Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-05-15
FINAL 7:00 P.M. APRIL 15. 1998 MEETING ROOM:241, SECOND.lzLOOR 1 2. 3. 4, 5. 6, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda. on next sheet:. SP-97-19. CFW Wireless (Sign #92 ~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construc~ telecomm facility on 65 acs. Loc on E side of Rt 29 {Monacan Trail Rd on Britts Mm. Znd RA&EC. TM75, Pcls 22&23. Samuel Miller Dist. SP,97-66. CFW Wireless (Signs #28&29). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct telecomm facility 6n 56.6 acs. Loc on E side of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd), approx 0.45 mis S of Rt 805 Henderson LnZ Znd R& TM109.PgC. Scottsville Dist. SP-97-67. CV 142 (Signs #33&-34~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to install telecomm tower in Bellair Subdivision. Loc on W side of Rt 29 Bypass {Monacmi Tr] }. approx 1/2 ml S of inter of Rts 29 & 250 W (Ivy Rd). Znd RI (1 du/ac) & EC. TM76C Sec 2 P2. Samuel Miller Dist. ZMA-97-10. The Storage Center (Sign #53). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 0.948 ac from C-1 to HC. Loc on W side of Rt 29N (Seminole TrB approx 1/4 nd S of inter w/Rt 649 (Airport Rd). Also znd EC &- AIA. Access from Rt 29 N TM32.P37A1 (Property recom for Regional Seiwice in Community of Hollymead in Comp Plan.3 Rivanna Dist. ZMA-97-13. Anthony Valente (Sign #62/. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 0.82 acs from C-1 to HC. Loc on W side of Rt 29 N (Seminole TrB approx 1 4 mi S of inter w/Rt 649 (Airport Rd). Also znd EC &_Al& Access to property from Rt 29 N. TM32.P37A. (Property recom for Regmnal Service in the Community of Hollymead in Coml: Plan.) Pdvanna Dist. ZMA 98-04. Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59] PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 2.3 ac from PUD to PUD Commerdal to allow existing Adantic Coast Athletic Club fac to be used as priv school. Located on Four Seasons Dr. TM61X2. P4B. (Property recom for Urban Density Residential [6- 34 du/ac] in Neighborhood 1. [SP 98-01 being reviewed concurrently.]) Rio Dist. SP 98-01. Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59 . PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as apriv school. Description same as ZMA-98-04. ZTA-98-01. Violations, PUBLIC HEARING on a request ro amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article V, Violations &_Penalty, Sec 37.0, of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Sec 37.0 will be amended to establish that the failure ora person to correct a zoning violation, ordered to be corrected by the court upon conviction, is a separate offense &_ subject to additional penalties & other technical changes. SP-97-56. Angns Arrington (Sign #70 PUBLIC HEARING on a request to expand Class B Home occupation on 4.6 acs. Applicant proposes to add 1 add'l employee. Loc on Rt 842 (Deer Bonn Lnj. Znd RA. TMS0.P74C. Rivanna Dist. t5. t6, 17. 18. 19. Approve FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget. Adopt FY 1998 Ta,x Rates. Approve FY 1998-99 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt FY 1998-99 CIP Budget. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adiotm~. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center- $28.452 Form #97054). 5.2 Appropriation: Education $47.425 . Form #97055 ,. 5.3 Appropriation: Capital Improvements Ftm& Adjustment $241.150 Form #97056). 5.4 Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $31,434.14 Form #97057). 5.5 1998-99 Scale Adjustment. 5.6 Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to submit Virginia Community Development Blod< Grant. Community Organizing Planning Grant Application for Whitewood Village. 5.7 Authorize County Executive to execute road agreement for Peter Jefferson Place. 5.8 Funding for Albemarle County's share towards National Association of Counties (NACo) Telecommunications Defense Fund. 5.9 Approval of applications for licensure from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport and G. E. Fanuc to operate as non-transport Emergency Medical Services (EMS~ agencies. FOR INFORMATION: 5. I 0 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 17 and March 24. 1998. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 15, 1998 April 22, 1998 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 AGENDA ITEM Call to order, Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $28,452 (Form #97054). APPROVED. Appropriation: Education. $47.425 [Form #97055). Improvement Project. APPROVED. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Fund, Adjusmaent $24'I.150 Form #97056). APPROVED. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets. $31,434.14 [Form #97057l. APPROVED. 1998-99 Scale Adjustmant. APPROVED Resolution authorizing County Exec to submit Virginia CDBG, Community Organizing Plam~ing Grant Application for Whitewood Village. ADOPTED. Authorize County Exec to execute road agreement for Peter Jefferson Place. AUTHORIZED. Funding for County's share towards NACo Telecommunications Defense Fund. APPROVED. Approval of applications for licensure from the C'ville/Albemarle Airport and G. E. Fanuc to operate as non-transport EMS agencies. APPROVED. ASSIGNMENT The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Ail members of the Board of Supervisors were in attendance. Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons. Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons. Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons. Clerk: Send appropriation mc~no to Finance and other appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward copy to Robert Walters. Clerk: Forward original to Ginny McDonald Clerk: Forward agreement and resolution to Larry Davis, then to Bob Tucker to sign. Clerk: Send memo to Carl Pu3mphrey. ACTION MEMO (page 2) From April 15, I998 BOS Meeting April 21, 1998 SP-97-19. CFW Wkeless (Sign #92). PH on request to construct telecomm facility on 65 acs. Loc on E side of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd) on Britts Mnt. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. SP-97-66. CFW Wireless (Signs #28&29). PH on request m construct telecomm facility on 56.6 acs. Loc on E side of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd), approx 0.45 mls S of Rt 805 (Henderson Ln). APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. SP-97-6T CV 142 (Signs #33&34). PH on request m install telecomm tower in Bellair Subdivision. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. Z3AA-97-10. The Storage Center(Sign ~53~ PH.on request to rezone approx 0.948 ac from C-I to HC. APPROVED WITH PROFFERS f0~. ZMA-97-13~ Anthony Valente (Sign #62). PH on request to rezone approx 0.82 acs from C~I to HC. APPROVED WITH PROFFERS. ll. ZMA 98-04. Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59). APPROVED WITH PROFFERS. 12. SP 98-01 Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59). APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. 13. ZTA-98-01. Violations. PH on request m amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article V, Violations & Penalty, Sec 37.0. of the Code of the County of AIbemarle. ADOPTED ORDINANCE. 14¸ SP-97-56. Angus Arrington (Sign #70). PH on request to expand Class B Home occupation on 4.6 acs. Applicant proposes to add 1 add'l employee. APPROVED. 15. Approve FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget. APPROVED. Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Clerk: Send conditions memo to Harming and appropriate persons~ Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons Clerk: Send conditions memo and copy of proffers to Plannings'and appropriate'persons. Clerk: Send-dx.~nditions memo and copy of proffers- to P, larm2ng ami appropriate persons. Clerk: Send conditions memo and copy of proffers to Planning aud appropriate persons. Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Clerk: Update Zoning Ordinance. Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Clerk: Send appropriations letter to Finance and appropriate persons. ACTION MEMO (page 3) From April 15, 1998 BOS Meeting April 21, 1998 16. Adopt FY 1998 Tax Rates. ADOPTED. 17. Approve FY 1998-99/2002-2003 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt FY 1998-99 CIP Budget. APPROVED. OTHER MATTERS: The Board reappointed Mr. Bruce Dotson to the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee. He will now serve as a non- Planning Commission representative. Mrs. Thomas said it is/mportant to know if proposed telecommunications towers are located in Agriculture/Forestal Districts. Mrs. Thomas asked about a Water Quantity Ordinance before the Plauning Commission. Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on the Four Seasons/Rio Road construction plans. Mrs. Thomas had received a copy of the Motmtain Protection Plan Committee's work. Mr. Martin asked that the Board examine the litter problem in the County and institute stronger measures for dealing with it. /LBIrl Staff: Notify departments and agencies. Clerk: Send appropriations letter to Finance and appropriate persons. Staff: Notify depariments and agencies. Clerk: Send reappointment letter to B. Dotson. Update Boards and Commissions notebook. Planning: Begin including this information on all future telecommunications towers applications: The Planning Comission and the Board will each discuss a Water Quantity provision that is included in a draft Subdivision Ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission within the nex~ few weeks. Staff: Provide an updated at the May 6 meeting on the various proposed projects in the Four Seasons/Rio Road area, to include information on the enlrance onto Rio Road, the detention basin cleanout, and dra'mage control devices. Clerk: Dislribute copies to the Board. Staff: Ask Cheryl Shelly, VDOT, the Recycling Coordinator, and someone ficom the Police Depar~ent, to update the Board on what the County is currently doing regarding littar and to offer further suggestions. Ask Lee Catlin to work with Ms. Shelly to better educate the public on what they can do to reduce litter. Distribution list: Bob Tucker Rick Huff Roxanne White Kevin Casmer Wayne Cilimberg Larry Davis Bill Mawyer Amelia McCulley Bruce Woodzell ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 15, 1998 April 22, t998 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 AGENDA ITEM Call to order. Approphation: Emergency Communications Center, $28,452 (Form #97054). APPROVED. Appropriation: Education, $47,425 i~orm #97055). Improvement Project. APPROVED. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Fund. Adjuslment $24'1,150 Form #97056k APPROVED. Appropriation: Federal and State Drag Seized Assets, $31,434.14 (Form #97057). APPROVED. 1998-99 Scale Adjusmaen~. APPROVED Resolution authorizing County Exec to submit Virginia CDBG, Community Organizing Planning Grant Application for Whitewood Village. ADOPTED. Authorize County Exec to execute road agreement for Peter Jefferson Place. AUTHORIZED. Funding for County's share towards NACo Telecommunications Defense Fund. APPROVED Approval of applications for licensure fi.om the C'ville/Albemarle Airport and G. E. Fanuc to operate as non-transport EMS agencies. APPROVED. ASSIGNMENT The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. All Ovi members of the Board of Supervisors were in / attendance. Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons. Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons Clerk: Send appropriation memo to Finance and other appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward copy to Robert Waiters. Clerk: Forward original to Ginny McDonald Clerk: Forward agreement and resolution to Larry Davis, then to Bob Tucker to sign. Clerk: Send memo to Carl Pumpkrey. ACTION MEMO (page 2) From April 15. 1998 BOS Meeting April 21, 1998 SP-97-19. CFW Wireless (Sign #92). PH on request to construct telecormm facility on 65 acs. Loc on E side of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd) on Britts Mnt. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. SP-97-66. CFW Wireless (Signs #28&29~. PH on request to construct telecomm facility on 56.6 acs. Loc on E side of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd), approx 0.45 mls S of Rt 805 (Henderson Lng. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. SP-97-6T CV 142 (Signs #33&34). PH on request to install telecomm tower in Bellair Subdivision. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. 7MA-97-10. The Storage Center(Sign #53) PH on request m rezone approx 0.948 ac from C-I to HC. APPROVED WITH PROFFERS. 10. ZMA-97-13. Anthony Valente (Sign #62). PH on request to rezone approx 0.82 acs from C-1 to HC. APPROVED WITH PROFFERS. 11. ZMA 98-04. remporar~ Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59~. APPROVED WITH PROFFERS. 12. SP 98-01. Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59). APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. 13. ZTA-98-01 Violations. PH on request to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article V. Violations & Penalty, Sec 37.0. of the Code of the County of Albemarle. ADOPTED ORDINANCE. 14¸ SP-97-56. Angus Arrington (Sign #70). PH on request re expand Class B Home occupation on 4.6 acs. Applicant proposes to add 1 add'l employee. APPROVED. 15. Approve FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget. APPROVED. Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Send conditions memo to Plamfmg and appropriate persons. Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Send conditions memo and copy of proffers to Plmufing'and appropriate persons. Send condilinns memo and copy o£proffem to Pl anrdng and appropriate persons. Send conditions memo and copy of proffe to Planning and appropriate persons. Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Clerk: U~f~eZoning Ordinan,~,~/-/ Clerk: Clerk: Send conditions memo to Planning and appropriate persons. Send appropriations letter to Finance and approprmte persons. ACTION MEMO Ipage 3) From April 15. 1998 BOS Meeting April 21, 1998 16 Adopt FY 1998 Tax Rates. ADOPTED 17. Approve FY 1998-99/2002-2003 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt FY 1998-99 CIP Budget. APPROVED. OTHER MATTERS: The Board reappointed Mr. Bruce Dotson to the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee. He will now serve as a non- Planning Commission representative. Mrs. Thomas said it is important to know if proposed telecommunications towers are located in Agriculmre/Forestal Districts. Mrs. Thomas asked about a Water Quanti~y Ordinance before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on the Four Seasons/Rio Road consh'uction plans. Mrs. Thomas had received a copy of the Mountain Protection Plan Committee's work. Mr. Martin asked that the Board examine the litter problem in the County and institute stronger measures for dealing with it. /LBH Staff: Notify departments and agencies. Clerk: Send appropriations letter to Finance and appropriare persons. Staff: Notify depanmems and agencies. Clerk: Send reappointment letter to B. Dotson. Update Boards and Commissions notebook. Planning: Begin including this information on all future telecommunications towers applications. The Planning Comission and the Board will each discuss a Water Quantity provision that is included in a draft Subdivision Ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission within the next few weeks. Staff: Provide an updated at the May 6 meeting on the various proposed projects in the Four Seasuns/Rio Road area. to include information on the entrance onto Rio Road. the detention basin cleanout, and drainage control devices. Clerk: Distribute copies to the Board. Staff: Ask Cheryl Snelly, VDOT. the Recycling Coordinator, and someone from the Police Department. to update the Board on whal the County is currently doing regarding litter and to offer further suggestions. Ask Lee Catlin to work with Ms. Snelly to better educate the public on what they can do to reduce litter. DisU'ibution list: Bob Tucker Rick Huff Roxanne White Kevin Casmer Wayne Cilimberg Larry Davis Bill Mawyer Amelia McCulley Bruce Woodzell I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Plauning and Community Development Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Applications Approved on April 15, 1998 May 4, 1998 The following applications were approved by the Board at its meeting on April 15, 1998: SP-97-19. CFW Wireless (Sign #92) (Need to put whole description.) Conditions: 1. The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter; 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted; b. The tower shall have no lighting; and c. The tower shall not be painted. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-120' and initialed "WDF 1/29/98"; 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass whip-type antenna, not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 2 April 21, 1998 The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the colocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permirtee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate anteunas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: Prior to approval ora final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ofa a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "ltuninaire" is a complete lighting trait 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. Lighting limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to begiuning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staffto remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discont'mued; V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 3 April 21, 1998 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be forty (40) feet; 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining wails, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 13. The access road shall be built ~vith side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 14. The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section; 15. No fencing shall be erected; 16. Any equipment located on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown; and 17. All lighting shall be shielded from Route 29. SP-97-66. CFW Wireless (Signs #28&29) Conditions: 1. The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend seven ~ 7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter; 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted; b. The tower shall have no lighting; and c. The tower shall not be painted. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 4 May- 4, 1998 The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-110" and initialed "WDF 1/29/98"; 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass whip-type antenna, not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the colocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: Prior to approval ofa fmal site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow- other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by m~other provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that alllight emitted is projected below a horizontal plane tuning through the lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting ofa lmnp 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. Lighting limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginning constmcfion or installation of the to~ver or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staffto remove existing trees on the site. The V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 5 April 21, 1998 County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, ther permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued; 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless relecommuntcations service provider; 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the acess road shall be forty (40) feet; 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 14. ]?he access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet irt cross section; 15. No fencing shall be erected; and 16. Any equipment located on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. SP-97-6T. CV 142 (Si_~ns #33&34) Conditions: The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter; V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 6 April 21, 1998 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. Guy ~vires shall not be permitted: b. The tower shall have no lighting; and c. The tower shall not be painted. l'he tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-142" and initialed "SET 1/15/98"; 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to ~vo (2) fiberglass whip-type an~erma, not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. ]7he antenna type shall be as shown on a plan rifled "611 Mini Cell Site View" initialed %ET 1/15/98"; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the colocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the rower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: Prior to approval ora final site plan for the site or the waiver of the s~te plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 7 May 4, 1998 Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Lighting limited to periods of maintenance only; 7~ Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staffto remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees; 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The access road extention shall be of minimum construction and dimension to accommodate service vehicles. Should installation of the tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed; 10. The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service; 11. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued; 12. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the tower is being used; 13. At least twelve (12) bayberries or native hollies shall be planted around the facility; 14. No fencing shall be erected; and 15. Any equipment on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. ZMA-97-10. The Storage Center (Sign #53) Approved subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as set out on the attached "Proffer Form", dated 4/15/98 and signed by Christopher Todd Shields. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 8 April 21. 1998 ZMA-97q3. Anthony Valente (Si_ma #62~ Approved subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as set out on the attached "Proffer Form", dated 4/09/98 and signed by Anthony D. Valenti and Mary Katheryn Valenti. ZMA 98-04. Tempor~_ Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59) Approved subject To acceptance of the applicant's proffers as set out on the attached "Amended Proffer Form", undated and signed by Phil Wendel. SP 98-0l. Temporary_ Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #52&59) Conditions: 1. Maximum enrollment will be 180 students; Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., provided that occasional school-related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.; and 3. Site shall not be used as a school after June 30, 2001. SP-97-56. Angus Arrington (Sign #70) Conditions: The applicant shall have no more than three (3) trucks with gross vehicle weight not m exceed twenty thousand (20,000) pounds per vehicle and three (3) trailers parked on site; Not more than two (2) employees, other than members of the family residing on the property, shall be permitted on site; No storage of gas, oil, fertilizer, or chemicals on site. No outside storage of eqmpmem, supplies/materials related to landscape business, including trailers noted above. "Storage" will mean the keeping of more than a five (5)~gallon quantity o£material; and No repairs of equipment shall be permitted other than routine operational mamtenance such as, but not limited to, oil changes, blade replacement, tire changes and belt changes. Operation of equipmem m association with routine mmntenance is only allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 9 April 21, 1998 on-loading and off-loading of equipment is not deemed to be routine operational maintenance; and 5. Area used to conduct the Home Occupation will not exceed 1,800 square feet. Attackments: 3 cc: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Brace Woodzell I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breedan, Director of Finance Laurel B. Hall. Senior Deputy Clerk ~_ Appropriations Approved on April 15, 1 April 21, 1998 Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following item which were approved by the Board at its meeting on April 15, 1998: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Appropriation: Emergency Communications Cente~, $28,452 (Form #97054). Appropriation: Education, $47,425 (Form #97055). Appropriation: Capital Improvements Fund, Adjusunenr $241,150 Form #97056). Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $31,434,14 tForm #97057). Approve FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget. Adopt FY 1998 Tax Rates. Attachments: 6 cc: Roxanne Wlfite R/chard E. Huff,. II Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Tom Hanson Bill Mawyer John Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Emergency Communications Center SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #97054 in the amount of $28,452.00 to replace communications equipment. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker Hanson, Breeden AGENDA DATE: Apd115,1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The Emergency Communications Center Management Board has approved the transfer of $28,452.00 from its fund balance to replace certain communications equipment. DISCUSSION: - $1 400 to be used towards the purchase of an emergency replacement of an antenna for the Carter's Mountain radio site. $27,052 to be used toward the purchase of replacement equipment for a Digital Logging Recorder to records and play back 9-1-1 telephone calls. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $28,452.00, as detailed on form #97054. 98.063 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEA_R: 97,/98 NI/MBER 97054 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ YES NO X FUND: ECC PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 4100 31040 8¢0301 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT $27,052.00 1 4100 31043 800301 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 1,400.00 TOTAL S28,452.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 4100 51000 510100 FUND BikLANCE $28,452.00 TOTAL $28,452.00 ********************************************************************* REQUESTING COST CENTER: E.C.C. APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINAI~CE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPER VISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #97055 in the amount of $47,425.00 for the Project RETURN II grant and a donation from the Rotary Club. STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At its meeting on March 23, 1998, the School Board approved the appropriation of the Project Return II Grant Award in the amount of $44,925.00 and an appropriation of $2,500.00 from the Rotary Club of Charlottesville. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County Public Schools has received the Regional Pilot Projects for an Alternative Education Program (Project RETURN II) grant for the 1997-98 fiscal year. A consortium including Nelson County Schools, Charlottesville City Schools, and Albemarle County Schools will continue to address the educational, social, and emotional needs of students who require an alternative educational program, such as students who have been expelled or suspended for an entire semester or have two or more long-term suspensions in one school year. Project RETURN II will use distance learning, and intensive counseling for both the student and the family. Because of a decrease in grant funding this year, the three school systems in the consortium will supplement this project with previously dedicated funds in their budgets. Nelson County Schools, in the amount of $5,400.00; Charlottesville City Schools, in the amount of $6,120.00; and Albemarle County Schools in the amount of $6,090.00. The Albemarle County School Division received a donation in the amount of $2,500.00 from the Rotary Club of Charlottesville. This donation will be used to support the "Character Counts" pilot project. The Character Counts Program is based on the premise that families, communities, and schools share in the responsibility to help young people develop good character. The funds will be used to support training for staff to implement the program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $47,425.00, as detailed on form #97055. 98.062 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 97/98 IfUNIBER 97055 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TPJtNSPER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FI/ND: GRANT/SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PROJECT RETURN II GRANT AND DONATION. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 3122 63349 112100 SALARY-TEACHER $28,968.99 1 3122 63349 210000 FICA 2,207.40 1 3122 63349 221000 VRS 3,577.40 t 3122 63349 231000 HEALTH INS. 2,000.00 1 3122 63349 2~1000 LIFE INSURANCE' 101.40 1 3122 63349 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 1,000.00 1 3122 63349 601300 INSTR. MATERIALS 7,069.81 1 2tll 61311 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 2,500.00 TOTAL $47,425.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 3122 24000 240500 PROJECT RETURN II S27,315.00 2 3122 18000 189900 MISC. REVEAIOE 11,520.00 2 3122 51000 512001 TRANS. FROM SCHOOL FUND 6,090.00 2 2000 18000 181109 DONATION 2,500.00 TOTAL $47,425.00 ********************************************************************* REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Capital Improvement Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #97056 adjusting appropriations to several capital projects. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs, Tucker, Breeden AGENDA CATE: Apd115, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~' / DISCUSSION: A review of capital improvement projects revealed several projects that have been completed or revised and no longer require the remaining appropriated balance. These projects are: Asphalt Paving - Georgetown Sidewalk - Fifth Street Park Road Extension A.D.A Compliance Study Storm Water - Lickinghole Creek $13,000.00 78,000.00 41,000.00 65,940.00 123.210.00 Total $321,150.00 Several projects, however, will require additional funds for completion as follows: Sidewalk - Hydraulic Road Sidewalk- Barracks Road $ 30,000.00 50,000.00 Total $ 80,000.00 The above adjustments will result in a net reduction of $241 150.00 in capital projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the adjustments to the capital projects as detailed on attached forrr #97056. 98.061 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 97/98 NI3MBER 97056 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED o YES NO X FI/ND: CAP I TAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPITAL PROJECTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT t 9010 41000 1 9010 41000 1 9010 41000 1 9010 41000 1 9010 41000 1 9010 41000 1 9010 43100 1 9100 41039 950011 SIDEWALK-HYDRAULIC ROAD 950~57 GREENBRIER DRIVE-SIDEWALK 950091 SIDEWALK-BARRACKS ROAD 950022 ASPHALT PATH-GEORGETOWN 950073 SIDEWALK-FIFTH STREET 950072 PARK ROAD EXTENSION 580411 ADA COMPLIANCE STUDY 800975 LI~KINGHOLE CREEK S30,000.00 St0,000.00 40,000.00 (13,000.00) (78.000..00) (41,000.00 (65,940.00) (123,210.00) TOTAL (S241,150.00' REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9010 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE ($117,940.00) 2 9100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE (123,210.00) TOTAL ($241,150 . 00~ REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Federal and State Drug Seized Assets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 97057 in the amount of $31,434.14. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker,t~reeden ,Walte rs,Miller,Camblos Ms. White _ AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ~TTACHMENTS: Yes · BACKGROUND: Perio~cally, the Coun~receivesrevenu~ ~rassetsseizedin ~demland st~edrugen~meme~ a~ons. The proceedsam ~ilizedf~ additionallawen~meme~ a~ivifies. DISCUSSION: This appropriation requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for federal and state drug seized assets for the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 97057 in the amount of ~.31,434.14. 98.065 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 97/98 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPEND EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X SEIZED ASSETS 97057 FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1235 39000 580902 FEDERAL DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $27,251.04 1 1236 39000 580905 STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 4~183.t0 TOTAL $31,434.14 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1235 33000 330205 FEDERAL REVENUE $27,251.04 2 1236 24000 240403 STATE REVENIIE 4,183.10 TOTAL $31,434.14 REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE/COMM. ATT. APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATTIRE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 1998-99 Scale Adjustment SUBJECTIPROPOSA~REQUEST: Approval of Scale Adjustment for 1998-99 STAFF CONTACT~SI: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Morgan AGENDA DATE: Apd115, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: ~~ BACKGROUND: During the budget worksessions for the 1998-99 budget, the Board rewewed information regarding a 1% scale adjustment to salary scales for the 1998-99 fiscal year in order to keep entry level salaries more competitive. Also contemplated was placing all available salary funds (i.e., 2.75%) into the merit pool. The effect of this would not be to move everyone 1% and then apply the appropriate merit funds but that the merit funds used would result in at least a 1% increase for every current employee in order to keep them ahead of new employees being hired while, at the same time. raising the scale for purposes of market competitiveness. The total costs for both schools and local government was projected at approximately $13,000 which can be absorbed within the proposed budget. DISCUSSION: On Monday, April 6, 1998, the Albemarle County School Board was presented with the same information and gave their support to the 1% scale adjustment subject to the Board of Supervisors' approval as well. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the scale be adjusted 1% with all available compensation funds being placed into the merit pool at whatever percentage the Board ultimately decides during the budget process. 98.067 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARL oAp, D OF S JP- P,V[SOR$ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: V'~rginia Community Development Block Grant, Community Organ'~ng Planning Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of a resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit the Community Organizing Ptanning Grant Application. STAFF CONTACT{S}: Mr. Tucker. Ms White. Ms McDonald BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION.: .CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes The Virginia Depaffment of Housing and Community Development administers the federally funded Community Development Block Grant Program (VCDBG). These funds are available to "non-entitlement" localities on a competitive basis to implement a wide variety of housing and' community development activities. There are two types of grants: (1) Community Improvement Grants (CIG); (2) Planning Grants. A CIG application was submi~ed bytbe County March 27. 1998 for Housing Rehabilitation in the Porters Road/Yancy School Community. Planning Grants do not require public heatings, only an author'~ng ~resolution. .DISCUSSION: Dudng the 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and the 1998 CDBG public hearings, the Whitewood Community was identified as a potential targeted neighborhood for a future Community Improvement Grant, possibly a commun~ center. The design of the 1996 VCDBG program introduced a new catego~J of planning grants, the Community Organizing Planning Grant. This grant is intended for neighborhoods bhat have not already selected a future Community improvement Grant project, but may need to undergo a process of organizing and visioning tn order to select, develop and ptiortiize an appropriate improvement activity fur ~he future. These types of grants must involve community groups or non-profit groups in organizing neighborhood residents, assessing community strengths and weaknesses, and strategizing for future social and physical improvements. The result of such efforts must be capacity building among future benefidaries, who will create a vision of their futura, using CDBG and ether resources. The ma~dmum grant amount is ~1(],000. The Whitswood Village apartment complex contains 96 un'its of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Ass'~tance, The · teen-year subsidy contract expires in the year 2002. Depending upon the wishes of the owner of the propeAy and the funding availability of future Section 8 funds, the County may lose these rental units currently serving Iow-and moderate. income residents. There is no requirement for the owner to continue with rental assistance even if it is available. I community organizing planning grant would create the opportunity for the current residents to plan for their future i~ cooperation with the current owners. The greater Whitewood Community was the second neighborhood selected for focus~ activities by the County's Neighborhood Team. MACAA has currently been working with the tenants to organize a Res'~e~ Council Matching contributions include County Office of Housing and MACAA stafftime, plus a $1000 grant from th County's Neighborhood Team. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, which authorizes the County Executive to submit a Commun Organizing Planning Grant to the Virginia Department of Housing & Community Dave opment for the Whitewood Villa! neighborhood n the amount of $10,000. The grant wit be subcontracted to the Monticello Area Community Action Agen 98.066 Resolution WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has long recognized that c~tizen leadership and involvement is a prerequisite for empoy/ered and self-sufficient neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the County believes that empowered and self-sufficient neighborhoods should be developed and encouraged in all~oossibie ways; and WHEREAS, the County's new Neighbors Team initiative has begun to bring together the various County departments and comm'.~'.~,tY ~genciesthat work most frequently to create an organized, coordinated, on- going process to ~ct~tress neighborhood problems_ and concerns: and the n~ghbo~O~ o~ V~hitev~qo~ Village provides 96 units of decent, safe and affordable Wi-IEREAS .~ '-' .... ..-derate P.~h~bil ration Renta Assistance Program, serving 96 Low and housing throug . L_..~. and 237 iow a*d moderate income individuals; and Moderate income · - i'~a~e section 8'~ntal Housing Assistance Payments Contract expires in t~HEREAS, tl~e Wh~te,?°~°~d..irV~i;~ could reSUl~ithe displacement of 96 Iow and moderate households; ;l~e year 2002 and such and ~ = to Area community ~'~ Age. ncy i.s. a member of the County's Neighborhood --~,.~ *he Mo.t,qe~ ...... hood organt~, and ~s part~ally funded by the County; and Team, is e)~P staff time and $1500 of ?t de. d C, ounty O ce of Housing ---~FAS, matChtng c°~t~r~00 grant trOm [.~nty's Neighborhood Team. MontiCe't°_'Nre~ C°m'm''u'-n~'~n- A-?''e'ncyn behalf otA,~o"'oun,Y, has agreed to administer a Community the organizing .- ~,~oLVED th%rt W Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby, _ ..-.-.=,-nRE, E,E t; ~.'~=-,.~.~ia cord~'Develo~)ment Block Grant, Community Organizing NOW, .... i,m and sub ..,,.~owood Vill~]e amount of $10,000. plandmg Gram -'o hereby certifY that t~,ing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted of sup ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEBOA D OF SUP] R¥ISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Peter Jefferson Place Road Agreement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: BOS approval of County Executive authority to execute the road agreement. