The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-08-19 FINAL 7:00 P.M. AUGUST 19. 1998 MEETING ROOM 241. SECONiD FLOOR 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. i0. 11 12 13. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet'}. Appointments. PUBLIC HEARING to consider the transfer of the Monticello High School property to the Albemarle County School Board pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1800 and 22.1- 125. ZMA-97-12. Fried ~Grayrock) (Signs #18&.191. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. TM55, Ps65&.65A/pt ot3. Property located on N sd of Rt 691 (larman's Gap Road~ approx 1.3 mis W of Crozet. Property recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 du/ac in the Community of Crozet. White Hall Magisterial District. tDEFERRED FROM [UNE 17, 19983 SP-98-15. Zion Hill Baptist Church (Signs #28&29/. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to enlarge an ~xisting church [10.2.2.35]. TM65. P106. Property located on N sd of State Highway 22 (Louisa Road ~. approx 1.3 mls E of junction w/State Highway 23 ] . Gordonsv/lle Road's. Znd RA &. EC. &. designated RA in Comp Plan. (This property is not located in a designated growth area. Rivanna Dist. SP-98-20. Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (Signs #90&.95L PUBLIC HEARING on a request to add a 25-foot addition to existing church. Site located on 1.000 acs at 8825 Chestnut Grove Rd. Znd RA TM133. P42. Property located on Rt 723 in Esmont (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. SP-98-23. Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building (Signs #52 &.721. PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w/provisions of §10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow printing &. distribution of church literature in a 3.040 sq ft bldg to be constructed adjac to existing church on 10.389 acs. TM94. P46. Znd RA &.EC. Property located on Rt 250 E..7 mls E of S.R. 744 'Hacktown RoadL (This property is not located in a designated growth areal. A site plan showing proposed development of the property is being reviewed concurrently w/this request Rivanna Dist. SP-98-25. Virginia National Bank (Sign #24). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to reestablish use of drive thru windows for bank in accord w/provisions of §24.2.2~ 13) of the Zoning Ordinance. This site was previously used as a bank but the use was discontinued &. therefore, a SP is required to reopen the drive thru windows. TM61, P120Z. Znd HC & EC. Property located S of &. adi ro the Brown's Auto Dealership opposite Fashion Square Mall. (This property is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. ~ Rio Dist. SP 98-26. Albemarle First Bank. (Signs #20&23). PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w/provisions of §22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. to operate a bank w~ a three-lane, drive-up teller facility on approx 1.028 acs located at 1265 Seminole Trail. situated at the SE comer of Rt 29 N &. Westtleld Rd. The existing bldg on the site (currently used as medical offices, previously used as a bank with a drive-up teller facility) will be renovated to accommodate,the newuse. TM61W, Sec2, BlockB, Pl. Znd C-1 &.EC. (This property is designated as Community Service in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.) A site plan showing proposed devdopment of the property will be required. Rio Dist. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. SP-98-09. Arrowhead CV 152 (Sign #73L PUBLIC HEARING on a request from CFW Wireless. in accord with the provisions of §I0.2.2(6), to allow construction of telecommunication facility on TM88, P26. Znd RA. Property located on E sd of Rt 29 , Monacan Dr'l on W sd of Rt 745 ~Arrowhead Valley RdL (This property is not located in a designated growth area., Samuel Miller Dist. SP-98-27. CFW Wireless [CV113] Red Hill fSign #6L PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w/th provisions of §10.2.2(6). to construct personal wireless telecommunication facfdty on approx 2 acs. Znd RA & EC TM87. P25B. Property located on S sd of Rt 29 ~ Monacan Trail~ approx 0.5 mis E of Rt 710 (Taylors Gap Rd). This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Miller Dist. SP-98-30. CFW Wireless [CV134] Keene (Sign #18L PUBLIC HEARING on a request, m accord w/provisions of §10.2.2(6 , to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 9.5 acs. Znd RA & EC TM 12 I. P89. Property located on E sd of Rt 20 Scottsville Rd at its intersection with Rt 712, Coles Rolling Rd). (This property is not located in a designated growth area.j. Scottsville Dist. SP-98-31. CFW Wireless [CV131] Rts 53 & 729 (Sign #27L PUBLIC HEARING on a request. in accord w/the provismns of §10.2.2(6'~. to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 4 acs. Znd RA. TM93. P46B. Property located on E sd of Rt 729 (Buck Island Rd t approx mis S of Rt 53 Thomas Jefferson Pkwy). (This property is not located within a designated growth area. } Scottsviile Dist. Approval of Minutes: April 3 and December 4~ 1996: February 5. 1997: and April 8 and July 8, 1998. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5. I Proclm~nation designating September 1 through September 6, 1998. as "Albemarle County Fair Week". 5.2 Appropriation: Education, $1,000/Form #98011). 5.3 Set public hearing for September 2, 1998. for temporary easement for Southside Shopping Center. 5.4 Prcclama*d~n dczigna~ing,¥dgast 26, 199g, aa ;¥c;xxcn's Equal~ty Da5-. rREMOVED FROM AGENDA3 FOR INFORMATION: 5.5 Copy of "Proposal for the North Grounds of the University of Virginia", produced in a joint effort between the University of Virginia School of Architecture and the Institute for Sustainable Design. 5.6 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 28. 1998. 5.7 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board Authority for June I1. 1998. 5.8 Letter dated August 6, 1998. from the Honorable Tom Bliley, Member of Congress, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, forwarding copy of guidelines regarding cellular telephone towers. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 19, 1998 August 25, 1998 5.2 5.3 5.4 AGENDA ITEM Call to order, Other matters not listed on the agenda from the Public. NONE. Proclamation designating September 1 through September 6, 1998, as "Albemarle County Fair Week". ADOPTED. Appropriation: Education, $1,000 (Form #98011). APPROVED. Set PH for September 2, 1998, for temporary easement for Southside Shopping Center. SET PUBLIC HEARING. &'aclamatlc, z ~,Tai~'~a~'~g Augaat 26, 1998, aa Women':, EqualiD' Da>'. (REMOVED FROM AGENDA.) Note: Revised proclamation approved under other matters at end of meeting. Appointments, APPOINTED MR. RODNEY S. THOMAS TO PLANNING COMMISSION, RIO DIST. PH to consider Sransfer of Munticello High School property to Albemarle County School Board. CONVEYED PARCEL, APPROVED PLAT AND DEED, AND AUTHORIZED COUNTY EXEC TO SIGN PLAT AND DEED. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs #18&19). PH tarezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. TM55, Ps65&65A(pt of). Property located en N sd of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Road) approx 1.3 mis W of Crozet. Property recommended for Urban ASSIGNMENT The meeqing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. All members of the Board of Supervisors were in a~tendance. None. Nolle. Clerk: Forward appropriation to D/rector of Finance end copy School Division and County Executive staff. Clerk: Advertise Public Hearing, None. Clerk: Update Boards and Commissions files. Prepare appomunenr letter for Chairman's signature Count~ Executive: Sign plat and deed and forward to Planning. Clerk: Include in Plauning's action letter. 10. II. 12. Density Residential (6.01-34 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet. White Hall Dist. (DEFERRED FROM JUNE 17, 1998.) APPROVED SUBJECT TO AMENDED PROFFERS. SP-98-t5. Zion Hill Baptist Church (Signs #28&29). PH to enlarge existing church [10.2.2.35]. TM65, P106. Property located on N sd of State Highway 22 (Louisa Road), approx 1.3 mls E ofjtmctinn w/State Highway 23t (Gordonsville Road). Znd RA & EC, & designated RA in Comp Plan. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED SUBJECT TO FOUR CONDITIONS. SP-98-20. Chesmut Grove Baptist Church (Signs #90&95). PH to add a 25-foot addition to exist/rig church. Site located on 1.000 acs at 8825 Chestnut Grove Rd. Znd RA. TMt33, P42. Property located on Rt Clerk: Include in Plarming's action letter. 723 in Esmont (~his property is not located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. APPROVED SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION. SP-98-23. Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building (Signs #52 &72). PH to allow printing & distribution of church literature in a 3,040 sq ft bldg to be constructed adjac to existing church on 10.389 acs. TM94, P46. Znd RA & EC. Property located on Rt 250 E, .7 mis E of S.R. 744 (Hacktown Road). APPROVED SUBJECT TO THREE REVISED CONDITIONS. SP-98-25. Virginia National Bank (Sign #24). PH to reestablish use of drive thru windows for bank in accord w/provisions of §24.2.2(13) of the Zoning Ordinance. This site was previously used as a bank but the use was discontinued &, therefore, a SP is required to reopen the drive tkm windows. TM61, P120Z. ZndHC& EC. Property located S of& adj to the Brown's Auto Dealership opposite Fashion Square Mall. (This property is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. APPROVED SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter~ 2 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. I9. SP 98-26. Albemarle First Bank. (Signs #20&23). PH to operate a bank w/a three- lane, drive-up teller facility on approx 1.028 acs located 1265 Seminole Trail, situated at the SE coroar of Rt 29 N & Westfield Rd. TM61W, Sec2, BlockB, Pl. Znd C-1 & EC. Rio Dist, APPROVED SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION. SP-98-09. Arrowhead CV 152 (Sign #73). PH to allow construction of telecommunication facility on TM88, P26. Znd RA. Property located on E sd of Rt 29 (Monacan Dr) on W sd of Rt 745 (Arrowhead Valley Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. DEFERRED INDEFINITELY. SP-98-27. CFW Wireless [CV1 t3] Red Hill (Sign #6), PH to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 2 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM87, P25B. Property located on S sd of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail) approx 0.5 mls E of Rt 710 (Taylors Gap Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. DEFERRED UNTIL 9/16/98 with intent to deny. SP-98-30. CFW Wireless [CV134]Keene (Sign #18). PH to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 9.5 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM121, P89. Property located on E sd of Rt 20 (Scottsville Rd) at its intersection with Rt 712 (Coles Rolling Rd). Scottsville Dist. DEFERRED INDEFINITELY. SP-98-31. CFW Wireless [CV131] Rts 53 & 729 (Sign #27). PH to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 4 acs. Znd RA. TM93, P46B. Property located on E sd of Rt 729 (Buck Island Rd) approx mls S of Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkwy). Scottsville Dkst. APPROVED SUBJECT TO 12 REVISED CONDITIONS. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda fi:om the Board. Clerk: Include in Plauning's action letter. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. CounW Executive staff: Prepare executive summary for 9/2/98 Board meeting to apprise Board of what each consultant is responsible for and providing a status of negotiations with second consultant. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. County Attorney: Prepare written record required by law before Board can deny request. See #14. Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. 3 Mr. Martin read proclamation declaring August 26, 1998 as Women's Equality Day. 20. Adjourn. Distribution list: Board of Supervisors (6) County Executive and staff (10) Kevin Castner Larry Davis Clerk: Forward copy to Ms. Toby Zak/n of CNOW. 4 I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Appropriations Approved on August 19, 1998 August 24, 1998 Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by the Board at its meeting on August 19, 1998: 1) Appropriation: Education, $1,000 (Form #98011). Attachments: 1 cc: Roxarme White Richard E. Huff, II Robert Walters Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman FISCAL YEAR: APPROPRIATION REQUEST 98/99 NTIMBER 98011 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: STATE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT FUNDS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ********************************************************************* 1 2112 61102 800701 ADP EQUIPMENT $1,000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 24000 240210 SPEC. EDUC. ASSISTIVE TECH. FUNDS. $1~000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE - COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: AGENDA DATE: August 19, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: Request approval of appropriation 98011 in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Virginia Department of Education. STAFF CONTACT(SI: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS:/~,Yes REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: At its meeting on July 27, 1998, the School Board approved the appropriation of $1,000.00 for the State Assistive Technology Equipment Funds. DISCUSSION: The Virginia Department of Education has designated $1 O00.00 to Albemarle County for assistive technology equipment. This money will be used to purchase adaptive equipment for students with disabilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, in the amount of $1,000, as detailed o~ appropriation form ~98011. 98.158 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK for the past 17years, the Albemarle Counfy Fair has entertained tens of thensands of guests during its annual production; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle Counfy Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of community spirited people who wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their li~es. - The them~ has always emphasized the - CounT's agricultural and forestul heritage; and wHEreAS, the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the e~ent. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their worthwhile programs; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock,, small livestock and poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for ali to enjoy; NOW, THEREFORE, L Forrest R. Marshall, Ir., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supor~isors, do hereby proclaim the week of SEPTEMBER I, 1998 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 6, 1998 as ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 300 volunteers, public and area businesses. ALBEA4ARLF, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS BARBARA SHIFFLETT ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR 4073 GILMERS MILL lANE SCOTTSVILLE, VA 24590 804.296-8833 804.293-3978 (w) fax 804-977-8247 June 26, 1998 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 ATTN: Ms. Ella Carey Dear Sirs and Madams: On behalf of Albemarle County Fair, Inc., its Board of Directors and its numerous volunteers, we do hereby petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to issue a proclamation designating the week of September 1 through September 6, 1998 as "Albemarle County Fair Week". We are now celebrating our seventeenth year as a non- profit volunteer organization. Such a proclamation would recognize the tireless and charitable efforts of the over 300 volunteers and Fair Directors in presenting an event of great importance to the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The Fair encourages the participation of area residents in numerous events and competitions and is open to all. We appreciate your consideration of this petition. Sincerely, Barbara E. Shifflett President COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD O? SUPER ISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Southside Shopping Center Temporary Easement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request the BOS schedule a public hearing for the temporary easement request. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messes. Tucker, Huff, Kelsey AGENDA DATE: AuguM19,1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: E,~~ . REV1EWEDBY: ~/ / / DISCUSSION: The Southside Shopping Center is a "Planned Development - Shopping Center" located on the east side of the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Avon Street. The development currently has an approved Erosion & Sediment Control plan for rough grading the site occupying the southeast comer. To address the concems and comments from both the County and VDOT, the developer located their primary entrance (Mill Creek Drive) close to the, rear property line and as far from Avon Street as possible. Due to this layout and the site topography, the erosion control basin for the project must be constructed at the location of the primary entrance. Erosion control regulations require that the basin remain in place until the site improvements are constructed and all disturbed areas are stabilized Only then could the basin be filled and the primary entrance constructed. Such sequencing of the construction is more complicated and has been done on other sites. However, it requires the stockpiling of fill matedal onsite, which may not be possible in this case. The temporary easement will allow the developer to construct the necessary sediment basin offsite, thereby allowing them to rough grade the primary entrance with the rest of the site. Granting the easement will not have an impact on the County's ability to develop the property in the future. However, the construction activity will remove trees that would normally serve as a buffer between the County property (zoned R15) and the shopping center (zoned PD-SC). Should the BOS decide to grant the easement, staff recommends that it be conditioned on the easement being replanted with the quantity of trees (4' - 5' high) necessary to restore the buffer. RECOMMENDATION: Set the Public Hearing for the 2 September 1998 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. 98.161 ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING TRANSMITTAL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE to: address: date: re: Rick Huff- Assistant County Executive 3 August, 1998 Southside Shopping Center (Denise LeCour) file #: For your reference the following ara attached: ltem Quantity Date Description 1 1 ea. Southside Shopping Center - Approved E&S Plan (portion) 2, 1 ea, Southside Shopping Center- Proposed E&S Plan (portion) 3, 1 ea. Temporary Easement Location Map 4, 1 ea. Letter from R,G & Assocs. Requesting a Temporary Easement LeCour currently has approval to rough grade the parcel on the southeast comer of the Avon Street/Mill Creek Drive intersection (see attached). In order to rough grade their primary entrance to Mill Craek Drive (alias Connector Road) and adequately provide temporary erosion & sediment controL, she will need a temporary grading easement from the County (see attached). A raquest for the temporary easement has been made through her consultant Roudabush, Gale & Assocs., Inc. (see attached). The entira araa of the temporary easement is currently wooded Ipines) and would be clearad as part of the activity, When construction on her site has been completed and all disturbed areas have been stabilized, the basin will be ramoveo, the araa ragraded, and then seeded. Granting of the temporary easement will not have a permanent impact on the County's ability to develop the property in the future. However, the activity within the proposed temporary easement removes trees that would normal serve as a buffer between the County property (zoned R15) and the shopping center (zoned PD-SC). Should the County agree with this request, I recommend the disturbed araa be replanted with the quantity of trees {4' - 5' high) necessary to restora the buffer. If you'd like I can coordinate with the Plannin9 Department to determine the actual number of traes and the spacing requ~raments. Does this need to go to the Board? Does an executive summary need to be prepared? Is this a consent agenda item? Please respond and let me know what I can do to help. Very truly yours, From the desk af .... Jack M. Kelsey, PE Chief of Engineering Albemarle County Engineering Department 401 Mclntire Read Charlottesville, Va, 22902-4596 (804) 296-5861 Fax: (804) 972-4035 ROUDABUSH, GP, l.le. & ASSOC;, July 2!, 1998 Jack Kelsey, P.E. County of Albemarle Department of Engineering 40t McInti~e Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: South Side Shopping Center Dear Mr. Kelsey: By acting as the site planner and agent for Hillcrest, L.L,C., we are reque, stm.g.a. Temporary Construction Easement on a portion of Parcel 2, Tax Map 91 where ~t actjoms Parcel 2D, Tax Map 91 on the south side of the'newly constructed Mill Creek Drive. Thepurpose for the easement is to construct an erosion control sediment basin which'will be below the fill for the ro~d and building pads t~ be constructed on this site. The vegetation is primarily 12-15 year old pine with,very thick underbrush in the area of the proposed basin~ At the end of construction, this area would be regraded and seede& By granting this request, I believe it would allow us to design a sediment basin,at the best location to C~ntrol the erosion from this construction site. We respectfully request that this be presented to the Board of Supervisors onour behalf. If there are questions please contact me. Sincerely, David~L. Collins, L.S. DLC/tr: ,. \\ %. %.,. "% \ % %,,, '\ \ -, .__D__~..A. INA GE / U N I V E S C H O O R S I T Y O F V I R G I N I A L O F A R C H I T E C T U R E July 10, 1998 BCD RD SUPERVISORS Mr. Forrest R. Marshall Jr., Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Anderson and Ms. Hughes: As you I~now, significant capital projects will be developed at the University of Virginia during the next decade which will significantty shape the facilities, communities, landscapes and ecologies of the University of Virginia and the City of Charlottesville. Much of this development will occur at the University's North Grounds, a parcel that remains marginal to the academic and residential life of the Central Grounds. The potential exists for future development at the North Grounds to weave into the existing fabric of Central Grounds, creating a unified grounds for the university. However, the potential also exists for future development at the North Grounds to sever this precinct from the Central Grounds, ensuring that it remains marginal to the central grounds both physically and conceptually. Enclosed with this letter is the "Proposal for the North Grounds of the University of Virginia," produced in a joint effort between the University of Virginia School of Architecture and Institute for Sustainable Design. The proposal addresses some of the planning issues that the University of Virginia will face throughout coming decades as the university expands. Among these are: the need for more university-managed student and faculty housing, the growth of the university's graduate and professional schools, the growth of the intercollegiate and intramural athletics programs, the need for an increased amount of parking spaces, and the need for transportation infrastructure. This proposal outlines principles that might guide future development of the North Grounds and illustrates what the North Grounds might look like if these principles are (or are not) taken into consideration. As a faculty member or professional who is associated with the University of Virginia or its political context, this proposal is probably of interest to you. I hope that you will take the time at your earliest convenience to review it. Sincerely, Anne M. Ouillebeaux Design ResearCh Fellow University of Virginia School of Architecture Institute for Sustainable Design AP-.CHITECTURE · LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURJE · ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY · URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CAMPBELL HALL · UNIVERSITY O13 VIRGINIA ' CHARLOTTESVILLE · VIRGINIA 22903 · 804 924 3715 Duke' MaSsie ~ , Th e~ U ni,,,~rsit~ of V Cg f~. a ,;ScHod[ of Areltb6~.ur~' :. : ,' and the [nsdt~te for Sus~i~bl~ Design' ' TOM BLILEY onBr[ss of the nited tatt or l?, rtstntatiues Augus5 6, 1~98 WASHINGTON OFFICE: 2409 RAYBURN OFFICE BUILDING 202) 225-2815 DiSTRiCT OFFICES: SUITE 101 4914 FITZHUGH AVENUE RICHMOND VA 232B0~534 804 771 2809 CULPEPER OFFICE PARK SUITE 207 163 MADISON ROAD Ms. Charlotte Humphris Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle A01 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Ms. Humphris: Knowing of your interest in cellular telephone cower regulations, I wanted ~o update you in this important matter. Yesterday, voluntary guidelines regarding cellular telephone towers was reached between the Federal Communications commission's (FCC) Local and State Government Advisory Committee and industry officials. The guidelines call for local governments and local cellular companies :o work together co find places to locate towers and call for local goverrmlencs to limit freezes on new cower placements to 180 days. