,105 "otal $0 Unpaved 2.10 Pri #: 21 360 8/1/10 $1,238,105 $0 $0 $0 $3%806 $279,948 $721,895 $204,456 Page 6 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) 2004-05 through 2009-10 Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Funding Complete Required 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 County Totals Pm[Imm Allocation: $4,282,679 $4,330,195 $4,284,984 $4,342,287 $4,424,822 $4,424,822 Report Totals PE $11,918,239 $8,599,451 $3,318,788 $47,597 $144,631 $466,208 $60,000 $60,000 $20,ooo $2,520,352 RW $19,850,784 $9,663,708 $10,187,076 $1,385,752 $2,889,578 $1,003,614 $823,297 $1,516,121 $'1,003,726 $1,564,988 CON $45,890,513 $18,456,751 $28,433,762 $2,849,330 $1,295,986 $2,8'15,162 $3,458,990 $2,848,70'1 $3,401,096 $11,764,497 Phase Allocation Total: $78,659,536 $36,719,910 $41,939,626 $4,282,679 - $4,330,195 $4,284,984 $4,342,287 $4,424,822 $4,424,822 $15,849,837 Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 7 of 7 Date: 12/2/03