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker. Huff, Davis, Kelsey, Keeler DISCUSSION: AGENDA DATE: Apd115,1998 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: R e s ol./~ ~..~;~eem e nt , REVIEWED BY: .~)~c/4] [ / Peter Jefferson Place is a "Planned Development" located onthe top of Pantops Mountain. It is bordered by State Farm Boulevard, State Route 250 East, Interstate 64 and the Rivanna River. Since its inception the Peter Jefferson Place "concept" has been to create a "campus" type atmosphere that provides mulfiple points of access yet is otherwisa isolated from the surrounding road network. During the development of the Master Plan and plans for the road system it became apparent that the Developer, County, and VDOT could not agree on issues of the overall design "concept" and transportation system philosophies. The disagreements stemmed from the Developers' desire to preserve unique design features, the County's vision of the design "concept' and its inter-rela~nship with the surrounding community, and VDOT mad design standards and policies. With the assistance of an outside consultant, hired by the Developer the issues were arbitrated and the attached agreement was developed. This agreement assures and clearly delegates responsibility for the construction of specific road improvements. It clearly establishes the standards and performance expectations for the construction of improvements and for the actions of each party. The agreement requires the Developer to finance and construct roads within the development in accordance with plans appreved by the County, to make improvements to Route 250, to contribute to the cost of a traffic signal at the Route 250/State Farm Boulevard intersection, and to make other improvements to that intersection. The agreement requires the County to review the plans submitted by the Developer and to request, if certain prerequisites are satisfied, that the reads constructed by the Developer be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways. The Developer, VDOT, and County staff (county attorney, planning, and engineering) have reviewed the agreement and all are satisfied with the provisions. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution to authorize the County Executive to execute the road agreement. 98.072 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the developer of Peter Jefferson Place and the County desire to enter into an agreement which identifies the responsibilities of the developer in the construction of roads within Peter Jefferson Place and the construction or financial contribution for improvements to existing roads adjacent to Peter Jefferson Place; and identifies the responsibilities of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County related thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes Robert W. Tucker. Jr., County Executive to execute the above-described agreement. 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 (~ to O on April 15, 1998. ~lerk, Board of County Superv, i/sors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE · EXECUTIVE SUM MARY BOARD OF UP RV $OR$ AGENDA TITLE: Funding for NACo Telecommunications Defense Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of County's share toward Telecommunications Defense Fund STAFF CONTACT(St: Messrs. Tucker, Huff AGENDA DATE: ApHI15,1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes · REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Staff has received a request from the Virginia Association of Counties to fund a contribution to the National Association of Counties' Telecommunications Defense Fund. This request is made to hire counsel to represent local governments in court and before the Federal Communications Commission to protect the rights and interests of local governments in the areas of cellular tower zoning authority, right-of-way authority, universal service obligations, etc. Albemarle County's contribution, given its population, would fit within the guidelines of a $1,D00 contribution which can be absorbed within existing budgets, if the Board so chooses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve a donation of $1,000 to the NACo Telecommunications Defense Fund with such funding to come from existing appropriated resources. 98.064 President Charles W. Curry Augusta County President-Elect Wanda C. Botetourt County First Vice President Ferris M. Belman. Sr. Stafford County Second ¥1ce President Jackson T. Ward Hanover County Secretary-Treasurer Raymond F. Atsop King and Que¢~ Coun~ Immediate Past President John D. Jeo/fins Prince W~llam Cotmty Executive Director James D. Campbell, CAE General Counsel C. Flippo Hicks t001 East Broad Street Suite LL 20 Richmond, Virginia 23219-1928 (804) 788-6652 F/O{ (804} 788-0083 E-mail: VACo95®aol.co~ Web site: www.vaco.org VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES March 23, I998 Mr. Robert W. Tucker Jr. County Executive Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker: - ~$eve~al monks agoyou may have received a request fromS~he National Association of Counties (NACo~ for a contribution to the NACo Telecommunications Defense Fund. It is becoming more apparent that NACo must coordinate with U. S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities to hire counsel to represent local governments in court and before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to protect the rights and interests of local governments. We continue to see evidence of the virtually un//rnited resources which the telecommunications industry has committed to encourage the Congress. the courts and the FCC to preempt county governments in the areas of cellular tower zoning authority, rights-of-way authority, universal service obligations and even providing facilities and systems within the community. If you have not already done so, we urge you to contribute to NACo's Telecommunications Defense Fund. We suggest you consider the following guidelines: Population Contribut~n 0-25,000 $ 300 25.001- 50,000 $ 500 50,001-250,000 $ 1.000 above 250,000 $ 2,000 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me or Bob Fogel (202-942-4217) at NACo. J C:bp. ~_,arr~ Naake. NACo Sincerely, James D. Campbell. CAE Executive Director N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Carl Pumphrey, Fire and Rescue Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Board Action April 21, 1998 At its April 15. 1998 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved applications for lieensure from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport and G. E. Fanuc to operate as non4ransport Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies. COUNTY OF ALBEM R EE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Approval of additional Emergency Medical Sen/ices (EMS) agencies to operate within the County. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval for supporting applications for licensure to operate as non-transport EMS agencies. STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff', & Pumphrey AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The following organizations are requesting support in obtaining licensure from the Virginia Department of Health Office of Emergency Sen/ices (VDHO of EMS), as non-transporting EMS agencies: (1) Charlottesville/Albemarle Regional Airport Fire Department - Requesting licensure as a non-transport First Responder agency (Basic Life Support) Basic Life Support - Means a level of pre-hospital cam which includes the recognition of other life threatening conditions which may result in respiratory and cardiac arrest, and the application of life support functions including CPR, use of adjunctive techniques and procedures G.E. Fanuc - Requesting licensure as a non-transport Advanced Life Support (ALS) agency. Emergency medical care will be on site only. Advanced Life Support - Means a level of pre-hospital care provided by EMS personnel: F_MT-Shock Trauma Technicians, EMT-Cardiac Technicians, EMT-Paramedics. This level will include basic life support functions including CPR plus cardiac monitoring, cardiac defibrillation intravenous therapy, administration of specific medications, drug and solutions, and other authorized techniques and procedures. DISCUSSION: Under the rules and regulations of the VDHO of EMS [Section 3.6(c)(1)], a statement of need and approval of sen/ice operation from the local governing body is needed by the Office of EMS so that they may consider this request. A non-transport First Responder agency will reduce response times from the onset of an injury/illness to the arrival of trained medical personnel who will provide immediate care. These requests have the support of Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of requests from Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport and G.E. Fanuc. 98.068 David R ]3owe~nan Bio Charlo~ Y: Humpl~ds For~'t R. ~h~ll, & COUNTY OF Office of ~ard of Supervisors 401 Mdnfim Road Charlott~'v~le. V'L~ini~ 22902.-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 29~-5800 Charles S. Marhn g,~lter F. Peril/ns Sail5, H. Tlmmas [uly 10. 1998 Mr. Dave Cullen Office of Emergency Medical Services Commonwealth of Virgima 1538 Parham Road Richmond, VA 23228 Dear Mr. Cullen: On behalf of Albemarle County, I am submitting this letter indicating the County's support of the license application to designate the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority as a First Responder EMS agency. This letter fulfills the governing body approval component of this application. If there should be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM,Jr/ec cc: Cad Pmnphrey Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerrnan Charlotte Y. Hurnphr/s Forrest R. MarshalI. Jr. cO~ OF AI I~ Office of Board of Su~rv~sors 401 Mdntim Road Charlottesville, Vtrginia 22902-4596 (804) 2965843 FAX (804,} 296-5800 Charles S. Madin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas july i0, 1998 Mr. Dave Cullen Office of Emergency Medical Services Commonwealth of Virginia 1538 Parham Road Richmond, VA 23228 Dear Mr. Cullen: On behalf of Albemarle County, I am submitting this letter indicating the County's support of the license application to designate GE Fanuc as an ALS non transport agency. This letter fulfills the governing body approval component of this application. If there should be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Forrest tL Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM Jr/ec cc: Carl Pumphrey Printed on recycled paper .~ARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmen[ 40] Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) ~96~5825 February 13, 1998 Larry Ryan CFWWireless 1150 Shenandoah Village Dr Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: 8P-97-19 CFW Wireless, CV120, Britts Mountain Tax Map 75, Parcels 22 and 23 Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 10, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board o¥ Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted. b. The tower shall have no lighting. c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed "WDF 1/29/98." Page 2 February 13, 1998 Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) fiberglass antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers as follows: The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. 1. Pdor to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site. 2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permiffee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "tuminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the pads designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Pdor to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200 feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. Page 3 February 13, 1998 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the zoning Ordinance. 9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be forty (40) feet. 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. 15. No fencing shall be erected. 16. Any equipment located on the ground shall be painted'dark green or brown. 17. All lighting shall be shielded from Rt. 29. The Planning Commission also granted a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accord with Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan pdor to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 was granted allowing a reduction in setback. Page 4 February 13, 1998 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 15, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days pdor to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner CC: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Jens Whitney & William Clark STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP FEBRUARY 10, 1998 APRIL 15, 1998 SP 97- 19 CFW WIRELESS [BRITTS MT.l_ Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a tower at tree top level to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for southern Albemarle County. The proposed tower is a wooden pole. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staffhas indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. Petition: Proposal to construct a telecommunication facility on 65 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. [10.2.2.6] Property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcels 22 and 23, is located on the east side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Rd., on Britts MountaJm in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on the side of Britts Mountain well below the crest of the mountain. Attachment D isa topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby houses and the observatory. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 655 feet ASL, Above Sea Level, the top of Britts Mountain is 1,262 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower is approximately 300 feet distant. (This dwelling is also approximately 80 feet lower in elevation.) Approximately 17 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the areas the nearest tower [a 360 Communications tower at Camp Holiday Trails adjacent to 1-64] is located approximately 1.2 miles to the north. The nearest CFW facility is located on the r0ofofUniversity Village approximately 3.3 miles to the north. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Plannin~ and Zonin~ History: '-~, No action has been taken on this site by either the Planning .Commission or Board of Supervisors. The applicant had previously submitted a request on this property for a 150 foot tower located higher on the mountain. The current request reflects the applicant's efforts to address concerns raised in prior reviews of towers in the CFW network. Comnrehensive Plan: Staffnotes that in order to construct the proposed tower clearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required, Therefore, these impacts, in addition m the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the sitinglof telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in ~e plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Critical Slopes and Mountain ReSource Areas. The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. While a portion of this property is located inthe Mountain Resource Area, the proposed tower location is below the Mountain Resource Area. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose" and "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors: to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism". As stated previously in the memo addressihg all of the CFW requesT, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. [The ARB has stated that without additional guidance from the Board of Supervisors it is unable m review applications for towers completely.] This tower will be visible from the Entrance Con-idor District. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. While this property contains significant areas of critical slopes, the proposed tower is located such that the tower will not be on critical slopes. However the access road will cross areas of critical slopes based on a review of available topographic maps. To address the impact caused by crossing areas of critical slopes staff has included conditions which will restrict the amount of impact. Based on these conditions, staff opinion is that the request is not in conflict with the Open Space Plan as it relates to critical slopes. The impact of this tower on resources as idenfrtied in the Open Space Plan is in the opinion of staff not significant due to the limited visibility of the tower and conditions to limit impact on critical slopes. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues oftkis request in four sections: 1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(l)(lI) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 3. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Section 4A0.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. - Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reservea unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The proposed tower is located approximately 35 feet from the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on the side of Britts Mountain which is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 90 feet tall. The top of the tower will be at tree height with the antenna extending seven feet above tree height. This will offer few if any opportunities for collocation in an area which has been idenfffied as not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will offer limited visibility of the tower. The proposed tower is located approximately ."t00 feet ~rom the nearest dwelling. Based on staffreview this tower will have limited visibility from any dwellings or Route 29. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the toweris under 200 feet in height and staff has included a condition prohibiting lighting. The design of the tower is such that is has limited visibility from residential property. Therefore, staffopinion is that approval would not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent property. Additional information may beprovided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. that the character of the district will notbe changed thereby, Staff has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not, in the opinion of staff, resulted in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Staff opinion is that this tower will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricnithral/forestal Based on the limited visibility and limited maintenance impact caused by this tower staff opinion is that this request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance~ Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation ora convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. The limited visual impact caused by this proposal does not in the opinion of staff conflict with the intent of the ordinance to create an attractive community. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does comply with this provision o£Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses, other by-right uses available on this site or by-right uses on any other property. with additional remflations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health,-safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This mqnirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) oftbe Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentali _tythereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service.. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of protfibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reas6n, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction ora new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included 360 Commmtication Tower located on 1-64. This tower does not provide a viable collocation alternative as the Ragged Mountains would block the signal to Route 29. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in southern Albemarle. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zonine Ordinance. The text of Section 32.2.2 is attached. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordi~mnce or otherwise serve the public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver. Based on this review staffis unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission ora site plan. Staffrecommends approval ora full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height l'nnitation shall not apply to any of the above designated slractures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of approximately 90 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 35 feet from the closest property line. Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure: In tiffs situation the proposed tower is a wooden pole which caunot be designed to collapse m a predictab'le manner. Relocation of the tower to a site which would meet the setback is an option, but would l'flcely require a taller tower and would result in additionai impact on areas of critieai slopes. Should the tower collapse it would not be near any dwelling on adjacent property. The area of the adjacent property nearest the tower is located uphill from the tower and in areas'of critical slopes which cannot be built on. Therefore, in the event of collapse no improvements would be endangered. Therefore, staffis able to support this request. '. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. 3. This request complies with the prowsions of Section 31.2.4.1. 4. The design of the tower is such that it will have limited visibility. Staffhas identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefOre, staff is able to recommend approval of this request subject to conditions. In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommurfication Act, staff requests consensus direction fromthe 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 ACTION: Staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. The height'ofthe tower shall not exceed the height of~the tallest tree within 200 feet of thetower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the Iower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) iriches in diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood. Guy wires shall be not permitted. d. The tower shall have no lighting. c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan.entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-120" and initialed "WDF 1/29/98" 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to a maximmn of six fiberglass antenna not exceed six (6) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telccommtmicafions providers, as follows: a. At the time the permittee submits a prel'uninary site plan or a request for a site plan waiver for the site, it shall submit to the department of planning and community development a certified engineer's report which certifies that the proposed tower is compatible, or would be compatible if its height was increased, 7 10. 11. for collocation of at least three (3) providers of a similar wireless service, which three may ineinde the permittee. b. The permittee 'shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a'good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable bvidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not l'united to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the petmittee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 13. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver. A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the'provisions of Section 32.2.2.subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Provision of one parking space. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 35 feet from the property line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. A:\SP9719.RPT 9 R / SP 97-19 ~ CFW / / \ \ f WIRELESS 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive PO Box 1328 Waynesboro, VA 22980-0909 540 946-3500/-~, FAX: 540 932-221(~.._~ January 15, 1998 William D. Fritz. AICP County of Albemarle Dept/of Planning and CommunityDevelopment 401 Mclmire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: SP 97-66 (CV110 ) Covesville SP 97-19 (CVt20) Britts Mm. SP 97-67 (CV142) Bellair Dear Mr. Fritz, This is m response to your letter dated January 5, 1998 reference the above applications for zoning. Find attached an application for the Britts Mtn. Site. Also, the length of all wooden poles will be to treetop level with the antennas mounted on a cross-member Isee attachedl and the seven foot antennas will extend up above the treetops ~see attached photo simulation). The seven foot fiberglass antenna we use is a DB910CE-M Model, 1850-1990 Mhz. These are not Duel Polarized Diversity. We have to use two. one to transmit and one to receive. According to the RF Engineers. for the PCS we need both antennas. These are not the same antennas used with the 800-900 MHz Cellular system. As for the setbacks at the two sites you mentioned (Britts and Bellair), The poles will be placed inside existing tall trees, the holes bored into the ground will be of a depth to provide stability lAW manufacture design specifications. Construction design assures this pole can with stand winds up to 100 mph. On the Britts Mtn. Site, the same thing applies to keep the pole from f~.lling onto the neighbors property to the south. As you can see in the photo simulations, this site is also in the middle of numerous large trees. This site cannot be moved north away from the property line any further without dropping rapidly in elevation and would be undesirable for construction and accessibility, and would require a longer pole. No one lives on this ridge. I know you will have more questions, but I hope this information helps clear up some of your concerns. We will not build something that will fall and cause harm to anyone or anything near it. ~Si~cerely, ~ Mgr.~Site Acquisition/Zoning DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a 90' PCS Cellular Communications Tower and associated equipment. 3'he length of the pole will be to tree top level, with the antennas attached to the top, extending 7" above the trees. The pole will be of a wood type construction supporting two 7' fiberglass antennas. Easements from the nearest utilities are also requested. JUSTIFICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revohition in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id. a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange carrier giving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywhere" communications unit that has all of the services of land-line phones and more. CFW requests this site at Britt's Mountain to provide coverage for corrLmuters and residents along the Route 29 corridor South of Charlottesville. This site will tie into our proposed sites north and south on highway 29. The property at Britt's Mountain is zoned RA and the height of the trees in the general area is 90'. At many other locations in Albemarle County the average tree height in older growth areas is 90'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that tree growth in the Britt's Mountain area will be negligible. With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Albemarle county allow for towers ro extend 40' above the tree level in RA zoned areas, CFW feels that a 90' foot tower will allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC. JATTACHI~! ENT , lC / / CFW- 611 MINI CELL SITE VIEW WIRELESS t T.E, WOOD D~ 1410-Z~ TO~ER SITE FOR C F h' tHRELESS CV-1~9 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4[596 ,'~804 ~ 296-5823 February 13, 1998 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless 1150 Shenandoah Village Dr Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-97-66 CFW Wireless, VA 110, Covesville Tax Map 109, Pareel 9C Dear Mr .Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 10, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement an the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted. b. The tower shall have no lighting. c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-120" and initialed "WDF 1/29/98." Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) fiberglass antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. Page 2 February 13, 1998 o 10. 11. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. I Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site. 2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location, Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor lununaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizoutal plane running through the lowest part of the luminalre. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting Of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipmem building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staffto remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be forty (40) feet. Page 3 February13,1998 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:t unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. t5. No fencing shall be erected. 16. Any equipment located on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. The Planning Commission also granted a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accord with Section 32.2.2 of the Ordinance, subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision for one parking space. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 15, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner WDF/jcf Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley William Lackey & India Cheeson STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOndeD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP FEBRUARY 10, 1998 APRIL 15~ 1998 SP 97-18 CFW WIRELESS [COVESVILLE_I Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to consucuct a tower at tree top level to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for southern Albemarle County, and northern Nelson County. The proposed tower is a wooden pole. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staff has indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. This tower is located between the access road to the Fan Mountain Observatory and Route 29 and is at a lower elevation than the observatory. Petition: Petition to construct a telecommunication tower at tree top level with associated ground facilities on a portion of 56 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described asTax Map 109, Parcel 9C, is located on the east side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Rd., at its intersection with Route 837, Cove School Lane. This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is not located withina designated development area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on the side of Fan Mountain well below the crest of the mountain. Attachment D is a topographic map that shows the location &the proposed tower, nearby houses and the observatory. The proposed tower is atan elevation of approximately 821 feet ASL, Above Sea Level, (a previous tower request for CFW on this property was at 945 feet ASL) the Observatory is at an elevation of 1,825 feet ASL. The closest dwelling tO the proposed tower is approximately 300 feet distant. (This dwelling is also approximately 75 feet lower in elevation.) Approximately 24 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. An apple packing plant and a church are also within 2,000 feet of the proposed tower. The Observatory is located approximately 1 mile to the southeast. No existing towers are located in the area, the nearest rower la 360 Communications tower] is located approximately 3 miles to the southwest in Nelson County. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zon/ng Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and. Zoning HistOry_: The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of a request for a 150 foot tower on the property on July 15, 1997. That special use permit request was withdrawn prior to Board action. The applicant has modified this request to lower the height of the tower and to move the tower base fi:om an elevation of 945 feet to 821 feet. The design of the tower has also been modified fi:om a steel lattice tower to a wooden pole. Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that La order to construct the proposed tower clearLag for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protectionof identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Critical Slopes and Mountain Resource Areas. The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. While a portion of this property is located inthe Mountain Resource Area the proposed location is not La the Mountain Resource Area. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the EntranCe Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zouing Ordinance isin 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 thi~ purpose" and "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county fi:om tourism". As stated previously La the memo addressing all of the CFW request, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of tiffs proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. [The ARB has stated that without a~dditional guidance fi:om the Board of Supervisors it is unable to review applications for towers completely.] This tower will be visible fi:om the Entrance Corridor District. Without additional information staffis unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. While this property contains significant areas of critical slopes, the proposed tower is located such that neither the tower or access road will cross areas of critical slopes based on a review of available topographic maps. The impact of this tower on resources as identified in the iOpen Space Plan is in the opinion of staff not significant due to the limited visibility ~of the tower. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in three sections: Section 31:2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder, Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued unon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent property_. The proposed tower is located approximately 135 feet from the nearest property line and does comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on the side of Fan Mountain which is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 70 to 80 feet tall. The top of the tower will be at tree height with the antenna ex'tending seven feet above tree height. This will offer few if any oppommities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will offer limited visibility of the tower. Theproposed tower is located approximately 300 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staff review this tower will have limited visibility from any dwellings or Route 29. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under 200 feet in height and staff has included a condition prohibiting lighting. The design of the tower is such that is has limited visibility from residential property. Therefore, staff opinion is that approval would not cause a substantial detriment to adjacen~ property. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staff has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. While Fan Mountain is utilized for the Observatory it is the opinion of staffthat the physical separation of the two uses is such that no clustering of the impacts .occurs. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not, in the opinion of staff, resulted in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point Slaff opinion is that this tower will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestal use. Based on the limited visibility and limited maintenance impact caused by this tower staff opinion is that this request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation ora convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. The limited visual impact caused by this proposal does not in the opinion of staff conflict with the intent of the ordinance to create an attractive community. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses, other by-right uses available on this site or by-right uses on any other property.. with additional re_~ations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Section 5.1.12 of the o;dinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and ~eneral welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of persoual wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 4 The reeulation of the placement, construction and modification of_t~rsonai wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibitin~ the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations with/n the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application wouid have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would elimuiate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included the Observatory. The Observatory is located at the top of the mountain and initially appeared to remove the need for the construction of a tower. However, the terrain of Fan Mountain is such that a ridge turin/rig east/west creates a'shadow which would not allow a facility located on the Observatory. te serve a portion of Route 29 within the County. Locating on the Observatory would at a minimum require the construction of a tower to serve the area within the shadow. This alternate site most likely could be located outside of the Mountain Resource Area. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in southern Albemarle. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zonin~ Ordinance. The text of Section 32.2.2 is attached. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver. Based on dais review staff is unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan. Staff recommends approval ora full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. 5 3. This request complieswith the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1. 4. The design of the tower is such that it will have limited visibility. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. Them is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is able to recommend approval of this request subject to conditions. In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staffrequests consensus direction f~om the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instmctinn to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff offers the follow'rog recommended conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. The height of the tower shall nor exceed the height of the tallest tree within 200 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend7 feet above the height of the tower. Eqmpment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood. Guy wires shall be not permitted. d. The tower shall have no lighting. c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-110'~ and initialed "WDF 1/29/98 ' 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of six fiberglass antenna not exceed six (6) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: At the time the pennittee submits a preliminary site plan or a request for a site plan waiver for the site, it shall submit to the department of planning and .commnnity development a certified engineer's report which certifies that the proposed tower is compatible, or would be compatible if its height was increased, for collocation of at least three (3) providers of a similar wireless service, which three may include the perminee. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it wilt make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower orthe site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting un/t consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify wh/ch trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. 7 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning adminis~'ator onceper year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11 Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 13. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver. A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: 1 2. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance ora building permit; Provision of one parking space. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. A:\SP9718.RPT 0 SP 97-66 CFW WIRELESS ESMONT & PORTER AREAS tS J7 ALBEMARLE GOUNTY SP 97-66 CFW WIRELESS 19¸ 46B 118 VI L ND SA.U~T~T~h ~,~TRIOTS I ATTACHMENT B I ¢8 SEGTION 109 WIRELESS 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive PO Box 1328 Waynesboro, VA 22980-0909 540 946-3500 FAX: 540 932-2210 January 15. 1998 William D. Fritz, AICP County of Albemarle Dept.of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: SP 97-66 (CVll0 '} Covesville SP 97-19 (CV120) Britts Mtn. SP 97-67 t CV142) Bellair Dear Mr. Fritz. This is in response to your letter dated January 5. [998 reference the above applications for zoning. Find attached an application for the Britts Mtn. Site. Also, the len~h of all wooden poles will be to treetop level with the antennas mounted on a cross-member (see attached ~ and the seven foot antennas will extend up above the treetops (see attached photo simulatiom. The seven foot fiberglass antenna we use is a DB910CE-M Model, 1850-1990 Mhz. These are not Duel Polarized Diversity. We have to use two. one to transmit and one to receive. According to the RF Engineers. for the PCS we need both antennas. These are not the same antennas used with the 800-900 MHz Cellular system. As for the setbacks at the two sites you mentioned (Britts and Bellair), The poles will be placed inside existing tall trees, the holes bored into the ground will be of a depth to provide stability IAW manufacture design specifications. Construction design assures this pole can with stand winds up to 100 mph. On the Britts Mtn. Site, the same thing applies to keep the pole from falling onto the neighbors property to the south. As you can see in the photo simulations, this site is also in the middle of numerous large trees. This site cannot be moved north away from the property line any further without dropping rapidly in elevation and would be undesirable IATTACHMENT C. for construction and accessibility, and would require a longer pole. No one lives on this ridge. I know you will have more questions, but I hope this information helps clear up some of your concerns. We will not build something that will fall and cause harm to anyone or anything near it. ~Si~cerely, Mgr. ~ite Acquisition/Zoning DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: I ATTACHt,tENT C I ~Page 31 CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a Mini-cell Communications Tower and associated eqmpment on the Lackey Property at Covesville. The Telephone Pole will be supporting 2 and up to t5 antennas. The Mean Sea Level (MSL) of the property at the lowest elevation is above 800'. The survey drawing will. have the base height of the telephone pole and location, to include easement to the site. The height of the Pole will be at uree top level about 80'. Attach is a site plan drawing showing the Mini- cell layout. JUSTIVtCATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology.- It is a phone with caller ID, a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange carner giving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywbem" communications unit that has ali of the services of landqine phones and more, CFW requests this site at Covesville [o provide coverage for residents and commuters along Route 29. This site will tie into other proposed sites North and South off_this one. The property at Covesville is zoned RA and the height of the trees in the general area is around~~. The growth in this area is fairly old. At many other locations in Albemarle County the average tree height in older growth areas isiS'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that the 70' trees will grow another 10 feet over the next 20 years. With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Albemarle county allow for towers to extend 40' above the tree level in RA zoned areas. CFW feels that an 80' foot Pole will allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC and allow other service providers to co-locate on our tower to reduce tower proliferation in the County. CFW 611 MINI CELL SITE VIEW WIRELESS age 5 Ill BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Community Developmem 40t Mclntlre Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (80~b 29~5823 February 4, 1998 Larry Ryan P O Box 1238 Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-97-67 CV 142, Bellair Subdivision Tax Mag 76C, Section 2, Parcel 2 Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The height of the tower shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the rower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall be not permitted. b. The tower shall have no lighting. c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-142 and initialed SET 1/15/98 Page 2 February 4, t998 Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass wh_jp type antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on a plan tided "611 Mini Cell Site Vie~~' initialed "SET 1/15/98". b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (1) Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence cfa good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or:~ontrolled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting cfa 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. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing [rees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove additional existing trees. Page 3 February 4, 1998 10. tl. 12. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance The access road extension shall be of minimum construction and dimension to accommodate service vehicles. Should installation of the tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed. The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of servme. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July l of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the tower is being used. 13. 14. 15. At least twelve (12) bayberries or native hollies shall be planted around the facility. No fencing shall be erected. Any equipment on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. The Planning Commission also granted the following modification/waiver: Modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 15 feet from the property line, as shown on the plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-142" and initialed "SET 1/15/98. ' Waiver of the drawing ora site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32_2 subject to the following conditions: Should the area of disturbance exceed I0,000 square feet (including the access road), an erosion and sediment control plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Page 4 February 4, 1998 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 15, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Susan Thomas Senior Planner SET, cf CCi Amelia McCulley ~EIlS-Carey David & Carolyn Holmes Jack Ketsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS FEBRUARY 3, 1998 APRIL 15, 1998 SP 97-67 CV 142 (CFW AT BELLAIR) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval to install a 90 foot, self supporting wooden pole to provide improved PCS cellular phone coverage for the 29/250 By-pass corridor south of Route 250 West, within Albemarle County. Currently CFW Wireless service is available in the area, but significant areas of weak signal or even no signal exist along this corridor. The proposed tower location is a 10 foot x 10 foot fenced site in the northeast [rear] comer of Lot 2 in Bellair Subdivision, street address 118 Deer Path. This lot adjoins the By-pass right of Way on.the east. Petition: Proposal to install a telecommunications tower in Bellair Estates Subdivision. Theproperty, zoned RI, Residential (1 dwelling unit/acre) and EC, Entrance Corridor, and described as Tax Map 76C Section 2 Parcel 2, is located on the west side of the Route 29 By-Pass (Monacan Trail), approximately one half m'de south of the intersection of Routes 29 and 250 West (Ivy Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in Neighborhood Six, and recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 - 6 dwelling units/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. A location map is included as Attachment A; the applicant's site plan is Attachment B; the applicant's justification is Attachment C. The applicant is also requesting setback and site plan waivers. Character of the Area: Lot 2 is located at the eastern edge of Section 2 of Bellair Estates Subdivision, accessed from Deer Path Lane on the west and bound by the 29/250 By-Pass right of way on the east. The property across the byrpass to the east is heavily wooded and owned by the University of Virg'mia. To the west is Birdwood Estate, also owned by the University; w~ch is undeveloped and in open space with the exception of the pavilion and former farm dependencies. To the south is Liberty Hill Subdivision, and to the north across Route 250 West is a small commercial area containing Bellair Market, Piedmont Tractor, a health care provider, and other small commercial establishments. Attacinnent D is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby house structures, and other features. The proposed tower site lies at an elevation of approximately 520 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. McCormick Observatory, approximately one half-mile to the southeast, is at an elevation of approximately 880 feet ASL. The closest dwelling, approximately 200 feet from the proposed site, is located on the same lot and occupied by the owner of the property. Approximately 50 residences are located within 2,000 feet (0.37 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the immediate area. The nearest identified tower [not cellular] is located to the north across Route 250 West, at the Piedmont Tractor property. The nearest CFW Wireless facility is located at University Village approximately 1.5 miles to the north on the east side of the by-pass. The closest tower to the south is the proposed CFW site at Britt's Mountain, west of Route 29 and south of 1-64. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance andrecommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History_: None available. Comnrehensive Plan: Staffnotes that in order to construct the proposed tower, limited clearing for access from the existing driveway and the provision of etectricai service will be required. Therefore. these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff can identify no provision in the Comprehensive Plan which prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communications. This site is located in Urban Neighborhood 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, a development area; it is identified as an Entrance Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and, Potential Greenway Corridor (western portion of the Neighborhood) in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently, the Land Use Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Ptan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor and Potential Greenway Corridor. The Entrance Con'idor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. The Greenway Corridor is identified for furore acquisition/establishment by the county, and would traverse the western, less developed portion of this Neighborhood, not in Bellair subdivision or this particular site. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the 29/250 By-pass corridor. This roadis designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. I'he intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic~ architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, 2 "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism." If the special use permit is approved, the ARB will review this request for impacts to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. It is not clear how visible this tower will be from the Entrance Corridor District, because it is a wood pole, equal in height to and surrounded by exisfmg trees. Similarly, it appears that although it will be somewhat visible from Deer Path Lane, the fenced compound may be the feature that is most distinguishable since the pole can be expected to blend with the surrounding trees, Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. Access to the tower will be t~om a 15 foot wide easement from the existing residential driveway on Lot 2. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] Reduction in setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Waiver ora site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff'will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itsel£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 substantiaI detriment ro a4iacent property_. The proposed tower is located approximately 15 feet fi'om the nearest property lines (north and east). The owner of Lot 2 also owns the adjacent lot (Lot 3) located to the north, the property~ most directly affected by the reduced setback. Lot 2 adjoins the By-pass right of way on the east side. The site is wooded; the applicant's survey information indicates that the existing trees are approximately 90 feet tall. and the rower is proposed to match their height, The fiberglass antennae will add another 7 feet to the height of the tower, although because of their light weight and small diameter, these are not expected to be as visible as other larger antennae types. It is staffs opinion that the visual impacts of the enclosure fencing, access road, and service vehicles will be more significant that of the tower itself, due to the latmr's material and height. Because of its location at the rear of the lot adjacent to the by-pass, surrounded by mature trees, an undeveloped lot to the north and the owners' residence to the south, and within a small enclosure that will necessitate minimal clearing and disturbance to the property, if the tower is 3 distinguishable from Bellair properties, it is expected to be a minor feature in the landscape. The applicant's photo simulation indicates visibility from the by-pass, but the use of wooden and fiberglass components makes the tower unremarkable in the landscape, particularly at the posted travel speeds. Staffnotes that the use ofnon-reflective dark colored materials would min'rmize the metallic appearance and visual impact of the fencing. Similarly, development of the access road to a minimum standard to avoid erosion and surface damage is recommended. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public heatings on the issue of potential impacts. The applicant has indicated that CFW Wireless service personnel will visit the site approximately one time per month, a schedule similar to other utility providers. When electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather or other factors, service personnel would be required to visit the site m ensure that back-up power systems are working. This schedule is not expected to create adverse impacts to adjacent property. Four wheel drive sport utility vehicles [Jeep type] are generally used for this purpose. The proposed tower may offer limited oppommities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff notes that although the County encourages collocation of facilities where oppommities exist, future collocation on this towe~, should it be approved, should not introduce telecommunications facilities that more significantly ~mpact the adjacent property and the district. If approved, future facilities should be substantially of the same nature as the whip antennae proposed with this application. No lighting requirement is anticipated since this tower does not penetrate the Airport Overlay District. Based on the above cited factors, staff finds that the proposed tower will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. In determining the impact on the character of the district, staff has taken into consideration the character of the district as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Neighborhood 6 lies within a designated development area in the Plan, although Bellair itself appears m be fully built out and little additional development is anticipated. It is zoned R-l, Residential ( 1 dwelling nnit/acre~ and EC, Entrance Corridor. The EC zoning applies to the eastern border of the subdivision, and as described earlier this report, if approved the tower will be reviewed by the ARB. An established commercial area exists to the north across 250 West, designated for Office/Service in the Plan, and to the east and west along Route 250 West there is additional commercial development. The topography and mature vegetation ccrrnbine to effectively insulate In Bellair from the adjacent commercial.uses and promote a feeling of privacy within the development. There are above-ground utilities along some of the major internal roads, Utilizing wooden poles similar to the proposed tower; the smaller side roads appear to have buried utilities. Because of the wooded nature of the area, the placement of the tower at the edge of the subdivision adjacent to the By- pass and away from the interior, and the mixed uses abutting Bellair, staff finds that the proposed tower will not change the character of the district. It is expected to be only minimally visible from the residence on Lot 2 itself and from adjacent lots, with an impact commensurate with that of a telephone or power pole although less centrally located than those utilities usually are. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment F). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation ora convenient, attractive and harmonious community". I'he provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology.. It does not conflict with the goals of the Open Space Plan for establishment ofa greenway corridor since fids feature would be unlikely to traverse residential lots of the density found within Bellair Estates, Similarly, visual impacts to the 29/250 By-pass are anticipated to be minimal based on the height and materials of the tower and heavy tree cover on site. Staff notes that the applicant was asked if collocation on existing towers in the area had been explored as an alternative to the new tower. The applicant responded that CFW Wireless' engineering studies indicate that the topography of this portion of the 29/250 By-pass is such that collocation on existing towers such as the one at University Village or at Piedmont Tractor would be ineffective in improving service to the area. Staff opinion is that this request complies with fids provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses, other by-right uses available on fids site or by-right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or mentality 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 Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety,. Reduction in setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to hams, silos, farm build'rags, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residemial chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a m'm'nnnm of 90 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approx'anately 15 feet from the closest property line, approximately 60 feet from the edge of pavement on the By-pass. Staff has discussed the location and proposed setback waiver with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the latter has expressed no objections to the waiver. Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiting approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease areain the event of structural failure. This condition protects the public safety. This provision is not possible with a wooden pole type tower. As staffdiscussed previously, however, there are no slrucmres located nearby and no threat to human safety is anticipated. The applicant has indicated that the tower will be engineered to withstand winds of up to 100 miles per hour, a standard which probably exceeds the stability of the trees on site. Staff has historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the length of the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists, or impact or disturbance is reduced as a result of the waiver. Staff opinion is that the proposed location is desirable from an aesthetic standpoint, and the negatives of relocating the tower would outweigh the negatives of grant'mg the setback waiver. Therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the setback requiremem. Section 704(a)(7)Co)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities bv any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff opinion is that the County has no ban or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities and that decisions regarding the approval of facilities to provide service is done on a case-by-case basis. Staff offers as support for this statement the following evidence. Since 1990 the Board of Supervisors has acted on 16 requests and has approved 12 of these requests. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Collocation options for this site appear to have been exhausted. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The text of Section 32.2.2 is attached. The Commission may waive the draw'mE of a site plan if requiring a s~te plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver. Based on this review stalTis unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission ora site plan. Staffrecommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet {'including the access road'), an erosion and sediment control plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Issuance of Cettificate of Appropriateness prior to final zoning approval. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties; 3. The tower may provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options; 4. Access to the tower will be from existing roads with a m'mor extension in the fibrin of a graveled access easement; 5. Due to its location, construction type, and the existing tree cover on the lot, the tower will be minimally visible fromthe owner's residence or adjacent properties. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. A non-residential use will be introduced into an existing residential subdivision; 2. While collocation options have been exhausted, options for alternative sites have not been exhausted; 3. There is an exisfmg reasonable use of the property. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of the ord'mance and the Comprehensive Plan. The options for collocation on adjacent poles has been exhausted. In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that this request complies with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Although alternatives to installation of this tower exist, staff feels that negative impacts from the tower would be minor and such impacts are balanced by the benefits of increased wireless service. Therefore. staff supports this application and offers the following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The height of the tower shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 200 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall be not permitted. 8 b. The tower shall have no lighting. o c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-142" and initialed "SET 1/15/98" Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass whip type antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on a plan titled "611 Mini Cell Site View" initialed "SET 1/15/98"; b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. (1) Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider with/n Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminake shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees onthe site. The County staff shall identify which n:ees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove additional existing trees. 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the site shall be of non-reflective, dark colored materials, except as amended by the Architectural Review Board. 10. The access road extension shall be of minimum construction and dimension to accommodate service vehicles. Should installation of the tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed. 11. The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service. 12. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. 13. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the tower is being used. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 15 feet from the property line, as shown on the plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-142" and initialed "SET 1/15/98." The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan wmver: A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2 subject to the following conditions: Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (including the access road), an erosion and sediment control plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final zoning approval. l0 ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Bellair Subdivision Plan C - Applicants Information D - Plat E - Topographical Map Color photographs will be distributed at the Commission meeting. I.'IGENERzlL~SH.4RE1THOM.4SITOWERSIBEL~IR. RPT / SP 9'/'-67 ALBEMARLE COUNTY 76C MADISON PARK CONDO'S (JACK JOU£TT DISTRICTJ SECTION 76H LIBERTY HILL DEED BOOK 302/IOZ SP 97-67 CV142 SECTION 76G BELLAIR ESTATE SECTION ONE ACREAGES '~1 I~ 3~ !~ .... "~ SAMUEL MILLER DISTRIGT SECTION 76C A 76H WIRELESS ATT~HENT Cl_~ 1150 ShenandQah Village Drive PO Box 1328 Wayneaboro, VA 22980-0909 540 946-350~ i~-''~ FAX: 540 932-221~.~/ January 15, 1998 William D. Fritz, AICP County of Albemarle Dept.of Planning and Comnmnity Developmenl 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: SP 97-66 [CV110 ) Covesville SP 97-19 (CVI20) Britts Mtn. SP 97-67 (CV142) Bellair Dear Mr. Fritz, This is in response to your letter dated January 5, 1998 reference the above applic:~tions for zoning. Find attached an application for the Britts Mtn. Site. Also, the length of all wooden poles will be to treetop level with the antennas mounted on a cross-member (see attached) and thc seven l'oot m~lcnnas will extend up above thc treetops (see attached photo simulation). The seven loot fiberglass antenna we usc is a DB910CE-M Model, 1850-1990 Mhz. These are not Duel Polarized Diversity. We have to use two, one to transmit and one to receive. According to the RI:: Engineers, l:or tim PCS we need both antennas. These are not the same antennas used with the 800-900 MHz Cellular system. As for the setbacks at the two sites you mentioned ~Britts and Bellair), The poles will be placed inside existing tall trees, the holes bored into the ground will be of a depth to provide stability lAW manufacture design specifications. Construction design assures this pole can with stand winds up to 100 mph. On the Britts Mtn. Site, the same thing applies to keep the pole from falling onto the neighbors property to the south. As you can see in the photo simulations, this stte is also in the middle of numerous large trees. This site cannot be moved north away from the property line any fnrther without dropping rapidly in elevation and would be undesirable for construction and accessibility, and would require a longer pole. No one lives on this ridge. I know you will have more questions, but I hope this information helps clear up some of your concerns. We will not build something that will fall and cause harm to anyone or anything near it. ~,Si~gcerely,/~ M~r.~$ite Acquisifion/Zonin~ WIRE E 611 MINI CELL SITE VIEW TOWER SITE FOR C F If/¢'IREL ESS CV- PROPERTY OF DAVID L. 8 CAROL >'Al C. HOLMES SAbf VI-/ MIL Z ~-R D/STRICT. ~L BEM/1RL E SCALE: I"~ 50' DEC, 15, I~? DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: ~ Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a PCS Cellular Communications Mini-site and associated equipment. The tower will be ora telephone pole type construction supporting antennas. In addition, CFW will place an eqmpment cabinet at the base oftbe pole measuring 2' lO" x 2'4" x 1 '. Easements from the nearest utilities are also requested. JUSTIFICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the resiuents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id, a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange carrier giving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywhere" communlcauons unit that has all of the services of land-line phones and more. CFW requests this site on the 29 Bypass to provide coverage for commuters as well as to cover residents that bye along the corndor. The property ts zoned ~ and the height of the trees in the general area varies from t~o - ,t4' '. CFW is using the tallest trees in the area as a bench mark height and will erect the pole 10 feet above the existing tree line. I ATTACHPIENT E I e BOARD OF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 {804) 296-5823 March 9, 1998 C. Todd Shields The Storage Center P O Box 7095 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ZMA-97-10 The Storage Center Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A1 Dear Mr. Shields: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 3, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 15, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. if you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner f4 SET/jcf cc: EllCarey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN E. THOMAS MARCH 3, 1998 APRIL 15, 1998 ZMA 97-10 THE STORAGE CENTER. L.C. (OWNER AND APPLICANT) Applicant's Proposal: - Rezoning of an existing parcel of land from C-I, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. In a site development plan application submitted concurrently, the applicant indicates that the intended use is retail/office and air conditioned storage. Storage facilities are considered to be a light warehousing use, permitted under HC districts. Petition: Request to rezone approximately 0.948 acres from C-I, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A1, is located on the west side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 649 (Airport Road) in the Rivauna Magisterial District. It also is zoned EC, Entrance Corridor, and AIA, Airport Impact Area. The property is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Route 29 North. Character of the Area: The east and west side of Route 29 North to the north and south of this parcel is a developing commercial area presently characterized by business establishments primarily oriented to serving Neighborhood and Community Service needs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this application for conformance with the provisions of Title 15.1, Article 8, Chapter 11 of the Code of Virginia (1997), as amended; Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval, subject to the applicant's proffers. Planning and Zoning History C-t, Commercial, zoning for this parcel, which was combined with parcel 37A in [parent] parcel 37, was adopted in 1980. Prior to 1980, under the previous zoning ordinance, it was zoned Commercial Business. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Regional Service in the Land Use Plan, and lies within the Community of Hotlymead. In Table I: Non Residential Land Use Guidelines on page 3 t of the Plan, the Purpose/Intent of the Regional Service designation is described as, "Comparison shopping and specialized goods and services." Table I describes Typical Primary Uses as, "Community service uses, plus: Major department store - Auto dealer - Mobile home sales - Motel/hotel - Hospital." The Land Use Plan contains a number of specific recommendations related to the Route 29 Corridor in the Community of Hollymead Profile (pp. 78-81), in the area designated Regional Service located to the south of the Airport Road inteJcsection and across from Forest Lakes North, located to the south of this location: linkage between neighborhoods (including non-residential areas) through the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, greenways/linear parks, roads, and transit alternatives sensitivity of development plans along Route 29 North to its stares as an Entrance Corridor development along Route 29 North is to have controlled access to the roadway, which can be accomplished through joint entrances, collector roads parallel to 29, and internal roads phasing of road improvements necessitated by new development which increases traffic on Route 649, Route 606, and Route 29 provtsion of bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with all major road improvemems potentially allowing public service facilities in the Community that are consistent with the Community Facilities Plan. The Transportation section of the Land Use Plan sets forth general design standards for roads on pages 178-179. The following standards are applicable to this request: Discourage direct access from individual lots to arterial and major collector roads. Utilize joint entrances, frontage roads, and side street access or other methods to reduce access points to adjacent properties on collector or arterial roads. Minimize the number of access points per parcel or development area to those necessary to provide safe and convenient access to and from the site. 10. Minimum desirable separation of street intersections is 1,000 feet for principle arterial roads and 800 feet for minor arterial and collector roads. Minimum desirable spacing for cross-overs (divided roads) is 1,300 feet for princtple arterial and 1,000 feet for minor arterial and major collectors~ Entrances shall be located either directly across from a cross-over or at a mtnirnum of 500feet from a cross-over. [italics added for clarification] The proposal to rezone this parcel from C-1 to HC generally ts consistent with the above cited recommendations and standards. The owner of parcel 37A, located to the south of this property, submitted a concurrent rezoning request (from C-1 to HC), which originally included direct access (in/out) to Route 29 at the south property line. The latter request (for parcel 37A) as submitted is not consistent with the recommendations and standards set forth in the Land Use Plan, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that it 2 will not permit the entrance as proposed (Attachment D). As a result, the concurrently submitted rezoning request for parcel 37A has been deferred at the applicant's request m allow further discussion of the access issues. The Storage Center L.C. has indicated a willingness to make certain proffers addressing the access issue as it relates m both this parcel (37A1) and the adjacent parcel (37A) which would provide for shared use of the existing Storage Center access, thereby addressing the 500 foot entrance/cross~over requirement and limiting new access points in this section of Route 29. (See Attachment E) With proffers, staff finds that the Comprehensive Plan recommendations are adequately addressed and can recommend approval. Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposal for any impacts on nearby and surrotmding properties, traffic, public utilities, and schools. No impact on nearby and surrounding properties is anticipated because the subject property is already commercially zoned (C-l), and the increased intensity resulting from HC represems a negligible impact. Public utilities are available, and due to the commercial nature of the proposed development, no impact to schools is anticipated. As discussed above, one of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for the Community of Hollymead concerns controlling access to Route 29 North. As indicated in the joint site development plan for this parcel and the Valente property to the south (submitted separately), a new access to 29 from the southern parcel is proposed. In its letter of December 10, 1997, VDOT states that it will not permit the southern most proposed (two way) access due to its proximity to the operational area of the existing signalized intersection. The Plan recommends limited access poims along this section of Route 29 North, and the existing access serving this parcel could also serve the pat-cel(s) to the south, especially since the site plan application indicates that cooperative parking approval will be requested from the Commission at a later date. Cooperative parking would allow circulation from parcel to parcel, throughout the entire site, providing for unrestricted movement and use of the existing access. The southern parcel might be alternatively accessed from the parcel to its south (currently under the same ownership) or from a future service road located to the west (see road project discussion below). Staff does have concerns about the timing of this request relative to the fact that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently undertaking a major planning and design effort affecting the section of Route 29 North immediately above [north of) the northern terminus of the western by-pass. As described to staff, this effort involves three major components: 1) widening of the highway to add additional north and south bound lanes; 2) closure of all or most access points to the highway from properties located on the east and west sides of 29, with the exception of a few designated intersections (possibly two or three); and, 3) construction of parallel service roads east and west of the highway, to replace the direct access to 29 with access at a few designated locations. In this area, early versions of VDOT plans indicate the possibility of closing the signalized intersection at Forest Lakes North, with all traffic accessing properties adjacent to the highway rerouted east to Worth Crossing and west to a proposed new service road which would align with the rear (western) property line of this parcel and take access from Route 649 or even Route 606. Both the widening and proposed service road could potentially take significant portions of this parcel, leaving its final dimensions unclear and its usable acreage substantially reduced. If the service road were constructed, and direct access to Route 29 North were closed, the "front" of the property could be re-oriented 180 degrees to face the west. As previously mentioned, improvement planning to this section of Route 29 North is in its earliest stages, and in fact no adopted plan exists nor is one expected at a date certain. Representatives from VDOT are scheduled to meet with the Board of Supervisors in March to present and discuss the proposed plan. Staff anticipates that this project will generate very substantial public comment, and may undergo major Changes. Deletion of components such as the service roads, or reinstatement of some or all access points to 29, may occur. Staff anticipates that the widening element will occur, no matter what other changes result from the review process, but even its final alignment has not yet been determined. Although it would be preferable to consider this rezoning request in the context of complete information on future road improvements, the timetable for final road plans is so uncertain that this does not appear to be possible. SUMMARY: Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a proposed zoning map amendment (ZMA, rezoning) shall be reviewed in regard to section 1.4., Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Environment; and 1.6, Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; of the Ordinance, which have been adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1~ Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The relationship to and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan [Land Use Plan] was discussed earlier in this report. Section 1.4 and 1.5 are discussed below. Staff finds that this proposal promotes the intent of the following section: 1.4.7 "To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92);" Because of the transportation planning currently in process, and staff' s inability to adequately evaluate impacts to this property from that effort due to lack ofm~ approved plan, this proposal does not fully support the intent of the following sections: 1.4.4 "To facilitate the provision of adequate... transportation,...;" 1.5 "This ordinance is designed to treat lands Which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for.., the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community,.. 