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of the 9uidalines as well as statements by William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC and Kenneth Fellman, Local and State Government Advisory Committee Chairman regarding yesterday's announcement. I hope you find this information useful. Sincerely, TB/wrd Enclosure 'News Release~ CHAIRMAN WLLLIAM E. KENNARD...SS INDUSTRIES ON FACILITIE~lglb~T~n~gvfBureaus/WireIess/News_Releases/1998/nrwlS032.htm] [ Text Version WordPerfect Ver/aon ] NE W S Federal Communications Commission 1919 - M Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News media information 202 / 4184)500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc, gov i[p.fe¢.gov This is an unofficial announcement of Comufission action. Release of the full text of a Comm{asion order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 [D.C. C/rc 1974). August 5, 1998 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD ANNOUNCES ]tlSTORIC AGREEMENT BY LOCAL AND STATE GO~S AND WIRELESS INDUSTRn~,s ON FACILITIES SITING ISSUES Today, Chairman William E. Kennard announced a facilities siting agreement between the Commission's Local and State Government Advisory Committee CLSGAC), the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA), and the American Mobile Telephone Association (AMTA). The groups presented Chairman Kermard with a joint agreement involving appropriate guidelines for tower and antennae siting, as well as an informal dispute resolution process for siting issues. "One of the of the most contentious issues I have faced as Chairman of the FCC is the issue of rower siting," said Chairman Kennard. "This agreement presents an important breakthrough. The towers and antennae that make up our nation's wireless infrastructure are essential to delivery of the benefits of these important new technologies to the public. Competition has made wireless an increasingly affordable and convenient telecom choice for a growing number of consumers. On the other hand, local governments and citizens dearly have a legitimate interest in where and how towers are sited." The Commission has served as facilitator of this new agreement. The LSGAC, established by the FCC in March 1997, under the supervision of then General Counsel Kennard, is a body of elected and appointed local and state officials. It provides advice and information to the Commission on key issues that concern local and state governments and communicates state and local government policy concerns regarding proposed Commission actions pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CTIA, PCIA and AMTA are trade associations representing the wireless industry. The Agreement sets forth two main initiatives. First, it establishes guidelines for facilities siting implementation. These are a set of"best practices," by which the wireless industry and local governments can work cooperatively when siting towers or antennae. Second, the Agreement adopts an informal dispute resolution process~ This process can be used by the wireless industry and local governments when moratoria or other delays seem m be adversely affecting the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. This process will greatly reduce the need for litigation when resolving these disputes. However, ifa dispute proves to be intractable, parties are not foreclosed from seeking the legal remedies they feel are necessary. I of 2 8/6/98 11:01 AM ~ew.s Releaser CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD...SS INDUSTRIES ON FACILITIEg~lt~l~nI~flM~l~v/Bureaus/Wireles~/News_Releases/199g/arwlS032.html Kennard commended all groups involved in this agreement by saying that, "the accord signed today is a fantastic example of the FCC, other branches of Government, and the telecommunications industry working cooperatively to ensure that the interests of all Americans are served, as this dynamic segment of the telecommunications industry expands competition in communities across this nation. -FCC- News Media contact: Meribeth McCarrick at 202-418-0654 2 of 2 8/6/98 ll:O1AM Press. Statement of Kenneth S. Fellman. Ch...ate Government Advisory Committee. 8/5/98 http://www.fce.gov/statelocal/kfOSO598.html [ Text Version t WordPerfect Version A~reement ] PRESS STATEMENT Kenneth S. Fellman, Chair Local & State Government Advisory Committee City Councilmember, Arvada, Colorado August 5, 1998 On August 1.1997 1 sent a letter to Tom Wheeler inviting CTIA to attend the next meeting of the local and state government advisory committee, and begin a dialogue on issues impacting the wireless industry, and state and local government. We are fortunate that mr. wheeler agreed that a meeting was a good idea, and that he asstgned Brian Fontes to serve as CTIA's point person to work with us. That first meeting took place last September. Over the past 10 Vz months, the lsgac has worked with Brian, Mark Golden of PCtA, Alan Shark of AMTA, Roz Allen of the FCC's wireless bureau, and members of their respective staffs, in an attempt to address the issues of siting wireless facilities and local zoning moratoria. The agreement that we announce today is significant. Local gnvemments have asserted for quite some time that section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not, for the most part, preempt local zoning authority, and that moratoria are proper zoning tools to utilize in appropriate situations. The wireless industry has been concerned that zoning moratoria can be used inappropriately, and Ibelieve that the declaratory proceeding before the commission was intended to seek a way to insure that improper uses of moratoria could not occur. The LSGAC has continually taken the position in this proceeding and in others, that in our federalist system of government, unless there is both clear legal authority and a widespread example ora nationwide problem, preemption of state or local government authority should not be considered by the federal government. Believing that improper uses of zoning moratoria were not widespread, the LSGAC sought a way to resolve the problem based upon education and intervention on a case by case basis, rather than a broad national preemption of local authority. This agreement achieves that goal. The wireless industry, recognizing that there are valid uses for zoning moratoria, sought an agreement on guidelines suggesting the proper activities to be undertaken while zoning moratoria are in effect, in order that they might terminate in a reasonable period of time and facilitate ,he build out of wireless telecommunications systems. This agreement achieves that goal. When disputes do arise, the informal dispute resolution process described in this agreement creates the oppormmty for local government and industry experts familiar with local zoning and section 704 to take an outsiders look at the facts ora particular case, and offer suggestions to the parties involved. There will be no risk for any party utilizing this process, as all parties retain their legal rights. A number of individuals and organizations need to be commended. CTIA, PCIA, and ANITA. and particularly Brian Fonres. deserve our thanks for recognizing there was a mutually beneficial solution to be found, and equally important, for taking the opportunity to begin building bridges toward better communications with local government. The LSGAC, and its staff members who have been assisting us in our work, deserve credit for what has 1 of 2 8/6/98 1 i:02AM 'press Statement of Keaneth S. Fellman. Ch...ate Government Advisory Committee. 8/5/98 http://www.fc~.gov/statelocal/ktDS0598.html truly been a team effort. Almost every committee member and staff member involved has contributed to this process, and can be proud of the result. On behalf of all LSGAC members, I thank the staffmembers from the various communities and national organizations that have assisted us. On behalf of all members of the LSGAC, we express our thanks to our colleagues from the respective councils, commissions and state bodies on which we serve, and we particularly thank the citizens that we represent. Because this is an unfunded committee, each of us participates as a result of the good graces, and the financial commitment of our respective jurisdictions. If they did not think it was important for us to be doing this work, we would not be here. The commission and its staffalso deserve our sincere thanks. Roz Allen, the deputy director of the Wireless Bureau, and the commission's liaison to the LSGAC, has been a tremendous help. Her encouragement and persistence has facilitated the process of resolving this issue. Roz also made a number of suggestions in our draining process, which made this a better agreement. All of the commissioners have shown a great deal of interest in our work, have challenged us on particular issues, a~tended many of our meetings, and supported us in our work to promote local and state government issues in the regulatory process. We very much appreciate that. The LSGAC expresses special gratitude to Chairman Kennard. As general counsel, he made himself and his staff available to help the LSGAC. get organized and begin functioning in a manner to effectively provide advice and assistance to the commission on local and state government concerns, As Chairman, he first assured us of his intention to keep this committee in place, stressing the important role he believed we could play expressing state and local government concerns in the development of federal telecommunications policy. We would not be here today were it not for his continuing support of our work. The mutual commitment of the LSGAC and the representatives of the wireless industry to respec~ legitimate interests, and to work on real, as opposed to perceived, issues, was what gave us the opportunity for success. We hope that this success with the wireless industry wilt set an example for all local and state governments and all segments of the telecommunications industry. -- when legitimate interests are respected and issues are discussed openly and in good faith, the opportunity to resolve problems increases dramatically. Finally, it is important to focus on what this agreement does and does not do. This agreement does not mean that we have resolved all disputes between the wireless industry and local govemmem. There are a number of other issues we need to work on. It does not mean that the LSGAC will be able to resolve all disputes with the various segments of the telecommunications industry. It certainly does not mean that the commission will never again have to rule on a case seeking preemption of state or local government authority. Our agreement today is a beginning. It resolves the issue of possible preemption of local zoning authority with respect to moratoria, and it gives us a mechanism to address the difficult issues in this area that will continue to arise from time to time. More importantly, I believe that this success provides us with an incentive to continue the process of working together so that local and state government can gain a better understanding of the telecommunicattons industry, and the industry can gain a better understanding of the role and legitimate concerns oflocal and state government when addressing telecommunications issues. Thank you. 2 of 2 8/6/98 11:02 AM http://www.fc¢.~ov/statelacal/a~reament.html [ Text I WordPerfect ] THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES FOR FACILITIES SITING IMPLEMENTATION AND INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS ARE AGREED TO BY ~ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (LSGAC), ~ CELLULAR TELECOMMIJNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CTIA), 'I'HE PERSONAL COM311J~CATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (PCIA) AND THE AMERICAN MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION (AMTA). THE LSGAC IS A BODY OF ELECTED AND APPOINTED LOCAL AND STATE OFFICIAISS, APPOINTED BY TI~ CHAIRMAN OF ~ COMMISSION IN MARCH, 1997. A ROSTER OF LSGAC 3~EMBERS IS ATTACYIEB. CTIA, PCIA AND AMTA ARE TRADE ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTING ~ WIRELESS INDUSTRY. L GUIDELINES FOR FACILITY SITING IMPLEMENTATION A. Local governments and the wireless industry, should work cooperatively to facilitate the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities. Moratoria, where necessary, may be utilized when a local government needs time to review and possibly amend its land use regulations to adequately address issues relating to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities in a manner that addresses local concerns, provides the public with access to wireless services for its safety, convenience and productivity, and complies with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 B. Ifa moratorium is adopted, local governments and affected wireless service providers shall work together to expeditiously and effectively address issues leading to the lifting of the moratorium. Moratoria should be for a fixed (as opposed to open ended) period of time, with a specified termination date. The length of the moratorium should be that WlCmh is reasonably necessary for the local government to adequately address the issues described in Guideline A. In many cases, the issues that need to be addressed during a moratorium can be resolved within 180 days. All parties understand that cases may arise where the length ora moratorium may need to be longer than 180 days. Moratoria should not be used to stall or discourage the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities within a community, but should be used in a judicious and constructive manner. C. During the time that a moratorium is in effect, the local government should, within the frame work of the organization's many other responsibilities, continue to accept and process applications (e.g., assigning docket numbers and other administrative aspects associated with the filing of applications), subject to ordinance prowsions as may be revised during the moratorium. The local government should continue to work on the review and possible revisions to irs land use regulations in order that the moratorium can terminate within its defined period of time, and that both local planning goals and the goals of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with respect to wireless telecommunications services be met. Wireless service providers should assist by providing approptiate, relevant and non-propriemrg information requested by the local government for the purposes of siting wireless telecommunications facilities. D. Local governments are encouraged to include both the community and the industry in the development of local plans concerning rower and antenna siting Public notice and participation in accordance with the local government's standard practices should be followed. IL INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1 of 3 8/6/98 11:03 AM h~p://v,r~o,v.fee .gov/stateloeal/a greement.htm] A. The pames have agreed to an informal dispute resolution process for the wireless industry and local governments to utilize when moratoria may seem to be adversely affecting the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The purpose of the process is m expeditiously resolve disputes in a manner consistent with the interests of all parries. B. The LSGAC will publicize and promote the moratoria guidelines reflected in Part I of this document and the availability of this informal dispute resolution process in a press release, and will also urge the national organizations working with the LSGAC to promote and publicize the guidelines and the dispute resolution process to their respective members. CTIA, PCIA and AMTA also will publicize and promote the guidelines and informal dispute resolution process utilizing their respective websites, and in subsequent forums and educational materials. C. Local government experts in the area of land use siting of wireless telecommunications facilkies in accordance with Section 704 of the Telecornmunications Act, as well as industry representatives will be encouraged to serve as volunteers to assist in the resolution of problems relating to moratoria. The process will work as follows: 1. Two volunteers, one representing local government and one representing the wireless industry, shall be assigned to each case. Any company seeking to locate wireless telecommunications facilities, that felt it was being adversely impacted by a moratorium that does not comply with the guidelines described above, could contact the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB") and ask for the name of a volunteer to review the matter. Any local government seeking advice on zoning moratoria issues may also contact the WTB for volunteers. The LSGAC will provide the FCC with a list of volunteers representing local governments. The list will be maintained at the FCC by the WTB. A list of volunteers representing wireless service providers will be selected and maintained by their national associations (CTIA, PCIA, and AMTA). 2. Best efforts will be exercised in attempting to select volunteers who reflect a range of experience with different forms and sizes of local government and wireless service providers. Efforts will be used to assign volunteers whose experience has been with similarly situated local govemmems to those at issue. After the individual's name is provided it will be moved to the bottom of the list. so as to create a procedure where volunteers do not have a disproportionate number of cases to review. Volunteers cannot mediate a dispute if they have a direct interest of any type inthe geographic area under review. 3. If, for any reason, the volunteer[s] was [were] not able to review the issue at that time, the complainant may contact the WTB and obtain the next name [or names] on the list. It is anticipated that the amount of time that will be spent by the volunteers reviewing and opining on these issues will be one to three hours per case. 4. The local government volunteer will review and listen to the loc~ government's explanation of the issues. The wireless service provider volunteer will review and listen to the wireless service provider's explanation of the issues. If necessary, the volunteers will ask appropriate follow-up questions, then will make appropriate contacts, as [they] he or she deems necessary. The volunteers will then discuss the issues as they understand them, and attempt to reach a mutually agreeable proposed course of action. The volunteer[s] will then conrac~ each party individually, (the local gnvemment volunteer contacting the local government, and the wireless service provider volunteer contacting the wireless service provider) and will inform each party of his or her opinion as to whether the present activities comply with the moratoria guidelines, making recommendations as may be appropriate. The 2 of 3 8/6/98 1l:03 AM http:#www 2cc.go v/st~t~locaV~gre~m~nt, h tml recommendation and mediation process by the volunteers should be concluded within 60 days. 5. Neither party is bound by the recommendations of the volunteer[s]. Should the complaining part[ies] be dissatisfied with the result, the part[ies] retain the option to bring legal action. 6. This process is intended as a mechanism to resolve issues short of court action, if possible. As a result, none of the discussions, statements, or information conveyed in the informal process, or even the fact that the informal process was undertaken, are subject to discovery, or admissible in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. D~ Upon agreement with LSGAC on the moratoria guidelines and informal dispute process described herein, CTIA will withdraw without prejudice its petition seeking preemption of zoning moratoria, docket number DA96-2140, FCC97-264. 3 of 3 8/6/98 11:03 AM I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning end Community Developmem Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~ August 19, 1998 Board of Supervisors Meetihg August 26. 1998 I'he following actions were taken by the Board at its meeting on August 19, 1998: Agenda Item No. 5.3. Set PH for September 2. 1998. for temporary easement for Southside Shopping Center. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 9/2/98. Dist. Agenda Item No. 6, Appoinanents. APPOINTED Mr. Roduey S. Thomas to Planning Commission, Rio Agenda Item No. 7. PH to consider transfer of Monticello High School property to Albemarle County School Board. PH to consider transfer of Monticello High School property to Albemarle County School Board. CONVEYED PARCEL, APPROVED PLAT AND DEED. AND AUTHORIZED COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SIGN PLAT AND DEED. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs #18&19). PH to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. TM55. Ps65&65A(pt of). Property located on N sd of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Road) approx 1.3 mls W of Crozet. Property mcommanded for Urben Density Residential (6.01-34 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet. White Hall Dist. (DEFERRED FROM JLrNE 17, 1998.) APPROVED. SUBJECT TO AMENDED PROFFERS. Proffers are as follow: I. DENSITY No more than 127 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the fncst section of the subdivision, Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of lend for widening State Route 691 (Jarmens Gap Road) not to exceed thirty (30) feet to the centerline of the existing pavemenT. Applicent shall grant easements for temporary construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed. 2.2 Road Imorovements. Access shall be restricted to en internal public road network to be designed and consmtcted in accordence with the Virginia Deparanent of Trensportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat approval. As a V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 2 August 26, 1998 condition of plat approval for the f'nrst section of the subdivision. Applicant shall construct as a single improvemanr~ a one-hundred (100)-foot right-mm lane and one-hundred (100)- foot taper for westbound right-tarn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lots sixty-seven (67) and sixty-eight (68), and until such time as the property subject to ZMA- 84w29 ("Northern Tract") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 in the area between Lots sixty-seven (67) and sixty-eight (68) shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated May 28, 1998 prepared by Dewberry & Davis (the "Conceptual Plan") (copy attached). At such time as the Northern Tract is developed, Applicant. or the developer of the Northern Tract will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emergency vehinles through the Northern Tract to State Route 684. 