4" However, the circumstances surrounding this transportation planning effort are such that neither staff, the applicant, or VDOT can accurately anticipate when the final road plans may be approved, and thus staff believes that review of the project should proceed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this request with proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B- Plat C - Applicant's Justification D - 12/10/97 Letter from VDOT E - Applicant's Proffers F - County Attorney comments on Proffers i:IGENERAL~SHAREITHOMAS1SH1ELDS. ZMA ALBEMARLE COUNT IATTACHMENT Al ZMA 97-10 The Storage Center I / / '~,.~,~ - ,~ , L__ .oo RIVANNA DISTRICTS SEOTION 32 06£ N O8'E61 oo [ I Ih. Il t-' la:l i J [ATTACHMENT BI C~ m Z ~ F""I-- m I ATTACHIflENT C Section 15.1- 490 of the Code of Virginia states that, "Zoning ordinances and districts shall be drawn and applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of the property, the comprehensive plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and futura requirements of the commumty as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestai land, the conservation of properties and their values, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county or municipality." These are the items which will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please provide any additional information you feel is necessary to assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? ~%,..._~ Whatpublicneed orbenefitdoesthisrezoningserve? qt~ ~ tr~,.,,) t,,~,.d ,,,~hI ~c~,te ~ Are public water, sewer, nod roads available to serve this site? Will there ~ any impact on thee facilities? ! What impact will there be on the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources? ~PT~~NAL:D~y~uhavep~anst~deve~~pthepr~penyiftherez~ningisappr~ved?~fs~~p~easede~~ribe: ?-% ~ If you would like to proffer any resnictions on the development of the property, please list these proffers on the following optional attachment entitled. "PROFFER FORM". Proffers are voluntary offers to use property in a more restrictive way than the overall zoning district classification would allow. By State Code, proffers must have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning and are not mandatory. The rezonmg must give rise to the need for the proffers; the proffers must be related to the physical development or physical operation of the property; and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Describe your request in detail including why you are requesting this particular zoning district? 3~h. o. ,5[~,,), (,-.~ b../~-.(. ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - Provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If them 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: It-you am requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: [] 3. [21 4. [] 5. Drawings or conceptual plans if any. Proffer Form signed by the owner(s). Additional Information, if any, I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date Printed l~ame Daytime phone number of Signatory DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMiMO?,qWEALTH oj VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOI~-ESVILLE. 22911 December 10, 1997 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER SDP97-138 Seminole Commons an Forest Lakes Route 29 Mr. Jack Kelsey Deparnmenc of Engineer 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 Dear Mr. Kelsey: The Department has additional information for nne above referenced site. based on recent meetings, ragarding proposed [mpr©vemenEs Fo Route 29 b~tween Airoort Road and the South Fork Rivanna. Preliminary proposals indicate controlled access for this area of Rou£e 29 with a frontage road serving the lots from the rear of nne property. The initial access for the site should only be through the existing entrance that currently serves the s£orage facility and the Amoco. The southern most proposed entrance will not De permitted due £o its proximity to the operational area of the existing signalized intersecnion Preliminary plans indicate a possible right Df way impact into the first line Df parking spaces as shown on the plan for this site. Based on the proposed improvements the Department strongly recommends the site De designed so it will tOE be adversely impacted, regardless of the ultimate improvements. If you should have concerns with these comments, please discuss with our office prior to sharing with the applicant. JHK/smk Sincerely, ~. H Kesterson Permit & Subdivision Spec Supv cc: Christopher Reed Irma Von Kutzieben Susan Thomas TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ~m : CHRISTOPHER TODD SHIC'~S PHONE No. Jan, 28 1998 4:53PM P01 Fax Note 7fl71 COUNTY P_BOFF.ER FORM iATTACHMENT "I Orioinnl Proffer. Amcndud Piolful (Amendment ~.. Date: Tax Map Parcel(s) Acres to be rezoned from. cfi {o u c Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly mJthorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the condition~ Ibted below which shall he applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning end it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions: and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to {he rezonlnl~ requested. (~) Sl~n~ _ ~r~AH Owners PrifliecJ N~,n';~ ur All Owflet~, J ATTACHMENT F I To: Susan Thomas From: Greg Kamptner Subjecs: Shields Proffer Date: 1/29/98 Time: 9:51AM Suggested clarification: "The front travelway shall be located in general accord with the travelway identified on the plan submitted under SDP 97-138 dated 12/15/97, initialed (a county planner's initials and date of initials) and vehicular access shall be provided to abutting property upon the request of the County of Albemarle." Greg Kamptner Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 te1:(804)972-4067 fax:(804)972-4068 email:gkamptne@albemarle.org Date: 4/15/98 PROFFER FORM ZMA fi 97-10 Tsx Map Parcel(s) Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment f,~__ 32 - 37A1 _o.q&g Acres to be rezoned from c-1 to He, Pursuanl to Seclion 33,3 of the Albemarle Counly Zoning Ordinance. the owner, or ils duly autl~orized agent; hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to lbe properly, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a pad of tile requested rezoning and it is agreed Ihat: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise [o tile need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to lhe rezoning requested. (1) The front travelway shall he located in general accord with the travelway identified on the plan submitted under SDP 97-138, dated 12/15/97, and initialed SET and dated 12/15/97, and vehicular access shall be provided to abutting property upon the request of the County of Albemarle. SignatLCr~s/f(~ll Owners Prinled~4ame& of All Oweers- Date OR Signature of Allorney-in-Fact (Allach Proper Power of Allorney) Printed Name of Allorney-in-Facl BOARD OF SU?BRVlSOgS BOARD OF UPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community l)evelopmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlonesvill~. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 March 9, 1998 Tom Gale Roudabush, Gale & Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-97-t3 Anthony Valente Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A Dear Mr. Gale: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 3, 1998, tmanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April t5, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner SET/jcf STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN E. THOMAS MARCH 3, 1998 APRIL 15, 1998 ZMA 97-13 ANTHONY VALENTE (OWNER AND APPLICANT, ANTHONY D. AND MARY K. VALENTE) A licant's Pro :osal: Rezoning of an existing parcel of land from C-I, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial, to be consistent with a current rezoning request for the adjacem parcel [The Storage Center], TM 32 Parcel 37A1]. In a site development plan application submitted concurrently, the applicant indicates that the intended use is retail stores. (See Attachment C) Petition: Request ~o rezone approximately 0.82 acres from C-l, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A, is located on the west side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 649 (Airport Road) in the Rivarma Magisterial Dis/rict. It also is zoned EC, Entrance Corridor, and AIA, Airport Impact Area. The property is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Route 29 North. Character of the Area: The east and west side of Route 29 North to the north and south of this parcel is a developing commercial area presently characterized by business establishments primarily oriented to serving Neighborhood and Community Service needs. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this application for conformance with the provisions of Title 15.1, Article 8, Chapter 11 of the Code of Virginia (1997), as amended; Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval, subject to the applicant's proffers. Planning and Zoning History_: C-l, Commercial, zoning for this parcel, which was combined with parcel 37A1 in [parent] parcel 37, was adopted in 1980. Prior to 1980, under the previous zoning ordinance, it was zoned Commercial Business. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Regional Service in the Land Use Plan, and lies within the Community of Hollymead. In Table I: Non Residential Land Use Guidelines on page 31 of the Plan, the Purpose/Intent of the Regional Service designation is described as, "Comparison shopping and specialized goods and services." Table I describes Typical Primary Uses as, *'Community service uses, plus: Major department store - Auto dealer - Mobile home sales - Motel/hotel - Hospital." The Land Use Plan contains a number of specific recommendations related to the Route 29 Corridor in the Community of Hollymead Plan, in the area designated for Regional Service located to the south of the Airport Road intersection and across from Forest Lakes North, located to the south of this location: linkage between neighborhoods (including non-residential areas) through the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, greenways/linear parks, roads, and transit alternatives sensitivity of development plans along Route 29 North to its status as an Entrance Corridor development along Route 29 North is to have controlled access to the roadway, which can be accomplished through joint entrances, collector roads parallel to 29, and internal roads phasing of road improvements necessitated by new development which increases traffic on Route 649, Route 606, and Route 29 provision of bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with all major road unprovements potentially allowing public service facilities in the Community that are consistent with the Community Facilities Plan. The proposal to rezone this parcel from C-1 to HC generally is consistent with the recommendations in the Land Use Plan outlined above, with the exception of controlled access to Route 29 North. The applicant has indicated a willingness to make certain proffers addressing this issue, as discussed below. (See Attachment D) With proffers, staff finds that the Comprehensive Plan recommendations are adequately addressed and can recommend approval. Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposal for any impacts on nearby and surrounding properties, traffic, public utilities, and schools. No impact on nearby and surrounding properties is anticipated because the subject properties are already commercially zoned (C-l), and the increased intensity resulting from HC represents a negligible impact. In fact, parcel 37A does not require a rezoning to develop the retail stores indicated on the applicant's site plan. The applicant has requested a rezoning m be consistent the requested rezoning of parcel 37A1, which does recluke the HC district to construct a storage facility [li~t warehousing]. Public utilities are available, and due to the commercial nature of the proposed development, no impact to schools is anticipated. As mentioned above, one of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for the Community of Hollymead concerns controlling access to Route 29 North. As indicated in the joint site development plan for this parcel and the Shields property to the north (submitted separately), a new access to 29 from this, the southert letter of December 10, 1997, VDOT states that it will access due to its proximi .tym the operational area of tl Attachment E) An existing, shared access between th~ property to the north could serve this southern parcel, have indicated in the joint site plan that they will petit parcel, was originally proposed. In its not permit the southern most proposed ~e existing signalized intersection. (See : Amoco property and the Shields however, especially since the applicants on the Planning Commission for cooperative parking approval [this request is scheduled for a later date]. Cooperative parking would provide circulation from parcel to parcel,~throughout the entire site, providing unrestricted movement from parcel ro parcel. The southern parcel can be alternatively accessed from the parcel to its south (currently under the same ownership) or from a future service road located to the west (see road project discussion below). Although staff has concerns about any access to this site from Route 29 North, the applicant is strongly committed to maintaining at least an ingress and has met with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to discuss the feasibility of a design of this type. VDOT has verbally indicated that an ingress may be acceptable, if it can be engineered to function safely and effectively in view of the elements of the development plan for this site and the need to allow access to the parcel to the south. County and VDOT staff have concerns about allowing any access from Route 29 North to the second Valente parcel located immediately to the south of this one, at the intersection with Timberwood Boulevard on the west side of 29. The applicant is working with staff to provide proffers that will address the ingress-only limitation, the provision of access to parcels to the north and south, and the provision of sole access from Route 29 North to the parcel to the south. These proffers were not available in final form at the time of preparation of this report but shall be presented to the Commission at the scheduled meeting. Staff also has concerns about the timing of this request relative to the fact that VDOT is currently undertaking a major planning and design effort affecting the section of Route 29 North immediately above (north of) the northern terminus of the western by-pass. As described to staff, this effort involves three major components: 1) widening of the highway to add additional north and south bound lanes; 2) closure of all or most access points to the highway from properties located on the east and west sides of 29, with the exception of a few designated intersections (possibly two or three); and, 3) construction Of parallel service roads east and west of the highway, to replace the direct access to 29 with access at a few designated locations. In this area, early versions of VDOT plans indicate the possibility of closing the signalized intersection at Forest Lakes North, with all traffic accessing properties adjacent to the highway rerouted east to Worth Crossing and west to a proposed new service road which would align with the rear (western) property line of this parcel and take access from Route 649 or even Route 606. Both the widening and proposed service road could potentially take significant portions of this parcel, leaving its final dimensions unclear and its usable acreage substantially reduced. If the service road were constructed, and direct access to Route 29 North were closed, the ;'front" of the property could be re-oriented 180 degrees to face the west. As previously mentioned, improvement planning to this section of Route 29 North is in ks earliest stages, and in fact no adopted plan exists nor is one expected at a date certain. In fact, the proposed plan has not yet been presented to the Board of Supervisors for their review and comment, although VDOT representatives are scheduled to meet with the Board in March for this purpose. Staff anticipates that this project will generate very substantial public comment, and may undergo major changes. Deletion of components such as the service roads, or reinstatement of some or all access points to 29, may occur. Staff anticipates that the widening element will occur, no matter what other changes result from the review process, but even its f'mal alignment has not yet been determined. Although it would be preferable to consider this rezoning request in the context of complete information on future road improvements, the timetable for final road plans is so uncertain that this does not appear to be possible. SUMMARY: Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a proposed zoning map amendment (ZMA, rezoning) shall be reviewed in regard to section 1.4., Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Environmem; and 1.6, Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; of the Ordinance, which have been adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The relationship to and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan [Land Use Plan] was discussed earlier in this report. Section 1.4 and 1.5 are discussed below. Staff finds that this proposal promotes the intent of the following section: 1.4.7 "To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92);" Because of the transportation planning currently m process, and staff's inability to adequately evaluate impacts to this property from that effort due to lack of an approved plan, this proposal does not fully support the intent of the following sections: 1.4.4 "To facilitate the provision of adequate transportation .... ;" 1.5 "This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for.., the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community,...;" However, the cimumstances surrounding this transportation planning effort are such that neither staff, the applicant, or VDOT can accurately anticipate when the final road plans may be approved, mad thus staff believes that review of the project should proceed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this request with proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B- Plm C - Applicant's Justification D - 12/10/97 Letter from VDOT I: IGENERA L ~SI]ARE~ THOMASI V.4LENTE. ZMA ALI3E ARLE 2O COUNT ZMA 97-10 The Storage Center ~.. ,.,., WHITE ~"~'~LL ~ · ;, .... , ~==:=_,~-' '-'~--- - ,~'" RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 32 %1 Og'g61 I I I ~'1 I ) ,,:5t ! 'I :~,I ~ ' Z°ni namce and SecUon~.l 5,1 - 490 of th ode of V~rgmla states that," ng ordi s districts shall be drawn ~d gpl~!ied wit[ re. asonable consideration for the eXisting use~and character of the property, the compreben~i¥¢ p?n, the suitabi!i.~ of property, for variou~ US6$, ithe trends of growth or change, the current grid futu~ r~qmr,' ements Of the community as t0'land for various purposes as determined by populaOon and ecohomic studies and other studies, the tran~spoita/ion requirements of the community, the r~eqq!remelats for al?ports; housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public $.ervice§t the ¢onservatiml of natural resources, the preservati6n'of flood plains, the preseri'ation of a i .ul.~..al and ~ rest land: e comervation of ro rtie 'and their slues and the enco gr~ ...... t~ . al . ~.. p pe $ v , uraementof the m.o~t appropriate, us~ Of land throughOUt the county or municipality" · h~ reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please provide , to assist the County in its review of your request. If you .3Crc lpubll¢ water~ sewer~ and roads ayallable to serve this site? Will them he any impact on these facilities? What impact will there be on the County's natural, scenic, and historic msoumes? OPTIONAL: Do you have plans to develop the property if the rezoning is approved? If so, please describe: If you would like to proffer any restrictions on the development of the property, please list these proffers on the following optional attachment entitled, "PROP'PIiR FORM". Proffers are voluntary_ offers to use property m a more restrictive way than the overall zoning district classification would allow. By Slat9 Code proffers must have a reasonable relationship to the rezoning and are not mandatory. The rezoning must give rise to the need for the proffers; the proffers must be related to the physical development or physical operation of the property; and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 Describe your request in .detail including why you are requesting this particular zoning district? ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED. Provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat o[ boundary surveys please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: ff you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: FI 3. 121 4. FI 5. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Proffer Form signed by the owner(s). Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is tree and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature PrintedName - Date Daytime phone number of Signatory Amended Proffer , (Amendment #..._.._} BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Date: April 9 ,. _19.98-, ZMA # ?-13 Tax Map Parcel(s) · 829 Acres to be rezoned from C~.,l to~I-Ic _ . Pursuant to Seclion 33.3 of Ihe Albemarle Counly Zoning Ordinance. the owner, or ils duly authorized agent, hereby volunlarily proffers lhe conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezonlng end it is agreed thai; (1) Ihe rezonlng itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. 'lax Map 32 Parcel 37A (the "parcel") shall have one entrance on Route 29 North (the "entrance"). The entrm~ce shall provide ouly ingress onto the parcel. The entrance shall be designed to allow h~gress only, and to serve also as the sole entrance from Route 29 North for Tax Map 32 Parcel 4IA. The design and location of the entrance shall be subject to review and approval by tile Virginia Department of Transportation and tile Couuty. The parcel shall be designed mid developed to provide travelways that will cmmect to, and provide access to and from, Tax Map 32 Parcel 37A1 mid Tax Map 32 Parcel 4lA. The design trod location of the travelways shall be subject to review and ap- proval by the Comity. These proffers shall not be construed to require the closure of the entrance from Tax Map 32 Parcel 41A onto Route 29 North existing on March 3, 1998, or a travelway co~mection between Tax Map 32 Parcels 37A and 4lA, until such time as a site de- velopment plan or a zoning map amendment for Tax Map 32 Pamel 4lA is approved. ~[gnelures ef,~ij/ownets ~ ' ' Prit{t~d Na/6es o~AII Owners [ ,,r.,P,[lnled Name of Atlorney. n-Feel DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o{ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOlq ESVILLE, 22911 December 10, 1397 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER SDP97 - 138 Seminole Commons ac Forest Lakes Route 29 Mr. Jack Kelsey Department of Engineer 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Kelsey: The Department has additional information for the above referenced site, based on recent msetzngs, regarding propose(] [mprovemenl:s co Ro~lte 29 between Airport Road and the South Fork Rivanna Preliminary proposals indicate controlled access for this area of Route 29 with a frontage road serving the lots from tile rear of the property. The initial access for the site should only be through the existing entrance that currently serves the storage facility and the Amoco The southern host proposed entrance will not be pe£mitted ~ue co its proximity i:o LEe operational area of ~he existing signalized intersect ion. Preliminary plans indicate a possible right of way impact into the first line of parking spaces as shown on the plan for this site Based on the proposed be designed so if will improvements. improvements the Deparcmenn strongly recommends the site not be adversely impacted, regardless of the ultimate If you should have 'concerns with £nese comments please discuss with our office prior to sharing with the applicant. Sincere]y, JHK/smk / 1 . J H. Kesterson Permi~ & Subdivision Spec Supv cc: Christopher Reed Irma Von Kutzleben Susan Thomas TRANSPQRTATIOH FOR THE 21,ST CENTIIRY ./ D~a~ ~o~,m~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE C~ S. ~'~ m~ Office of ~d o~ Superlin ~ WMt~ E Pe~ C~lo~e Y. Hump~ ~1 Mclnfi~ Road ~ ~ ~h~. Jr. Ch~lo~e, V~ia 22~2~96 ~ H, ~om~ ~ (~} 29~5~ F~ (~) 296-5~ ~ March 25, 1998 M. E. Gibson, Jr. Esq. P. O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA 98-04 Charlottesville Catholic School SP 98-01 Charlottesville Catholic School Dear Mr. Gibson: This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petitions, have been rescheduled for public hearings by the Board of SUpervisors for WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1998. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room//241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the tentative agenda one week prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. If you should have any questions or concerns about this schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5843. /ewc Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk / CCi V. Wayne Cilimberg William D. Fritz Atlantic Coast Athletic Club Charlottesville Catholic School Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowennan Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE O~IC~ Of Board of SUp~I'ViSOI~ 401 Mdnfi~ Road Chmlo~e. ~ 22902~96 (~) 296-5~ F~ (~] 296-5~ Chmles S. Martin W~lter E Perkins Sa~y H. Thomas March 25, 1998 ATLANTIC COAST ATHLETIC CLUBS OF VIRGINIA CHURCH, CASSANDRA S COREAST SAVINGS BANK & FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, THE DEAN, SARAH PAGE OR JAMES A DEAN FOUR SEASONS TOWNHOUSE ASSOC INC HOUCHENS, REA KENT OR GERTRUDE A JACKSON, CLARK C OR GLORIA S KNIGHT, NANCY J NICHOLSON, MARl( A OR JOANNA L HIEBNER SHIFLETT, SHIRLEY B SPRINKLE. JAMES A OR JANICE D STUART, SUSAN E TYLER, CHRISTOPHER S OR PI-HSIAH WOODWARD, REBA F RE: ZMA 98-04 Charlottesville Catholic School SP 98-01 Charlottesville Catholic School Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner of the above-referenced petitions described as follows: ZMA 98-04 Temporary_ Charlottesville Catholic School/Sign g52.59) - Proposal to rezone approximately 2.3 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development to PUD Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club which is located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. [SP 98-01 is being reviewed concurrently.] SP 98-01 Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School (Sign #52. 59~ - Proposal to allow the existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as a private school. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club which is located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. The site consists of approximately 2.3 acres which is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development but is proposed to be rezoned with ZMA 98-04 to PUD Commercial. This area is recommended~.~ for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. ~ Printed on recycled paper Adjacent Owners Page 2 March 25, 1998 This petition will be reviewed and public comment received by the Board of Supervisors on WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1998. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Should you wish to attend this meeting, you may call this office during the week of the meeting to ask the tentative time the item is scheduled on the agenda. You may review the file in the Planning Department, at the address above. If you should have any questions, comments or observations concerning this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5843. Sincerely, /ewc cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg William D. Fritz AFFIDAVIT DATE - MARCH 25, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Board of Count~ ~upervisors/ Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 25th day of March, 1998. Notary PXtrblic My commission expires ~ Jtg~ c~ OO / FILE: ZMA 98-04 -CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL SP 98-01 CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL March 20, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLI~ Dept. ol Planning &_ Communiw Development 40I Mclnt~re Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (8041 296-5823 M. E. Gibsoa. ,ir.. Esq P O Box 1585 Cbarloltesville. VA 2292 RE: ZMA-98414 Charlottesville ealholic School SP-98-01 Charlottesville Catholic School Tax Map 61X2. Parcel 413 Dear Mr. Gibsou: Thc Albemarle County Planning Commission. al ils meeling on March 7. 1998. unanimously rccommcndcd approval eftbc abovc-nolcd pclilions lo thc lloard of Supervisors. l~lcase uole fl~at approval is snl~jed Iolhe following: ZMA-98-04 - Approved subject to acccplance of proffers. S1'-98-01 - Approved subject to the following conditions: Maximum enrollmeut will be 180 students. Honrs ofoperation shall be 7:30 am to 6:00 pm. Site shall not be used as a school after June 30, 2001. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition mid receive public comment at their meeting on April 15, !998_. 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. Siucerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf ce: ~ Amelia MeCulley Jack Kelsey Charlottesville Catholic School BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ MARCH 17, 1998 MAY 13, 1998 CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to amend the existing zoning of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility, in Four Seasons to allow daycare by-right, and to allow a private school by special use permit. The applicant has provided a description and justification for this use~ [Attachment Petitions: ZMA 98-04 Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School - Proposal to rezone approximately 23 acres to amend the PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning to permit additional uses. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club which is located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwell'rog units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. [SP 98-01 is being reviewed concurrently.] SP 98-01 Temporary_ Charlottesville Catholic School - Proposal to allow the existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as a private school. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Aflantie Coast Athletic Club which is located on Four Seasons Drive inthe Rio Magisterial District. The site consists of approximately 2.3 acres which is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development but is proposed to be rezoned with ZMA 98- 04. This area is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwallipg units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. Character of the Area: This site is the current location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club. The site includes a building, parking and outdoor recreation (tennis courts, basketball courts and swimming pool). A stormwater management pond is located adjacent to the site, The site is located centrally within the Four Seasons development which includes patio homes, townhomes and apartments. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the rezoning request and is able to support the request to amend the designation of this area to include additional uses with the acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Staff has reviewed th~ special use permit request and is able to recommend approval. 3_ Planning and Zoning History: The history of the Four Seasons developmem ~s incomplete as files pertaining to the development were submitted to the court during litigation and not returned. One purpose of this mzoning is to clarify the zoning on the property and establish a clear record of use. The Four Seasons development was originally approved in 1969. At that time the area currently under review was designated as "major recreation". Various approvals have taken place which have resulted in the current Athletic Club use. Two special use permits, SP 80-23 and SP 81-31. were approved for a day care at tiffs s!te, with amaximum enrollment of 175 children. The approvals'for a day care have expired. ' Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Urban Density Residential [6 to 34 dwelling units per acre.] No other comment is contained in the comprehensive Plan which provides guidance in the review of this application. ' STAFF COMMENT: Review of ZMA 98-04 The zoning ordinance contains specific guidelines for the review of Plarmed Developments. Staff'will address each applicable provision'of the ordinance. This review-is limited to the change in the designated use ofthis portion of the existing Four Seasons Planned Development. Discussion of the special use permit will occur later in the report. 8.5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS At such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on request of the applicant, the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the board of supervisors. The dateof the commission's determination to proceed, or ofthe applicant's request for preparation 0frecommendations, shall be deemed the formal date of submission of the application. SpeCifically, recommendations of the commission shall include findings as to; The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of: relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area; The proposed amendment to allow day care is consistent with previous special use permit reviews and apProvals'for this site. The appticant'has proffered to limit the size of any day care on this site to the same level as has been previously approved for this property. The currem use of the site as a Health Club is more intensive than any of the proposed uses of the site. Therefore this request will not result in change in the residential character of the area. b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; This proposal will have no greater impact than previously approved for the site. Therefore. this request is consistent with this provision of the ordinance. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and The applicant has demonstrated unified control of the property. Therefore~ this request is consistent with this provision of the ordinance. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. No modification of ordinance provisions has been requested by the applicant. SUMMARY OF ZMA 98-04: The proposed zoning amendment largely clarifies the permitted uses of the property while adding some uses. The proposed day care use was previously approved on this site and staff can identify no change since those approvals which would indicate that day care on this site wouldnot again .be appropriate. [Other uses proposed are public type uses.] Staff is not able to identify any negative factors Review of SP 98-01 Staff wilt address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued unon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use Will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacem propertv~ The proposed school will be at this site for only three years and will make use of the existing facilities. The applicant will stop use of the.school no later than June 30, 2001. [It is anticipated that the school will be at this site no longer than two years. However, the applicant has requested that approval be granted for three years to ~nsure that a new site will be ready before this special use permit expires.] No changes to the exterior of the site-are proposed other than signage. The proposed hours of usage are 8:30 amto 2:30 pm with a before school program starting at 7:30 pm and an after school program running until 6:00 pm. These hours of use are less than the current health club. The proposed maximum enrollment is 180 students and will be in grades K-6. While this is a substantial enrollment staff opinion is that the impact will be no greater than created by the current use ofthesite. Based on the existing use of the site staff opinion is that use of the site for a school will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, No change in the site is proposed. The hours of operation are less intensive than the current use. Therefore, staff opinion is that the character of the district will not be changed. and that such use will be in harmony with the puroose and intent of this ordinance. Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance with particular emphasis on Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 which state: 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1. Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter I1, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia. and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas he provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: .4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the communiw for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies. the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports. housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services: for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation ofproperties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. Private schools, like churches, are considered to be uses which support the moral fiber of a commumty. They are permitted in residential zoning districts after review of the relationship of the proposed use to the residential area and surrounding uses. Staff opimon is that this request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as it provides for additional educational opportunities. with the uses permitted bv right in the district, The adjacent development includes single family attached dwellings, multi-family dwellings; Pr/vate schools, at appropriate locations, are considered generally to be in harmony with the uses permitted in multifamily residential areas. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Traffic generated by a school will peak in the morning and afternoons with limited traffic during the day and little if any evening traffic. The current use has a peak in the morning and afternoon but also has substantial traffic volumes during the day and in the evening. The school traffic is not anticipated to be any more intense than the traffic to the health club during the summer months when the outdoor recreational uses are in use. Staff is unable to identify any conflict with the public health, safety or general welfare which will be caused by this use. SUMMARY OF SP 98-01: Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance and no negative factors have been identified, RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 98-04. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff 'recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Staff is able to supportthe request for a private school as it is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 ofthe ordinance. Therefore, staffrecommands approval of SP 98-01 subject to the following condition: Maximum enrollment will be 180 students; Hours of operation shall be 7:30 am to 6:00 pm. Site shall not be used as a school after June 30, 2001. ATT,' CHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's information D - Applicant's proffer ASZMA9804.RPT o ZMA 98-04 Charlottesville Catholic ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~TTACHMENT Bl 45 :-ZMA 98.04 Catholic School CITY OF 77 · -_ _ _. - - -,, JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION 61 - CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS ALBEMARLE G(~gNT¥ I . FOUR SEASONS I wage SECTION 61Xt ZMA 98-04 ~~ SECTION 61XI 5 61X2 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FILED BY TI-IE CHARLOTTESVII,I,E CATHOLIC SCHOOL SP-95-01 Responses to Additional Questions Listed on New Application Form J ATTACHMENT C I ' What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Urban density residential. How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? As thc proposed use does not require any new construction or other exterior changes at this site (except signage), nor proposes to intensify the current use of the property, the proposed use will not negatively affect adjacent properties. In fact, the proposed temporary private school will have a very positive effect on the surrounding neighborhood, because '~he s~h0ol will generate significantly less traffic during the school year than the present occupant produces, and will generate little if any traffic during thc S1.w/n~er mont]~. Notwithstanding. the approval of this Application, the property owner, ACAC, will continue to offer some fitness training, operate the outdoor pool and tennis courts, and conduct its youth slimmer camps. Nevertheless, the fitness training will be limited, the pool and youth camps will be in operation during the summer months when the school is closed (although there may be a brief overlap during the late spring and early fall), and the tennis courts, which will only be available when the weather permits; will generate ?cry little traffic The decreased activity at thig site will surely please adjoining landowners. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The proposed use will enhance the character of the surrounding district. No exterior consrcuction or modifications to the property (except signage) are necessary so there will be no visible change to the property, There will be, however, one very visible change resulting from this special use: significantly less activity and less traffic. As the school anticipates matriculating only 120-180 (approx.) students at this temporary school, and the school will not be open in thc summer, the school will be a very quiet, compatible neighbor to the surrounding PUD district. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? According to §1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the Ordinance is to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end . . . that new community centers be developed with adequate.., educational facilities .... "With respect to this application, the Ordinance requires the Board of Supervisors to both provide educational resources to the community, and protect the interests of citizens who own property near a proposed school location. The special use proposed for this proper~y permits the Board of Supervisors to accomphsh both tasks. The proposed use will provide a vital educational resource to many citizens of Albemarle County, without jeopardizing the interests of landowners in the surrounding district. In fact, the private school will enhance the character of the surrounding district. Therefore, the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zouing Ordinance. SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FILED BY THE CHARLOIWESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL ATTACHMENT LPage 4J Description of Request: The Charlottesville Catholic School requests a Special Use Permit to operate a temporal~ private school (kindergarten through 6th grade) from fall 1998 through spring 2000. The school would lease approximately 7,000 square feet in the existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club (ACAC) building (which is approximately 20,000 square feet). It is anticipated this teraporary private school will matriculate 120 students in its first year and 180 in its second. There will not be any classes held during the summer. The normal hours of operation will be from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm; however, the school will provide a before school program that begins at 7:30 am and after school program which ends at 6:00 pm. Applicant wishes to make certaln~ however, that the presently permitted me of this property for a recreational facility/health club will not be jeopardized by this application. Although the property owner, ACAC, will vacate most of the existing building, it will continue to offer some fitness training and operate the outdoor pool and tennis courts. Note, however, that the fitness training will be extremely limited, the pool will only be open during the summer when the school is dosed, and the tennis courts, which will only be available when the weather permits, will generate very little traffic. When the school's lease expires, ACAC may reoccupy the entire facility and resume its use of the fac'flity for a health club. Justification for request: The only use presently permitted at this site is a recreational facility. While the Charlottesville Catholic School pursues a permanent location, it needs a mmpora~j location, and this site is ideal became it is located near many of the students, and the proposed lease area will meet the school's growing needs. Sixty-seven students are presently enrolled in the Charlottesville Catholic School, and became of the significant Catholic population in. Albemarle County and surrounding areas, the school expects its student body to grow. The 1998 and 1999 student body projections indicate the school will soon exceed the capacity of its present location at 301-B East Jefferson Street. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL What public need or benefit does this rezoning serve? This rezoning will provide a temporary location for a private Catholic school (kindergarten through 6th grade) which meets the educational and extra-curricular needs of many residents of Albemarle County and Surrounding communities, who wish to have their children receive both a secular and religious education. The rezoning will also permit the property owner, the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club, to utilize this property for certain commercial office purposes, in addition to or in place of the recreational facility/health club use which is already permitted at this site, thereby providing valuable services to the residents of Albemarle; What impact will there be on the County's natural, scenic and historic resources.* As this application does not propose any new construction or other exterior changes at this site. there will not be any impact on the County's natural, scenic or historic resources. On the contrary, a temporary private school will have a very positive affect on the surrounding neighborhood, ~becanse the school will generate si~ificanfly less traffic during the school year than the present occupant produces, and will generate little ff any traffic during the snmmer months. Although the property owner, ACAC, will continue to offer some fitness training and operate the outdoor pool and tennis courts, the fitness training will be extremely limited, the pool will only be open during the summer when the school is dosed, and the tennis courts, which will only be available when the weather permits, will generate very. little traffic. When the school's lease expires, ACAC may reoccupy the entire facility and resume its use of the facility for ahealth club, or use it for another permitted commercial office me. As the recreational facility is already permitted and in operation at tins site, and became the permitted commercial office uses wbuld create an impact lesser than or equal to that of the health club; the proposed rezonmg will not impact the County's resources. Describe your request in detail including why you are requesting this particular zoning district. The only use presently permitted at this site is a recreational facility. The Charlottesville Catholic desires to have the property rezonefl in order to lease approximately 7,000 square feet in the existin~ 20,000 square foot building which is approximately 20,000 square feet to operate a temporary private school (kindergarten through 6th grade) from the fall 1998 through spring 2000. It is anticipated this temporary private school will matriculate 120 students in its first year and 180 in its second. The normal hours of operation will be from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm; however, the school will provide a before school program that begins at 7:30 am and after school program which ends at 6:00 pm. Although ACAC will vacate most of the building, it will continue to offer limited fitness training and operate the outdoor pool and tennis courts. When the Charlottesville Catholic School's lease expires in 2000, ACAC hopes to continue operating a recreation center and/or lease the building for administrative, business or professional offices. To this end, the applicant requests a rezoning to PUD with commercial office designation. Ail permitted commercial office uses, except for a private school, and admirdstrative, business and professional offices, are being proferred. Tha applicant wishes to make certain, however, that the presently permitted use of this property for a recreational facility/health club will not be jeopardized by this application. When the School's lease expires, ACAC plans to either reoccupy the entire building and resume its use of the facility for a health club, or make the property available for certnin commercial office uses. Date: ZMA # I ATTACHMENT D I Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment ¢¢ PROFFERFORM 98-04 'Fax Map Parcel(s) Cf 061×2-00-00-004B0 2.3 ! 4 Acres to be re'zoned from PUD [o PUD-Commgrci al/Services Pursuar [ to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the proper~y, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a pad of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) See At%ached. Signatures of Afl Owners Signature of Allorney-in-Fact (Altach Proaer Power ol Altorney) Atlantic Coast Athletic Club Printed Names of All Owners Date By:Philip G. Wendel, President OR Primea Name ol Attorney-in-Fact ATTACHMENT How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The only use presently permitted at this site Is a commercial recreational facility. The proposed use is in harmony with the present use, because the proposed use of a temporary Catholic School will not require any exterior construction or modification to the property {other than signage), and will. in fact, decrease traffic and activity at this site. With respect m the surrounding PUD district, pursuant to § 20.3.1.7 of the Ordinance public schools are permitted by right in PUD's. The proposed private school will only be temporary, and will be much smaller m scope than a public school thereby generating significantly less traffic and activity than a public school. Therefore. the proposed use is in harmony with uses permitted by fight in the district. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? None. How wifl this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? The proposed special use will provide a temporary location for a private Catholic school (kindergarten through 6th grade) which meets the educational and extra-curricular needs of many residents of Albemarle County and surrounding communities, who wish to have thek children receive both a secular and religious education. AMENDED PROFFERS FOR ZMA-98-04 The applicant wishes to emend the Proffers submitted with the application for ZMA-98-04 filed on January 5, 1998. the applicant's restated proffers are as follows: All by-fight commercial uses permitted ina PUD-Commercial/Services designated district, except for an indoor athletic facility permitted under Ordinance Section 22.2.1.24, the following commercial office by-right uses permitted in a PUD-Cornmercial/Serviees designated district: 1. Cemeteries, as permitted by Ordinance Section 23.2.1.4. 2. Ali uses permitted under Ordinance Section 23.2.1.7. 3. Public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, as permitted under Ordinance Section 23.2.1.8. ATLANTIC COAST ATHLETIC CLUB By: Phil Wendel, President AMENDED PROFFERS FOR ZMA-98-04 I ATTACHI~IENT D I The commercial (C-l) and commercial office (CO) by-fight uses permitted on this parcel shall be limited to the following: Commercial §22.2.1.b.8 §22.2.1.b.12 §22.2.1.b.13 §22.2.1.b. 17 §22.2.1.b.18 §22.2.1.b.19 §22.2.1.b.24 Health Spas. Libraries, Museums. Nurseries, Day Care Centers; provided that no more than 175 children shall be enrolled in the nursery or day care center. Electric. Gas, Oil and Communication Facilities excluding Tower Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned and Operated by a PubYm Utility. Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Lines, Pumping Stations and Appurtenances Owned and Operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Public Uses and Buildings includ'mg Temporary or Mobile Facilities such as Schools, Offices, Parks, Playgrounds and Roads Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies; Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines, Treatment Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned and/or Operated by the R.ivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Temporary Construction Uses. Indoor Athletic Facilities. Commercial Office §23.2.1.5 §23.2.1.7 Libraries, Museums. Electric, Gas, Oil and Communication Facilities exclud'mg Tower Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned and Operated by a Public Utility. §23.2.1.8 §23.2.1.9 §23.2.1.12 Water Distribution andSewage Collection Lines, Pumping Stations and Appnrtenanees Owned and Operated by the Albemarle Court .ty Service Authority. Public Uses and Buildings including Temporary or Mobile Facilities such as Schools, Offices, Parks, Playgrounds and Roads Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies; Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines. Treatment Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned and/or Operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Temporary ConstruCtion Uses. Daycare, Child or Nursery Facility; provided that no more than 175 . children shall be enrolled in the nursery or day care center. ATLANTIC COAST ATHLETIC CLUB By: Phil Wendel, President~ P. O. Box 6389 Charlottesville VA 22906 998 V-/iliiar;~ P. Fritz. AICP Albemarle C,-Junt g Pl~nt-a ng Comm~saioo 401 t.lclntlre Road Charlotasvflla V~ 22901-4596 Dear l"lr Fritz: RE: SI't~ 98-04 6P 98-0i Thafik ecu for adjaceni properly -~m:lficadon o_-,nce, rnlng (blgt-~ '~Sz, 59) or, da proposed 'ezonifig Ol-J prc, f~erty o~,,'neo D~., ul] .a..s. nucl c,f A.C..A.£ L;,bsaFa i la~_'~_ii ?r-~Sloent af FOur :_--~easoAs i:~atio HOb-~Ss as we!~ as rex, Ideals oi ~o~r :Seasar~s 'i'uwnnoasc~ 5r~ared soot. et-no about futbre dada to b6 allowed after the CaZhoiic Scnool personal meeting wltf, 5~,an I"larc~li of FSPH. Ms. Parker and Mr. Rossmoor~. nave allayed our f~ars. you know. ella's/lng a day care f~cili! j for 175 children was critical. It is my undarstar,~ing tins nas been amended ia keep cay care i~el as ~s, ~a accomodate pa[rahs wno use m8 A.C.A.C. facilities Ma .~ I ada mat ]n my.ap]man, toe Charlottesville Catholic School ',.,.,'ill be a '¥/elcome addition to this nerghborbood Phil Web, del has Jane be~n a g~o neighbor ar, d bas shown ~,e nas the interest (an uga]n De qependad on to do the right thlbg. 6ivan our concern:.s have b~en ad3re.~;.sed and apparently ~a~isfactorily concluded if is my teellnq mg preser~ce is no[ necessary at this Marcn I 7. 1998 mae!lng TrJafik gou fc, r uoar pars,: rial attention. It '..~,'ouh] Pe appreciated if Cuples of ahy pardi bent paper's nr inforn~atiun cuuld ge sen~ !u ro~ FOUR .:,k~auf a Tu~ NrluU.~E ,.-,.,.,N INF: Frit.-:,ie Williams President ...._..~ n: ..... ' .~'tar-r eli. FSPH H. R I 7 1 gA Four Seasons ?atio Home ^ssociadon P.O. l~ox 6569, Chadouesville, VA 22906 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission From: Board of Directors, Four Seasons Patio Home Association Last week Mr. Rossmoore and Ms. Parker me£ with Ms. Williams and Hs. Harcell, presidents of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association and Four Seasons Patio Home Association, respectively. They had a productive meeting, at which Hr. Rossmoore and Hs. Parker agreed to alter the request you are considering tonight in such a way as to ease concerns over the use of the ACAC property after the school lease is over. In considering the impact of the Catholic School at the ACAC site, we reviewed a number of pending projects that are affecting our neighborhood in general. These projects are the responsibility of as many different governmental agencies, and yet are inevitably dependent upon each other. We are concerned that the responsible agencies do not seem to be working together and aware of ~he impact each project has on the others. It is our hope that the Planning Commission can play a coordinating role in informing the agencies of our concerns. First of all, VDOT's Rio Road widening project will gready influence the traffic patterns next year while the construction is going on. The traffic along the south end of Four Seasons Drive (past the driveway of the AC. AC property) will greatly increase as the neighborhood avoids Rio Road congestion by using the Commonwealth'Avenue access route. However, once the construction is over and Rio Road access is available, we are concerned that Four Seasons Drive officially have two exit lanes at the north end. This apparently is under the province of the County, and is not part of the Rio Road project. Four Seasons Drive now has an informal two-lane exit, but the street is not wide enough for these two lanes to be painted. We have urged the County to widen the exit of Four Seasons Drive at the time of the Rio Road project, but have not been successful in our efforts. We appreciate Mr. Fri~z' recent con~act with the County Transportation Planner, who is now looking into this matter. We are also concerned about the ponds which adjoin the ACAC property aswell as our own. These ponds will be taking all the gutter run-off from Rio Road, which will greatly increase the amount of water entering the ponds. The ponds are currendy so badly silted and algae-filled that last summer the small pond at least was largely s~agnant and unsightly. It simply did not function as it is supposed to. The Rivanna Water Authority has been planning to dredge the ponds for some time, and supposedly is going Go be dredging this spring. We would like some assurance that this project is on schedule so that the ponds will be ready to absorb the extra water from the Rio Road widening, and return to their healthy, functioning, and attractive state. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT ~ANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.t-639.14 (E) ] 2. 3. 4. 5. Title: Transaction: Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. AMENDED PROFFERS FOR ZMA-98-04 The commercial (C-I) and commercial office (CO) by-right uses permitted on this parcel shall be limited to the following: Commercial §22.2.1.b.8 §22.2.1.b. 12 {}22.2.1 .b. 13 §22.2.1.b. 17 §22.2.1.b.18 §22.2.1.b. 19 §22.2.1 .b.24 Health Spas. Libraries, Museums. Nurseries, Day Care Centers; provided that the nursery or day care center is only an accessory use. Electric, Gas, Oil and Communication Facilities excluding Tower Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned and Operated by a Public Utility. Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Lines, Pumping Stations and Appurtenances Owned and Operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Public Uses mid Buildings including Temporary or Mobile Facilities sucb as Schools, Offices, Parks. Playgrounds and Roads Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies: Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines, Treatment Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned and/or Operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Temporary Construction Uses. Indoor Athletic Facilities. Cgmmercial Office §23.2.1.5 §23.2.1.7 Libraries, Museums. Electric, Gas. Oil and Communication Facilities excluding Tower Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned mid Operated by a Public Utility. {}23.2.1.8 {}23.2.1.9 §23.2. I.t2 Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Lines, Pumping S rations and Appurtenances Owned and Operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Public Uses and Buildings including Temporary or Mobile Facilities such as Sclmols, Offices, Parks, Playgrounds mid Roads Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies; Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines, Treatment Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned and/or Operated by the Rivanna Water m~d Sewer Authority. Temporary Construction Uses. Daycare, Child or Nursery Facility; provided that the nursery or day care center is only an accessory use. ATLANTIC COAST ATHLETIC CLUB By: Phil Wendcl, President I i [ I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: Distribution List From: Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~4. Subject: Ordinance Date: April 28, 1998 Attached is the ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article V, Violations and Penalty, of the Code of the County of Virginia. Zoning sheets will follow under separate cover. Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 98-20(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE V, VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article V, Violations and Penalty, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 37.0 as follows: By Amending: Chapter 20. Zoning Article V. Violations and Penalty Sec. 37.0 Penalty Chapter 20. Zoning Article V. Violations and Penalty Sec. 37.0 Penalty. Any person, whether as owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter or permits any such violatio~ or fails to comply with any of the requirements hereof: orwho erects any building on any land in violation of any detailed statement or plan submitted by him and approved under the provisions of this chapter, shall have committed a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). If the violation is uncorrected at the time of conviction, the court shall order the violator to ablate or remedy the violation in compliance with this chapter, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate such violation within the time period established by the court shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not ess than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), and any such failure during any succeeding thirty (30) day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each thirty (30) dayperlod, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). I, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on April 15, 1998. erk~B'5~rd of Cou~ Supe~./~ors COUNTY OF ~BENLa~ZLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~~'/ April 28, 1998 Supplement No. 87 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are new sheets to be inserted in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. This supplement was occasioned by amendments made on April 15, 1998: /ewc Attachments CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Richard E. Huff, II Larry Davis Water Resources Manager V. Wayne Cilimberg Amelia McCulley Clerk 37.0 PENALTIES (Amended 04-15-98) Any person, whether as owner, lessee, principal, agenu, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter or permits any such violation, or fails to comply with any of the requirements hereof, or who erec=s any building on any land in violation of any detailed statement or plan submitted by him and approved under the provisions of this chapter, shall ha~e committed a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). If the violation is uncorrec=ed at the time of conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy the violation in compliance with this chapter, within a time period established by the court. Failure ~o remove or abate such violation within the time period established by the court shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of no= less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), and any such failure during any succeeding thirty (30) day period shall constitute a separaue misdemeanor offense for each thirty (30) day period, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). -231- (Supp. #87, 04-15-98) 37.0 PENALTIES Any person, whether as owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or permits any such violation, or fails to comply with any of the requirements hereof, or who enects any building on any land in violation of any detailed statement or plan submitted by him and approved under the provisions of this ordinance, shall be guilty of a misde- meanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined nou less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each day upon which such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. -231 - COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 98-01 Violations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amendment to section 37.0 of the Zoning Ordinance to revise the penalties for a zoning violator's continuing failure to comply with zoning ordinance STAFF CONTACT(S): Messm. Tucker, Davis AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: EVlEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: O~~ 24, 1998 BACKGROUND: Section 37.0 ofthe zoning ordinance establishes the penalty for zoning violations. The section currently provides, among other things, that each day a zoning violation continues is a separate offense. In Lawless v. County of Chesterfield, 21 Va. App. 495 (1995), the Virginia Court of Appeals held that localities were not enabled to make each day's violation of a zoning ordinance a separate offense. In 1997, the General Assembly responded to Lawless by amending former section 15.1-491 (now, section 15.2-2286(A)(5)) of the Code of Virginia to address the penalties for a zoning violator's continuing failure to comply with the zoning ordinance. DISCUSSION: Section 37.0 currently provides, among other things, that each day a zoning violation continues is a separate offense. As amended, section 37.0 would implement section 15.2-2286(A)(5) and require the court to order a violator to abate any zoning violation existing at the time of conviction and to correct the violation within a specified period of time. The failure of the violator to correct the violation within the time set by the court, and each thirty day period thereafter that the violation is not corrected, would constitute a separate misdemeanor offense. The penalty for each violation would be a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). RECOMMENDATION; Because effective enforcement of the zoning ordinance should be improved by the amendment to section 37.0, it is recommended that ZTA 98-01 be approved. 98.050 MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804J 296-5823 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive David B. Benish,/36CCN3'ef of Community Development March 27, 1998 ZTA-98-01 Violations The Albemarle Cotmty Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 24, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted zoning text amendment. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear this at their April 15, 1998 meeting. Attached is a report which outlines this amendment. DBB/jcf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EX[CUTtV[ OFFICE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Ptanning Commission Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney February 5, 1998 Request to adopt a resolution of intent to amend section 37.0 of the Zoning Ordinance Request This is a request to adopt a resolution of intent to amend section 37.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. A draft of the proposed te~xt amendment is attached. Backaround Section 37.0 establishes the penalty for violations of the zoning ordinance. The section currently provides, among other things, that each day a zoning violation continues is a separate offense. In Lawless v. County of Chesterfield, 21 Va. App. 495 (1995), the Virginia Court of Appeals held that localities were not enabled to make each day's violation of a zoning ordinance a separate offense. In 1997, the General Assembly responded to Law/ess by amending former section 15.1-491 of the Code of: Virginia to address a zoning violator's continuing failure to comply with the zoning ordinance. This new enabling authority is implemented in the proposed draft of-the text amendment. Recommendation Adopt a resolution of intent to amend section 37.0 of the Zoning Ordinance in substantial accord with the attached draft. DRAFT: March 24, 1998 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE V. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article V. Violations and Penalty, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 37.0 as follows: By Amending: Sec. 37.0 Penalty Chapter 20. Zoning Article V. Violations and Penalty Chapter 20. Zoning Article V. Violations and Penalty Sec. 37.0 Penalty. Any person, whether as owner, lessee, pnncipal, agent, employee or otherwise. who violates any of the provisions of this ~ chapter or permits any such violation: or fails to comply with any of the requirements hereof, or who erects any building on any land in violation of any detailed statement or plan submitted by him and approved under the provisions of this m~s~temeaffof have committed a misdemeanor offense ....... ~,.,, ,. ........... ~,,~ ..... sha~l~+r~t punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) ,. .......... c~ separate ,~,,~, ,o~. If the violation s uncorrected at the time of conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy the violation in compliance with this cha[~ter, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate such violation within the time period established by the court shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.001, and any such failure durinq any succeedin(~ thirtv (30~ day pedod shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each thirty ¢30~ day Period, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmen; 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4,596 ~804) 296-5823 April 10, 1998 Angus Arrington Rt. 1, Box 112 Keswick, VA 22943 RE: SP-97-56 Angus Arrington Tax Map 80, Parcel 74C Dear Mr. Arrington: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 7, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: o The applicant shall have no more than three trucks with gross vehicle weight not to exceed 20,000 lbs. per vehicle and three trailers parked on site. Not more than two employees, other than members of the family residing on the property, shall be permitted on site. No storage of gas, oil, fegilizer, or chemicals on site. No outside storage of equipment, Supplies/materials related to landscape business, including trailers noted above. "Storage" will mean the keeping of more than a five-gallon quantity of material, No repah:s of equipment shall be permitted other than routine operational maintenance such as but not limited to oil changes, blade replacement, fire changes and belt changes. Operation of equipment in association with routine ma'mtenance is only allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The on-loading and off-loading of equipment is not deemed to be routine operational maintenance. Area used to conduct of the Home Occupation will not exceed 1,800 square feet. Page 2 April 10, 1998 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 15, 1998. Any new or additional information regard'rog your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Juandiego Wade Transportation Planner JW/jcf cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEGO WADE APRIL 7, 1998 APRIL 15, 1998 SP 9%56 - ANGUS ARRINGTON: A- lican's Pro osal: The applicant is proposing to expand his Home Occupation-Class B by adding one additional person. This will bring the total number of employees at the site to two plus the applicant. The applicant's description and justification for the use are included in Attachment A. Petition: To expand a Class B-Home Occupation on 4.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 80 - Parcel 74C, is located off Deer Bonn Lane -.Route 842 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated Development Area (Rural Area 2 ). Attachment B & C Character of the Area: This property is developed with a single family dwelling and a shed. Access to the property is directly off Deer Bonn Lane - Route 842. Route 842 is an unpaved road (.3 mile in length) serving ten homes with 95 average daily trips. This road is not scheduled for improvements in the County's Six Year Secondary Road Plan. The immediate area can be described as rural residential in character. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the special use permit for compliance with provisions of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: In 1990 the applicant was granted a Home Occupation Class A for a janitorial and lawn care business. In 1997, the applicant was granted a Home Occupation Class B for a lawn care/landscaping business. The conditions of approval for that special use permit are: l, No more than three trucks and three trailers parked on site. 2. No more than one additional employee not related to family permitted on site. 3. No storage of gas, oil fertilizer, or chemicals on site. No outside storage of equipment, supplies/materials related to landscape business, including trailers noted above, "Storage" shall mean the keeping of more than afire gallon quantity of material. 4. No repairs of equipment other than routine operational maintenance(oil change, blade replacement, and the like). Operation of equipment in association with routine maintenance is only allowed between the hours of ] O:O0 a.m. and 8:OO p. m. 5..4rea used to conduct of the Home Occupation shall not exceed 1,800 square feet. Condition #2 was to limit the number of employees to one besides the resident. This request is to allow an additional employee. 1 of 4 ~ This area is located in the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. This location is not identified in the Open Space as requiring particular attention STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Su_pervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for use as provided in this. ordinance may be issued upon afinding by the Board of Su_pervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent property_. Staff is reviewing this proposal based on the changes from prior approval. The only change is in the residential status of one family member who is now considered an employee. Therefore, two additional vehicle trips will be generated by this change(One trip in the morning and one trip leaving in the evening). The impact of expand'rog this Home Occupation Class B will cause a minor increase in traffic. Virginia Department of Transportation comments can be found on Attachment D. VDOT does not anticipate significant impact to the road. VDOT is recommending the applicant upgrade the entrance to the property to commercial standards, This upgrade would allow two vehicles to pass through the entrance at one time. Staffrecommended denial of the applicant's request for a Home Occupation Class B last year mainly due the increase in traffic, increased in noise and other impacts related to equipment/supply storage, and change in visual character. (See previous staff report Attachment E). These impacts were considered inconsistem with the intent of Home Occupation Class B use. In find'rog that these impacts were not significant, the Board approved the applicant at that tune. The applicant is requesting one additional employee. This additional employee is the son of the applicant. The son lived at home during the 1997 Home Occupation Class B approval. The son no longer lives at the home and, therefore, must be considered an employee rather than an occupant of the home. The applicant has already been granted approval for three tracks and trailers which will not change with this request. (The Building and Zoning Department has investigated this business due to complaints, A violation of 8P96-40 condition #2 was found. It was shown that on several occasions, the number of employees on site exceeded one. As a result, the applicant was notified to cease and desist by official notice of violation dated January 16th. Staff is not aware of further violation of this condition.) Staff has received a letter of opposition f~om a neighbor to this special use permit petition (Attachment F). that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. The site is located in the Rural Area. No significant changes in the character of the larger district are anticipated based on one additional employee and associated traffic. 2 of 4 that such u~e will be in harmony with purpose and intent of this ordinance. Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, 1.5, and 1,6 and believes this use meets the intent regarding the additional employee. with the uses permitted by right on any adjacent property_ This request will not affect uses permitted by fight on any adjacent property. The use is not anticipated to negatively affect agricultural/forestry use in the area based on the one additional employee and associated vehicle trips. with additional re_milations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance Section 5.2 contains regulations for Home Occupations (Attachment G). Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with these regulations and finds the proposed change consistent with these regulations. and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. VDOT classifies all general road as non-tolerable or tolerable. This-proposal will increase traffic (by 2 vtpd) on a non-tolerable general road. VDOT has indicated that it does not anticipate significant impact to the road from this additional traffic. By conditionofthis SP, a commercial entrance will be provided at this property. SUMMARY Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The additional employee will not increase activity associated with the Home Occupation or significantly increase traffic; 2. The additional employee is a former resident of the home, and has been, therefore, previously associated with the home occupation; 3. There will be no change in the appearance of the residence. Staff was unable to identify any negative factors associated with this request. 3 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval Of SP-97-56 Angus Arrington Home Occupation - Class B for the addition of one employee. If the Commission is to act favorably on the request, staff recommends the following additional conditions of approval (New conditions underlined): 1. VDOT annroval of commercial entrance. 2. The applicant shall have no more than three tracks with grross vehicle weight not to exceed 20,000 lbs, per vehicle and three trailers parked on site. 3. No more than two additional emp. lovees not related to family permitted on site. 4. No storage of gas, oil, fertilizer, or chemicals on site. No outside storage of equipment, Supplies/materials related to landscape business, including trailers noted above. "Storage" will mean the keeping of more than a five-gallon quantity of material. 5. No repairs of equipment other than routine operational maintenance(oil change, blade replacement, and the like). Operation of equipment in association with routine maintenance is only allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 6. Area used to conduct of the Home Occupation will not exceed 1,800 square feet. Attachments: A-Applicant's Description and Justification B-Location Map C-Location Map D-VDOT's Comments ' E-Previous StaffReport F-Letter of Opposition G-Section 5.2 Home Occupation l:\g~s\j uan\angus9 8.wpd 4 of 4 County of Alben~ 't~*:o Department of Build g~ode a]ATTACHMENT AI Io~c~ us~ Application for Special Use Permit *Existing Use ' _ *Zoning District (*staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit ar = ~-u,~. must Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a site development plan with this application? . *Zoning Ordinance Section/ nuC~efSe~q~ttedff''~r ~ '"/~'~<~<' ,.Y.a.o_. ~,~ {~ges[ZI No ~ Yes,} No Contact Person av;~om should we call/write eoncermng this project?): Address City State Daytime Phone ( ) Fax # E-mail Zip Owner o'f land ,as Ustea in the Cou.ty's Address '~.Je { {'-'~ a',~. 117_.- City Daytime Phone ( ]. Fax # .E-mail State ~t Zip~2~'Jr-5/. { Applicant ,Whois the contact ~rson repr. senunS? Whois r~laestth~th¢ soeaal use?): ~ b"L~5 A~.~%.2~ Address r~-'3r t ~ ~ ~, I'-L~ City~"<-5--,7'F--{7-~ State g~ Zip Tax map and parcel <~L) "7 ff d Physical Address 0 fassigned} Locafionofproperty¢landmm-ks. inters~cfions, orotheO t/~ ~'FcY~.- 'g ~Z - ~-~t~}<' ~2~ Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those mx map and parcel numbers Afl O OFFICE USE ONLY .,~ ~.~]~.~ -- / , ;2amounl$~ DatePaid ,/~/.~/~-7 Check# ~¢,~ Receipt# ~story: ~ S~ia Use Pemits: $ Q- ~-q 0 O ZMAs and Proffen: ~ V~cas: ~ ~t~r of Au~ofi~on Concu~ent review of Site Development PI~? D Yes ~ No 40l Mclntire Road 4- Charlottesville. VA 22902 4° Voice: 296-5832 o:o Fax: 972-4126 tl.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the fight to issue ali special use permits penrfitted 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 fight in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the ~onaprehensive Plan designation for this property? HowwiIltheproposedspeclaluseaffectadjacentproperty? ~ ~'/"~w~tr How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?. escribe your request in detail and in lude ali pertinent information such as the numbers of persons~ involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ~'~L~_~ ~ ~.~Z ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the prOperty requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundm'y survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book ,and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do sO. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject proper~y, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~TTACHMENT B1 T5 94 RIVANNA DI~TRIGT SECTION 80 MTN [AI'TACHP1ENT. . ¢ · jr' ~ C~ARLOTTE$ Si= 97-56 Angus Arrington BOARD 9F SUPERVISORS LAW OFFICES 34- 4-9¢~ :32 MATTHEW W, P~RRY~ POST OFFICE BOX 368 PAlM.A, V~R~IN~ T~LEPHONE (804) 589-4300 FACSIMILE (804) 589-5300 April 10, 1998 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: SP 97-56 -- Mr. Angus Arrington All four of the neighbors whose properties adjoin Mr. Arrington's oppose his application for expansion of his Home Occupation Class B special permit, which you will consider on April 15. The Planning Commission did not give their letters the consid- eration that they deserve. No one is better situated than next- door neighbors to know the impact of the applicant's conduct, and no one's peace and quiet are more at stake. My clients Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Maney, whose house is twice as close as Mr. Arrington's to his maintenance shed, oppose his application for three reasons. First, Mr. Arrington's actions are adversely affecting the Maneys' property -- and its value -- contrary to the first-stated criterion in the Zoning Ordinance that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The history of violations, complaints, investigations and protests against expansion shows that the granting of this special permit has not worked out satisfactorily. Perhaps it would have, if Mr. Arrington had observed the conditions on which it was granted. But instead he has committed repeated violations of at least one condition. There have been two official determinations that he violated the conditions of the number of employees permitted on site, and he has done so on numerous occasions. There is an ongoing investigation as to whether he has violated the condition that no chemicals be stored on the premises. The Maneys have also complained that he has repeatedly violated the condition prohibiting routine main- tenance before 10:00 a.m., but the Zoning Administrator has taken the view that repair work necessary for loading equipment rather than routine maintenance was involved. Worst of all, the noise and disturbance of work on the machinery have been nearly intolerable for the Maneys. However, the County has not been able to respond in time on short notice so as to determine that the sound exceeds the maximum sound level permitted by the performance standards. Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle April 10, 1998 Page 2 The Maneys' second reason for opposing this application is that to approve it would be to ignore or overlook, if not condone or reward, Mr. Arrington's actions. Even after the first official determination of zoning violation he continued on numerous occasions to disregard the same condition that he violated, and he may have violated others. ~is past conduct is clearly material and relevant to his application. The Maneys' third reason for opposition is that to expand what Mr. Arrington has been granted is to increase the possibility of abuse. In their view his actions to date provide no reason to believe that he will observe the conditions of approval, or the maximum sound level permitted, in the future. It might be objected on behalf of the application that no change would result from granting it -- that the overall number of persons on site engaged in the business would remain three. That is true only so long as Mr. Arrington's son lives elsewhere. If he should move back, the application would permit four persons rather than three. For that reason, in the event the application is approved it is only fair that the condition relating to employees, as approved by the Planning Commission, contain the provision that if the applicant's son moves back home the number of employees permitted on site, other than members of the family living on the premises, shall rever~ from two to one. For all of the foregoing reasons the Maneys ask that you deny ~r. Arrington's application. Respectfully submitted~ / Matthew W. Perry, Jr. MWP:lsg pc: Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. ~umprhis Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally Thomas Dav/d R Bowetman Charlott~ Y. Humpb~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superuisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlo~esville. Vn'g'mia 22902-4596 (804} 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 April 8, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas C. Norman and Frances L. Willis '7503 Citadel Drive College Park, MD 20740-3011 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Willis: This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter regarding SP-87-56. Angus Arrington. Your letter has been forwarded to the other members of the Board of Supervisors for their consideration during the public hearing on this item which is scheduled forApril 15. 1998. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Chairman FRM .Ir/ewc cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper To: From: Reft Date: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ol Planning & Community Developmen~ 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Albemarle County Planning Commission R. Wade, Senior Planner C~ SP-97-56 Angus Arringmn April 7, 1998 Please find attached additional letters of opposition concerning the Angus Arrington special use permit. The County's Zoning Administrator has responded to the issues in some of the letters. Staff will be available to respond to any questions you may have. Attachment A-Letter of Opposition from a neighbor Attachment B-Letter of Opposition from a neighbor Attachment C-Letter of Opposition from a neighbor Attachment D-Letter from the Attorney of a neighbor · Attachment E-Letter from the Attorney of a neighbor Attachment F-Response to letters from County Zoning Administrator I ATTACHMENTA ECEIVED JAN I 7503 Citadel Drive College Park, Mary andj2 .t ti Hg Dept. January 5, 1998 Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Reference: SP 97-56 Angus Arrin~on To Whom It May Concern: Since the undersigned (owners of Parcel 75, Tax map 80 in the Rivanna Magisterial District) will be unable to attend the public hearings concerning the above referenced petition, we wish to register our ~¥TRONG objections to the request. As noted in your letter of December 24, 1997, this is not a designated development area and the applicant already has been grained a zoning exemption. It was our understanding at the time of the previo~s hearing that the applicant would not ask for any further zoning exemptions. We were fearful that with "a foot in the door" the applicant would try to expand the business operations. And so he has. We object to the applicant's request for the following reasons: I. Adverse effect on our property value, 2. Unsatisfactory noise level 3. Increased traffic in the area. 4. Previous violations oftha zoning code by the applicant. If you have any questions or need further information please feel free to contact us at (301) 474-6603. Yom:s truly, C. Norman Willis Frances L. Willis cc: Albemarle County Board of Suparvisors Mr. Joseph Maney 4526 Deer Bonn Road Keswick, Virginia 22947 4/6/98 TO: THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISION TO WHOM IT CONCERNS, IN REGARDS TO THE RECENT REd, JEST OF MR. ANGUS ARRINGTONS S.P. 97-56. WE OWN THE ADJOINING LOT AND HOME NEXT TO THE APPLICANT. WE OPPOSE ANY EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SOME OF TNE REASONS ARE AS FOLLOWS :EXCESSIVE NOISE IN THE AREA :VEHICLE TRAFFIC :SCARCE WATER SUPPLY :POOR SEPTIC PERK AREA THANKYOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION, DAVID AND JOANNE ORDEL ~ATTACHMENT C I January 6, 1998 Ms. Amelia McCulley Director of Building Code and Zoning Services County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Rd Charlottesville, VA 229024596 RE: Complaint letter on SP96-40 Angus & Brenda Arrington Dear Ms. McCulley: Included with this letter are 20 photographs and 1 video tape all taken since our last written complaint of May 6: 1997, (in addition to the 9 photographs you already have in your possession) all taken since Angus Arrington Sr. was granted his Class B Permit on January 15, t997. Each photograph is marked with the date and time and below is a brief description of the restriction violations in each photo by number: 1. Photo taken 5/31/97, I: 15 p.m. shows A, ngus Sr. and 2 employees on site. This group of photographs was taken on 6/9/97 between 7:15 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. This set of photographs were extremely disturbing and I will describe each and the events surrounding them as 1 witnessed them In this photograph~ there is a 300-gallon tank that is manufactured to be resistant to chemicals Also, 2 gasoline powered pumps installed in the top of the tank and a long length of garden hose. I was awakened around 7:10 a.m., 6/9/97 by the noise of these gasoline engines running and witoessed the following series of events. What ! believe to be water was being pumped from the tank in this picture through the garden hose and into Angus Arrington Sr. storage building. After 10 minutes or so, the gray dodge pickup was backed 3/4 of the way into the building. The bed of tho pickup truck at this time was empty. For a period of 10-15 minutes, there were very loud noises of banging and pounding and I could hear them shouting that the tailgate was stuck and would not open. After another few minutes, the pickup emerged from the building with this skid sprayer (chemical sprayer) full of a liquid that you could see sloshing from side to side in a waving action. This special type of sprayer which is used to spray lawn fertilizers and herbicides and requires a special permit bom OSHA to own and operate for commercial purposes, has been used for this purpose many times in the past Photographs 5 & 6 are much closer views of the chemical sprayer and tim dark gray shading can be plainly seen to yetiS] that the sprayer is near full. January 6, 1998 Page -2- Photos' 2-6 show the following conditions being violated: No routine maintenance betbre 10:00 a.m., no excessive noise levels, no more than I employee on the premises, no chemicals on the premises. Even if the chemicals were not added in the building, which I believe they were, chemical residues from past use of this equipment still remain inside. I see this sprayer as a potential health threat fi.om a possible leak and poor care and upkeep or equipment failure. 7. 7/30/97, 3:30 p.m. More than I employee on site. 8. 9/5/97, 5:40 p.m. More than I employee on site. 9. 9/17/97, 2:30 p.m. More than 1 employee on site. 10. 9/20/97, 11:30 a.m. More than 1 employee on site. I1. 9/29/97, 7:30 a.m. Moro than I employee on site. Running and maintaining equipment before 10:00 a.m. 12-13. 10/7/97, 1:30 p.m. Oscar (driving tract,or) and 2 other employees weanng Angus Sr. lofio shirts for the business, working on premises (loading mulch from the ground onto a trailer). Later, the trailer foil of mulch was towed offthe premises (3 employees on site, none of which were Angus Sr. or Angus Jr.). 14. 10/7/97, 7:30 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. Repairing, adjusting and maintaining mowers and loading eqmpment before 10:00 a.m Excessive noise and more than 1 employee on site. 15-16. 10/9/97, 1:45 p.m. (Another set of photos' of chemical sprayer). Chemical sprayer being removed from premises. This tinge on trailer and it appears to be empty. No chemicals on premises. This sprayer is never empty of chemical residue. 17-18. 1'0/28/97, 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. In these photos', ,M~gus Sr. can be clearly seen repairing and adjusting a running mower with at least 2 other employees on site. Maintenance and noise before 10:00 a.m., more than I employee on site. 19~20. 11/17/97, 3:35 p.m. Oscar? And 2nd employee (unnamed), not Angus Sr. or Angus Jr. (neither one present) begin to unload equipment off silver dodge diesel truck which was left running. 2 employees on site, noise. Video Tape - 11/14/97, 3:30 p.m. This video tape clearly shows 2 employees (Oscar?. and George? or employee #1 and #2). Only 2 employees on site create the following disturbance that lasted for 45 minutes or mor~o even though approximately only 11 minutes of tape was recorded. The amount of noise these men created is unbearable even in the afternoon though this scenario has occurred on numerous occasions between 6:30 a m - 8:00 a.m. and, as you know, numerous January 6, 1998 page -3- complaints have been fried Mtb your office for this very reasou. The video tape shows the moving of equipment, loading and unloading of the trailers, the employees shouting and screaming to each other, though they were only a few feet apart, they could not hear each other due to all the'noise they were generating. The gray diesel truck was left running the whole time When you play this tape at near full volume, you will get only a limited experience of what my mornings on a continuous basis sound like Tho microphone this was recorded with only reproduces only a small amount of the noise spectrum and does not do it justice. The vibrations in the air and in the ground are also missing. I can only compare it to a military helicopter trying to land on our roof Military helicopters have no mufflers like a lot of Angus Sr. equipmem. The violations in this video tape are: 2 employees on site, excessive and nnbearable noise level. This is now our 3rd written complaint over this situation. I have called your'office when each and every one of these violations occurred, either talking with you or leaving a message on your voice mail. I have met with you and Bart Svoboda on at least 4 occasions, la mylast call to Bart, he informed me that Angus was told not to have the additional employees on site and he was to schedule them only one at a time. The photographs-and video tape was taken only a few days (11/14/97) a.qer the warning was given and as you can clearly see, this warning was ignored )usl like all of our efforts in the past to keep Angus'Sr. in compliance. I am sending these complaints with Matthew Perry who will now be representing me in this issue. Please give him your utmost cooperation and assistance Yours truly, [~AW OFFICES MATTIIEW W. PERRY~ Jlt. Post Oi,'l,~lc~: Box 368 PAI,MYHA~ VIRGINIA 22963 January 8, 1998 .ATTACHMENT Ms. Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator DireGtor Department of Building Code County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Zoning Services Dear Ms. McCulley: Re: Mr. Angus Arrington SP 96-40 and SP 97-56 As I explained to you during our telephone conversation of January 7, I represent Mr. and ~rs. Joseph T. Maney with respect to their concern over the business activities of their neighbor Mr. Angus Arrington. On May 6, 1997, Mr. Maney wrote you a letter complaining of a number of violations by Mr. Arrington of several conditions of the approval of his Home Occupation Class B special permit. On May 20 and July 17, 1997, you notified Mr. Arrington of an official determination of zoning violation. Mr. Maney reports that since the date of his letter Mr. Arrington has continued to violate several conditions of approval. Mr. Maney has witnessed numerous vlolations and has identified and documented them in a letter to you dated January 6, 1998, which I enclose herewith together with the photographs and video cassette to which it refers. Please record and immediately investigate this new complaint and take approuriate action thereon. Mr. Arrington has applied for an expansion of his Class B Home Occupation special permit in order, in the words of the notice to adjacent property owners, "to add 2 additional employees, one additional landscape trailer, and one additional pick up truck." The Maneys oppose his petition for several reasons. First, the addition of two "additional" employees is prohib- ited by the very definition of a Class B Home Occupation, which requires that there be employed "not more than two (2) persons other than members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in addition to such family members." This defi- nitional limitation is separate and distinct from the condition of Mr. Arrington's special permit that there be "no more than one additional employee not related to family permitted on site." Ms. Amelia G. McCulley January 8, 1998 Page ~ Even now, Mr. Maney can identify different employees appearing in the photographs enclosed in bls new complaint who exceed the number permitted by the definition of a Class B Home Occupation. Second, the Maneys have found the noise associated with Mr. Arrington's business activities, especially at early hours, nearly intolerable, His maintenance-shed is twice as close to their house as it is to his own. The additions requested in the new petition can only produce even more noise, traffic and activity and intrude more on their peace and quiet. The Maneys would have both of the foregoing objections even if Mr. Arrington had faithfully observed all of the conditions on which his Class B special permit was granted. Their third object- ion is that his petition to expand his Class B Home Occupation should be considered in the context of his actions. His conduct resulted in an official determination of zoning violation. There- after, rather than scrupulously observe the conditions of his special permit, he continued to disregard them as documented in Mr. Maney~s new complaint. To grant his petition to expand would be to ignore or overlookj if not condone or reward, his actions. More- over, in the Maneys' view his conduct to date provides reason to doubt that he will observe the ~onditions of approval in the future. The Maneys appreciate that their complaint must be investiga- ted before any official determination of zoning violation Gan be made. But they submit that, in light of the evidence being fur- nished, it would be appropriate for any action by the Planning Commission on Mr. Arrington's new petition to be deferred until your investigation is completed. The Maneys also request that you and Mr. Wade furnish copies of this letter and of Mr. Maney's letter of January 6 to the members of the Planning Commission and the members of the Board of Supervisors~ and that you have the photographs and Il-minute video cassette accompanying Mr. Maney's letter available for examination, together with a VCR and television set. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. MWP:lsg pc: Mr. Juandiego R. Enclosures Very truly yours, Matthew W. Perry, Jr. Wade / LAW OFFICES MATTHEW W. PERRY~ JR. PALMYRA OFFICE CENTER Post OrFICR BOX 368 PALMYRA~ VIRGINIA 22963 April 1, 1998 [ ATTACHMIEN ! !: l RECEiVeD APg pLANN~[4~ OEPT. TEI~EPHONE {804) 589-4300 FACSIMILE {804) 589-5300 Mr. Juandiego R. Wade Senior Planner Department of Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Wade: Re: Mr. Angus Arrington SP 97-56 and SP 96-40 This letter follows up on my letter of January 8 to Ms. Amelia McCulley on behalf of my clients Mr. and Mrs. Joseph T. Maney, a copy of which, together with a copy of Mr. Maney's letter of January 6 to Ms. McCulley, is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. Against a background of violations, complaints, investigations and protests, Mr. Arrington has modified his application for 'expansion of his Class B Home Occupation permit but still seeks to "add one additional employee". The Maneys remain opposed to his petition for the reasons set out in the second page of my letter of January 8 to Ms. McCulley. I understand that, since the date of my letter to Ms. McCulley, her department has begun but not completed its investi- gation of whether Mr. Arrington has violated the condition that no chemicals be stored on the premises; that it has begun but not completed its investigation of whether Mr. Arrington's son lives off the premises but that Mr. Arrington has in effect conceded that his son does live off the premises; and that it has officially determined that Mr. Arrington has for the second time violated the condition that not more than one additional employee be on the premises. Ms. McCulle~ stated in her letter of January 15 to me that that condition had been violated "on numerous occasions". Her Mr. Juandiego R. April 1, 1998 Page 2 Wade Department has now issued two official determinations of zoning violation of the condition of Mr. Arrington's special permit that there be "no more than one additional employee not related to family permitted on site". The Maneys submit that it is only proper and fair that the Planning Commission and Board of Super- visors be fully apprised of both the status of investigations and the history of violations in considering Mr. Arrington's petition. The Maneys repeat their request that the photographs and videocassette that accompanied Mr. Maney's letter of January 6 to Ms. MoCulley be made available to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, together with a VCR and television set. No writing can convey the nightmare of noise and disturbance being visited on the Maneys as this videocassette does. In the event that Mr. Arrington's petition is approved, the Maneys urge that any approval be expressly conditioned on the additional employee's'being Mr. Arrington's son. In order to avoid any ambiguity inherent in the inaccurate wording "not related to family" ~and in order to adhere to the wording of the Zoning Ordinance, such a condition should be worded "No more than two employees, one of whom shall be the applicant's son, shall be permitted on site in addition to members of the family residing on the premises". This would make clear that the total number of persons working on site, including Mr. Arrington, shall not exceed three, even if Mr. Arrington's son should elect to reside again with his father. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Matthew W. Perry, Jr. MWP:lsg Enclosures pc: Planning Commission Board of Supervisors Ms. Amelia G. McCulley Budding Code Inibrmation (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlonesvill¢. Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TDD (804) 972-4012 ATTACHMENT Zoning Information ('804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Members, Albemarle County Planning Commission and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Amelia G. McCulley, Director of Building Code & Zoning Services Special Permit 97-56 Angus Arriugton April 77 1998 This is to provide a brief history and the current status of the zoning ~nvestigation relating to this application After examination of the complaints and the evidence available, it is our conclusion that condition #2 of S.P. 96-40 has been violated on several occasions Tbis is the condition which restricts the number of employees not related to family permitted on site to one (1) Staff asked for further information to in order to decide if Angus Arrington, Jr. would be considered a resident for the purposes of the zoning approval. Instead of arguing that point, the applicant conceded and is seeking approval based on a non-resident status. The applicant is seeking compliance through the special permit application before you. There has been insufficient evidence to justify and/or verify that violations exist for the other complaints_ Since the approval of S P. 96-40 on January, 15, 1997, Zoning staff has received recurring complaint about various issues. This memo will outline the most relevant complaints, staff's findings and the applicant's response. Beginning in February, 1997, there have been over 25 phone calls, several meetings and a few letters from the complainant, expressing instances of noncoinpliance or nuisance from this home occupation. These have resulted in countless raps to the home occupations and two official determinations of violation to the applicant, both relating to the number of employees on site Violation 98-01 is currently pending Letter of May 6, 1997 with photos ti-om complainant notes several areas of objection. These include too many employees, too many business trucks and alleged excessive Page 2 Memo to Juandiego Wade S.P. 97-56 Angus Arrington storage of fuel. Complaint by meeting with complainant on May 7th. Allegation of too many employees and excessive fuel storage. Investigated complaint that Arrington's vehicle was involved in an accident and caused a fuel spill. Obtained accident report and investigated and did not find grounds. Zoning staffvisited the site on numerous days. We were not able to confirm these 'facts first-hand (we did not see the additional employees, fuel, etc). Based on photos and testimony from the complainant, I sent an official determination of violation letter dated May 20th. The Arringtons were informed that they were not ~n compliance with conditions relating to # employees and to storage of gasoline. Zoning staff visited the site to determine whether there was compliance. By letter of July 17th, I revised the determination of violation to rescind and clarify it. Based on our field visits, we (staff) were not able to substantiate that there had been or was a violation of the condition #3 relating to the storage of fuel. A~er further review of the language of condition #2, it does not refer to the number of employees but to the number "on site," Despite this clarification, there was a photo was shows more than one employee on site, therefore reflecting a violation. Met with complainant and received 1 video, 20 photos and complaint letter dated January 6, 1998. This was followed by cover memo from Matthew Perry, Attorney, dated January 8th~ These complaints fall within the following: condition #2 - No more than one additional employee on site condition #3 - No storage of gas, oil ... "Storage" shall mean the keeping of more than a five gallon quantay of material condition #4 - No repairs of equipment other than routine operational maintenance... Operation of equipment in association with routine maintenance is only allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m Staff investigated and reviewed the facts with the County Attorney's Office. Of the charges, we substantiated the violation of condition #2. This was explained itt a letter to Mathew Perry dated January 15th. I mailed an official determination of violation with attached explanation to Mr. Arrington dated January 16th. We have received further complaint and have made several field visits. The inspection on April 6th shows the site to be in compliance. We have further documentation to fill in information should you need it. A representative will be available for the Planning Commission's and Board of Supervisor's meetings. 401 Me.-&~tim t~oad If you have ~-ay q~.~a~orgs or ~ furth~ inf~cm&ram pi~ fen:l ~ to ~6'1 us a~ (30I) 474-6603. F~ L. Willis MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS MATTHEW PERRY. I AM AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH MANEY, WHOSE PROPERTY ADJOINS THAT OF THE APPLICANT. THE MANEYS OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION FOR THREE REASONS. FIRST, THE HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS, COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS AND PROTESTS AGAINST EXPANSION SHOWS THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL PERMIT HAS NOT WORKED OUT SATISFACTORILY. PERHAPS IT WOULD HAVE IF MR. ARRINGTON HAD OBSERVED THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH IT WAS GRANTED. BUT INSTEAD HE HAS REPEATED~-VIOLAT]~I~.C'~)N~ONS. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OFFICIAL DETERMINATIONS THAT HE VIOLATED THE CON- DITIONS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PERMITTED ON SITE, AND HE HAS DONE SO ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. THERE tS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER HE HAS VIOLATED THE CONDITION THAT NO CHEMICALS BE STORED ON THE PREMISES. THE MANEYS HAVE ALSO COMPLAINED THAT HE HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED THE CONDITION PROHIBITING ROUTINE MAINTEN- ANCE BEFORE 10:00 A.M., BUT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT WHAT IT HAS SEEN WAS NECESSARY REPAIR WORK RATHER THAN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. WORST OF ALL, THE NOISE AND DISTURBANCE OF WORK ON THE MACHINERY HAVE BEEN NEARLY INTOLERABLE FOR THE MANEYS, IN PART BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S MAINTENANCE SHED IS TWICE AS CLOSE TO THEIR HOUSE AS IT IS TO HIS OWN. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND ON SHORT NOTICE SO AS TO DETERMINE THAT THE SOUND EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL PERMITTED BY THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. IN SHORT, MR. ARRINGTON'S ACTIONS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE MANEYS' PROPERTY -- AND ITS VALUE -- CONTRARY TO THE FIRST-STATED CRITERION IN SECTION 31.2.4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT SUCH USE WILL NOT BE OF SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE MANEYS' SECOND REASON FOR OPPOSING THIS APPLICATION IS THAT TO GRANT IT WOULD BE TO IGNORE OR OVERLOOK, IF NOT CONDONE OR REWARD, MR. ARRINGTON'S ACTIONS. EVEN AFTER THE FIRST OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF ZONING VIOLATION HE CONTINUED ON NUMEROUS OCCAS- IONS TO DISREGARD THE SAME CONDITION THAT HE VIOLATED; AND HE MAY HAVE VIOLATED OTHERS. MISCONDUCT SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED. ~HE MANEYS' THIRD REASON FOR OPPOSITION IS THAT TO EXPAND WHAT MR. ARRINGTON HAS BEEN GRANTED IS TO INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE. IN THEIR VIEW HIS ACTIONS TO DATE PROVIDE REASON TO ~T THAT HE WILL OBSERVE THE CONDITIONS OF ~PPROVAL, OR THE MA×IMUM SOUND LEVEL PERMITTED, IN THE FUTURE. IT MIGHT BE OBJECTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICATION THAT NO CHANGE WOULD RESULT FROM GRANTING IT -- THAT THE OVERALL NUMBER OF PERSONS ON SITE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS WOULD REMAIN THREE. THAT IS TRUE ONLY SO LONG AS HIS SON LIVES ELSEWHERE. IF HE SHOULD MOVE BACK, THE APPLICATION WOULD PERMIT FOUR PERSONS RATHER THAN THREE. FOR THA~ REASON, IN THE EVENT THE APPLICATION IS GRANTED, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO IDENTIFY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE. FOR THE SAME REASON, RATHER THAN SPEAK OF EMPLOYEES "NOT RELATED TO FAMILY", IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, SINCE MR. ARRINGTON'S SON IS RELATED TO FAMILY WHEREVER HE LIVES, TO USE THE WORDING CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THUS THE CLEAREST WAY TO STATE SUCH A CONDITION WOULD BE "NO MORE THAN TWO EMPLOYEES, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE THE APPLICANT'S SON, SHALL BE PERMITTED ON SITE IN ADDITION TO MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDING ON THE PREMISES." EVEN IDENTIFYING MR. ARRINGTON'S SON AS THE NEW ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE IS AT VARIANCE WITH WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOWED. AS THE SPECIAL PERMIT NOW STANDS, IF HIS SON CHOOSES TO MOVE BACK HOME, HE CAN CONTINUE WITH A TOTAL OF THREE PERSONS ON SITE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS. IF HE CHOOSES NOT TO MOVE BACK HOME THEN THE RESULTING LIMITAT~0N OF TWO PERSONS OVERALL -- MR. ARRINGTON AND ONE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE, WHO COULD BE HIS SON -- WOULD AT LEAST IN PART REDUCE THE NOISE AFFLICTING HIS NEIGHBORS. THE STAFF REPORT STATES THAT ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM A NEIGHBOR (MS. HAMM) HAS BEEN RECEIVED. SINCE THE DATE OF THE REPORT, ~W~ MORE LETTERS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, ~IN~r-O~/%~Rt'Lr~t~ON ~EHADF~OF--TH'E--MAN~r¥S,v~AND'~THE~W~L~SE~UF~P~f~-'5. THUS THP{E~SF T~E FOUR NEIGHBORS WHOSE PROPERTIES ADJOIN MR. ARRINGTON'S NOW OPPOSE HIS APPLICATION. 0N NOVEMBER 14 ~ST YEAR TWO EMPLOYEES ON SITE -- ONE MORE THAN WAS PERMITTED -- CREATED A TYPICAL ~OUNT OF NOISE LASTING FOR 45 MINUTES. MR. MANEY RECORDED THE SCENE ON VIDEOTAPE FOR 11 MINUTES AND WANTS TO PLAY THREE MINUTES OF IT FOR YOU AS HIS PRESENTATION. IT IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION TO CALL THIS A NIGHTM~E OF NOISE AND DISTURBANCE, AND I SUBMIT THAT NONE OF YOU WOULD WANT IT TO HAPPEN REPEATEDLY NEXT DOOR TO YOUR HOME. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO]q*ESVILLE 22911 December 15, 1997 A. G~ TUCKER RESIDENT Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Public Hearing Submittals January 1998 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find our comments below for the January Public Hearings. SP-97-56 Anc[us Arrinqton, Route 842 This is not a significant impact to the infrastructure of Route 842, however we recommend that the existing entrance be widened to minimum commercial enurance standard and crusher run stone be added for surface. We would like co surface this road in the near future and the widened entrance will be beneficial to tie in the proposed surfacing. SP-97-57 To--wood Mobile Home Park, Route 631 The addition of 15 mobile home units should not be significant impact to Route 6'31, other than additional turning movements in and out of entrance near the Route 631 and Route 743 intersection. Recent construction pro~ects have improved the entrance geometrlcs with right uurn lane euc. If you have any quesuions, please advise before releasing comments to the developer. HWM/ldw cc: J. H. Kesterson Irma vonKutZleben ,.Y~u~s c;ruly, H. W. Mi~.ls Assistant Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY STAFF PERSON: k PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUAN-DIEGO R. ,,ADE DECEMBER 17, 1996 JANUARY 1.5, 1997 ~TTACH~.ENT ~ SP 96-40 - ANGUS & BRENDA ARRINGTON AlllflJliffiM~12gltl~: The hpplieant is proposing to operate a landscaping business as a home occupation Class B. The applicant proposes to park two trucks and two 16 foot trailers at this residence. A third truck and a 16-foot trailer will be parked on the job site during the week. This third truck will be parked at the applicant's residence when there is no job. A more detailed description and justification for the use are included in Attachment A. petition: To establish a Class B - Home Occupation on 4.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 80-Parcel 74C, is located offGoochs Mill Lane - Route 842 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated Development Area (Rural Area 2), (Attachment B & C). Character of the Area: This property is developed with a single family dwelling and a shed. Access to the property is directly offGoochs Mill Lane - Route 842. Route 842 is an unpaved road (.3 mile in length) serving ten homes with 95 average daily trips. This road is not scheduled for improvement in the County's Six Year Secondary Road Plan. The immediate area can be described as rural residential in character. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has revieWed'the special use permit for compliance with provisions of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. Planning and Zoning Historv: In 1990 the applicant was granted a Home Occupation Class A for a janitorial and lawn care business. ~ This area is located in the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. This locatiofl is not identified in the Open Space as requiring particular attention. ~;TAFF COMMENTS: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4 of the Zoning ordinance. The Board of Sunervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits pero~illed hereunder. Special use permits for uses as nrovided in this ordinance may be issued upon i~ findiIlg by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The possible impacts of this use on abutting properties will be an increase in traffic, potential increase in noise and other impacts related to equipment/supply storage, and change in visual character. The applicant has indicated that only one of his employees will come to his home. The remaining employees will meet at the work site. The applicant has also indicated that there will be no storage of oil, gasoline, fertilizer, or other chemicals on site, and that all major mechanical work Page 1 of 4 other than murine maintenance of vehicles will be performed by an outside mechanic at their ~hops (Attachment i)). The applicant will need to start the equipment at home to determine that it is in satisfactory running condition. Regarding traffic, staff is concerned that this use will increase traffic along an unpaved road and that additional traffic wilt be of a more commercial character (tracks with trailers). The adjacent property (Tax Map 80, Parcel 74 C) has a Home Occupation - Class A for a VCR/TV repair business. The property was denied aHome Occupation - Class B to move a portion of his business to an existing garage. One of the main masons for denial by the Board of Supervisors was the potential of increased traffic fi:om customers on this unpaved road (Route 842). While this proposed use would not likely generate as much traffic as the VCR/TV repair, it would generare additional traffic ora commercial character and potentially create conflicts with residential traffic (assuming one additional employee and two additional tracks leaving and returning only once daily, a total of slx (6) additional trips would be generated per day). In the review of development proposals effort should be made to treat landa which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner. Therefore, there should be some distinguishable difference between this proposal and the previous VCR/TV repair proposal on the adjacent property. While the Virginia Department of Transportation comments that this request "should not be a major impact to the infrastructure of the roadway"(Attaehment I), this.mad is not scheduled for improvements in the County's Six Year SecOndary Plan. Regarding issues of equipment~supply storage, noise, and change of vis.ual character of the area, the applicant has indicated that there will be no storage of gas, oil, fertilizer and the like (and that would be a recommended condition for approval). While the applicant may attempt thisin good faith, staff opinion is that it would be difficult for such an operation to exist on site without some storage of gas, oil and fertilizer/seed at some point in time, particularly if "murine" maintenance is going to be conducted on site. Also, noise generated with loading/unloading of trailers and routine equipment maintenance may impact nearby properties. The applicant has taken steps to reduce the noise and view from adjacent properties by insulating the shed and planting white pine trees. Also, access to the shed takes place from the back, facing away from the road. Opponents of this special use pennit have signed a petition (Attachment E). Proponents have also signed a petition in favor of this special permit (Attachment lC). In summary, the area along Route 842 has more ora rural residential character, with smaller lot rural residential development. The proposed use, which in effect functions much like a contractor's storage yard, may not be compatible with the character of this area. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. The site is located in the Rural Areas. No significant changes in the character of the larger district are anticipated. that such use wilt be in harmony with purpose and intent of this ordinance Page 2 of 4 Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Se~ion 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. and does not believe this use meets the intent. Specifically, Section 1.5, Relationship to the Environment, states that the ordinance shall be designed to treat lands similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner. While this section speaks specifically to the "design" of this ordinance, the application of the ordinance should also meet this standard. Approval of this request may not be consistent with a previous action by the Board of Supervisors regarding a Home Occupation, Class B request on an adjacent property (see previous comments). Also,~ as stated earlier, staff opinion is that this request does not meet the intent of Section 1.4.3 "to facilitate the creation Of a convement, attractive, and harmonious community," as applied to the immediate community along Route 842. tho usespermitted by right on any ad_iacent property This request will not affect uses permitted by right on any adjacent property. The use is not anticipated to negatively affect agricultural/forestry use in the area. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance. Section 5.2 contains regulations for Home Occupations (Attachment G). Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with these regulations. The Zoning Department has also provided Comments (Attachment H). Thc applicant intends to store equipment for the business in an existing shed. This building measures 1,800 square feet, exceeding the t,500 square feet max'maum permitted in 5.2 section of the Zoning Ordinance for a Home Occupation. The Commission may grant a modification permitting additional area to be used. and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. Refer to earlier comments regarding traffic. SUMMARY Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. All major meehanical work on vehicles will be done'off-site; 2. No storage ofba?ardons material. Staff has identified the following negative factors to this request: 1. Noise associated with starting of equipment during routine maintenance. Generation of additional traffic and type of traffic ( i.e., trucks with trailers as opposed to strictly residential traffic on an unpaved road). Page 3 of 4 3. History--previoas denial by Board of Supervisors of a Class B on adjacent land due to traffic concerns. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based 9[1 the concerns regarding additional traffic and potential impact of such a use. staff recomr~ods denial of SP 96-40. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this request, a modification of section 5.2.2.1 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance mast be granted to permit the total area used for the Home Oecupati0n to exceed 1,500 square feet. Only the Planning Commission must act on the waiver request. If the Commission is to act favorably on this request, staffreoommends that the Planning Commission grant the modification, and recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. No more than three trucks and three trailers parked on site; 2. No more than one additional employee not related to family permitted on site; 3. No storage of gas, oil, fertilizers, or chemicals on site. No outside storage of equipment, supplies/materials related to lan~lscape business, incuding trailers noted above; 4. No repairs of eqmpment other than routine operational maintenance (oil. change, blade replacement, and the like); 5. Area used to conduct of the Home Occupation shall not exceed 1,800 square feet. Attachments: A- Applicant's Description and Justification B- Location Tax Map C~ Location Tax Map D- Additional Information from Applicant E- Petition = Against Special Permit F- Petition = In Support of Special Permit G- Section 5.2 Home Occupation H- Zoning Department Comments I -VDOT Comments A:~SP9640.RPT Page 4 of 4 March l?w 1998 ATTACHMENT ~ I P.O.Box 51 (SR842) Keswick, Virginia 22947 ATTN: Mr. Juan Wads AlbemarIe county Planning Commission 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 SP 97-56 Angus Arrington Petition to expand a Class B Home occupation permit. Since X will be unable to attend the public meetings scheduled regarding this petition, this letter is to notify you that I, as an adjacent property owner, am adamantly opposed to any expansion OR changes to the existing class B permit for the following reasons: 1. Adverse effect on property values. ~his area is NOT a designated development area- it is rural residential in character (rural area 2). 2. It would open-the door to more expansion. ~n a letter to ~he planning commission dated December 15, 1997, the Department of Transportation recommended that the existing entrance be widened to minimum commercial entrance standard. The minimum is ~0 feet. If DOT determines t~is i~ required, it would open the door to more expansion in a neiglmborhood clearly NOT a commercial area. 3. I do NOT think there will be compliance, The petitioners have already ~een found to be in non-compliance regarding number of employees. If the petitioners violated the first permit, that permit should NOT be expanded. 4. Increased traffic in the area. The staf~ Of the planning commission recommended denial of the original class B permit. Their reasons have proven to ~e aour~l. ! was a reluctant supporter of the original Class B permit and now urgeyou to review the file and history of the applicants performance and deny expansion or changes to this permit. It would not be in keeping with the provisions of Section 5.2 .... governing class B home occupation. I.R. Hamm Albermarle County Board of Supervisors Angus & Brenda Arrington Halliard Brown James a Rachel Chapman Joseph & Sandra Maney David & Joanna 0rdel Hans & Anna Riddsrvold Norman & F~ances Willis 5.2 5.2.1~ 5~2.2 5.2.2.1 ATTACHMENT G i HOME OCCUPATIONS CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be established without approval of the zoning administrator. Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation, Class B, the zoning administrator shall refer the same to the Virginia Department of Highways and TransportatiGn for approval of entrance .facilities and the zoning administrator shall determine the adequacy of existing parking for such use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section 5.2.3 hereof. (Amended 3-18-81) REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS The following regulations shall apply to any home occupation: Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or ab accessory structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation and in no event shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both, devoted to such occupation, exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be permitted only in connection with home occupation, Class B; There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one Il) sign. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located, Any accessory structure which does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall n6t be used for any home occupation; There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops or one-chair barber shops; -70- (Supp. #1, 3-18-81) 5.2.2.2 5.2.3 No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking ~ generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall~ be met off the street; Ail home occupations shall comply with performance standards set forth in section 4.14; fe Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools, day care centers and private schools shall not be deemed home occupations. Prior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation, the zoning administrator shall require the applicant to sign an affidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent to abide by the foregoing regulations. CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED No home occupation, Class B, shall be established until a permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions of section 5.6.1 of this ordinance shall apply hereto, mutatis mutandis. 4.14 4.14.1 4,14.1.1 4.t4,1.2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NO use shall hereafter be established or conducted in any industrial district any manner in violation of the following standards of performance: NOISE Ail sources of noise (except those not under direc: control of occupan: of use, such as vehicles), must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified below when measured at the points indicated. In addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7=00 p.m., the permissible sound levels at an agricul- tural or residential district boundary where adjoining industrial districts shall be reduced by five (5) decibels in each octave band and in the overall band for impact noises. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer, calibrated in decibels (re 0.0002 microDar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line from which the noise level radiates. MEANING OF TERMS Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to its pitch. ImDact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises are those whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values indicated on the sound level meter set at fast response. Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to its pitch. Preferred frequency octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands prescribed by the American Standards Association in sl.6-1960 Preferred Frequencies for Acoustical Measurements. Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an amplifier and an output meter which measures a noise and Sound pressure levels in a specified manner. It may be used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring the sound pressure level in discrete octave bands. -42- (Supp. #82A, 1-3-96) Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels) Preferred Frequency Octave Bands Location of Measurement Octave bandr cycles/second 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Overall for impact noise At residential district boundaries At other lot lines within district 64 72 64 72 60 70 54 65 48 59 42 55 38 51 34 47 30 44 80 90 4.14.2 VIBRATION The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of earthborne vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when measured at the points indicated. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording system, capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The displacement shall be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the three directions. 4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth. Type of vibration Continuous Impulsive (100 per minute or less) Less than 8 pulses per 24 hours At residential district boundaries At other lot lines withindistrict .00 .015 .006 .030 .015 .075 4.14.3 GLARE No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature processes such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot line, shall be pe.r~.itted except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or required by any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law. Mowever, in the case of any operation which would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply. 4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County. Such rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions from stationary sources; particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators; and gaseous pollutants. 4.14.5 WATER POLLUTION Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County. -43- (Supp. #82A, 1-3-96) 4.14.~ 4.14.7 4,14.8 BAD IOACTIVITY There shall he no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous =o the health and safety of persons on or beyond the premises where such radioac=ive macerlal is used. Determine=ion of existence of such danger and the handling of radioac=ivs materials, =he discharge of such materials in=o the atmosphere and s=reems and ocher water, and =he disposal of r&dioactive was=es shall ne By reference =o and in accordance with applicable current regulations of =he Department of Energy, and in =he case of items which would affect aircraft nevi- ga=ion or =he control thereof, by applicable curren: regulations of =he Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the General Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of =he Virginia Air Pollution Ac=, whichever is greater. ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE There shall he mo electrical disturbance emananing from any lo= which would adversely &ffect =he operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and Ln the case of any operation which would affect adversely =he navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of =he Federal Aviation Administra- tion shall apply. CERTIFIED ENGINEEB REPORT SUBMITTAL Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit to engineer as precedent to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance a oertifie~ engineer's report describing =he proposed operation, all machines, processes products and by-products, staring the ns=ute and expected levels of emission discharge =o land, air and!or water or liquid, solid or gaseous effluent an, electrical impulses and noise under normal operations, and the specifications o treatment methods and mechanisms to be used to control such emission o discharge. The county engineer shall review the applicant's submit=al and mai comment and recommendation prior to final commission action on development plan. (Amended 9-9-92) -43.1- (Supp. #82A, 1-3-9~ 0ARD OF SUPERVBOR$ ]~AW OFFICES ' / - - I~IATTHEW W. PERRY~ P~M~A OFFICE POS~ OFF~C~ BOX 368 April 10, 1998 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: SP 97-56 -- Mr. Angus Arrin~ton All four of the neighbors whose properties adjoin Mr. Arrington's oppose his application for expansion of his Home Occupation Class B special permit, which you will consider on April 15. The Planning Commission did not give their letters the consid- eration that they deserve. No one is better situated than next- door neighbors to know the impact of the applicant's conduct, and no one's peace and quiet are more at stake. My Clients Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Maney, whose house is twice close as Mr. Arrington's to his maintenance shed, oppose his application for three reasons. as First, Mr. Arrington's actions are adversely affecting the Maneys' property -- and its value -- contrary to the first-stated criterion in the Zoning Ordinance that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The history of violations, complaints, investigations and protests against expansion shows that the granting of this special permit has not worked out satisfactorily. Perhaps it would have, if Mr. Arrington had observed the conditions on which it was granted. But instead he has committed repeated violations of at least one condition. There have been two official determinations that he violated the conditions of the number of employees permitted on site, and he has done so on numerous occasions. There is an ongoing investigation as to whether he has violated the condition that no chemicals be stored on the premises. The Maneys have also complained that he has repeatedly violated the condition prohibiting routine main- tenance before 10:00 a.m., but the Zoning Administrator has taken the view that repair work necessary for loading equipment rather than routine maintenance was involved. Worst of all, the noise and disturbance of work on the machinery have been nearly intolerable for the Maneys. However, the County has not been able to respond in time on short notice so as to determine that the sound exceeds the maximum sound level permitted by the performance standards. Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle April 10, 1998 Page 2 The Maneys' second reason for opposing this application is that to approve it would be to ignore or overlook, if not condone or reward, Mr. Arrington's actions. Even after the first official determination of zoning violation he continued on numerous occasions to disregard the same condition that he violated, and he may have violated others. Bis past conduct is clearly material and relevant to his application. The Maneys' third reason for opposition is that to expand what Mr. Arrington has been granted is to increase the possibility of abuse. In their view his actions to date provide no reason to believe that he will observe the conditions of approval, or the maximum sound'level permitted, in the future. It might be objected on behalf of the application that no change would result from granting it -- that the overall number of persons on site engaged in the business would remain three. That is true only so long as Mr. Arrington's son lives elsewhere. If he should move back, the application would permit four persons rather than three. For that reason, in the event the application is approved it is only fair that the condition relating to employees, as approved by the Planning Commission, contain the provision that if the applicant's son moves back home the number of employees permitted on site, other than members of the family living on the premises, shall revert from two to one. For all of the ~oregoing reasons the Maneys ask that you deny Mr. Arrington's application. Respectfully submitted~ Matthew W. Perry, Jr. MWP:lsg pc: Mr. David P. Bowerman Ms. Charlotte Y. Humprhis Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Mr. Charles S. Martin Mr. Walter F. Perkins Ms. Sally Thomas COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: FY 1998-99 Budget Resolution and 1998 Tax Law Resolution SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board approval of FY 1998-99 Operating Budget and 1998 Tax Rates STAFF CONTACTIS): AGENDA DATE: Apd115= 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Mr. Tucker Ms. White, Ms. Gulati ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes , BACKGROUND: Attached for your approval are two resolutions that must be approved at the April 15th meeting. DISCUSSION: I: Resolution to Approve the FY f998,99 Operating Budget The first resolution (Attachment A) formally approves the proposed expenditures for FY 1998-99, which are shown by major category or funcUon and total $134,889,551, an increase of $157,569 over the County Executive's recommended budget. The added revenues are shown on Attachment B and reflect an additional $11,588 in revenues to the General Fund, and $145,981 to the School Fund. County Executive adjustments to the recommended budget in the amount of ($122,202) include $98,946 in savings [rom the VRS Life rate 'holiday in FY 98/99 and $23,258 in savings from miscellaneous personnel/operating cost adjustments. General Fund revenue additions total $11,588, and generally reflect additional State salary reimbursements for constitutional officers and staff. Board of Supervisore' funded additions to the recommended budget total $333.528 and reflect the net impact of reducing the employee merit pool from 3% to 2.75% (a savings of $39,710), as well as a $150.000 increase m the General Fund transfer to the School Division, $112,868 in additional funding for School Debt Service, and $110,370 in General Government funded initiatives (which include the $478 in additional funding for the Shelter for Help in Emergency discussed at the April 8th public hearing.) The revised School Division transfer amount for FY 98/99 is $49,188,488. Total budgeted School Division debt service increases by $112,868 to $7,558,748. School Fund changes include $145,981 in additional State education revenues, which is $34,019 less than the $180,000 in new State funds originally projected during budget worksessions. The aforementioned changes to the County Executive's recommended bneget are detailed on Attachment B. I1: Resolution to Set the County Levy The second resolution, presented in Attachment C, sets the tax levy for the taxable year 1998. The proposed rates are the same as the current year and are set at $0.72/$100 assessed valuation for the real estate tax rate and $4.28/$100 assessed value for the personal property tax rate. Alse. included at the end of the budget attachments is a copy of a letter to Mr. David W. Kudravetz in response to the Shelter for Help in Emergency's request for additional funding and some background information on JABA's East Market Street Senior Center should the Board wish to review this program for additional funding. AGENDA T~LE:FY 1998~9 Budget Reso~tion and 1998 Tax Levy Resolution AGENDA DATE:ApHI15,1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: If the Board has no further additions or deletions to the proposed budget staff requests approval of the attached resolutions. 98.071 Attachment A BE IT RESOLUTION RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of AlbemaHe County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1998, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks. Recreation & Culture Community Development Other County/City Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements General Government Debt Service Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Contingency Reserve 5,779.233 2,037,519 11,113,901 2,289,742 7,676,132 3,751,919 2.677.699 196,240 5,587.013 81.500 2,062,312 110.688 77,230,946 6,551.046 7,558.748 184,_913 TOTAL 134,889,551 I Ella W. Carey. do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true. correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgj~a, at a regular meeting held on April 15, 1998 ~n~~s 04/16/9811:06 AM RESOLUT2.WK4 RESOLUT~ON BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1998 for General County purposes at Seventy- Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessmems; and FlJRT[IER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital, including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia: and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 15, 1998. Attachment B FY98-99 SUMMARY' BUDG£T WORKSHEET I. CHANGES FROM RECOMM TO ADOPTED GENERAL FUND RECOMM ADOPTED BEGINNING RESOURCES (BOARD RESERVE) COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENTS TO EXPENDITURES Juvenire Detention Home Reduction Jail - Per Diem Increase JAUNT Night & Weekend Service Cost Reduction VRS Life Rate Reduction I0.72% to 0°,41 - Rate "Holiday" Miscellaneous Salary Adjustments - Regular Staff State Salary Adjustments- Constitutional Officers Miscellaneous Salary Adjustments - Regular Staff SUB TOTAL COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENTS 388,971 388,971 5,099 (3,883) 638 98,946 (5.0281 (12,227) 38,657 122,202 GENERAL FUND ADDITIONS TO REVENUES Additional Scottsville Reimbursement - Salary Adjustment Additional E-911/Planning Revenues (to Offset Opeations) Additional State Compensation Board Reimbursement - Salary Adj. SUB TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS 490 2,272 8,826 11,588 B.O.C.S. COUNTY BUDGET ADDITIONS/REDUCTIONS Shalter for Help in Emergency - Fully Fund Request 1.0 Fire/Rescue Training Specialist 1.0 FTE Senior Engineering Inspector I, Albemarle Housing Initiatives Trust Fund - Additional Funds Piedmont Housing Alliance - Additional Funds Additional Schoo, Debt Service Reduction in Merit PoD (3% to 2.75%) - General Government SUB TOTAL B.O.C.S. COUNTY BUDGET CHANGES B.O.C.S. ADDITIONS TO SCHOOL TRANSFER Increased School Transfer- Ongoing Operations SUB TOTAL OF B.O.C.S. SCHOOL CHANGES (478) (30,538) (44,354) (25,000) (10,000) (112,868) 39,710 (183,528) L150,000~_ (150,000) ENDING BOARD RESERVE - GENERAL FUND I1. CHANGES FROM RECOMM TO ADOPTED SCHOOL FUND RECOMM ADOPTED SCHOOL FUND ADDITIONS TO EXPENDITURES Additional School Fund Expenditures SUB TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS (145,881) (145,951) SCHOOL FUND ADDITIONS TO REVENUES Additional School Fund Revenues 145,881 04/09/9810:04 AM WKSUM99.WK4 Attachment B SUB TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS 145,981 III. ADOPTED FY 1998/99 TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET TOTAL GENERAL FUND TOTAL SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS (LESS TRANSFER) TOTAL SELF-SUSTAINING FY 1998/99 TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET RECOMM 100,284,459 27,896,477 6,551,046 134,731,982 ADOPTED 100,296,047 28,042,458 6.551.046 134,889,551 04/09/9810:04 AM WKSUM99.WK4 Attachment C RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1998 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHI~R orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital, including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commissmn and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercrat~ under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508 C ota! ( o.nt ? even.es FY 1998/99 Adopted Total County Revenues Self-Sustaini"g 5% Federal Revenue 3% $134,889,551 Local Property Taxes 47% State RevenL,e 23% Carry-Over/Fund Balance 1% Other LocalRevenues 22% =Y 96/97 TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES ACTUAL LOCAL REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES 57.102 748 OTHER LOCAL REVENUE 24,336.061 OTHER LOCAL - SCROOL FUND 672.159 SUBTOTAL 82~118.968 STATE REVENUE GENERAL 5.374260 SCHOOL FUND 23.459.557 SUBTOTAL 28.833,817 FEDERAL REVENUE GENERAL 1.644.471 SCHOOL FUND 687.653 SUBTOTAL 2 332.124 SELF~USTAINJNG FUNDS 6.829.826 CARRY-OVER BALANCE GOVT: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL 96 SCHOOLS: TRANSFERS 8.500 SCHOOLS. CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL ~67,585 SUBTOTAL 276,481 TOTAL REVENUE 120,383,2t 6 FY 97/98 FY 97/98 ADOPTED REVISED 81.855.420 61,855,420 25,527,427 25.535,627 543.220 548.565 87.926.067 87,939,612 4.932.893 4.933,393 23,926,086 23,935,424 28.858,979 28.568.817 2.293.737 2,303,787 682.735 682,735 2,976,472 2.906.522 6,38~881 6.360.423 2,687 2,302,173 50.670 55,670 75,000 14&374 136,357 2,505,217 126,285,456 128,660,291 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 $ o,~ % ESTIMATED RECOMM ADOPTED INC INC TL 63.233.909 63.233.900 63,233,900 28.967,816 28.970.957 28,973,719 612.099 612,099 612.099 92.813,815 92.516.956 92.819.718 1,378,480 2.23% 46.88% 3.4~6.292 13.50"A 21.48% 68.879 12.65% 0.45% 4.893.651 5.57~A 88.51% 5.114,200 8.374.550 5.410.678 477.755 9.59¥< 4.01% 25.403.838 25.403.838 25,549,819 1,623,733 6.79% 18.94% 30.518.035 30.778.385 30.960.497 2,101,518 7.28% 22.98% 2,326.100 2,635 136 2,887,834 314.097 13.69°/~ 1.93% 946,448 046.448 946.448 283.713 38.63°h 0.70% 3,272,548 3,581 584 3 554.282 577.810 19.41% 2.63% 6.551,046 6,551 046 6.851.046 183,465 2.56% 4.86% 0 69.916 69.916 58.670 58.570 58.670 875,422 875.422 875.422 834,092 1.004.008 1.004.056 134,089,539 134,731,982 134,889,551 67.229 2502.91% 0.05% 867,651 836,31~ 0.74% 8,604,095 6.81% 100.06% Clota! ount¥ pendit. ee FY 1998199 Adopted Total County Expenditures $134,889,551 General Gov't General Gov,t. Misc. Operations <1% 260/. Capital Program 2% Revenue Shadng 4% Self-Sustaining 5a~cheol Debt Service 6% School Division Operations 57% FY 96/97 ACTUAL TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS ADMINISTRATION 5,241,857 JUDICIAL 1,860,753 PUBLIC S.~ FET~ 9.567.722 PUBLIC WORKS 2.234.907 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 6.009.424 PARKB RECREATION &CULTURE 2,903,510 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2.318.385 COMPRESSION RESERVE 9 SUBTOTAL 30,227.558 SCHOOL DIVISION SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS 67.031.171 SELF-SUSTAINING FUND OPERATIONS 6.484.645 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6,831.577 CAPITAL PROJECT/DEBT RESERVE 480,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 669.900 SUBTOTAL 6I ,477,594 NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL PROGRAM - GEN. GOV'T 2,025.350 CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5,170,853 DEBT SERVICE - GENERAL GOVT 113.197 JAIL EXPANSION RESERV~ 200.000 CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 REFUNDS 69.648 SUBTOTAL 7,581,048 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES 119,286,200 FY 97199 FY 97/98 ADOPTED REVISED 5.627.146 5.675,801 2,0;)4,859 2.062.164 10.412.182 10.657.499 2,195,044 2,431,864 6.710,384 6.778.733 3,597,976 3.598.476 2.534.154 2.800.533 £ 0 33,081,755 34,004,770 71.377. I47 71.461,204 8,387,581 8.360.123 6,845,880 6.845,880 60O,OOO 600,000 500.000 1.895.221 85.710.608 87.162,428 1.823.000 1,823,900 5.818.393 5.518393 0 0 100.000 100.000 9 0 0 0 51.700 51.780 7,493,093 7,493,093 125,285,456 128,660.291 FY 98199 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 $ % % REQUEST REOOMM ADOPTED INC INC TL 5,814,759 5,810,209 5.779.233 152,087 2.70% 4.28% 2,220.347 2.034.959 2,037.519 32,660 1.63% 1.51% 1%679.779 11,133.279 11.113.901 701.719 6.74% 8.24% 2.230.057 2,256.007 2.289,742 94,698 4.31% 1.70% 7,739,092 7,729,658 7,671,812 961.429 14,33% 5.69% 3.801.303 3,756,061 3.751.919 153.943 4.28% 2.78% 2,873,101 2,658,202 2,677,699 143.535 6.66% 1.99% 196.240 196.240 196248 196.240 lOO. OO% 0.15% 36.554.678 35,569,607 35.518,065 2.436.310 7.36% 26.33% 77.822.988 76,934.985 77,230,946 5,853,799 8.20% 57.25% 6.551.046 6.551.D46 6,551,046 163,465 2.56% 4.86% 7.745.680 7.445.888 7,558,748 712,868 10.41% 5.60% 0 0 0 fBO0,O00'~ -100.00% 3.00% 500.000 350.000 350.000 (150,000~ -30.00% 0.26% 92.019.914 91.281.891 9t.690.740 5.980.132 6.98% 67_97% 2.139.312 1.712.312 1 712,312 (110,668) ~.07% 1.27% 5,587,013 5.587.013 5.587,013 68,620 1.24% 4.14% 110.688 110.688 110.688 110.688 100.00% 0.08% 0 0 0 (100,000) -100.00% 0.00% 0 388.971 189.233 189.233 180.00% 0.14% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00~ ~ 81.500 81.500 81.500 29.800 57.64% 0.06% 7.918,513 7.680.484 7.680.746 187.653 2.50% 5,69% 137,093,105 134,731,982 134,889,551 8,604,095 6,81% 100.00% FY 95/97 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ACTUAl ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 298.428 COUN'fY A'FrORNEY 400.635 COUNTY EXECUTIVE 491,805 FINANCE 2,234,329 INFORMATION SERVICES 1.364,199 HUMAN RESOURCES 245.523 REGISTRAR/BD. OF ELECTIONS 206.648 SUBTOTAL 5,241,857 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT 72.111 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 435,228 COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 402.312 GENERAL DISTRICT COURT 9.976 JUVENILE COURT 35.873 MAGISTRATE 27.413 SHERIFF 877.840 SUBTOTAL 1,860,753 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY ATTENTION 237.085 CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD 2.029 EMERGENCv COMMUNIC. CTR 1.038,651 FIRE DEPARTMENT - CITY 620.800 FIRE DEPARTMENT - JCFRA 532.224 FIRE/RESCUE ADMINISTRATION 363.606 FIRE/RESCUE CREDIT 53.787 FOREST FIRE EXTINCTION 13.756 INSPECTIONS 614,225 JUVENILE DETENTION HOME 185.465 OFFENDER AID & RESTORATION 38.525 POLICE DEPARTMENT 5,590,233 REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY 186.095 RESCUE SQUADS - JCFRA 181.896 SPCA 9,952 SUBTOTAL 9,667,722 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 1,055.986 RECYCLING/SOLID WASTE 175,015 STAFF SERVICES 953.302 WATER RESOURCES MGN~ 50.664 SUBTOTAL 2,234,907 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM 98.810 CHARLO'FTESVILLE FREE CLINIC 5,150 COMM. ON CHILDREN & FAMILIES 25.792 CHILDREN. YOUTH & FAMILY SVCS 27.866 DISTRICT HOME 46.638 FOCUS - TEENSIGRT 20,405 HEALTH DEPARTMENT 636.540 JAUNT 276.307 JEFFERSON AREA BO. FOR AGING 115.125 JABA-ADULT HEALTH FAC.LITY 14.490 LEGALAID 16.125 MADISON HOUSE 4,330 ~Congnued on Next Page) FY 97/98 FY 97/98 ADOPTED REVISED 291.252 301.452 409.015 409.315 585.810 585.610 2.350.491 2,371.391 1.518,614 1,518.614 287.402 287,402 184.762 202.017 5.627,146 5,675,861 71.880 76.380 496.352 536,742 465.189 486,089 12.836 15.665 78.382 78.382 17.588 17.588 862.638 871.318 2.004.859 2,0~.,164 238.183 238.183 3,865 3.865 1.057,524 1,057,524 841.290 641.290 585.275 585.275 480.17I 663,906 59,029 61,468 13.800 13,860 676,372 676,372 123.965 123,905 39.680 39.680 6,034,737 6,093,879 236.585 236.585 192.495 192.495 29.280 29.280 10.412.182 10,657,499 974.309 1.075.029 189.935 250.835 974.553 1,049,453 56.247 56.247 2,195,044 2,431,564 118.810 118,810 5.150 5.150 26.566 26,566 35,035 35.035 41.100 41,100 20.205 20.205 668.370 668.376 285.875 293.075 118.588 118.580 14.400 14.400 16.618 16 610 4.545 4.545 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 $ % REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC [NC % TL 305.508 305.508 304.495 13,243 4.55% 0.30% 422.235 422.235 418.997 9.982 2.44% 0.42% 605.623 605,623 601,100 15,490 2.65% 0.60% 2.443.582 2.443.682 2.427.061 76.570 3 ~-6 °/~ 2.42% 1.525.291 1,525,291 1.520,086 1,472 0.10% 1.52% 318.735 314,195 314.185 26.783 9.32°/~ 0.31% 193.685 193,685 193,309 8.547 4.63% 0.19% 5.814.759 5,810.209 5.779.233 152.087 2.70% 5.76% 75.690 73.690 73,382 1.502 2.09% 0,07% 502.158 562,158 502,883 6,531 1.32% 0,50% 527.189 485.229 488.900 23.711 5.10% 0.49°4 12.839 12.830 12.830 0 0.90% 0.01% 96.879 63.648 63,648 (14,734) -18.60% 0.06% 18.620 18,920 18,020 432 2.46% 0.02% 987.581 876,384 877.856 15,218 1.76°/< 0.88% 2.220.347 2,034.959 2.037.519 32,660 1.63% 2.030/. 249.744 0 (] (238,183) -100.00% 9.00% 3.971 3.971 3,971 106 2.74% 0.00% 1,207,459 1,128.691 1.125,891 68.367 6.46% 1.12% 656.040 656.040 656.040 14.750 2.30% 0.65°/ 759.910 642,295 642,295 57,020 9.74% 3.64% 893.526 862,502 888.380 408.209 85.01% 0.89% 65.000 65.000 65,000 5.980 10.13% 0.08% 13.800 13,800 13.800 O 0.09°/~ 0.01% 704.540 704,540 699,446 23,071 3.41% 0.70% 138,000 138,000 132.901 8.996 7.26% 0.13% 40.872 40,872 40,872 1.192 3.09% 0.04°/. 6.452.974 6,393.130 6,354,487 319,750 5.30% 6.34% 26'2.802 262,802 266.696 30,100 12.72% 0.27% 193.701 186.696 186.696 (5.799~ -3.01% 0.19% 37.440 37.440 37,440 8,180 27.87°~ 0.04% 11,679,779 11.t33.279 11,113 901 701 719 6.74% 11.08% 993.269 993.269 1.030.756 56.447 5.79% 1.03% 192.462 218,412 218.215 28,281 14.89% 3.22% 985.217 985,217 982.113 7.560 0.78% 0.98% 59,109 59.109 58.857 2.410 4.26% 0.09% 2.230.057 2.256.607 2,289.742 94.698 4.31% 2.26% 130.616 130.618 f30.616 11.806 9.94°/< 0.13% 6.867 5,305 5.305 155 3.01% 0.0t% 37,011 303.371 303.371 276.805 1041.95% 0.30% 46.238 36.147 36,147 1.112 3.17% 0.04% 41,100 41.100 41.10C 0 0.00% 0.04% 20,205 20.205 20.205 0 0.00~ 0.02% 712.100 703.821 703.821 35.451 5.30% 0.70% 318.132 318,132 317.494 31.619 11.06~,~ 0.32% 130,760 122.138 122.138 3.558 3.00% 0.12% 14,400 14,400 14.408 0 0.00"/~ 0.01% 18,579 18.579 18,579 1.989 1t.889.4 0.02% 4.701 4.700 4.700 155 3.41% 0.00% (Continued from Previous Page) FY 96/97 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ACTUAL MENTAL HEALTH -REGION TEN 251.511 MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY 75.000 SALVATION ARMY/CAP D SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE AGC~ 20.190 SHELTER FOR HELP IN EMGC?. 60,037 SOCIAL SERVICES 4.056.511 TAX RELIEF -ELDERLY/DISABLED 191.659 UNITED WAY SCHOLARSHIP PGM. 50.545 SUBTOTAL 5.992.140 EDUCATION PIEDMONT VA. COMM. COLLEGE 8.284 PARKS & RECREATION DARDEN TOWE MEMORIAL PARK 91.157 DISCOVERY MUSEUM 11,155 LIBRARY 1.621.589 LITERACY VOLUNTEERS 13.000 PARKS & RECREATION 1.041.770 PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE AR~S 8.655 TRANSER: TOURISM 0 VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK O VISITOR~ BUREAU 109.184 WVPT PUBLIC TELEVISION 7.000 SUBTOTAL 2.903.510 COMMUNITY DEVELQPMENT ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROV. 357.110 BUS SERVICE/ROUTE 29 45.200 GYPSY MOTH PROGRAM 25.963 MONTICELLO COMM. ACTION AGC~ 58,575 OFFICE OF HOUSING 346,829 PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE 0 pLANNING 862.697 ~LANNING D/STRICT COMMISSION 61,561 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 26,599 VPI EXTENSION SERVICE 131.909 ZONING 399,963 SUBTOTAL 2.318.385 SUBTOTAL GEN. FUND OPERATIONS 30,227,558 PLUS COMPRESSION RESERVE 0 TOTAL GEN. FUND OPERATIONS 30,227,658 NON-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS 2.695.260 GENERAL GOV"T DEBT SERVICE 113.197 CAPITAL PROJECTS/DEBT RESERVE 450,000 CI~Y/CO U NTY REVENUE SHARING 5.170.853 CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0 JAIL EXPANSION RESERVE 200,000 SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE 6,831,877 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 REFUNDS 66,648 SUBTOTAL 15,532.825 SUI~TOTAL GEN. FUND EXPENDITURES 45,760,383 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL CPS. 42,116,792 SCHOOL TRANSFER - ONE TIME 561.499 SUBTOTAL 42.672.261 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 88,432,673 FY 97/98 FY 97/98 ADOPTED REVISED 269.365 259,385 75.000 75.000 26.190 20.190 6t.840 61,840 4,653,674 4,714.823 220.009 220.000 56,785 56.785 6.702.100 6.770.449 8.284 8.2~I 108,990 108.990 8,055 9.195 ,685,260 1.685.280 15,750 15.750 1,177,666 1.177.666 8,855 9.105 585.600 585.600 0 0 0 0 7,000 7,000 3,597,976 3.598.476 357.375 357.375 46.556 46,556 0 0 60.335 60.335 378.250 388,979 0 0 973.294 1.185.249 62.886 62.688 30,075 30,075 140.62~ 144.055 485.572 525.222 33,081,756 34,064,770 0 0 331081,755 34,094,770 2.323.000 3.7t8.221 0 0 600,000 600.000 5,518.393 5.518.393 0 0 100.000 100,000 6,845.880 6,845,880 0 0 51.700 51.700 15,438,973 16.834.194 48,520,728 50,838,964 48,091,436 46,091,436 0 0 48.091.436 46,091.436 94,612,164 96,930,400 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 REQUEST ~ECOMM ADOPTED INC % % INC TL 10,250 8.535 8.535 251 3.03% 0.01% li0.885 110.685 110.685 1,695 1.56% 0.11% 9,429 9.360 9.360 505 5.70% 0.01% 1,753,228 %776.314 1.778.314 93,054 5.52% 1.77% 15.050 15,050 15,050 (700) -4,44% 0.02% 1 270,813 1.240.692 1,236,550 58,884 5,00% 1.23% 9.498 9.360 9,360 505 5.70% 0,01% 585,600 585,600 585,600 0 0.00% 0.58% 10,000 0 0 0 0.00% 0,00% O 3 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 7.000 7.000 7.000 0 0.00% 0.01% 3.801,303 3.756,061 3.751.919 153,943 4.28% 3.74% 357,456 357,456 357.456 81 0.02% 0.36% 89,712 48.100 48,100 1.544 3.32% 0.05% O O 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 73.243 62,145 62.145 1.810 3.00% 0.06% 447.436 411.742 433.858 55.608 14.70% 0.43% 35.000 25.000 35.000 35_000 100.00% 0.03% 1.102,345 1.001.095 904.215 20.921 2.15% 0.99% 75.615 64.926 64.926 2.240 3.57% 0.06% 30.903 30.903 30,736 861 2.20% 0.93% 156,108 151,104 151.104 11.083 7.92% 0,15% 505,281 503.731 500.159 14.557 3.00% 0.50% 2,873,101 2,656,202 2.677.699 1~3.535 566% 2~67% 36,35~438 35,373,367 35,321,825 2,240,070 6.77% 35.22% 196,240 196~40 196.240 196.240 10000% 0.20% 36,554,678 35,569,607 35,518,065 2,436,310 7.36% 35.41% 2.639,312 2.062 312 2,062,3t2 (260,688~ -11.22% 2.06% 110,888 110.688 110.688 110,688 100.00% 0.11% 0 0 0 (600,000) -100.00% 0.00% 5,587.013 5.587.013 5,587.013 68.620 124% 5.57% O 388.971 189,233 189.233 100.00% 0.19% O 0 O (100.000) -100.00% 0.00% 7,7451880 71445 880 7.558.748 712.868 10.41% 7.54% 0 O O 0 6.00% 0.00% 81.500 81.580 81.500 29,800 57.64% 0.98% 16,184,393 15.676 364 15589.494 150,521 097% 15.54% 32,719,071 51.245,971 51,107,559 2,586,831 6.33% 50.96% 48.888.488 48.888.488 49.038.488 2,947.052 6.39% 48.89% 150.000 150.000 150,000 150.000 100,00% 0.15% 49,038,488 49,038.488 49,188,486 3.097.052 6.72% 49.94% 101,757,559 100,284,459 100,296,047 6,683,083 6.01% 100,00% 521,754 294.500 294,500 35.135 13.55% 0.29% 0 0 0 (75,000) -100.00% 0.00% 5,534 0 0 D 0.00% 0.D8% 20.190 20,190 20,190 0 000% 0.02% 64.173 63.695 64,173 2,333 3.77% 0,06% 5.342.457 5,327.191 5,272.513 618,839 13.30% 5.26% 231.009 231.000 231 goo 11.000 580% 0.23% 63,025 63,026 63.025 6.240 10.99% 0.06% 7,728,842 7,718,115 7,663,277 98%177 14.34% 7.64% , ¢lwo! 