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated pursuant m proffar 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be conveyed as common open space to the Association (defined in 5.5(a) below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 69I by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the mzoning in accordance with the ZMA-97-12 application. Ilae $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat' or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property. In the event that the $500.00 contributions, after they are received by the County, are not used, within twenty (20) years after recordation of a plat of the one-hundred-twenty-seventh (127th) lot. then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements servmg the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a fifty (50)-foot right-of-way for a future street m provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55, Parcels 66, and 66A). The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be between Lots nine (9) and ten (10), as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such time as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting mad between Lots nine (9) and ten ( I 0), Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remaining acreage, if any, within the area between Lots nine (9) and ten (10) shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years fi.om the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use the area between Lots nine (9) and ten (10) For a building lot (notwithstanding the density limitation contained in Article I above) or at Applicant's option, such area may accrue to the adjoining lots. III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFERAREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas: Walkln~Jogging Trails. Applicant, or the Association, (de£med in 5.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational improvements and picnic areas in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property. Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and picnic improvements to be constructed within the V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 3 August 26. 1998 open space areas shall be constructed as a condition of the platting of the sixty-third (63rd) lot within the Property figff (50) percent of the lots to be developed. Applicant shall construct a tot lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan and shall construct an add/tional tot lot on the area designated Lot forty (40) on the Conceptual Plan. The two (2~ tot lots shall contain the eqmpment required by Section 4. l 6.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walking/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Fhe surface of the walking/jogging trail shall consist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept to a mm/mum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. the open space, tot lot. basketball court, picnic sheker and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Northern Tract. ha order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than ten (10) percent 3.2 Buffer Area Easement: As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish a fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area along the western boundary of the Propen'y, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. Applicant shal/plant within the fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area fifty (50) shade trees (the equivalent of one (I) tree for every forty (40) linear feet of Buffer Area). The trees to be planted within the Buffer Area will be spaced and grouped to take advantage o£ and to supplement existing vegetation. Trees withe chosen from VDoT's major tree listing. Trees will be nvo (2) to two and one- half(2 1/2) inches caliper atthe time of planting. The fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area shall consist of thirty (30) feet of dedicated open space to the Association and a twenty (20)-foot easement which shall nm to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association, as provided by the Declaration. The trees proffered herein shall be planted in the area dedicated to the Association. The fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area shall be maintained by the Association and by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i) construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. 3.3 Landscanin~: Utilities: As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant. or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the thirty (30)-foot area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 691) tree screening along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance area/. Except in the areas where either the cul-de-sacs shown on the Conceptual Plan terminate near Jarmans Gap Road, or near the joining of Lots eighty (80) and eighty-four (84), Lots eighty-four (84) and eighty-five (85), and Lots eighty-eight (88) and eighty-nine (89), in which street trees will be provided, the screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on-center, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanent open space area twenty (20) feet in width (measured from the edge of the State Route 691 dedication). The twenty (20)-foot open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association, and may include stormwatea' management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at forty (40)-foot intervals, (staggered, on both sides of the roadsj as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained and replaced as necessary, by ~he Applicant, or the V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 4 August 26, 1998 Association and shall be from spectes approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. 3.4 Walking Trail; Sidewalks: Ca'eenwav Corridor. Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cul-de-sacs, as shown un the Conceptual Plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall be maintained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The internal walking trail shall be installed as each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. If the County Department of Plauning and Community Development recommends pursuant to approval of the first preFnninary plat for the subdivision that sidewalls be provided on both sides of the street, Applicant shall substitute four (4)-foot-wide sidewalks for the six (6)-foot-wide walking trail. At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system connecting Jarmans Gap Estates, Gmyrock, Orchard Acres and downtown Crozet, Applicant shall dedicate the walkin~jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use within such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Management Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the fn'st section of the subdivision. Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that. to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minimizes pollution to the tributary of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be approved by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the existing ponds in their present, natural state, retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the required contribution for the reg~unal stormwater retention under the Ordinance. IV. NORTHERN TRACT The area depicted on the attached Schematic Plan for Grayrock North, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, dated June 3. 1998 ("Schematic Plan") is subject to zoning under ZMA-84-29. ("Northern Tract"). The Northern Tract is currently zoned PRD to allow seventy (70) townhouse units. Applicant proffers to reduce the permitted density on the Northern Tract from seventy (70) townhouse units to a maximum of twenty-seven (27) single family, detached units and to submit a rezoning request for the reduction of perntitted density thereon to twenty-seven (27) single family, detached units. Applicant shall submit such rezuning request within six (6) months of the approval of ZMA-97-12. Applicant acknowledges that its submittal of such rezoning request shall be for the consideration by the Board of Supervisors and that the Board's acceptance of these proffers shall in no way be construed as the Board's pre-approval of such request. Applicant shall diligently pursue the rezuning request (under either a PRD or R-1 classification). If Applicant diligently pursues the rezoning of the Northern Tract as provided herein, and such rezuning is denied, this proffer shall have been deemed satisfied and Applicant shall be free to develop the Northern Tract under the existing zoning. If the Applicant fails to submit its rezoning request or fails to pursue the application diligently, then the Applicant shall be deemed in violation of these proffers, and the County may exercise all available remedies at law or m equity against the Applicant and the Property, including but not limited to the suspension of issuance of building and other permits for the development of the Property until the applicant is in compliance with such proffers. Applicant shall submit as part of its re-zoning application for the Northern Tract. a proffer that the development of the Northern Tract shall be in general accord with the Schematic Plan, subject to adjustments for fmai engineering and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards V. Wayne CiIimberg Page 5 August 26. 1998 OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS_ CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 5.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration Of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no fights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minunum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. 5.2 Desiun Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community, 5.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height restrictions: and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 5.4 Desima Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water tow flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 5.5 Maintenance of Landscaping. Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscaping, open space, (including V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 6 August 26, 1998 open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: The Applicant shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association") as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"); (b) The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions nmning with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas; (c) The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, stze, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable reqmrements to identify common areas in a site development plan or subdivision plat: (d) The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twanty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner se~ forth in the Declaration; and (e) The Association shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set leith herein for the Association to own and maintain the Common Areas. VI. REZON1NG APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 6.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application, an initial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant' s rezoning application, or as part of the rezoning process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall not be deemed a proffer. 6.2 Conceptual Plan Exhibit. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is being used to illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards, development of the Property shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. House locations shown on the Conceptual Plan are for illustrative purposes only. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 7 August 26, 1998 VlI. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 7.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall nm with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" with/n these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-15. Zion Hill Baptist Church (Signs #28&29). PH to enlarge existing church [10.2.2.35]. TM65, P106. Property located on N sd of State Highway 22 (Louisa Road), approx 1.3 mls E of junction w/State Highway 231 (Gordonsville Road). Znd RA & EC, & designated RA in Comp Plan. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED, SUBJECT TO FOUR CONDITIONS. Conditions are as follow: Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the sketch plan dated July 20, 1998 (copy attached) and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, and childrens' play equipment; 2. Approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the yard requirements; 3. Day care use shall be prohibited m~less approved through a special use permit amendment: and Two (2~ of the three (3) existing entrances along Route 740 will be closed, and the third will be improved to support two-way traffic by having a tb/rty (30)-foot width and twenty-five (25)-foot radii. The entrance from Route 22 will be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the right-of-way line as determined by the Engineering Department. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-20 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (Signs #90&95). PH to add a 25-foot addition to existing church. Site located on 1.000 acs at 8825 Chestnut Grove Rd. Znd RA. TM133, P42. Property located on Rt Clerk: Include in Planning's action letter. 723 in Esmont (This property/s not located in a designated growth area3 Scottsville Dist. APPROVED, SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION. the condition is as follows: Day care use and other non-church activities shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-23. Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building (Signs #52 &72 ~. PH to allow printing & distribution of church literature in a 3.040 sq ft bldg to be constructed adjac to existing church on 10.389 acs. TM94, P46. Znd RA & EC. Property located on Rt 250 E, .7 mis E of S.R. 744 (Hacktown Road). APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THREE REVISED CONDITIONS. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 8 August 26, 1998 Conditions are as follow: Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition; Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church-related items; five (5) volunteers; hours of operatiun from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and, no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery truck trips per month as described in memorandum dated August 10, 1998, from Colonial Baptist Church to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Section I, Facts, Item No. 8 (copy attached); and 3. Additional development shall be limited to the final site plan revised May 29,1998. Agenda Item No. 12~ SP-98-25. Virginia National Bank (Sign #24)~ PH to reestablish use of drive thru windows for bank in accord w/provisions of §24,2.2(13) of the Zoning Ordinance. This site was previously used as a bank but the use was discontinued &, therefore, a SP is required to reopen the drive thru windows. TM61, P120Z. Znd HC & EC. Property located S of& adj to the Brown's Auto Dealership opposite Fashi°n Square Mall. (This property is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. APPROVED, SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION. The condition is as follows: 1. Drive-through windows will be limited to four (4) (three (3) traditional and one (1) ATM window). Agenda Item No. 13. SP 98-26. Albemarle First Bank. (Signs #20&23). PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w/provisions of §22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, to operate a bank w/a three-lane, drive-up teller facility on approx 1.028 acs located at 1265 Seminole Trail, situated at the SE comer of Rt 29 N & Westfield Rd. The existing bldg on the site (currently used as medical offices, previously used as a bank with a drive-up teller facility) will be renovated to accommodate the new use. TM61W, Sec2, BlockB, PI, Znd C-1 & EC. (This property is designated as Cormmunity Service in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.) A site plan showing proposed development of the property will be required. Rio Dist. APPROVED, SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION. The condition is as follows: 1. Eliminate the western Westfield Road entrance. Agenda Item No. 14. SP-98-09. Arrowhead CV 152 (Sign #73). PUBLIC HEARING on a request from CFW Wireless, in accord with the provisions of §10.2.2(6), to allow construction of telecommunication facility on TM88, P26. Znd RA. Property located on E sd of Rt 29 (Monacan Dr) on W sd of Rt 745 (Arrowhead Valley Rd). (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Miller Dist. DEFERRED INDEFINITELY. Agenda Item No. 15. SP-98-27. CFW Wireless [CV1 l 3] Red Hill (Sign #6), PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord with provisions of § 10.2.2(6), to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 2 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM87, P25B. Property located on S sd of Rt 29 (Manacan Trail) approx 0.5 mls E of V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 9 August 26, 1998 Rt 710 (Taylors Gap Rd). (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Miller Dist. DEFERRED UNTIL 9/16/98 to allow staffto prepare written record for denial. Agenda Item No. 16. SP-98-30. CFW Wireless [CV134] Keene (Sign #18). PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w provisions of ~ 10.2.2(6), to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 9.5 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM121, P89. Property located on E sd of Rt 20 (Scottsvilie Rd) at its intersection with Rt 712 (Coles Rolling Rd). (This property is not located in a designated growth area.). Scottsville Dist. DEFERRED INDEFINITELY. Agenda Item No. 17. SP-98-31. CFW Wireless [CV131] Rts 53 & 729 (Sign #27). PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w/the provisions of ~10.2.2(6), to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 4 acs. Znd RA. TM93, P46B. Property located on E sd of Rt 729 (Buck Island Rd) approx mls S of Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkwy). (This property is not located within a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. APPROVED, SUBJECT TO 12 REVISED CONDITIONS. Conditions are as follow: 1. The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation of the tallest tree within twanty- five (25) feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a statement from a certified land surveyor on the elevation of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall ~mt 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. c. The tower shall not be painted and should have natural wood color. 3. the tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless. CVq31" and initialed "WDF 6/25/98" (copy attached); 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 dian~eter. 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 telecommunications providers, as follows: a. 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 V. Wayne Cilimberg Page I0 August 26, 1998 10. 11. 12. Attachments: 5 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 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 cons/sting 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. All lighting shall be shielded from Route 729. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance: Prior to beghmmg 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 staffshall 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 ex/sting trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the eqmpmant 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; No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than two-to-one (2:1) unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; and Any eqmpment on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. cc: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Dan Mahon Sharon Taylor © © 7) We do not sell our printed material as we believe it is forbidden by scripture ( I Thess- alonians 3:1, Psalm 68:11). The printing operation is strictly and totally an integral ministry of Colonial Baptist Church. 8) Currently, commercial deliveries to the church average twelve trips per month. Tl~is includes trash pickup, linen service, UPS, FED EX, and church supply deliveries. Colonial Baptist Church does not anticipate any increase in these deliveries in the near future. If our printing ministry were to increase production because of demand and donations, then Colonial Baptist Church anticipates no more than one extra delivery on average per month in the distant II. ISSUES RAISED BY TI:[E PLANNING COMMISSION I) This church operates a printing ministry, not a commercial business. The material printed is for free distribution and not for sale and never will be for sale. 2) The Planniiag Commission was concerned with traffic. VDOT has stated that traffic was not a problem, according to the Planning Staff report. VDOT indicated that the existing entrance is more than adequate for the present and future needs of Colonial Baptist Church. 3) There has been absolutely no public comment opposing this site plan and amendment. 4) Comments of environmental hazards were addressed by the staff recommendation. We pose no threat to the environment in soil, water, air, or noise pollution. 5) This site plan does not affect permitted uses or adjacent property. 6) Four commercial delivery h'uck trips per month is not adequate, even for the present needs of Colonial Baptist Church, if"commercial" includes those deliveries listed in I. 8) above. III. CONCLUSION Colonial Baptist Church requests that Albemarle County grant us the amendment to the special use permit and approve the site plan for the responsible and economically feasible use of our property. Approval of this use has not been determined to adversely affect the health, welfare, or safety of the community and the refusal of the amendment to the special use permit does not advance a legitimate government interest. Colonial Baptist Church has enjoyed the free exercise of its constitutional right to use its property in a responsible and economically feasible manner in the past without any religious discrimination. In light of this, and in consideration of the scriptural directive that compels us to operate the currem printing ministry, we respectfully ask that you supp0n our First Amendment right and grant our requests for amendment to the special use permit and site plan approval. TOWER SIT~ FOR C F ltl WIRELESS CV- I,~1 PROPERTY OF Ctt~RL IE F.. KINGREA SCOTTSV~LE DISTRIC~ ~BE~RLE C~. ~ ~/~ L.~ - STUARTS DH~% VA. l~d R ~k~u~rman Ch~qott~ Y. Humphfis Forrest R. Marshafl. Jr. COUNTY Of ALBEMARLE Offic~ of I3o~'d of Supervisors 401 M~ Road Ch:aries S. Martin S~y H. Thomas August 28, 1998 Mr. Rodney S. Thomas 3411 Indian Springs Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Thomas: At the Board of Supervisors meeting beld on August 19, 1998, the Board appointed you as a. member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission to represent the Rio Magesterial District. This term is effective August t9, 1998 and expires December 31, 2001. As you are probably aware, the Planning Commission meets every Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in the County Office Building on Mclntire Road. Planning Commission members receive $3,300 a year as compensation for their services, therefore, W-4 slips will have to be filled out and provided to the Personnel Department. All future correspondence will be addressed to you directly from the Planning Department. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. - Chairman FRM:lbh cc: Wayne Cilimberg Michael Thompson James L. Camblos Larry Davis Printed on rec_vcled paper RLBENRF, LE COUNT'/ Fax:804-296-5_--:O0 Rug i <38 _--~:53 F'. '~2 Count}, of Albemarle Office of Board of Coun~ Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Ch~lotter¢ille. VA 22902-4596 (8041 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COM,_MI 1'1L~ (piece ~'pe or prm0 Bo~d/Commission/C~ramkrec _. Planning commission Rio Dis~rict App!icm~t'sNmne Rodnmy S. Thomas .... ttome phoneS04-973-8291 Home Address 3411 Indian Sp~r~ing$. Road Charlottesville, VA. 22901 M~s[cn~ Distdc~ in wlfich your home residence is loc;~cd Rio District Empl%,¢r Charlottesville Press, Inc. Phone 804-293-9191 BusmcssAddrcss 1111 Harris Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Date of Emptoymenz Oct. 1,197.9.__ Occupation/Title Printing - President/Owner Years Resident in AIbemarlo Qou~v 5~ Years PreviousResidcnce 306 13~h N.E. Spouse'sN~m~e Nancy S. Thomas Number of Ch~ldren 2 Education(Dc?,~s ~d G~uafionDa~% Lane High School 1962 ~embersbipzLllk~%¢m~j~3iness~Church aud/or Social Or%up.s Printinq Industries of Va. - Chairman of Deacons, Belmont Baptist Church. p~k~2~lic, CivJc~mdChaAmbleO~cem~d/orQ3herA~N~jiosorlntemsts __ Former Board Member - YM~CA..-._~oys and Girls Club - Crimestoppers ~/ll3/le~mke Pamk _ · ' en. :f Charlottesville Host Lions Club Member VSAF - ~ember Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce Former Member Charlottesville/Albemarle Jaycees '9~'96 Fund ti~-oxleL~oz_Desim to~5/5~0n tbi%Boa:d / Commission/_Q0mmi~e0 Ch ' vi 1 le/Alb. Rescue _ ~n ~rv~ my oommuni~y and~go share some of the knowle~ag~at I havea__gzb_ained_by beinq a life time resident of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Being a Businessman here-I feel that I can · ' '" this applic~t 0e released to the public upon r_equez. t]~e reformat on provided on )~gnature Re. turn to: Clerk, Boarg of County Supersdsors Albemarle. County ~Ol klclnt~re R~a"d Charlo~es~lla,~A 22902-4596 be of some l~elp to our commuj~i ty. ' Date COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing for approval of Deed and Subdivision Plat transferring ownership of Monticello High School property to the Albemarle County School Board. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing for approval of Deed and Subdivision Plat in order to transfer ownership of the Monticello High School property to the Albemarle County School B~ by Virginia law. STAFF CONTACT~S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mawyer, Kelsey, Davis, BACKGROUND.: The original tract of land purchased by the County of the fight-of-way for the Connector Road (Mill Cre~ Tax Parcel 91-2E (appro~mataiy 14 acres) and a n on Tax Parcel 91-2. The attached subdivision plat f and two drainage easements. AGENDA DATE: August 19,1998 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION'~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ately 107 acres. The dedication sion of the property and created The new high school is located :reates two access easements, The residue of Tax Parcel 91-2 (approximately 66 ~ suant to Va. Code § 22.1-125, which requires that title to all school property be vt ~__~ contains all school buildings, parking lots, stadium, and all of the play fields. ~ Tax Parcel 77-48 is a 5 acre parcel with access to Mill Creek Drive. In the master planning of the site, this property was considered for potential development of a future County or community facility. Ownership of the parcel is to be retained by the Counht. Tax Pame177-49 [approximately 13 acres) contains the dam, sediment forebay and the stormwater management lake. The dam is regulated by the State of Virginia, and the Countyts the permit holder. As such, the County is responsible for the inspection of the dam and recertificaiion ofthe permit. Construction of the sediment foreba¥ was required as part of the mitigation for wetland impactsand is an essential part of the stormwater management plan. In order to assure future compliance with this plan, this fac~ity must be protected and maintained. The lake is providing the stormwater management for the school and future County development. Protection of the lake and specifically the surrounding wetlands is essential to assuring its function in the future. For these reasons, staff believes the public would be best served by the County retaining ownership of the lake parcel. To assure futura access to the lake sediment foreba¥ and the dam for inspection and maintenance, access easements have been provided on the plat. A drainage easement has been provided over the storm sewer system conveying runoff from Mill Creek Drive to the lake. This easement is a requirement for VDOT acceptance office mad into the State Secondary Road System. A large drainage easement has also been provided over the stormwater wetland that was constructed as part of the wetland mitigation plan. This easements will assure future protection of the facility and allow for inspection and maintenance by the County. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public headng prior to conveying any interest in County-owned property. ,as stated above, § 22.1~125 requires that title to all school property be vested in the School Board. At the current time, the Mor~cello High School property is owned in fee simple by the County. Transfer of the portion of the property encumbered by the High School site to the School Board needs to occur contemporaneously with the completion of construction and opening of the new High School. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends (a) approval of the conveyance of the 66-acre pamel upon which Monticello High School and related buildings and play fields are located to the County School Board; (b) approval of the plat and deed conveying the property; and (c) authorization of the County Executive to sign the plat and deed on behalf of the County. 98.163 Tills DEED is dated this __. day of , 1998, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor. and THE COUNTY SCItOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration ofTEN DOLLARS ($10), cash in hand paid. and other good and valuable consideratiom the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT. BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee that certain parcel of land located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia containing 65.972 acres, more or less, as more particularly shown and designated as "Residue of Tax Parcel No. 91-2" on aplat made by George L. Nyfeler IH dated July 9, 1998, revised August 5, 1998 and entitled "Plat Showing Division of Tax Parcel No. 91-2," a copy of which plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Plat"), which parcel is a part of the property acquired by the Grantor by Deed dated September 18, 1995 from Charles Wm. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher as Trustees for Hillcrest Land Trust, and Hurt Investment Company, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1492, Page 678. Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed herein. This conveyance is made expressly subject to the restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting the chain of title to the property conveyed herein, insofar as same affect ~aid property, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or otherwise have become ineffective. The Grantee shall be deemed a successor in interest to the Grantor under the Agreement for the Purchase of Real Estate dated July 20, 1995. Prepared by Albemarle County Attorney's Office August 13, 1998 The Grantor, act'mg by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby convey the interest in real estate made by this deed. WITNESS the following si~l~ature. GRANTOR: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: ROBERT W. TUCKER, Jr, County Executive Approved as to form: County Attorney COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Virginia. instmmem was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by Robert W. Tucker. Jr. on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Notary Public My Commission Expires: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MT/realest.gen/mon~icel.d01 2 BOARD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: REVISED PROFFERS: ZMA-97-12 FRIED COMPANIES, iNC. (GRAYROCK) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To rezone 53 acres from PRD. Planned Residential Development, to R-4 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 & 65A (portion) is located on the north side of Rte. 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) about 1.3 miles west of Rte. 240 in Crozet in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01-34.0 dus/ac.) In the Community of Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Keeler BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: August 19, 1998 ACTION: YES INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES RE~EWEDBY: ~ ~ The Board of Supervisors last heard this petition on June 17, 1998 and referred the petition to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition on July 28, 1998 and recommended denial by a vote of 4:2. Reasons for disapproval are cited in the Commission's action letter. DISCUSSION: Subsequent to the Commission meeting, the applicant has made additional revisions to the proffers: 3.1 Recreational Areas; Walkinq/Joqqinq Trails: has been amended to add another tot lot in the location of Lot 10 on the Conceptual Plan. This location would requir.e fencing of the tot lot area as it could abut two roads. 3.2 Buffer Ama Easement: has been amended to confirm that the 50 foot buffer along the western boundary consists of 30 feet of dedicated open space and a 20 foot easement on the proposed lots. This proffer provides for additional plantings and buffer maintenance. Staff urges the applicant and abutting owners to determine planting locations prior to final plat submittal. 3,4 Walkinq Trail; [Sidewalks;] Greenway Corridor: has been amended to specify walkway widths if sidewalksN,,atkways are provided on one or two sides of roadways. While the determination of sidewalks on one or both sides of the roadway can be made at time of subdivision approval, it is recommended that the Board address this issue at this time. 98.162 August 6, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. o[ Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 [804) 296-5523 Steven W. Blaine McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 RE: ZMA-97-12 Fried (Grayrock) - Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 and 65A Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 28, 1998, by a vote of 4:2, recommended denial of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Their recommendation for denial was based on the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. The plan still does not include the entire property. Not enough usable space. Lack of sidewalks on both sides. Concerns about lack of "safety ledge" on the ponds. Lack of housing nux. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 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, Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning RSK/jcf /~ cc: El~rey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department ofplaxmm~ & Commum~ Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning '~_~ July 28, 1998 ZMA-97-12 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. ( GRAYROCK ) This rezoning petition was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1998 and forwarded to the Board with no recommendation (i.e.- a 3 to 3 vote1. After public hearing on February 18, 1998, the Board deferred the petition to June 17, 1998 to allow time for the applicant to discuss design options with residents of the area. Subsequently, the applicant held two community meetings and provided the Board with a summary of discussion items together with revised proffers and a revised proffered plan of development. Under existing zoning, the property north and south ofthe lakes may be developed with 107 dwellings. The original petition proposed an increase south of the lakes from 37 to 131 dwellings for a total of 201 units (Seventy townhouse units north of the lakes were approved by prior rezoning pemion/ l'he revised proffered plan for the area south of the lakes in combination with written proffer to rezone the area north of the lakes would result in a total of 154 dwellings. Following the second hearing on June 17. 1998. the Board referred the rezoning petition back to the Commission for additional commem. Mr. Larry Davis. County Attorney, advised the Board that if the plan was not amended, there would be no requirement for additional public hearing or re-notification. Staff has had the property re-posted and sent notice to adjoining owners. No legal advertisement has been provided to the newspaper Attached to this memorandum, please find draft minutes of the Board meeting of June 17, 1998 together with proffers that were amended at that Board hearing and the current proffered plan. In addition, the entire Board package from June 17, 1998 is for~varded to the Commission. No changes have been made to the petition since the Board hearing and no additional rezoffmg petition has been filed. Under state law, the Board must take final action within one year of submittal of a rezoning petition or the applicant may obtain declaratory judgement approving the petition as submitted. This petition was submitted on October 20, 1998. PROFFER STATEMENT FRIED COMPANIES, INC. REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-97-12 February 18, 1998 Revised {j,,ae 12} [August 11], 1998 FRIRD COMPAN/ES. INC. (the "Applicant'') is the contract purchaser, and ROBERT S. SAVAGE and ANN S. SAVAGE are the fee simple owners of that certain property described ht rezoning application #ZMA-97-12 as a portion of Tax Map Reference 55, Parcels 65 and 65A. The property subject to the rezoning application is only the 53.02 acres of the total 74 acres contained in Tax Map ?arcels 55- 65 and 65A, and at the time of the filing of the application was zoned PRD under ZMA-84-29, also referred to as Jarman Gap Estates II, PRD (the "property"). The Applicant, Robert S., and Ann S. Savage hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the R-4 Residential District ("R-4"), development of the Property shali be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers here'm shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance. These proffers shall supersede ali other proffers made prior to this date, including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-84-29, but only to the extent that such prior proffers affect the Property. I. DENSITY No more than 127 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 D~. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jannans Gap Road) not to exceed 30' to the centerline of the exist'rog pavement. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed. 2 2.2 Road Improvements. Access shall be restricted to an internal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat approval. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a 100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot taper for westbound right turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lots 67 and 68, and until such time as the property subject to ZlVlA-84-29 ("Northern Tract") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 in the area between Lots 67 and 68 shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated May 28, 1998 prepared by Dewberry & Davis (the "Conceptual Plan"). At such time as the Northern Tract is developed, Applicant, or the developer of the Northern Tract will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emergency vehicles through the Northern Tract to State Route 684. 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated pursuant to proffer 2.1 is not used, for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be conveyed as common open space to the Associatiou (defined in 5.5(a) below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezm~ing in accordance with the ZMA 97-12 application. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property. In the event that the $500.00 contributions, after they are received by the County, are not used. within 20 years after recordation of a plat of the 127th lot, then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a future street to provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55, Parcels 66, and 66A). The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be between Lots 9 and 10, as shown on the Conceptual l~lan. At such time as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting road between Lots 9 and 10, Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remaining acreage, ff any, within the area between Lots 9 and 10 shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use the area between LOts 9 and 10 for a building lot (notwithstanding the density limitation contained in Article I above) or at Applicant's option, such area may accrue to the adjoining lots. 3 IH. RECREATIONAL AND BLrFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas: Walking/Jog~ng Trails. Applicant, or the Association, (de£med in 5.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational improvements and picnic areas in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property~ Except as specifically set forth here'm, the recreational and picnic improvements to be constmcted within the open space areas shall be constructed as a condition of the platting of the sixty-third (63rd) lot within the Property (50% of the lots to be developed). Applicant shall constmct a tot lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan~r-The~Yt-kX-} [and shall construct an additional tot lot on the area designated Lot 10 on the Conceptual Plan. The two tot lots] shall contain the equipment requ'ued by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the spec'ffications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walking/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The surface of the walking/jogging trail shall consist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept to a m'mimum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot, basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Noxthern Tract. In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than 10%. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish a 50' Buffer Area kteasemen~ along the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan, Applicant shall plant within the 50' Buffer Area 50 shade trees (the equivalent of 1 tree for every 40 linear feet of Buffer Area). The trees to be planted within the Buffer Area will be spaced and grouped to take advantage of, and to supplement existing vegetation. Trees will be chosen from VDOT's major tree listing. Trees will be 2- 2-1/2" caliper at the time of planting. The 50' Buffer Are~ shall ~mainmined-}[consist of 30' of dedicated open space to the Association and a 20' easement which shall run to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association, as provided by the Declaration. The trees proffered herein shall be planted in the area dedicated to the Association. The 50t Buffer Area shall be maintained by the Association and] by the owners of the lets encumbered by th~ easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i) construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening.{ ~ 50' 3.3 ,- -in' t -- '~ . As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant, or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the 30' area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. (State Route 691) tree screening along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance area). Except in the areas where either the cul de sacs shown on the Conceptual Plan terminate near Jarmans Gap Road, or near the joining of Lots 80 and 84, Lots 84 and 85, and Lots 88 and 89, in which street trees will be provided, the screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on-center, m accordance with Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanent open space area 20' in width (measured from the edged of the State Route 691 dedication). The 20' open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association, and may include stormwater management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road .system. at 40 foot intervals, (staggered, on both sides of the roads) as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained and replaced as necessary, by the Applicant, or the Association and shall be from species approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. 3.4 Walking Trail: [Sidewalks:l Greenway Corridor. Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cul de sacs, as shown on the Conceptual Plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall he maintained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of {4' } [6~] in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The internal walking trail shall be installed as each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. Jif the County Department of Pllmnin~ and Comulunity Development recommends pursuant to approval of the first preliminary plat for the subdivision that sidewalks be provided on both sides of the street, Applicant shall substitute 4' wide sidewalks for the 6' wide walking trail.] At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system connecting Jarmans Gap Estates, Gray Rock, Orchard Acres and downtown Crozet, Applicant shall dedicate the walking/jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use within such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Management Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that, to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minimizes pollution to the tributary of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be approved by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the exist'rog ponds in the'nc present, natural state, retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the requked contribution for the regional stormwater retention under the Ordinance. IV NORTHERN TRACT The area depicted on the attached Schematic Plan for Grayrock North, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, dated June 3, 1998 ("Schematic ?lan") is subject to zoning under ZMA-84-29, ("Northern Tract"). The Northern Tract is currently zoned PRD to allow 70 5 towahouse units. Applicant proffers to reduce the permitted density on the Northern Tract from 70 townhouse units to a maximum of 27 single family, detached units and to submit a rezoning request for the reduction of permitted density thereon to 27 single family, detached units. Applicant shall submit such rezoning request within six (6) months of the approval of ZMA-97-12. Applicant acknowledges that its submittal of such rezouing request shall be for the consideration by the Board of Supervisors and that the Board's acceptance of these proffers shall in no way be construed as the Board's pre-approval of such request. Applicant shall diligently pursue the rezoning request (under either a PRD or R-I classification). If Applicant diligently pursues the rezoning of the Northern Tract as provided here'm, and such rezoning is denied, this proffer shall have been deemed satisfied and Applicant shall be free to develop the Northern Tract under the exist'rog zoning. If the Applicant fails to submit its rezoning request or fails to pursue the application diligently, then the Applicant shall be deemed in violation of these proffers, and the County may exercise all available remedies at law or in eqnity against the Applicant and the Property, including but not limited to the suspension of issuance of building and other permits for the development of the Property until the applicant is in compliance with such proffers. Applicant shall submit as part of its re-zoning application for the Northern Tract. a proffer that the development of the Northern Tract shall be in general accord with the Schematic l~lan, subject to adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards. V OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 5.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restn'ctions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. 5.2 ~. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community. 5.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and ('fii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 5.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will nol participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water low flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 5.5 Maintenance of Landscaping, Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscap'mg, open space, ('mcinding open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: The Applicant shall organi?e a Home Owners Association (the "Assoc'mtion") as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"). The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas. 7 The Applicant or such Association shall provkle a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration' s method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to idenfffy common areas in a site development plan or subdivision plat. The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. The Association shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the fac'ffities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended fimction. Such Assoc'mtion shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Association to own and maintain the Common Areas. VI. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 6.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application. an initial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, or as part of the rezoning process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall not be deemed a proffer. 6.2 ' n - - ~ :,1 P1 . Exl~ i. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is be'mg used to illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the requ'trements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards, development of the Property shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. House locations shown on the Conceptual Plan are for illustrative purposes only. VII. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Certificate, The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 7.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall mn with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. FRIED COMPANIES, INC. By: ROBERT S. SAVAGE ANN S. SAVAGE PROFFER STATEMENT FRIED COMPANIES, INC. REZONING APPLICATION: #ZMA-97-12 February 18, 1998 Revised June 12, 1998 FRIED COMPANIES, INC. (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser, and ROBERT S. SAVAGE and ANN S. SAVAGE are the fee simple owners of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-97-12 as a portion of Tax Map Reference 55. Parcels 65 and 65A. The property subject to the rezoning application is only the 53.02 acres of the total 74 acres contained in Tax Map Parcels 55- 65 and 65A, and at the time of the filing of the application was zoned PRD under ZMA-84-29, also referred m as Jarman Gap Estates II, PRD (the "Property"). The Applicant, Robert S.. and Ann S. Savage hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board~of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") to the R4 Residential District CR-4"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the following proffers pursuant m Section 15.2-2298 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). If Applicant's Rezoning Application is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (i) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (ii) County ordinance or regulation. including the Ordinance. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior to this date. including those proffers made by Applicant in ZMA-84-29. but only to the extent that such prior proffers affect the Property. I. DENSITY No more than 127 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the ftrst section of the subdivision. Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) not to exceed 313 to the centerline of the existing pavement. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed. 3. 2.2 Roa~l Imprgvements. Access shall be restricted to an internal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Deparnnem of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdivision plat approval. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a 100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot taper for westbound right turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lots 67 and 68, and until such time as the property subject to ZMA-84-29 ("Northern Tract") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 in the area between Lots 67 and 68 shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated May 28, 1998 prepared by Dewberry & Davis (the "Conceptual Plan~). At such time as the Northern Tract is developed, Applicant, or the developer of the Northern Tract will provide a gated access [gravel drive~ for emergency vehicles through the Northern Tract to State Route 684. 2.3 Disposition of Dedicated Property.. In the event any of the property dedicated pursuant to proffer 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the property by the County, then the property shall be conveyed as common open space to the Association (defined in 5.5(a) below). 2.4 State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall participate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying m the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residential building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezomng in accordance with the ZMA 97-12 application. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be developed on the Property, In the event that the $500.00 contributions, after they are received by the County, are not used, within 20 years after recordation of a plat of the 127th lot. then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a future street to provide inter-parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55. Parcels 66, and 66A). The location of the reserved area for inter-parcel connection shall be between Lots 9 and 10. as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such time as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting road between Lots 9 and 10, Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property.. and the remaining acreage, if any, within the area between Lots 9 and 10 shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use the area between Lots 9 and 10 for a building lot (notwithstanding the density limitation contained in Article I above) or at Applicant's option, such area may accrue to the adjoining lots. 2 III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas: Walking/Jogging Trails. Applicant, or the Association, (defined in 5.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational improvements and picnic areas in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property. Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and picmc improvements to be constructed within the open space areas shall be constructed as a condition of the platting of the sixty-third (63rd) lot within the Property (50% of the lots to be developed). Applicant shall construct a tot lot and basketball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan. The tot lot shall contain the equipment required by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Applicant shall establish a walkfing/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The surface of the walking/jogging trail shall consist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept to a mimmum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot. basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Northern Tract. In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than 10 %. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall establish a 50' Buffer Area ~aeeaem along the western boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. Applicant shall plant within the 50' Buffer Area 50 shade trees (the equivalent of 1 tree for every 40 linear feet of Buffer Area). The trees to be planted within the Buffer Area will be spaced and grouped to take advantage of, and to supplement existing vegetation. Trees will be chosen from VDOT's major tree listing. Trees will be 2- 2-1/2" caliper at the time of planting. The 50' Buffer Area shall be maintained by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state. and shall not be disturbed other than to: i ~ construct fences or walls, approved by the Association. ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening The 50' ~ Buffer Area easement shall~fit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Associ,ation as provided b.~ the.Declaration. ~ ~t ~ " '~ ~ ' ~ 6c 3.3 ~ Landsca¢ine: Utilities. g~ a condiUon of plat approval for the ftrst section of the subdivision. Applicant. or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the 30' area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 6911 tree screen/rig along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance area~. Except in the areas where either the cul de sacs shown on the Conceptual Plan terminate near Jarmans Gap Road, or near the joining of Lots 80 and 84, Lots 84 and 85, and Lots 88 and 89, in which street trees will be provided, the screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet q~-center, in accordancewi~' 3 Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanem open space area 20' in width (measured from the edged of the State Route 691 dedication). The 20' open space area along State Route 691 shall be rna'retained by the Association, and may include stormwater management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at 40 foot intervals, (staggered, on both sides of the roads) as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be maintained and replaced as necessary, by the Applicant. or the Association and shall be from species approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. 3.4 Walking Trail: Greenwav Corridor. Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cul de sacs, as shown on the Conceptual Plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall be maintained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of 4' in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The internal walking trail shall be installed as each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. At such time as the Board nf Supervisors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system connecting Jarmans Gap Estates, Gray Rock, Orchard Acres and downtown Crozet, Applicant shall dedicate the walking/jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use with'm such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Managemem Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that. to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minirnizes pollution to the tributary, of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be approved by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the existing ponds in their present, natural state, retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the required contribution for the regional stormwater retention under the Ordinance. IV NORT}IERN. TRACT The area depicted on the attached Schematic Plan for Grayrock North. prepared by Muncaster Engineering, dated June 3, 1998 ("Schematic Plan") is subject m zomng under ZMA-84-29, ("Northern Tract"). The Northern Tract is currently zoned PRD to allow 70 townhouse units. Applicant proffers to reduce the permitted density on the Northern Tract from 70 towahouse units to a maximum of 27 single family, detached units and to submit a rezoning request for the reduction of permitted density thereon to 27 single family, detached units. Applicant shall submit such rezoning request within six (6~ months of the approval of ZMA-97-12. Applicant acknowledges that its submittal of such rezoning request shall be for the consideration by the Board of Supervisors and that the Board's acceptance of these proffers shall in no way be construed as the Board's pre-approval of such request. Applicant shall diligently pursue the rezoning request Cunder either a PRD or R-1 classification). If Applicant diligently pursues the rezoning of the Northern Tract as provided herein, and such rezoning is denied, this proffer shall have been deemed satisfied and Applicant shall be free to develop the Northern Tract under the existing zoning. If the Applicant fails to submit its rezoning request or fails m pursue the application diligently, then the Applicant shall be deemed in violation of these proffers, and the County may exercise all available remedies at law or in equity against the Applicant and the Property, including but not Ynnited to the suspension of issuance of building and other permits for the development of the Property until the applicant is in compliance with such proffers. Applicant shall submit as part of its re-zoning application for the Northern Tract, a proffer that the development of the Northern Tract shall be in general accord with the Schemaftc Plan, subject to adjustments for f'mal engineering and to comply with the requkements of the Albemarle County Subd'tvision Ordinance and Virginia Depatm~ent of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards. V OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 5.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Property. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. 5.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Gnidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residemial community. 5.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height restrictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 5.4 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are implemented; Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project: and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water Iow flow showers and toilets as water conservation techniques. 5.5 Maintenance of Landscaping. Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscaping, open space, (including open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: (a) The Applicmat shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association") as a non-stock organization under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"). (b) The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas. (c) The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifymg Common Areas as to location, size. use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable requirements to identify common areas in a site development plan or subdivision plat. (d) The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration. (e) The Association shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Association to own and maintain the Common Areas. VI. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 6.1 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application. an initial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant's rezonlng application, or as part of the rezoning process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall not be deemed a proffer. 6.2 Conceptual Plan Exhibk. These proffers refer to the Conceptual Plan which is being used to illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards, development of the Property shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. House locations shown on the Conceptual Plan are for illustrative purposes only. VH. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Certificate. The undersigned. Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. 7.2 The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meamng, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. FRIED COMPANIES. INC. Title: ~k~ ~.--~ " ROBERT S. SAVAGE ANN S. SAVAGE DRAFT DRAFT Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18&iS). 'public hearing on a requese to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. Loc on N side of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Rd) approx 1.3 mls W of Crozet. TM55, Pcts 65&65A (portion). Access to the property from Rt 691 [The property is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan.] White Hall Dmst. (DEFERRED FROM FEBRUARY 18, 1998.) Mr. Citimberg said the applicant has prepared proffers to go along with their plan of development, but they have not yet been signed. Mr. Davis said the applicant's attorney has provided him with a copy of the revised proffers. He has had a chance no review the proffers, and he suggested that Mr. Keeler explain the changes to the proffers since the last time the Board saw them. Before beginning the staff report, Ms. Eumphris asked what the map labeled Grayrock North referred to. Mr. Keeter said the map is referred to by Proffer No. IV, which deals with the northern tract, and was included in the recommendation portion of the Executive Summary. Mr. Keeter then read Proffer No. IV. Mr. Davis said the proffer assures ~he Board that tke applicant will file a rezoning for the northern tract to reduce the density to 27 single- family dwellings. The proffer does not obligase the Board co approve that zoning, but the Board would have the opportunity to consider it. If the rezoning request ms denied, the land would remamn zoned PRD for 70 townhouses, if approved, mt would be zoned for 27 single-family dwellings. That would be a future decision of the Board. The Board carneot predecide that by 1cs actmon in this zonmng petition. Ms. Humphris said that that particular sectmon has had a lot added to it and she has not had an opporcunmty to exammne it. Mr. Davms said there was some added language to this ~roffer because the staff wanted to make it clear that the Board was not pre-deciding the northern uracu issue. There was also some minor clarifications and amendments regarding landscapmng and other staff concerns. Ms Humphris said she had understood that the Board had a rule about proffers and their timing. Mr. Davms agreed. Mr. Ron Keeler, ihief of Planning, said this request was last before the Board on February 18. 1998. The Board deferred accmon to gmve the applicant the opportunity co meet with residents of the area regarding design concepts and design alternatives. The plan before the Board, ~o the left, is the applicant's atcempu 5o address those concerns. The applicant also submitted revised proffers and the conceptual plan ms proffered. Staff would offer two general commenns regarding comparison of the nwo plans. Compared to the old ~lan, the new plan effectively eliminates double-frontage lots along Jarman's Gap Road. Counuy regulations discourages double-frontage lots. The change along Jarman's Gap Road was zn response to a suggestion that the houses face the road as opposed to backing up to the road. Secondly, the layou5 of the current plan attempts a grid-road system. Roadway length and impervmous surfaces mncrease by about ten percent, while the number of lots has been reduced by four. This site zn within a reservoir watershed, where mmnimizmng impervious coverage or pavement is desirable. In addition, the applicant has proffered to submit another rezonmng petition to rezone the area north of the lakes, which would reduce the number of units from 70 to 27. The Plarining staff had reco~uended approval of this petition under the proposed density Of 2.6 un,ts per acre. This rezoning would reduce density from that 2.6 un.ts to two units per acre. In its original report, staff expressed concerns about not approaching the residential densities recou~uended by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the recommendation, staff primarily discusses procedural ma~ters. Staff offers three alternatives for the Board regarding Proffer 4: 1) Should the Board conL~nue to feel that both the ares u~der this petition and the area north of the lakes should be reviewed ~ogether, then it should defer action on this petition to allow the north area ~o be added and the consolidated area ~o be review and s%ubject to Plannin9 Commission and Board public hearing, 2) If the Board believes the original overall density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre to be reasonable for this properEy, the proffer re~arding future rezoning should not be accepted (Proffer IV}. 3) If the Board believes the petition, as amended, ~s acceptable and wishes uo entertain a lower density, Proffer IV should be accepted and this rezoning approved. Staff would recommend tkat cauuzon be exercised regarding any indication of future action on this area north of the lakesJ Mr. Keeler co~mented that this reporE and comments were written prior to receipt of these latest proffers. ~s. Humphris asked if there were a road connecElon between Grayrock and Grayrock North. Mr. Keeler replied that there was an emergency access connection only, consistent with prior approval. There is ao5 an roadway usable by the residents. The roadway is uo the left of the plan and shown as a pedestrlan-way, that would be improved so that emergency vehicles could use Mr. Davis explained that if the Board decides Lo refer this requesu back to the Plannin~ Commission sc the entire northern tract and property before the Board could be considered uogether, the northern [racu is nou in front of the Board or Planning Commission unless the applicant ~mends the application or fil~s a new zoning application for the properuy. The Board, on its own, cannot include that 5ract as pare of this rezon~ng application. He said the applicant's atuorney has ~dv~sed him that if the Board does not need the northern uracu to be part of the proffer, they are willing uo withdraw thee proffer. He has not had any communication that the applicant ls willin9 to amend the application to add the northern uracu. If the applicant amended the ~pplication, it would requzre a new public hea~ing, ~dvertisement and Pla/~nlng -Commission consideration. Ms. Humphris asked if the revised plan had been seen by the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis replied that it had not At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicants wished ~o make any commenus. Mr. Steve Blaine. representing the applicant, Fried Company, said the proffers were submitted to staff on June 4 Changes since then have been in response to co~men~s, q~esuions and concerns by s~aff. ~e had expressed concerns about noL receiving staff comments last Wednesday, but said that he gave staff lenience because of their heavy workload, and asked for leniency from the Board. Mr. Blaine said the conclusion of the February meeuln~, the applicant was urged 5o consult neigh_bors, citizens and Crozet community members who were interested in this proposal, and specifically uo address design issues associated with the development. The applicant has done that. Two meetings were held, one in March and one in May, intended for citizens to provide ideas about the projecn. Written invitations no both meetmngs were sent no over 200 neighbors, local planners and cormnuni~y members. The meeting were also advertised in the Daily Progress. The applicant engaged the firm of Dewberry & Davis to assist in facilitating the design discussions with the citizens. Mr. Gary Kirkbride from Dewberry facilitated the discussions an the meetings of the Crozet citizens. Both meetings were well-attended by local residents. The Bayberry Homeovn/ers Association provided ideas in writing. The Board was provided with these comments and the applicant has incorporated these ideas into the revised plan for the development. He then introduced Mr. Kirk-bride of Dewberry & Davis, who would describe the ideas the applicant received from the nelgbJoors and citizens, ~u~d how the applicant incorporated those ideas into the revised plan Also, present was Mr. Couture, who would also make a brief presentation on the changes co the specific design elements of the revised plan. After their presentations, he will be available no answer specific questions about the proffers. Mr. Gary Kirkbride said when Dewberry ~ Davis was first invited no part%clpate with the citizens, they received a nur~ber of commenns and observations, over a wide range from no developmenn no creating additional development beyond what was proposed. Mr. Kirkbride said he would summarmze number of those commenns and how they were responded to~ Some specific commen~s include: Conce~ sbout overall density of the entire project including property to the north. They have responded by reducin9 the proposed density by 25 percent from that which was originally proposed. Need for a varmeny of lot sizes. The revised plan has been redesigned no provide lot s~zes that now range from 11,000 no 19,000 square feet~ Houses are now proposed to have only front or side yards toward Jarman's Gap Road. Concern about Jarman's Gap Road fronLage. The frontage of this properny has been completely redesigned to propose u/lits which only front or have side roads onno Jarman's Gap Road. Concern about sidewalks curb and gutter. They have provided a plan whick provides a pedestrian system which allows for a walkway in front of or directly across the snreet from every lot proposed in the pro]ecn, and all of those have been integrated into the open space which cen~ers around the pond in the cenner of the project. Concern about buffers They have provided a 50 foot buffer along Jarman's Gap Estates property boundary and an additional 20 foot buffer along the fronnage to coincide with the redesign of the frontage along Jarman's Gap Road. Concern about access for pedestrian ~nd vehicle access to the properny no the easn. That has been identified and provided for mn the plan. Need for recreation areas. They have provided both active and passive recreation in conjunction with the pond area. The pedestrian system coincide to lead and 9uide people to those open space areas. Concern about a more detailed landscape plan and architectural guidelines They have provided a more detailed landscape plan. Concern about dead-end streets and mln~mlzzng those. Ail of the cul-de-sacs, as originally proposed, have been eliminated. There are now two turn-around areas which provide emergency access onto Jarman's Gap Road. Mr. Dennis Couture, a landscape architecE with the firm of Dewberry & Davis, said that there have been several concept changes since the original plan. The difference in the plans have eo do a little bit with reacting