'Z3i, ' · SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET EXPENDITURES SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS SELF-SUSTAINING OPERATIONS SUBTOTAL ~EVENUES GENERAL FUND TRANSFER OTHER SCHOOL FUND REVENUES SELF-SUSTAiNING OPERATIONS SUBTOTAL OVE~UNDER FY98/97 ACTUAL 67.031.171 6,494.646 73.825,817 42,672.291 25,095,75~ 6,82g,82E 74.597.87' FY97/98 FY97/96 ADOPTED REVISED 71,377,147 71.461.204 6.387,581 6,360,123 77,764.7~8 77.821.327 46,091.436 46.091.438 25.285.711 25.369.768 6.367.581 6.360.123 77.764.728 77.821,327 0 0 FY 98199 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 $ % °A REQUEST RECOMM ADOPTED INC INC TL 77.822,988 70.934.965 77.230.946 5.853.789 620% 92.18% 6.551.046 6,551.046 6.551.046 183,465 2.56% 7.82% 84.374.034 83.486,011 83.761.992 8.017.284 7.74% 100.00% 49.036.488 49.038.488 49,188,488 3.097.352 8.72% 58.71% 27.896.477 27.896 477 28 042,458 2.756.747 18.90% 33.47% 6.55'1.046 6,551.046 8.551.046 163.465 2.58% 7.82% 63,486,011 83,48601I 83.781,982 6.017.264 7.74% 100.06~ -888.023 0 0 0 0,00% 0.08% For the third straight year, the School Board proposed an unbalanced budget to the County Executive and Board of Supervisors. The School Board's requested budget of $84,374,034 included $77,822,988 in regular School Fund operations and $6,551,046 in self-sustaining fund operations, an increase of $6.6 million (8.5%) over the current year. Given total available revenues of $83,486,011, the shortfall is $0.888 million. Their request is deemed a maintenance of current effort by the School Board The Coun~ Executive recommended a total budget of $83,486,011 for the School Division, equal to total available revenues. The major components of'the recommended School Division operational budget included: $1.2 million in growth costs for the anticipated 295 new students, including 19.36 new teachers for regular and special education; $0.8 million in sm-up operations for the new Monticello High School; partial funding for the Standards of Accreditation at $1.2 million (including the phased implementation of the 7-period schedule for high schools); and regular salary and benefit increases for teaching and clas~rfied staff Board of Supervisors' Adopted Budget The adopted budget represents a $295,981 increase over the recommended budge~, reflecting the addition of $145,981 in additional State education revenues, and a $150,000 increase in the General Fund transfer to the Schools. {The $145,981 in additional State revenues is $34,019 less than the S 180,000 originally projected during budget workessions.) These additional revenues, combined with projected expenditure savings of $441,800 duc to a VRS life insurance "hohday" in FY 98/99 and a reduction in employee merit increases (from 3% to 2.75%), as well as an estimated $195,422 in non-recurring School Board reserves, provide the School Board with resources sufficient to fund all of its requested short/all amount ($888,023.) The School Board will finalize its budgel next month, with adoption tentatively scheduled for May 11. FY 1998/99 Adopted School Division Revenues $83,781,992 Carry-Over/Fund BaF General Fund Transfers Transfer 1% 59% Self-Sustaining 8% Local 1% State 30% Federal 1% COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of CounW Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4696 (804~ 296-584t FAX (804) 972-4060 April9,1998 Mr. David W. Kudravetz McCallum & Kudravet~ P.C. P. O. Box 224 Cbarloaesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Kudravetz: 3~'mk you for your recent letter to the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive concerning full funding for the Shelter for Help in Emergency. As the County administrator responsible for human services and a member of the County/City Budget Review Team, let me preface this response by stating that the County fully supports the work of the shelter and considers it a vital community resource to address domestic violence Also, as a pas~ director of a battered women's' shelter myself, I know and appreciate the importance of the shelter's work in pro~ding a safe place for women and families in our community. However, I do want to address several statements in your letter that I believe need clarification, because they lead to the conclusion that Albemarle County is not paying its fair share of the shelter's budget. You state that "Each jurisdiction in Planning District 10 is asked to contribute its fair share of the shelter's budget based upon the number of clients served from each jurisdiction. This was how the requested amount for Albemarle was derived." Albemarle's requested share is actually not based on a share of services provided, but for the past several years has been based on a share of the shelter's budget increase, not the total budget. Let me explain, using the following information taken the Shelter's FY99 funding application: The agreed upon fair share formula is a three year total of both shelter residents and non-residents, which is then divided by a three year total of plum~ing district residents and non-residents to get each jurisdicfiun's percentage share of services compared to the total planning district Albemarle County Residents/Non-residents FY95 FY96 FY97 3 Year total 309 333 195 837 Charlot[esville: Residents/Non-Residents 543 646 835 2024 PD 10 Total Residents/Non-Residents 1137 1271 1324 3732 Albemarle County: 837 ~ 0.22427 ~ 22.4% 3732 Clmrlottesville: 2024 = 0.54233 = 54.2% 3732 The next step in the fair share calculation takes the total shelter budget of $404,822 and subtracts all other avaihble resources, $248,702, i.e. federal, state, contributions, etc. The remainder of $156,120 is, therefore, the total amount the shelter will need to request fi.om the six jurisdictions in the planning district based on their respective share of services. The table below shows this total local share, each Iocality's share of services, the calculated share based on Mr. David W. Kudravetz April 10, 1998 Page 2 services, the shelter's FY99 requests to the localities and the difference between the calculated and the request~ shares. Locality Local Resources Share of Dollar share based on FY 98/99 Over/Under Needed Services services provided Request Fair Share Albemarle 156,120 22.4% 34,971 64,173 29,202 Charlottesville 156,120 54.2% 84,617 67,215 (17,402) Fluvarma 155,120 5.2% 8,118 5,423 (2,695) Greene !55,120, 5.7% 8,899 3,604 (5,295) Louisa 155,120, 7.5% 11,709 10,234 (1,475) Nelson 155,120 5% 7,806 5,471 (2,335) From the above figures, you can see that Albemarle County is contributing significantly more than its fair share, and is in fact the only locality in the planning disuict that actually pays its full share of the service based formula. This is a result of several years of overfimding our share, as well as an additional position that was funded by Albemarle several years ago, but not landed by any of the other localities. The County has been aware for several years that it is pa2ang a greater share of the local dollars than required by tho Shelter's fair share formuD. We have been willing to do this_ becanse we do fully support the shelter's important work. However, I do not think the County should be pomayed as not paying its fair share of the shelter's budget, as we are obviously paying more than our fair share of services, and have willingly done this for several years. I also think it should be clarified that the shelter's request is not based on the simre of sen4ces provided to each locality, but rather it is based only on the share of the requested increase. Thank you again for your letter and please feel free to call me ff you have any questions or would like further clarification on the local share formula. Sincerely, Roxaune W. White Assistant County Executive RWW/dbm 98.021 Request for East Market Street Senior Center - $4,320 1. Program Information (See attached description from JABA's FY98/99 program application): 2. Budget Review Team Recommendation: The Budget Review Team made the following recommendation and comments: With regard to the East Market Street program, funding is not recommended for the following masons: The team reiterates its comments made two years ago. "Both the City and County members of the Review Team expressed concern about JABA creating a new senior center in the city for several reasons. One, a relatively new, large and successful senior center is already operating in the urban area and is able to serve additional seniors. Two, providing separate, but equal facilities continues to exacerbate, not heal., the economic and racial differences within the elderly community/" The team does not believe that the location of the proposed center would be attractive to a large number of County residents. ( Currently, approximately 22 out of the 88 senior citizens (25%) being served at the East Market Center are County residents) The team believes that any additional funds needed to support operations at the facility should be raised from other, non-governmental sources. 3. City of Charlottesville Recommendation The City has recommended full funding of JABA's request of $13,680 for the East Market Street Senior Center with the stipulation that JABA must take documented steps to work with the Senior Center on common programs. In particular, the City has asked JABA and the Senior Center to develop one volunteer program for seniors, rather than the two separate programs currently run by JABA and the Senior Center. This was also the recommendation of the Budget Review Team concerning JABA and Senior Center programs: "Last, noting that both JABA and the Senior Center operate independent volunteer programs for seniors, the rewew team encourages both agencies to further collaborate to provide one senior volunteer program to serve the community." 4. County, Recommendation As stated above, the Budget Review Team's biggest concern was initiating a second senior center when Albemarle's senior population could be served by the current Senior Center. The additional concern is that government funding may foster and exacerbate the economic and racial separation that already exists between the two centers. Should the Board choose to fund the East Market Street Senior Center, staffwould recommend the same supulations that the City has placed on JABA to actively work with the Senior Center on joinl programs and a combined volunteer program. Second year funding would be contingent on documented steps towards a stronger partnership with the Senior Center. Part C: continued. COMPLETE PAGES 6-9 FOR EACH PROGRAM 1.) Agency Name Jefferson Area Board for Aging 2.) Name of Program East Market Street Downtown Senior Center Facili .ty Operati0n~ 3.) Status: X New Expanded __.Level Service __.Reduced Service Individual Program Funding. (Fiscal Year July 1- June 30) ' FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 $ % 1.03 Actual [Budgeted Projected Change Change (1) (2) (3) O) - (2) O) % (2) Revenues 1. Albemarle $0 $4,320 $4,320 100.00% 2, Charlottesville $0 $13,680 $13,680 100.00% 3. Fluvanna 4. Greene 5. Louisa 6. Nelson 7. United Way 8. State 9. Federal 10. Service Fees I1. Contribution 12. Carry-Over 13. Other [ $18,000 $18,000 $0 0.00% 14. Total I $18,000 $36,000 { $18,000 100.t30% [Expenses 15. Administration 16. Direct Program Costs $18,000 $36,000 $18,000 100.00% 17. Capital 1'8. 'Number FTE's 19. Total Expenses I $18,000 $36,000 $18,000 100.00% 20. Total Program Units 5,903 16,905 $11,002 186.38% 21. Unit Cost $3.05 $2.13 ($0.92) -30.16% 4.) Population/Beneficiary Data: In the Chart below, fill in the number of service units provided by this program. (See -~'~eneral instructions for service unit and income definitions.) Additionally, define "service unit" and note your sources of .ate in the space provided. Number of Units of Service Provided by Program Total * Albemarle Clmrlotte Flu- Greene ] Louisa Nelson Other % % % Low s~51Ie vanua} Localities t White Black Income FY97 Proj~ted I FY97 Actual I FY98Projected 1,t42 4,761 35% 66% I 80% FY98YTD 0 0 I 22% 78% 80% I FY99Projecq:ed 2,361 15,524 45% 55% 80% The total should equal the .total for all the jurisdictions, as well as the total for race percentages. Define Service Unit: Number of days clients use the Center for Intergenerational Learning and the Health Clinic. 5.) Program Evaluation: Using the gated goals and measures in your FY 97/98 application, please complete the Chart below. You may use a second sheet if you need additional space. Goal Measure FY 97 FY 97 FY 98 FY 98 FY 99 "~ Projected Actual Projected YTD Projected For each client to attend Number of days rea nla A. 1,142 NA A, 3,384 the center an average of C, 3,381 C, 13,524 3 days per week. C. 69 rea Double attendance by Number of clients rea rEa A 17 O 92 FY99 at East Market enrolled. Street A 23 A. 650 gr. rEa Increase number of Number Of group (gr) and rea rea A 675 gr. health promotion and individual (in) hours A. 288 in. disease prevention hours served. C. 319 gr. A 455 in C, 152 in. C 355gr. C 260 in Establish the Center for Number of courses rea rEa 9 rEa Intergenerational rEa rea 18 Learning (CIL) To provide access to the health clinic for all CIL Number of ClL clients with A. rea A. clients, completed UAl rEa rea C. C. -Offer at-risk youth Number of y0uth A. 18 hrs. rea ,lentoring from seniors mentodng hours rEa rea C. 54 hrs. A. 18 hrs C. 54 hrs. N~dVIE OF PROGRAM: Part C: Continued East Market Street Center Facility_ Operations o.) Description and Justification of New Program or Program Changes: Describe any Changes in the exisfmg program such as an expansion or a reduction in services. For a new program or Changes To a program, explain why the Change or new program has been initiated and document the need for the locality(les) being served. Briefly describe how your agency consulted with other community agencies when planning the program (include agency names). How does this program differ fi:om or complement similar programs in the area? For a new program, you may attach an additional sheet. Mission The Downtown Senior Wellness Center is a dynamic new initiative promoting physical, mental and social wellness for older and disabled adults as well as their families through home and community--based nutrition services, appropriate healthcare and a well rounded activity program. The Downtown Senior Center, presently located in the Carver Recreation Center, is moving to 1512 East Market Street in January 1998. The new facility will allow for enhance and diverse programming that is not possible at the Carver Recreation Center. New Programming Nutrition: The Downtown Senior Center is providing a new hot, nutritious noontime meals program. Meals are provided by the Chef at the Center for Rehab and Eldercare's (CARE) kitchen. Special, diet needs can be addressed, as well as the basic improved nutntion needs of the at risk eldedy. The delicious meals are also an inducement for clients to regularly attend and benefit from the center's broad range of health related/therapeutic activities and intergenerafional educational classes. Health Clinic: When located at 1512 East Market Street, the agencywill house a Health Clinic, which will not only be available for seniors, but also anyone who attend the Center for Intergenerational Learning. JABA has found that ,'""",--nlers and Iow income individuals (who are this programs target population) cannot cr will not seek out the care that ,ey need owing to maffers of cost, convenience, mobility, education and transportation. Each is a significant barrier to access, and poverty to a great extent underlies them all. Services to be provided shall be client centered case management coordinated and non-duplicative of those that may already be available within the general vicinity. Screening of blood pressures, blood sugar, cholesterol, height, weight, vision and hearing will occur. A main focus will be education on nutrition, medications, hygiene, exercise (mobility) and safety (risk reduction). Coordination will be ongoing with regular communication with client physicians, referral from and to other area agencies, which include the Health Department, Free Clinic, Mart. ha Jefferson Hospital and the University of Virginia Health Science Center. Coordination will occur in order to provide neighborhood-based treatment for minor infections or injuries, hygiene, foot care, prescriptions and diagnostic tests, which in turn can reduce cosily emergency room and hospital in-patient visits. Center for Intergeneratlonal Learning (CIL), is a unique daytime educat/onal program designed to create an environment in which youth and adults serve and learn together. Generations come together to Jeam new roles. socialize and develop a sense of community through involvement with others. Intergenerational communication is the foundation for personal and organizational growth. Research has shown that neighborhoods, which provide such a center, benefit. Youth gain direction, self-esteem and leadership skills. Youth will also gain from the experience of being mentored by seniors. And, seniors maintain self worth through both giving and receiving. The Center for Intergenerationat Learning is offered in celtaboration with Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center, UVA Continuing Education Center, City of Charlottesville Adult Education, Community Attention (Teens GIVE), FOCUS, Piedmont Works, Tandem, local city schools, Senior Community Service Employment program and Job Placement Training Partnership Act projects. AIl these organizations have participated in the planning of CIL and will be actively engaged in the implementation phase. Please refer to following three attachments: Center for Intergeneratlonal Learning Curriculum Weekly Schedule, Center ~, Intergenerationai Learning Curriculum, and Curriculum Course Descriptions part C: Continued ~escription and Justification of New Program or Program Changes: Continued Summary Objectives [not listed by priority): To provide the downtown area with multi-purpose, intergenerational programming accessible to a heterogeneous multi-age population · To provide access to health care promotion and disease prevention services for all CIL participants at the · Downtown Senior Center Health Clinic. · To operate a highly v/sibla focal point for delivery of services and information to vadous age groups in coordination with community agencies, targeting specifically those at risk, illiterate and of Iow to moderate incomes. · To have a highly visible and accessible information site staffed by youth and adults to disseminate information about services and how to access them, such as wellness and disease prevention or employment preparation and opportunities. · To foster exchanged learning in an easily accessible and friendly environment · To provide educational experience to youth and seniors in an intergenerational environment which results in positive attitudes between the generations. · To provide older people with the opportunity to socialize, to team, and to share their knowledge, skilla and experiences With youth and their families. · To offer at-risk youth the opportunities to develop self-esteem and competence and to develop trust relationships with adult mentors. · To provide vocational training and employment referral opportunities for welfare recipients, older adults, and at-risk youth. 7.) Justification of Budget IncreasefDecrease: Ifa budget Change is indicated, show how you ar~ve at the do~lar (~![~rease/decrease. If applicable, break down information by unit cost. Lethe Change is due to inflation, show the afion factor used. Examples: [10 meals @$2.50/meal x 5 days = $t25 increase], or [$6,000 rent increase x 25% iprogram's share of agency's total budget) = $1,500 program increase.] The East Market Street site wilt need $36,000 for rent, utilities and maintenance. JABA's has funds to cover these expenses through the period ending December 31 1998. In FYgg, JABA is requesting AJbemarte Countyto support $4,320 and the City $13,680 with the agency matching each dollar to dollar. JABA's Board of Directors has appropriated funds for the first full year of operations with the understanding the both Albemarle County and Charlottesville will share equally, dollar for dollar the cost of occupancy only expense. Without this support JABA will not be able to keep this center open at the conclusion of 1998. - N:MYfE OF PROGRAM: East Market Street Center Facility Operations _ EVALUATION: For a better undemanding of how this specific program fits into the overall picture of community ~,eds and services, please complete the following questions using only this page and no typeface smaller than i0 pt. A. What is the overall problem or condition in the community that this program addresses? Who is experiencing this problem? What is the extent of this problem and how do you know?. Seniors and Iow income individuals (who am this programs target population) cannot or will not seek out the health care that they need owing to matters of cost, convenience, mobility, education and transportation. Many seniors, whose average age is 76, possess two or more chronic health conditions. Their most common health problems are arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, lung or breathing difficulty, eleVated cholesterol levels and diabetes. Many take multiple medications increasing the risk of adverse drug/nutrient interactions and likelihood of suffering from malnutrition. Most are either over or underweight, placing them at yet further risk. Additionally providing the downtown area with multi-purpose, intergenerafional programming accessible to a heterogeneous multi-age population is needed. Alternative daytime, classroom educational opportunities are needed in order for at-risk young adults and seniors to successful complete coursework. Coursework is needed to pre[3are these individuals for employment opportunities. We know this from the collaborative efforts made with the agencies listed under part c. section 6. A survey conducted in the Woolen Mills neighborhood by the UVA School of Architecture students, indicated that 97% of 47 people called would be interested in utilizing the East Market Street center for health related, educatiotml and intergenerationat progrannning. According to the 1990 census, the 60 years and older popnlatien within the City and County neighborhoods indicate a high potential for attendance. Staffhas met with the Charlottesville neighborhood Associations and received support (i.e. Belmont, Woolen Mills, as well as the President of the united neio~:tborhood ~sociations). Presently CATEC does not offer daytime educational opportunities within the City or Albemarle County urban ring. Additionally, Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) and the University of Virginia Department of Continuing Education have found a population of students who are uncomfortable attending campus courses and not able to take night time courses. At risk youth, such as those served through FOCUS are often unsuccessful when attending day or night classes at PVCC. Studies have shown that these individuals often find success when mentored by an older person. Although auditing classes is available at the local colleges, many seniors feel uncomfortable in the traditional classroom setting. Courses are also geared at a faster pace. Regarding the option of night classes, many sen,or citizens find they can no longer drive between dusk and dawn due to loss of night vision. Or, even more importantly, have no means of transportation. Creating a partnership with JAEIA by providing educational opportunities at the East Market Street center fills an unmet need of CATEC, PVCC and UVA's Department of Continuing Education. B. Please provide an inclusive list of the spec/tic needs faced by this population. Enhanced nutdtior~ Recreation & socialization Home renovation & repair Nutrition counseling Companionship Transportation Health monitoring and education Legal and financial assistance Adult and literacy education Disease preventmn Home safety awareness Employment skills C. On which of the above needs does your program focus? Why? what is the intended effect of that ser~ce on the client? The program addresses all of the above needs with special emphasis on nutrition, wellness and education. This program meets the overall goal of the City's comprehensive plan by affording equal access to opportunmes in ~der to provide choices that allow fulfillment of individual, group and community goals. Additional the program meets 8) EVALUATION: Continued .~AME OF PROGRAM:__East Market Street Center Facili _ty Operations The priorities of promoting access to preventative health services at the same time it promotes educational quality for both City and Albemarle County participants. Additionally, the Center for Intergenerational Learning is consistent with the City Council's goals of improving education by creating within a neighborhood center for youth and seniors an educational program that includes building computer skills as well as other life enriching and job enhancing courses. Through substantive coordination with other human service and educational organization the program will create improved opportunities to enhance and endch residential neighborhood resources while building community cohesiveness. D__ How will you know if the program focus works? Be specific on what is measured, how it is measure& and what goals are to be achieved? The number of days a client utilizes the center will be recorded with the goal fi3at each client attends an average of three (3) :fays per week annually. Doubling attendance from the number of clients presently at the Downtown Senior Center located in the Carver Recreation Center by FY99, increase the number of health promotion and disease prevention hours, establish a Center for lntergenerational Learning provide access to the health clinic at the center for all ClL participants, and seniors will mentor at-dsk youth are the specific goals to be achieved. Please refer to section 5, program evaluation goals and measurements. The standard goal will be doubling the number of clients by FY99. E. Using that standard/goal, what number (%) met that goal in your most recently completed fiscal year? Not applicable since we are not yet in the East Market Street site. ~ Aside fi.om funding, what obstacles and/or disappointments did you encounter in attaining these goals? qumbers cannot double in the present location of the Downtown Senior Center located in the Carver Recreation Center. Fire taws only allow 50 people at a time and the goal is to serve 92 by FY99. Attachment A RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July l, 1998, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Development Other County/City Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements General Government Debt Service Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Contingency Reserve 5,779,233 2,037,519 11,113.901 2,289,742 7,671,812 3,751.919 2.677,699 196,240 5.587,013 81.500 2,062.312 110.688 77,230,946 6.551.046 7,558,748 189,_233 TOTAL 134,889,551 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~.~at a regular meeting held on April 15, 1998 "~'"~f~'~'/(...~'f-'~'~-"7~ zZif,,,J~ 04/09/9810:05 AM RESOLUT.WK4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD 0]7 SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 98/99 - FY 02/03 Capital Improvements Program and FY 98/99 Capital Improvements Budget SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board approval of FY 98/99 - FY 02/03 Capital Improvements Program and FY 98/99 Capital Improvements Budget AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Gulati . REVIEWED BY.' ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: On February 18th, the Board held a public hearing on the recommended FY 98/99 - FY02/03 CIP, which totaled $47.5 million, and which included $11.1 million in recommended expenditures and revenues for FY 1998/99. There were no public comments. Since that time, the only change that has been made to the recommended CIP is the proposed addition of $112,868 in budgeted School Division debt service for FY 1998/99, which the Board added during budget worksessions. DISCUSSION: A breakdown of the proposed FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP by major function and revenue source is presented on the next page. The p¢oposed five year plan totals $47,546,847, a reduction of $7,310,376 from the Technical Committee's initial recommendation to meet available revenues. This five-year plan is further broken down into four separate funds and a transfer to the General Government Debt Service Fund: $16,049,348 for the General Government Capital Fund, $570,000 for Tourism Fund capital projects, $28,565,099 for the School Division Capital Fund, $220,000 for the Stormwater Capital Fund, and $2,142,400 for General Government Debt SerVices. Expenditures by Function: Administration & Courts Fire/Rescue & Safety Highways & Transportation Libraries ~arks & Recreation Jtility Improvements rom/sm Fund Capital Projects gtormwater ProJects gchool Division Projects Frensfer to GOn Govt Debt Service ?.rand Total Projects FY 98~99 FY 98/99 - 02/03 471,977 3,629,25£ 3,594,189 6,445,63 l 531,750 2,686,675 113,000 199,50( 510,485 2,715,355 0 372,932 213,500 570,00( 110,000 220,00( 5,295,080 28,565,09S 263,408 2.142.40( 11,103,389 47,546~84~ available Resources: 21P Fond Balance 3eneral Fund Revenues 2-911 Revenues rourism Fond Revenues 3orrowed Funds - General Govt. FI?SA Bonds - Schools Miscellaneous 465,000 1,265,000 2,173,000 15,504,40~ 890,345 1,501,22.' 174,300 505,80{ 2,484,73,1 3,739,460 4,245,080 23,683,691 670,930 1.347,263 Grand Total Resources 11,103389 47,546~847 Attachments A and B provide a listing of the general government, tourism, stormwater and school division capital projects proposed for funding in FY 98~99, anti planned for FY 99100 - 02~03. Brief descriptions of the projects included in the proposed FY 98~99 Capital Improvements Budget can be found on pages 292-300 of the budget document. The impact of the proposed addition of $112,868 to debt service in FY 1998/99 is that budgeted debt service increases from $7,445,880 to $7,558,748 in FY 98/99, thereby reducing the amount of debt service reserve used by $112,868 (from $1,123,667 to $1,010,799.) These additional debt service reserve funds may be utilized by the School Division to fund future projects in FY 99/00 - 02/03. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 1998/99 - 2002~03 Capital Improvements Program and the FY 1998/99 Capital Improvements Budget. 98.069 AttaChmen~A TOTAL TYPE FUND/PROJECT 1998-99 ~999-00 2000-0t 2001-02 2002-03 FY 99 to 03 TOURISM FUND Rev Route 250-Route 616 Turn Lane $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100.000 Rev Ivy Road Bike Lanes $5.500 $231,500 $0 $0 $0 $237.000 Rev Rivanna Greenway Access and Path $108,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25.00Q $25.000 $233~0001 Subtotal Tourism Fund $2t3,500 $281,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,0001 $570,000~ Available Revenues $213,500 $281,500 $25,000 $25.000 Requested ProJects $2t3,500 $28t,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 j $570,0004 $25,oooI Over, Sho~ $0 ,o so So $°1 Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TYPE FUND/PROJECT t998-99 t999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 FY 99 to 03 STORMWATER FUND Cont County Master Drainage Plan $60,000 $0 $00,000 $0 $0 $120.000 Cont Drainage/Erosion Correct,on $50.000 ~0 $50.000 ~ $0 $100.000 Subtotal Stormwater Fund $110.000 $0 $110,000 $0 $01 $220.0001 Available Revenues $110,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $0 $220,000 Requested Projects $110,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $0 $220,000 Over/Short $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 04/08/9804:20 PM FINRC98G.WK4 · ~ Attachment B FY 98/95 - 02/03 PROPOSED SCHOOL DIVISION CIP FUND PROJECTS: IcY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00101 FY 01/92 FY 02/03 TL 99-03 Recommended Revenues: [Recommended ROJECT FINANCING DETAIL: Projects Funded with~nt Revenues: FY 98/98 Administrative Techno 39y (Schools) 70000 InstFdctional Technology (Schools) 394.480 Stone Robinson Add,IOn 800.000 Maintenance / Replacement Projects 85520 Subtotal ~hoo~ Divisiol~ (~her Project~ 1,000.800 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01102 FY 02/03 70.000 50.000 70.000 70.000 489.700 250.000 395.865 450.000 0 0 0 0 290,300 600 000 ~ 680.000 850,000 900,000 881,408 t,200,000 TL 99-03 FY 98/99 - 02/03 PROPOSED SCHOOL DIVISION ClP FUND SUMMARY SD $0 $2.177.506 $0 $0 $t.210,000 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $880 300 $0 $0 $0 $38.234 $0 $65.008 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $330.000 $0 $0 SC $0 $0 $0 $0 $649.000 $0 $0 $864.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $269.000 $0 $7.039.000 $0 $0 $0 $100.000 $1.100.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121.050 $0 $0 $166.650 $4.640 $928287 $439,983 $0 $316.600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $?00.000 ~Q $0 $7,243,6~0 $4,071,887 $$,674,017 $2,177,500 $30,000 $0 $38,234 $85,0O0 $330,0O0 $0 $143,0O0 $649,000 $864,0O0 $628,0O0 $1,244,0O0 $8,4t4,000 $1,260,000 $121,650 $647,6O0 $30,000 S;00.00g $23,683,691 OVER/(SHORT) ACCUMULATED OVER/(SHORT) UNFUNDED BONDED PROJECTS / $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $OJ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $8 04/08/9804:22 PM FINRC98G.WK4 David R Bowemmn Rio Ghado~ Y. Humphris · lack Jou~a perr~ i:L Marshall. -Jr. COUNTY OF AT REMART.E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfim Road Charlottesville, ~irginia 22902-~596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sa]Iy t-~ Thomas April 22, 1998 Mr. A. Brace Dotson 2282 Whippoorwill Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Dotson: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 15, 1998, you were reappointed to the Dev.elopment Area Initiatives Steering Committee. You will now serve as a non-Planning Commission member. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM:lbh cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Roxanne White c:xwpdocs\bds&comm~appoint Printed on recycled paper David E Bowerrn~n CharloRe ¥. Humphrls Forrest t~ Marshall, Jr. Scottsville COUNTY OF ALBF_.MARi~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville. Vh'ginia 22902~596 (804) 296--584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 April 3. 1998 CF, aries S, Marlin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Andrew B. Murray 750 Miller's Cottage Lane Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: SP 97-11 - Panorama Trails, Incorporated Dear Mr. Murray: This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your request to withdraw the above referenced special use permit. This item has been removed from'the Board of Supervisors' agenda of April 15, 1998. /ewc cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Susan Thomas Printed on rec!~cled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte ~ Humphr~ Forrest ~. Ma~hall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARI_~ Office of Board of Supe~mors 401 McIn~/re Road Ch~lo~e. V~inia 22~2~96 (~) 29~5~ F~ {~) 29~ April 3, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Pefldns Saily H. Thom~ BAB1NEAU, GUY L OR SUSAN R BESTEBREURTJE, GERTRUDE MAUD CHISHOLM, MARY JANE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CLEVELAND, EDWARD G OR PEGGY H COHEN, JAMES GUY OR MONTE JANE CONTI, CHRISTOPHER A OR BONNiE L W1LFORE CRENSHAW, CHARLES C OR HEIDEMARIE F DAVIS, ROGER H B JR OR JEANNE S DAVIS, SHARON K & KERVIN M RIDGLEY DENT, ROSEMARY R HALL, WAYNE A OR DEBORAH S HAVILAND, JOHN KENN~ETH & ELEANOR VALERIE HELVIN, STEPHEN H & FRANCES A MCCORMICK, FRED C & ANNE B MCLAIN, JEAN R MORRIS, iRENE GARRISON MURRAY, STEPHEN M OR MERRICK T PANORAMA FARMS INCORPORATED PHILLIPS, RAYMOND R OR JANE B RIPLEY, JOAN C RIVIERE, MARY MORRIS ROPER, MARILYN B TRUSTEE FOR THE ROPER LIVING TRUST ROSENBLUM, ELIZABETH P RUDDY, JOHN J JR & THERESA G SHANOR, KAREN IRENE SMITH, MARY JOHN & KARLA ROBINSON THORNSVARD. CHARLES T OR TERRI L WILSON, RONALD E OR MARY G WINGFIELD, JOHN R HI YOUEL, JOHN KENNETH JR & ADELE YOUEL CHAPPELL YOUEL, JOHN K JR ZAKIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY RE: SP 97-11 - Panorama Trails, Ineorpol~d Printed on recycled paper Adjacent Owners Page 2 April 3, 1998 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner that the applicant for the above-referenced petitionhas requested withdrawal of the special use permit. This item has been removed from the Board of Supervisors' agenda of April 15, 1998. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ,.~ ~. C~ey, Ci~rk~~ /eWc ec~ V. Wayne Cilimberg Susan Thomas AFFIDAVIT DATE - APRIL 3, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. ~-/Ella W. Cm'ey, Clerk Board of County Supe"r~r3~ Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 3rd. day of April, 1998, My commission expires ~' ~tY. dod5 FILE: SP 97-11 - PANORAMA TRAILS MAlt ,~ u PLANNING ..n:.r i. 04-07-98AIS :~ :C Ms. Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning and Coramunity Dcv¢loPmenl 401 Mclntirc Road, Rc~:~m 218 Charlottosville, VA 29.902-4596 Re: SP 97-11 March 23, 199R Dear Susan, I am writing to advise the pl~,,i,g department that w~ arc wifftdrawing our request for thc above referenced special Usc permit. Thank you. ~ D~,ad P. Bo~,eman COUNTY OF ALBEMARI Fao OffiCe of Board of Supervisors Charlotte Y. Humphris Walter E P~rkins s.:~-~ 401 Mctnfire Road W~H~ Forrest R. Marshall, ,Ir. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Sa~y H. Thomas ~ (8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 s~ February 3, 1998 Mr. Andrew B. Murray 750 Miller's Cottage Lane Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: SP 97-11 - Panorama Trails, Incorporated Dear Mr. Murray: This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition, has been rescheduied for public hearing by the Board of Supervisors for WEDNESDAY. APRIL 15, 1998. This meeting will be held ar 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgima. YOU- OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. If you should have any questions, please do nor hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk /ewe cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Susan Thomas t:~'nted 9n rec.vkled paper David P Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphr~ Fortes~ R~ Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, V'n'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 IAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perk/ns Wh~Hafl Sally H. Thomas February 3, 1998 BABINEAU, GUY L OR SUSAN R BESTEBREURTJE, GERTRUDE MAUD CHISHOLM, MARY JANE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CLEVELAND, EDWARD G OR PEGGY H COHEN, JAMES GUY OR. MONTE JANE CONTI, CHRISTOPHER A OR BONNIE L WILFORE CRENSHAW, CHARLES C OR HEIDEMARIE F DAVIS, ROGER H B JR OR JEANNE S DAVIS, SHARON K & KERVIN M RIDGLEY DENT, ROSEMARY R HALL, WAYNE A OR DEBORAH S HAVILAND, JOHN KENNETH & ELEANOR VALERIE HELVIN, STEPHEN H & FRANCES A MCCORMICK, FRED C & ANNE B MCLAIN, JEAN R MORRIS, IRENE GARRISON MURRAY, STEPHEN M OR MERRICK T PANORAMA FARMS INCORPORATED PHILLIPS, RAYMOND R OR JANE B RIPLEY, JOAN C RIVIERE, MARY MORRIS ROPER, MARILYN B TRUSTEE FOR THE ROPER LIVING TRUST ROSENBLUM, ELIZABETH P RUDDY, JOHN J JR & THERESA G SHANOR, K_AlLEN IRENE SMITH, MARY JOHN & KARLA ROBINSON THORNSVARD, CHARLES T OR TERRI L WILSON, RONALD E OR MARY G WINGFtELD, JOHN R III YOUEL, JOHN KENNETH JR & ADELE YOUEL CHA PPELL YOUEL, JOHN K'JR ZAKIN CONSTRUCT[ON COMPANY RE: SP 9%11 - Panorama Trails, Incorporated ~ Printed on recycled paper Adjacent Owners Page 2 February 3, 1998 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner that the above-referenced petition has been rescheduled for public hearing by the Board of Supervisors for WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1998. The petition is described as follows: SP 97~11 Panorama Trails, Inc. (Si_tn #88. 89! ~ Request for a special use permit to establish and operate mountain bike trails and associated facilities as a club for use by members only [10.2.2 (4)], on an 840 acre farm in Eariysville. The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 1, lA, and Tax Map 31, Parcel 23A, is located in the Rio MagisterialDistrict. Access to the property is from Route 661 (Reas Ford Lane). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. It lies within the Panorama AgriculturaFForestal District, and is not located within a Development Area. Ibis meetin~ will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk /ewe cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Susan Thomas AFFIDAVIT DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 3rd. day of February, 1998. My commission expires Notary ~l~Itblic FILE: SP 97-11 - PANORAMA TRAILS