to comments from the community, but also the relationship of this proposed residential neighborhood and its surroundings. The changes include making it fit in better with surrounding neighborhoods. The original plan included double-frontage lots with the rear of the lots facing Jarman's Gap Road. The applicants are now suggesting that the front and sides of the houses face Jarman's Gap Road, bracketed by a 20 foot landscape easement on the frontage. Instead of evergreen trees, they will use canopy urees to open up the exposure into the community, and continue evergreen plantings to enhance the przvacy associated with the side views to the residences siding on Jarman's Gap Road This scenario basically opens up the commuknity to the greater community. This is an integral part of the overall Jarman's Gap neighborhood. It also allows for the penetration visually, views into the commu/tity aE multiple points, pedestrian access and continuation of potential emergency vehicle access. Dewberry & Dav~s also looked at the overall street layout and have come up with a modified grid. It now runs north-south where the terrain is relatively flat and skewing lu [o an easE-west relationship which runs with the contours on the far western side of the property. The block size has been reduced, which causes better pedestrian circulation within the community. They have three pedestrian ~onnectlons to the open space system au the northern side If the greenway system expands, it would allow a park exposure with pedestrian access aE multiple po~nus on the rear side. Also, from the entry-point from Jarman's Gap Road. they have vehicle access Eo the rear end of the property, with pedestrian access to the open space section. There is now increased flexibility regarding house siting. With the limited nunfoer of corner lots. there were only eight opportunities for side-loaded ~arages. With the increase in street frontage and intersections, there are now 18-20 opportunities to have the houses skewed on corners and create variation Lo the sereeu-scape. They are continu~n9 with the buffer along the western boundary, and are looking for Integration for vehicular circulation to the proposed community on the ease side. Mr. Marshall asked what the applicant would like the Board uo do about Proffer IV. Mr. Kirkbride said. as a result of their second meeting, it was clear that there was s general consensus that the applicant had responded positively 5o the ~ssues ~hat had been brought about and the applicants felt sney had made considerable progress. Mr. Blaine urged the Board to accept th~ proffer which will give the Board the option ~o review the appropriateness of the zonmng au a later cmme. The current zoning is PRD. The propermy is separated by ponds topographically and lc ms difficult to provide access ¢o mn The benefit of the proffer is that it allows the applicant sc move forward on their application with the promise to slzbmit the dow~zoning on the northern tract, which would be considered during the normal process. The option co put the entire plan back mo the Planning Corammssion would be unfair, since that could have been done at the February meeting. The Board urged the applicanc to meet with the citizens and the neigh_bors. The applicant has met with citizens as requested and is now offering the new plan with an option that does non have co be decided tonight. Mr. Blaine agamn urged the Board co accept Proffer IV in approvmng the zonmng application Mr. Davis said mt ms a policy question for the Board. as to ~nether or not the Board feels it needs to decide the northern trace issue before deciding the application. If that is a major consideration as to how the two properEies that are adjacent Eo each other interact, then the Board may non want to proceed. If this zoning application could be decided independently of the PRD tract, then it ms appropriate to go ahead and decide on this maEter. Mr. Perkins said that he was the one who requested this, and he feels comfortable gomng ahead with the proffer and co consider the rezoning of the northern tract at a later date. Mr. Blaine said he feels the plan is one that the neighborhood and participants will be proud of. This is a plan that had true nemghborhood mnput. At this time, Mr Marshall opened the meeting co the public for comments. Mr. Ermc Strucko, a member of the Development Areas Initiative Steermng Committee and Housing Committee, said he attended the May 27th meeting the Fried Company conducted He ms here tonight co ask that the Board send this application back co the Planning Commmssmon for additional work sessmons and refinemenEs. While smgnificant mmprovemenc has been made, there are still improvements that muse be made before it meets the standards of Albemarle County growth management policies. The current proposal fails to include certain fundamental characteristics of growth area development that are emerging from the work of the DAIS Committee. First, the proposal offers homogenous residential use no light commercial or retail activity and more importantly, no useful common central recreational space exmsts in the plan~ The space around the pond ms jusn s gesture, calling undevelopable renu/anus of land, recreational space. The residences are all single-family detached units with a mmnlmum purchase price of S150.000. These aspects do not reconcile with the mixed-use and diverse-housing -type values eufoodied zn the DAIS Committee's work. Also the cosus Kre prohibitive to natmves or long-tmme residents of Albemarle County. The currenu proposal does not meet certain key aspects of the sustainability accords, by non promoting the integration of business, recreational, residential and open space The Fried Company may argue that achieving these goals of a sustainable communmty that complies with DAIS standards ms unmarketable. He has heard a realtor disagree. He also has seen design plans for the adjacenn Bargammn or Waylands Grant property. This property is everything that the Fried Company proposal is not with mixed use, diverse housing, central open recreation space, affordable housin~ and a design that fosters econommc and social interactmon. If the owners, developers, architects and business people connected with the Waylands Granu property can mee¢ bhe DAIS and sustainability goals, which is immediately adjacent to Grayrock, then why cannot the Fried Company do the same. If the Board approves the current Fried Company proposal, then you will create a poorly planned community along Jarman's Gap Road. He has found that the Fried Company becomes quite iD//ovative with design when persuaded that their plans need revisions to meet the standards of Albemarle County. He encouraged the Board to vote to send these proposal back Go the Plarining Commission. Mr. Richard Berman said that he is concerned about the overpopulation of western klbemarle Cou3aty. He is astounded that someone who does not own the property can apply for a zoning variance. He is also concerned about the proposed increase an density on the property. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, distributed 5o Board members correspondence from Mr Will Rieley, a member of the Planning Commission, expressang his concerns about the plan currently before the Board. Mr. Rieley's concerns directly marror those raised by the residents of the Jarman's Gap neighborhood. Concerns that have no5 changed since the beglnnang of discussions between the applicant and the neaghborhood. Also, Mr. David Tace. another member of the Plar~/ing Commission, has endorsed Mr. Rieley's comments. While the list submitted by Mr. Rieley is substantial, aE is amportan5 co note that his observations are based on only a brief exposure to the plan sad he is sure there are more things 5o consider. The meetings involved the applicant telling the community what they are going to do, and why they cannot make the changes suggested by the communlEy. There are no real changes made to the plan from the mee~angs; there as still no open space poor landscapang, lack of complete sidewalks including curb and gutter, lack of any meaningful reflection of the existing communaty, and siting of houses in a manner described by Mr. Rieley as clumsy. The plan should be sene back the Planning Commission for further review and rework. The proposal should be considered within the context o~ building a neagb_borhood and communaty. In his o~inaon, ~t is clear that Crozet Elementary School will be u~able Lo handle the increased enrollment from ~rayrock and the adjacenE Wayland Grant property. Mr. A1 Reaser. of the School Division. has indicated that there are no plans for e×panston of Crozet Elementary so so this ~ncrease in students will require redistricting. Implementation of the two developments as every bit ~s important as the design~and that amplementation has not yet been discussed. Additionally, the neighborhood is looking a~ an ~ncrease of three times the number of homes recommended in the 1985 PRD. They were told not 5o worry because the Six Year Road Plan includes road amprovemenEs for Jarman's Ga~ Road. He asked what will happen if those road amprovements do hoe happen. Whil~ the communaty is willing ~o debate the design, they ~re not willing to compromise on the welfare on the current catazens o~ the neigb]Dorhood. Mr. Paul Grady, a resident outside of the Crozet area, said he read the sustainability accords articl~ written by Mr. Bowerman, of which one ~s Eo optimize the use and re-use of developed land and 5o promote clustering in residential areas and integration of business, industry, residen%ial, recreational and open space. If the Board believes this statement to be in the best interest for the future of the County, it muse reject this proposal. The proposal simply is no¢ dense enough. The applicant has spent too much 51me Eryang to cater to the whims of the residents of Jarman's Gap Estates and has agnored the effects of this project on the whole County. He suggested that the area north of the hake may no~ be the best location for the uownhouses, but the easuern section of the area south of the lakes with a grid street sysnem and a connection uo the adjacent properuy may be. He also suggested a vehicular connecnion between north and south, perhaps with a bridge or large culvert that would facilitate for a foot path uo go under the road; renention of the main house on the proper~y as a community center and creation of an open play area adjacent uo in; and smaller lots and a varieuy of smaller houses. Be also attended the May 27th public meeting, but he did not have any suggested alternatives at that time. The proposed houses are ou~ of the price range of 90 percenu of Crozet residents. He canno~ see building houses that the people who live there cannot afford uo buy. Mr. Charles Trachta said last time he spoke uo the Board about Grayrock was when the Still Meadows' requesu was coming uo a conclusion. After a compromise was reached on Still Meadows, they asked the Board ~o have Grayrock do uhe same thing. The Grayrock meetings were not compromises. The developer was not willing To give up anything or deal with the community, but only uo tell the communiuy what he would do. The developers of Still Meadows made many concessions, but the developers of Grayrock were not. Me ~sked that the Board suppor~ the citizens of Crozet and send this request back to the Planning Commission. With no one else from the pu]01ic r~sing To speak, Mr. Marshall closed the pkhblic hearing and placed the mauuer before the Board. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis to answer the question raised by Mr. Berman, about how someone could ask for a rezonlng on property they did non own. Mr. Dav~s replied that the State Code and the County's Zoning Ordinance allows a piece of property Eo be rezoned upon the application of a contract purchaser with the owner's written consent. That is the suauus of this application. Fried Company are the opnlon purchasers and the Savages are the proper~y o~ers. ~he proffers are signed by both paru~es and the application is properly before the Board. Ms. Eumphris said that nothing has been done to change the 50 foot buffer next uo Jarman's Gap Estates: it will still be under individual ownerships. There will be a number of Grayrock properuy owners who have the buffer easement in their deeds with control by the Homeowners' Association, which will make it difficult to enforce. She believes that Mr. Rieley stated it well when he said that ~the sell-it~ and call-it buffer approach ~o the wesuern edge of the properny is still in place. Because this ls also the location of the old road urace this sEr~p should be ~n single ownership with a real easemenE in place". She noted that the Board discussed this issue previously and that also was the requesu of the public, with nothin~ being done abouu it. She also noticed there were comments from VDOT or staff about the layouu of the tots wi~h Lots 1~ 2, 91 and 92 needin9 to be accessed by an inuernal-loop road, because o~ problems with go~n~ across the divided and behind the median au the entrance road. There are also problems with the joint driveways that serve LoZs 84, 85, 88 and 89. She also wanted ~o know where the children are goin9 ~o play; a parenu certainly would hOE send them do~ to the pond uo play. There needs uo be a place in a housing developmenu this dense uo allow children Eo play. There is no menu~on of a shelf design for the ponds for safeuy. She felt that there were so many changes that she would like ~o have the Plannin~ Commission analyze the plan. She supports sending the plan back Eo the Commission. Mr. Perkins said that he had attended one of the meetings in Croze~. The public gave mixed messages, asking for contradictory things, i.e.. no density, less density, more density. He thinks the developer has done commendable job in answering most of the concerns, since the~ could satisfy everyone. He thinks the Board is smart enough to make a judgment. Ms. Humphris said that the density issue should be set~led by the Commission. Staff is saying that the plan ~s not dense enough. Mr. Perkins replied that the Crozet Plan says that it is dense enough~ He believes that he is as qualified as anyone to say who ~s right and who is wrong~ He thinks this is a good density, even though it does not meet the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for this area is extremely ou~ of line and has ~oo high a density. He does not think the density is acceptable to the Crozet community. This is in a growth area, so something will end up going there. He thinks the Board may as well move forward with wbmt is before them. Ms. Humphris said she believes very strongly that there were too many things still wrong with this plan to be approved at this tmme. Mr. Bowerman asked about the 50 foot buffer. He said there were discussions about putting that place in open space Mr. Blaine said the applicant had offered that to the landowners, but they could not offer 50 foot because there was not adequate depth of the lots. The owner could do 30 feet in fee simple open space uo the Homeowners' Assoclatzon or the owner could do 50 feet in an easement. There have been examples of open space buffers through easement and as long as you have the same restrictions that would be enforced as open space, that gives the same outcome. Mr. Bowerman said that open space which is attached to a lot is more difficult to not unbuffer by the property owner, whereas open space owned by the Homeowners Association ~s. Still Meadows used a combination of the two, if he remembers correctly. Combining the ~wo methods of buffering would be one alternative. Mr. Blaine said that the applicant would be amenable to amending the proffer in such a manner, if that is an important issue. Mr. Blaine said that ~n reply tc Ms. Humphris' comment regarding road access, this could be addressed ~n the subdivision and engineering process. With regard to the common driveways, the plan ~s illustrative and could be amended to comply with Engineering staff's comments, as can the entranceway uo accommodate the ~wo lots that are a~ the entrance to provide a safe access. As far as the issue of shelf design, the applicant did measurements of the pond area and determined that there was not a steep drop-off of the pond. The engineers said that shelving was not required because of the shallow depths out to distances of almost 15 uo 20 ~eet off shore. Regarding Mr. Rieley's comments, the applicant did not have the benefit of those commenEs. It is a bit awkward for public statements made by a Planning Commissioner not be shared with the applicant, if they were made to enhance and improve the plan. Ms. Thomas said that this is a better plan and appreciates the applicant's efforts, but changes of 5his magnitude should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, if staff thinks both sections, which includes the north portion should be reviewed at the same time, that's what the Board should do. Mr. Perkins asked what the applicant needs to do ~o change the proffer regarding the easement. Mr Davis said zt would have ~o be reduced ~o writing and submitted as part of the proffer smanemen~. Mr. applicant is prepared to do that az this umme. Mr. recess would be necessary. Mr. Davis replied ~yes", intent to vote tonight and accept the proffers. Mr. need a break no revise the proffers. Blaine indicated that the Perkins asked whether s if it is the Board's Blaine said that he would Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting that the request be referred back to the Planning Commission and they look at the whole parcel, including the north parcel, under a different proposal by the applicant, or the Commission only look au what was before the Board tonight. Ms. Thomas replied that she would prefer the Commission look am the whole parcel together, but that would be up uo the applicant. Mr. Perkins said that he was prepared to make'a motion no approve ZMA- 97-12 subjecn to accepmance of the applicant's proffers as offered and amended. Mr. Blaine said as he understands, the essence of the proffer would be that the 50 foot buffer area would contain 30 feet fee smmple ownership as open space and 20 feet as an easemenn, with the same restrictions on the lot, but being in the form of an easemenm. At 9:12 p.m., Mr. Marshall recessed the Board, The Board reconvened an 9:25 p.m. Mr. Davis stated that Proffer 3.2 has been amended to now provide that the 50 foot buffer area shall consisn of 30 feet of dedicated open space co the Association and a 20 foot easemenu which shall run ~o the benefit of ~he Association and shall be enforced by the Association as provided in the declaration, and further provides that the crees proffered herein shall be planted in the area dedicated to the Assocmatmon. Mr. Martmn asked how large was the play area. Mr. Blaine said the potential play area is about the size of $ football field, if people do non fence the area. Mr. Marshall asked how children would gee mo the play area. Mr Blaine responded that there will be wood-chipped paths and trails in at least three locations down ~o the pond area. Mr, Keeler said that access mo the play area was covered mn Proffer 3.1 in the last senmence which says that the applicant shall install au least one pedestrian access uo the play area. Mr. Perkins said that when the Board firsn heard this in February, they asked the developer no meeu with the communmty and renurn with a different plan No plan will ever suit everyone, and he feels that the develDper did what they were asked. The Board does not have ~o approve this plan, but he does non think the Board should ask them uo do more. He asked whether the Board and applicant wished this mo be voted on or postponed. Mr. Marshall asked whether Mr. Perkins thought that this was the best plan the Board was going to geE. Mr. Perkins replied that there are only so many way you can tweak something. Mr_ Marshall asked if there were many people au the meetings who supported the plan. Mr. Perkins replied that this plan had not yet been concemved, the meetings were no gather inpu~ for the plan There were probably 25 to 30 people am the first meeming. The commenns from the public were conflicting, and he thinks the plan addresses many of the things that the citizens mentioned. Mr. Marshall asked if the people in the area would suppor~ the plan. Mr. Perkins replied that, since they were not in autendance at the meeting, there muss mot be much concerned. Mr. Marshall said he would supporu a motion. Mr. Perkins then offered motion ~o approve ZMA-97-12 subjecE co acceptance of the applicant's proffers as offered and amended. Mr. Martzn seconded the motion and said he agrees with Mr. Perkins ~hat the majority of the residents seemed co be zn acquiescence uo the plan. Roll was called and the moslon failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: MS. Thomas, Mr. BowermaL and Ms. Mumphris. Motion was then made by Ms. Thomas, ~o reconszder ZMA-97-12, because she believes the plan should be referred back to the Commission. Mr Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the mouion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, MS. Humph~is, Mr. Marshall, Mr Martin and Mr Perkins. NAYS: None. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Mumphris, to refer ZMA- 97-12 back ~o the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: MS Thomas, Mr. Eowerman, Mr Perkins. NAYS: None. Ms. Mumphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr Martin and Mr Cilimberg said before the Board tonight was the zoning of the area below the lakes which is what will go back to the Commission. Me asked if there were any further expecuaulons Mr. Marshall concurred, adding that lu was up no the applicant to include the northern section. Mr. Dav~s noted that if the plan was not amended, mt would non have to be readvertised om a second public hearing held. At this point, the application with the proffers would be submitted ~o the Planning Commission. It would be up ~o the applicant to modify the application, if they wished. ATTACHM~,.~:~ D / '%., J cd,'M.',,~% ~.i %1" I',,.r) M) i R.T 691) /. Plan GRAYRO ALBF_,M. KRLE COUIq"I~, VI2R. GINIA Scm TO TIlE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY We are business people in Crozet, and we support the rezoning of the Grco; Rockproper~yfor 127single-family homes. Our businesses depend on the patronage of local residents. We offer convenience and service and rely on repeat customers. We need more customers to keep our businesses viable. so that we don't lose customers to Charlottesville. We understand that a gentleman at the last hearing before the Board stated that Gray Rock should have commercial uses. No business couM survive with so few customers, and everything should be done to increase commercial activity in downtown Crozet, not hurt it. Please vote in favor of the Gray Rock rezoning. Nam e: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Nalne ~ Business: Address: TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY We are business people in Crozet, and we support the rezomng of the Gray Rockproper~v for127 single-family homes. Our businesses depend on the patronage of local residents. We offer convenience and service and rely on repeat customers. We need more customers to keep our businesses viable, so that we don't lose customers to Charlottesville. We understand that a gentleman at the last hearing before the Board stated that Gray Rock should have commercial uses. No business could survive with so few customers. and everything should be done to increase commerczal activity in downtown Crozet. not hurt it. Please vote in favor of the Gray Rock rezoning. Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Narne~ Business: Address: TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY We are business people in Crozet, and we support the rezoning of the Gray Rock property for127 single-family homes. Our businesses depend on the patronage of local residents. We offer convenience and service and rely on repeat customers. We need more customers to keep our businesses viable, so that we don't lose customers to Charlottesville. IYe understand that a gentleman at the last hearing before the Board stated that Gray Rock should have commercial uses. No business couM survive with so few customers, and everything should be done to increase commercial activity in downtown Crozet, not hurt it. Please vote in favor of the Gray Rock rezoning. Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: Name: Business: Address: PONDSAFETY LEDGES 2 1. The two ponds located at the Gray Rock site now comply, and will continue to comply after the project is developed, with all Albemarle County public safety ordinances and policies. This issue first arose at the initial planning commission meeting on February 3rd. At that meeting, Mr. Jack Kelsey was asked what safety measures, if any the County required for ponds in residential subdivisions. Mr. Kelsey stated that the County requires safety ledges for constructed storm water retention ponds only. The County does not require safety ledges for existing ponds that are intended for open space or passive recreation, such as the ponds at Gray Rock. 2. In response the question raised at the February Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant took depth measurements in both ponds at the distance of 15 feet from the shoreline. Attached at Tab 2 is a drawing showing the measurements taken on February 10, 1998. This information was presented to the Board of Supervisors at its February 18, 1998 meeting. 3. This topic was not raised again until the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 17. At that meeting, Mrs. Humphris expressed concern about the proximity to the ponds of the tot lot play area. The information about the depth measurements (Tab 2) was presented again in response to Mrs. Humphris' question. 4. At the July 28 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Reilly indicated that he would support the application if the Applicant would further address access to the ponds and child safety. In response to Mr. Reilly's comments, the Applicant obtained the County Engineering Department's policy manual specifications for storm retention ponds (specifications that are not required for ponds of the Gray Rock type, as indicated above). Attached at Tab 3 is a picture showing specifications for safety ledges. The recommended width of the safety ledges is 4' to 6'. The recommended water depth above the safety ledges is no greater than 36 inches. 5. On August 5, the Applicant took depth measurements at 6 feet from the pond edges in order to compare the natural depths to the recommended specifications for storm retention ponds. As you can see from the drawing at Tab 4, at no location, along the entire perimeter of the ponds, does this depth exceed 36" at 6' distance from the edge. 6. The ponds are mostly surrounded by thick vegetation consisting of trees, shrubs and msdergrowth. This currently provides a deterrent for access to the ponds in those areas. The Applicant is willing to work with the county staff to examane additional ways to provide deterrent for access to the ponds, such as low fencing or supplemental plantings, in order to supplement the existing, non-hazardous features of the ponds. 9 3"1Y.-~S O.L J. ON : I &o t I 3803'I AJ. 3.-I¥$ (]NOd NOI.LN3.L3 August 12, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Earnly Chapman, Trustee 1130 Zion Hill road Keswick, VA 22947 RE: SP-98-15 Zion Hill Baptist Church Tax Map 65, Parcels 105 and 106 Dear Mr. Chapman: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August I 1, 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: Church development shall be limfted to the improvements shown on the sketch plan dated July 20, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, and childrens' play equipment. 2 Approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the yard requirements. 3 Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment Two of the three existing entrances along Route 740 will be closed and the third will be improved to support two-way traffic by having a 30 foot width and 25 foot radii. The entrance from Route 22 will be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the right-of-way line as determined by the Engineering Department Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 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 heating date. Page 2 August 12, 1998 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/jcl Cc~ Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Zion Hill Baptist Church ST~FF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP AUGUST 4, 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 SP 98-15 Zion Hill Baptist Church Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to expand the existing church building to provide for a dining hall, additional restrooms, and additional fellowship area. The extent of the building addition in relation to the existing building is shown in Attachment C. No other changes to the site are proposed. The special use permit is required because there is no existing special use permit for the church and the building addition cur. stitutes the expansion of a nonconforming use. The special use permit request is for the existing use and the building addition. No site plan or site plan waiver request is required or is made with this project. The sketch plan, though, indicates the existing and proposed improvements. Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a church use in the rural areas. This petition is requested for parcels described as Tax Map 65, Parcels 105 and 106. The property is located in the R/vanna Magisterial District. (See Attachments A & B.) The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is recommended as Rural Area in the Land Use Plan. It is also located in an Entrance Corridor with EC zoning. Character of the Area: The area near the church is characterized as agricultural and large residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: There bas been congregational activity by Zion Hill Baptist Church at this location since 1891. The use is nonconforming because there is no existing special use permit for it. The building is nonconforming in setback. The addition to expand the building along the same plane requires a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. This variance will be heard on August 4, 1998. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as rural. Churches in rural areas arc viewed as supportive of the moral fiber of the rural community. Engineering Analysis: The County Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. No changes to the entrances from Routes 22 and 240 were originally proposed by the applicant. Staffbelieves that modifications are needed for safety reasons. The recommendations of the Engineering Department are provided in Attachment D. The sketch plan shows the recommended changes. Zoning Considerations: The property is located in an Entrance Corridor. The addition to the church will extend approximately 20 feet from the rear of the existing building, not exceed the height of the existing building, and use the same materials as the existing building. The Zoning Administrator has determined that this does nor constitute a "substantial change." Because it is not considered to be a "substantial change," it is exempt from ARB review. The church is located across the common property line of parcels 105 and 106. In order to make the church conforming to setback regulations, the Zoning Department has recommended that the parcels be combined into one parcel. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the rimht 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, There has been ongoing congregational activity at this location for almost 100 years. The building addition will expand the area of the building by 1800 square feet. Other than the addition, no exterior changes are proposed, with the exception of the driveway entrance modifications. There is not expected to be any effect on adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The rural areas district is characterized by open space, agricultural uses and very low density residential uses. The site is adjacent to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. The church addition is not expected to impact the agricultural and forestal district or change the character of the RA district. The church is considered a contributing building to the Southwest Mountain National Register Rural Historic District. The Design Planner has indicated the proposed expansion should not have a negative impact on the historic character of the resottrce (Attachment E). Most of the design "points" identified in this attachment will be necessary to remain exempt from ARB review and are consistent with the church's intent for the addition. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The RA zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for preservation of 2 agribultural and forestal lands and activities; provide for water supply protection; be an area of limited service delivery; and to conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. The church is viewed as a use supportive of rural Albemarle County residents. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-fight uses in the RA district are single family and duplex housing, agricultural uses. public buildings and uses; veterinary services; tourist lodging; mobile homes; and farm wineries. The proposed use is viewed as being in harmony with these uses. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations relating to churches. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. Regarding transportation safety, the Engineering Department, with recommendations from VDOT, is recommending as a condition of the special use permit that the three entrances along Route 740 be reduced to a single entrance. The numerous entrances on Route 740 near the intersection with Route 22 create potential safety issue. They are also recommending that the entrance from Route 22 be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the fight-of-way line. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: The Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to the rural areas in the County. No detrimental impact is anticipated as a result of this building addition. The church has been at this location for almost 100 years. Expansions of facilities often ensure a continuing presence of a congregation. Staffhas identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staffrecommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions: Church developmem shall be limited to the improvements shown on the sketch plan dated (revised date) July 20, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, and childrens' play equipment, Day care and other non-church related uses shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Two of the three existing entrances along Rome 740 shall be closed and the third shall be improved to support two-way traffic by having a 30 foot width and 25 foot radii. The entrance from Route 22 will be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the nght-of-way line as determined by the Engineering Department. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Parcel Map C - Sketch Plan showing the Zion Hill Baptist Church building addition and improvemems D - Engineering Memo E - Design Planner Memo C:kBACKUP\WPkSPkZIONHILL.SR __J SP 98.15 ZION HILL BAPTIST CHURCH ATTACHMENT A 0 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT B SEE 98-15 ZION HILL BAPTIST CHURCH 66 SA RIVANNA DI S'FRICT -----' ......... SECTION 6-5 ATTACHNYENTD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering and Publio Works 401 M¢lntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 229024596 (804) 296 -5841 Fax ~804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner FROM: Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer DATE: July 17. 1998 SUBJECT: SP 98-15 - Zion Hill Baptist Church Special Use Permit After the meeting today with Roger Ray at Zion Hill Baptist Church, and the determination from Zoning that a site plan is not necessary, the Engineering Department has the following changes m our comments of 25 June 1998. As we discussed with Roger. detail will be provided on the plan to clarify that there are no conflicts between the building, graveyard, drainage swale, septic system and parking areas. Of the items discussed in prewous comments, the changes to the entrances are the outstanding safety issues which must be dealt with as part of the special use permit. Roger Ray brought up concerns that adequate travetway does nor exist between the 3,6" Red Oak and the building to effectively use the northeastern entrance on Rt. 740 for 2~way traffic. This raised the concern that people might use the Rt. 22 entrance to circle back around on Rt. 22 to travel northeast on Rt. 740. which would be a more hazardous situation than currently exists. This could be solved by rearranging the parking and travelways on the site, and possibly removing the oak tree, something whi~Sh the applicants does not wish todo. With these considerations, and VDOT's wish to establish one entrance as far from the Rt. 22 intersection as possible, the Engineering Department will support using the middle entrance on Rt. 740 and closing the rest of the frontage. The slight shift in the entrance on Rt. 22 will not bring about a significant improvement in sight distance. Therefore, with no site pmn requirement for the church, the Engineering Department will not require improvement at this entrance. However. the Engineering Department strongly recommends that the applicant improve this entrance as discussed by VDOT to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the right~of-way line. As discussed in earlier VDOT correspondence, the remaining entrance on Rt. 740 must be 30 wide with 25' radii. The remaining road frontage should be blocked offwith a well defined physical change along the right-of-way line, preferable a visible barrier of some sort. Taking up the gravel and establishing landscaping, placing a fence or landscaped wall, rows of timbers or concrete bumper blocks, or something equally effective would be acceptable. ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcl ntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296 ~ 5823 Fax (804) 972 -4035 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: File Margaret Piekart, Design Planner SP 98-15 Zion Hill Baptist Church DATE: July 27, t998 The proposed addition to the Zion Hill Baptist Church should not have a negative impact on the historic character of the resource. The addition would be constructed adjacent to an existing addition m the historic structure, and would be located at the back of the building. To ensure that the impact wilt be minimal, the following points should be considered: · The height ofthe addition should be minimized. Matching the heigh; of the existing rear addition, or keeping the height of the new addition below the height of the eaves of the main church building would be appropriate. · The addition should be faced with white siding ora width that matches the existing siding. Existing exposed wooden siding on the church should be maintained and not covered with new materials. · A flat roof may be most appropriate for the addition. · Windows of the addition should match the windows of the church in size. The Zion Hill Baptist Church is an tmponam structure in the rural landscape and in the county's history. The steeple of the church is a significant element and should be maintained. The applicant is encouraged to assess the condition of the steeple, make any necessary repairs, and paint it. This will ensure that the steeple remains intact al~d will discourage water infiltration that may damage the structure of the church. two drive-through lanes and provide a bypass ~ane. Ms. Washington said there are several banks in the area that have combined ATM/bypass lanes and she is not aware of any problems. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete this condition, but to support condition ~2--Eliminate the western Westfield Road entrance. Mr. Nitchmann noted that there is much more traffic congestion today than there was when this site was first developed. MOTION: Ms, Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-26 for Albemarle First Bank be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following condition: 1. Eliminate the western Wsstfield Road entrance. Discussion: Mr. Rieley said he could support the motion He said he believes the bypass lane is an internal matter and is for the convenience of the bank customers, but the entrance onto the public road is much too close to the intersection and involves not only bank. customers but the general public. Mr. Loewenstein agreed. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP 98-15 Zion Hill Baptist Church - Request for a special use permit to enlarge an existing church [10.2.2.35]. The property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 106, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is located on the north side of State Highway 22 (Louise Road), approximately 1,3 miles east of the junction with State Highway 231 (Gordonsville Road). It is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and EC (Entrance Corridor) and designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms_ Echois presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Henry Chapman. He said the chumh has been a part of the community for over 100 years and is used constantly. He said these improvements will allow the chumh to be "modernized." The applicant has no problems with any of the recommended conditions of approval, There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission, No co.n?ems were identified. Mr. Lcewenstein said the church is an important part of the county s history and he hopes the church members will consider the suggestions of staff when making these improvements. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved. Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-15 for Zion Hill Baptist Church, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the sketch plan dated (revised date) July 20, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, and childrens' play equipment. 2. Day care and other non-church related uses shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. 3. Two of the three existing entrances along Route 740 shall be closed and the third shall be improved to support two-way traffic by having a 30-foot width and 25 foot radii. The entrance from Route 22 will be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the right-of-way line as determined by the Engineering Department. The motion passed unanimously. 8/14/98 July 22, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 {804~ 296~5823 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Eugene Rush Chairman of Trustees Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Rt. 1, Box 72-B Esmont, VA 22937 SP-98-20 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church Tax Map 133, Parcels 41 and 42 Dear Mr. Rash: The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on July 14, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to tl~e following conditions: Health Department approval of septic system to accommodate the second mstroom including the verification of the adequacy of the existing septic system for the existing seating capacity. Day care use and other non-church activities shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application mst 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 flue above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,~,~ - ~ Juandiego Wade /''~ ~ Transpomli0n PI~ JW/jcf Amelia McCulley Jack K61sey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEGO WADE JULY 14, 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 SP-98-20 CHESTNUT GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH _Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 square feet split level addition to the rear of the church to enlarge the choir loft and add a unisex handicap accessible bathroom, a baptistry, and a pastor's study on the main level and a classroom and general office on the lower level. (See applicants' proposal - Attachment A). Petition: Petition to add a unisex handicap restroom, a baptistry, a pastor's study, a classroom, and a general office onto the existing church located on 1.000 acres zoned PA, (Rural Areas). The property described as Tax Map 133, Parcels 41 and 42, is located off Route 723 (Sharon Road) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. (See location m~fp - Attachments B and C). This area is not in a designated development area (Rural Area 4). Character of the Area: The applicant's property is located in a rural setting fronting on State Route 723 in Esmont. A single-family home is located on the lot to the west of the church property, the church cemetery is located behind the church, and a wooded lot is located to the east of the church. Additional single-family homes and farmland are located in the vicinity,. 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: There is no history. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use pe~its permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board Of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property, It is staff's position that the addition will not have a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. The addition will not intensify the use at the site. The addition will not change the hours of operation or the number of persons involved in the use of the building. The existing church is about 2.600 square feet. It has a congregation of about 50-75 members. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The site is located in the Rural Areas. It is not located in an agricultural/forestry district. The Toiler Creek Agricultural/Forestry District is in the area. No significant changes in the character of the Rural Areas are anticipated. The use is not anticipated to negatively affect .the Toiler Creek Agricultural/Forestry District in the area. The original church was built in 1863, but has since been rebuilt. The site has never been officially surveyed for historical significance. and that such use 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 tiffs use meets the intent. with the uses permitted by fight in the district, This request will not affect uses penuitted by right on any adjacent property. The use is not anticipated to negatively affect the agricultural/forestry uses in the area. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance. This section contains the supplemental regulations and does not pertain to this special use permit. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed addition will provide a handicap accessible restroom. There is a restroom in the existing building. The applicant is working with the Virginia Department of Health to obtain approval of the existing septic system to accommodate an additional restroom. VDOT has reviewed this application and recommends the applicant improve its southern entrance to meet commercial standards. This basically requires the enu-ance to be wide enough for two vehicles to pass through at the same time. Site distance is adequate. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The addition will not intensify the use. 2 2. The addition will add a handicap accessible restroom. Staff did not identify any factors which are unfavorable to this special use permit request and recommends approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP 98-20 subject to the following conditions. 1. Health Department approval of septic system to accommodate the second restroorm 2. Congregation should not exceed 75 members. 3. Upgrade (widen) entrance to allow for two-way traffic. 4. Day care use and other non-church activities shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Attachments: A- Applicant's Description and Justification B- Location Map C- Location Map D- VDOT's comments C:mydocuments\chstgrvchrch.doc 3 ~ ATTACHMENT A County of Albemarle -:- Department of Building Code ann L. onlng ~e~:v:ces App!' 'on fo SPe ' 1 Us ' - ~cat~r ma e Permit (~) "Zanlna l)istrici ~-../& 'Zonin~ Ordi::ancc Section number requested Number of acrea to be covered by Special U..e Permit tlr~ ~,..o. ~,,,,,~a ~. et,m~,m ,~=t,. I. O' ~,dr' I Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Perntit? Contact Person %'homshuul~l.~ecatl~wntecoflc.'rain~l~prol~ct'?~ ~L/~ ~.,~l~ Address ~ ~. ~ ~' ~ .. City ~T . _ State ~ Zip~7 Daytime Phone' ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ 3 l- ~ , . Fax ~ N/~ E-mail Address ~ I .,. ~o~ ~- ~ Cit~ ~ State iV~ Zip~ Daytime Phoue ( ) _ M/~ ~a~ =__ ~/~ E-malt ~ Address l Dkytlme Phone ~Tax map and parcel City State Zip __ Fax # E-mail Location of property ;I,';nd, u;gk~.mter~ec;,oas, or~mer~ ~, '"~"~-.~'~ Does the owner of this pcopert}.' own for have an.,, o~t nershiF interest mi any abutting property7 if y~:¥. please list 'thosetaxmapandparcelnu,nbers /~-'r'/---.g"t ~,.x/,, l'~g 4:'. /~-] Section '3 t.2.4. I of the Albemarle Co[mty Zoning Ordinlnca states that. "The bo=d of supe~'tsors hereby rosen, es unto itself the right to issue ali special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use porn'firs for uses as provtded m this ordinance mav be ~Ssued upon a finding by the board of superv,sors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and timt such use will be in hmq'nony wiflt the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses pe,,'xrfitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfacc. 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 revmw of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What stheComprnhensivePlandeslgnatJoa!'orthisproperty? Howw] theproposedspecJaluscallectadjae~ntprnperry? ~'~ ~3}10~A~ }q~V~ <,(3 How 'a,ill the proposed xneciai usc affect t[~e character of the district aurrounding the property How s the use in harmony wi h the purpo.%¢ and intent of the Zoning Ordinance'? ' How is the u~e in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? What additional regulations provided in $-'.ction 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How will th~s use promote dm public health, salcty and genera! welfare o£the community7 '~,~ /~t'l,(,{ t~6m t~ / Describe your request in detail and include all pemnent information such as the numbers of pe~o~s involved in the use, operatin~ hours, and an>, unique matures cf the use: ~ ~ ~J ~" ~~ ,~ ATTACItM. ENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundaE: survey of the propemy requested for the rezoning, If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property ~.'~d 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 prope~y, it ne:ds to be described or delineated on a copy of me plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership inibrmafion - If ownership of [he propemy is in the name of any type of legal entity or or~amzation including, but not limited to. tile name of a corporation.partnership or assccmtion, or in the name of a trast, or in a fictitious name. a document acceptable to the Coum7 must be subn~tted certifying that the person signing below has the authorit}5~"5 to do so. [f the applicm~t is a contract purchaser, a documem acceptable to the County must be subn-dtted contmning the owner's wr:tten consent to the applicauon. If the applicant is the agent of ,'.he owner, a document acceptaole to me Count.' mus~ be submitted that iu evidence of [he existence :md scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, tf an5'. Additional Information, if any. !herebv certify that I own the ' ' ' ~-} · . .sume,~ prope~y, or have the legal power to act on behalf of tile owner tn filing this application, I also cerufv that the informatmn provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signai~re Printed Name Date Da}time phc,~¢ ~...mbe. o! St=nators. ~ ........ mo.), T.M. 135. P.37 o r°v"~l N/F LAND RESOURCES ' ' LAND TRUST ~}.D. 812, P.546 T.M. 133. P.29J VICTOR S. FOSTER &'W.SEN'~ON DOWNER I11 505, P,355 (PLAT) cEME1ERY LO{ SEE BATCNELDER PLAT D.B. 161, )AGE 204 VERNON LAWSON EST. D.R. 421. P.268 D,D. 402, P.280 T,M.. pARA D.B. 2~4 T.M. 133. P. 291< D.B. 44. p. SaA- W.O. 32, P.7 P. SNEAD EST. (UNCLAIMED) D.B. 667, p.699 {pLAT) ~D.B. 662. P.749 (FLAT)/ BOUNDARY SURVEY SHOWING PARCEL 42 on TAX MAP 155 0 50 100 200 SCALE IN FEET ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA J SCALE: 1" = 100' FEBRUARY 25, 1~95 I G~zrt/ ~tf. ,2gA ALBEMARLE COUNTY SP 98-20 CHESTNUT GROVE BAPTIST ATTACHMENT B \ X .... E,.,., SECTION '~L.~ ~ ..... ~ SOOTTSVILLE DISTRIOT C. MOUNTAIN 4 ESMONT & PORTER AREAS TO RT.~ ATTACHMENT C SP 98-20 ~ CHESTNUT GROVE EA~I'IST DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VOOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911 ATTACI~-E, NT RECEIVEE -JUN 1 7 Planning Del: ~ G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER June 15. 1998 Public Hearing Submittals July 1998 Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 MoIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find our comments listed below for July Public Hearing submittals as follows: SB-98-20 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church, Route 723 There are two (2) entrances that appear to currently serve the church, however I believe the northern most entrance is actually a private entrance and the church has been using it for some time. The southern entrance should be improved to meet commercial entrance standards. Currently it is only wide enough for one vehicle at a time. This entrance meets sight distance requirements for it to be improved co a commercial entrance. SP~98-23 Colonial Baptist Church, Route 250 Adequate entrance and right turn lane. S~-98-24 Mundie Trucking, Route 641 This entrance should be improved no meet commercial entrance standards. Currently it is a wide gravel entrance with only 286 feet of sight distance to the west. Sight distance needs co meet 450 feet to the west as it is to the east. The entrance is being used by very large vehicles which make eight distance an imperative for safety. The entrance should be paved the length of a vehicle from the edge of pavement. Rs a minimum. SP-98-25 Virqinia National Bank, Route 29 Adequate geometrics of lanes and entrance exist ag a traffic signal. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ATTENTION: Clerk of Board of Supervisors FROM: Colonial Baptist Church DATE: August 10, 1998 RE: SP 98-23 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN I. FACTS 1) There has always been a need for religious printed material at the least cost possible for free distribution and teaching needs. As a result of this need, Colonial Baptist Church decided it was least expensive to produce the materials itself instead of trying to raise the necessary funds to purchase commercially printed material. Consequently, Colonial Baptist Church has operated a printing ministry since November 1993. This ministry is an integral part of the church. Printing equipment and paper have been purchased with the sacrificial giving of its members. There has never been a charge for any material printed at Colonial Baptist church and the church never intends to charge for any printed material. 2) The type of material printed ranges from small folded brochures to plastic ring-bound Bible study lessons and staple-bound scripture portions. 3) The reason for this ministry is to fulfill God's command in Matthew 28:18,19; Acts 1:8; and Mark 16:15. God has led our church to accomplish this through the printed page. 4) Our inhouse shop is too small and a larger space has been requested to further meet the needs required for the distribution of printed religious and humanitarian material to our local area and abroad. 5) This is a ministry. We have no paid staff and all work is done by volunteer church members. Colonial Baptist Church has never had any paid staff for its printing ministry and presently has no plans for any paid stab In the future, if the need arises and the donations are sufficient, then it may consider hiring staff members. 6) At present, we operate with three high speed duplicators, one collator, and several hand binding machines. This could be reduced to two newer duplicators which would do the job of the three current machines, but the price of $65,000 has hindered the purchase, thus the use of used equipment has been necessary. The equipment we have is the least expensive we were able to locate and purchase with available donations. 7) We do not sell our printed material as we believe it is forbidden by scripture ( I Thess- alonians 3:1, Psalm 68:11). The printing operation is strictly and totally an integral ministry of Colonial Baptist Church. 8) Currently, commercial deliveries to the church average twelve trips per month. This includes trash pickup, linen service, UPS, FED EX, and church supply deliveries. Colonial Baptist Church does not anticipate any increase in these deliveries in the near future. If our printing ministry were to increase production because of demand and donations, then Colonial Baptist Church anticipates no more than one extra delivery on average per month in the distant Il. ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1) This church operates a printing ministry, not a commercial business. The material printed is for fxee distribution mad not for sale and never will be for sale. 2) The Planning Commission was concemed with traffic. VDOT has stated that traffic was not a problem, according to the Planning Staff report. VDOT indicated that the existing entrance is more than adequate for the present and future needs of Colonial Baptist Church. 3) There has been absolutely no public comment opposing this site plan and amendment. 4) Comments of environmental hazards were addressed by the staff recommendation. We pose no threat to the environment in soil, water, air, or noise pollution. 5) This site plan does not affect permitted uses or adjacent property. 6) Four commercial delivery truck trips per month is not adequate, even for the present needs of Colonial Baptist Church, fi"commercial" includes those deliveries listed in I. 8) above. IH. CONCLUSION Colonial Baptist Church requests that Albemarle County grant us the amendment to the special use permit and approve the site plan for the responsible and economically feasible use of our property. Approval of this use has nol been determined to adversely affect the health, welfare, or safety of the community and the refusal of the amendment to the special use permit does not advance a legitimate government interest. Colonial Baptist Church has enjoyed the free exercise of its constitutional right to use its property in a responsible and economically feasible manner in the past without any religious discrimination. In light of this, and in consideration of the scriptural directive that compels us to operate the current printing ministry, we respectfully ask that you support our First Amendment right and grant our requests for amendment to the special use permit and site plan approval. July 24, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Comrnunit~; Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296,5823 Edwin L. Leake, Jr Richard L. Saunders, ETAL Trustee ? O Box 6547 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SP-98-23 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building Tax Map 94, Parcel 46 Dear Mr. Leake: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 21, 1998, by a vote of 6:l, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following: Approval of one "prophet's chamber" dwelling subject to the following condition: Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care mid other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. The Commission did not recommend approval of the printing operation as they felt the scale of the printing approached the size of a commercial operation. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19. 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. Page 2 July 24, 1998 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret M. M. Pickart Design Planner MMMP/jcf cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey 3 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Margaret M.M. Pickart July21, 1998 August l9, 1998 SP-98-23 COLONIAL BAPTIST CItURCH Applicant's Proposal: The applicant requests an amendment to an existing special use permit to operate amission building. The mission building would house operations for the printing and distribution of humanitarian literature, and a prophet's chamber - an efficiency room for visiting church representatives. The applicant has indicated that the literature print'mg/distributiou use is an extension of the church's present work, and will benefit the general welfare by further extending the church's ministry to the community. The printing/distribution operation to be housed in the mission building would operate Monday through Saturday, from 7 am to 7 p.m., and would employ up to five people. Petition: Request for a special use permit, in accord with the provisions of Seetious 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning OrcYmance, to allow the printing and distribution of church literature in a 3,040 square foot building to be constructed adjacent to the existing church on 10.389 acres of land located on U.S. Route 250 East, .7 miles east of S.R. 744 (Hacktown Road), in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 46, is zoned RA Rural Area, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas; this site is not located within a designated developmem area. A site plan showing proposed development of the property is being reviewed concurrently with this Special Use Permit request. Character of the Area: This site is situated in a rural area. Surrounding properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. Single family residences stand to the east and west. The site is bounded on the south by S.R. 250. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 98-23 with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: SUB 88-044 William W. Baum: Subdivision of Parcel 42, showing a survey of Parcel 46. SP 88~01 Colonial Baptist Church: Special Use Permit to operate a church approved 3/16/88 with the condition that: "sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will reqmre amendment to this petition. ' SDP 88-006 Colonial Baptist Church Preliminary Site Plan: Preliminary site plan for a church building on 10.44 acres of land. SDP 91-072 Colonial Baptist Church Minor Amendment: Minor amendment to construct an addition at the rear of the church. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan discourages development in the Rural Area, which are to be devoted m 1) preservation of agricultural and forestry lands and activities, 2) water supply protection, 3) and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and 4~ where only limited delivery of public services is intended. This site is not used for agriculture as it is currently the location of the church. The proposed increased development on this site will not affect the agricultural use of other property in the area. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Sup~yvisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted. hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The adjacent properties to the east and west are zoned Rural Areas and are occupied by single family residences. The proposed development will have little visual impact on adjacent property. The new building is not expected to be visible from Route 250, and wooded areas will screen the site from adjacent properties. Printshop: Based on the scale of activity proposed, there will be little or no impact to adjacent properties. Traffic impact is limited to 10 to 20 vehicle trips per 6ay and two UPS type truck pick- up/deliveries per month. There would be no noise or pollution impacts related to the printing operation. Prophet's chamber: Because of its residential nature, the prophet's chamber will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Printshop: The proposed use is a non-worship use amounting to a print shop and a mailing service supporting international mission work. The shop will operate 5 days per week; from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m., and will employ 5 people, Two UPS pickups/deliveries are expected each month. A print shop use is not customarily incidental to a church. However, it is related to church oulreach and missionary activities. While a commercial print shop and mail order business is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal of limiting development in the Rural Areas. the relationship of this proposal to the primary use (church) and the type and scale of printing activity will not change the character of the district. Prophet's chamber: The prophet's chamber constitutes a dwelling unit; residential uses are permitted in the RA district. Consequently, this use will not change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmon,/with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4. Print shop: The Chief of Zoning Administration (see Attachment D) has stated that the use being proposed is essentially a print shop and mailing service which, as an independent use. is not permitted in the RA district. The Board would have to fred that the use was accessory m the church~ Further, she notes that the proposed use is out of proportion to the church it serves and out of scale for accessory uses in the RA district. However, the Zoning Administrator has recently determined that current technology has relieved many of the nuisance concerns related to printing establishments operating in the past, and that the type of equipment and supplies used in a commercial print shop could be found in any large office building. Staff opinion is that the type of printing activity proposed is related to church outreach and missionary activities. Further, the scale and impact of the proposal is not significantly different than some other by right uses in the Rural Area. Staff notes that a day care facility for fewer than six children are permitted as a Class A Home Occupation by right and could generate 20 vehicle trips per day. Prophet's chamber: Because residential uses are permitted in the RA district, the prophet's chamber use is inharmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Approval of this request will not affect permitted uses on adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing the types of use proposed in this application. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The primary impact from this proposal is traffic generation. As noted previously, total additional traffic generated is estimated at 10 to 20 vehicle trips per day. VDOT has indicated that the existing church entrance on m Route 250 is adequate. Route 250 in this area carries 7,400 vehicle trips per day (1996 count). This additional traffic is not considered a public safety issue. The review of the site plan will insure that other public health, safety and welfare ~ssues related to physical development are met. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan, storm water management computations, final grading plans, and drainage computations are required as a condition of site plan approval. Health Department approval of septic system will also be required. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: The proposed "prophet's chamber ' dwelling unit is consistent with permitted uses in the RA district, The Zoning Administrator has determined that current printing technology does not present the same nuisance concerns thal printers and typesetters did in the past. Requiring commercial setbacks for the commercial use in the RA district would help mitigate the potential negative impact of the commercial use on the surrounding rural areas. Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: The print shop use is not customarily incidental to a church and could be considered out of proportion to the church it would serve, The prophet's chamber aspect is consistent with church activity and staff recommends approval &this use. Staff also recommends approval of the prinffmail use provided that it is limited to the distribution of church related items, and the scale of the activity (employment, deliveries) is limited to the existing proposal. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of one "prophet's chamber" dwelling subject to the following condition: 1. Sanctua~ and classroom expansion, orday care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. Should the Commission desire to approve the literature printing/distribution use, staff recommends the following conditions: Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or daycare and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. 2. Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church related items; five (5) employees; hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and, no more than four (4) commercial delivery truck trips per month. 3. Commercial setbacks shall apply to the commercial uses on this site. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Preliminary Site Plan D - Memo from Jan Sprinkle. Chief of Zoning Administration, dated June 29, 1998 I:dept\plarming\colonial.spe 1 ?64 ~,R~. OT~'ES - lILLE SP 78-23 COLONIAL BAPTIST CHURCH · ATTACHMENT B x. SP 98-23 COLONIAL BAPTIST CHURCH V'ct :pauoz ~V~HON3~ llaM 0 / fiu!~!x2 / / / / / / / / / / , / / ~ / ~ / / / / / / / / / / &OI~:lSgIE 'IYI~I.~.T.~IDV~ VNN'YAI~ 9~ 'IEO~Vcl "~6 dV~ XYZ DN~Ia'~I~E ~OISSI~ HD~/Lf43 ,g~,I,~VE TCIi'I(YlO2 %. Buiidin§ Code lnfc~rmation (804) 296-5832 COUI',FI~ OF ALBEMARLE Departmeni of Building Code and Zoning Services 40] Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~,596 FAX (8041 972-4126 TTD t804) 972~4012 ATTACHMENT D Planning Dept. Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO: Margaret Pickart, Design Planner FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration(~)"~.~ DATE: June 29, 1998 RE: SP 98-23, Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building This church is currently allowed under SP 88-01 which contains a condition that: "sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition." This is a "non-worship use" request for what amounts to a pdnt shop and mailing service. In this case, il is my opinion that a print shop supporting mission works all over the world, operating 5 days per week, employing five people and having UPS pickups/deliveries twice a month is not customarily incidental to a church. The request is out of proportion to the church it serves and out of scale for accessory uses in the RA district. The zoning administrator recently made a determination that printing has changed over time such that the current technology does not present the same nuisance concerns that printers and typesetters did in the past. She noted that the same type of equipment and supplies used in a commercial print shop could be found in any large office to support just their own needs (e.g., the County Office Building.) That determination certainly could be viewed to support the applicant, however, since the independent use is not permitted in the RA district, the Board of Supervisors must find that the use is accessory to the church The proposed "prophet's chambers" constitute a dwelling unit. Residential uses are permitted by right in the RA district, so this would ordinarily need no action by the Board. There are sufficient development rights and acres to allow a rectory for full-time use; therefore, this part time dwelling needs only authorization under the SP for a "non-worship" use. We recommend keeping a similar condition that requires amendment to [he SP for non- worship uses. It is also helpful for the Board to require use of commercial setbacks for a commercial use in the RA district. Since there are no setbacks for parking in the RA, using commercial setbacks imposes the 20-root undisturbed buffer and parking setback thereby allowing more protection to the residential and agricultural uses nearby., -~ ~*¢,. .... July 24, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Comrnum~y Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596~,t-~ (804) 296-5823 Kurt M. Gloeckner 2246 Ivy Road Suite 11 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP-98-~.~Virginia National Bank SDP-98-07 Virg'mia National Bank Minor Amendment Tax Map 61, Parcel 120Z Dear Mr. Gloeckner: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 21, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the SP-98-25 to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition: Drive-through windows will be limited to four [4] (Three traditional and one ATM window). Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 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 te your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved the internal circulation waiver request'and the angled parking waiver request, subject to the following conditions: Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement makings as indicated on the site plan amendment; and, Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB. Page 2 July 24, 1998 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eric L. Morrisette Planner EL1Wjcf Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Virginia National Bank STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ERIC L~ MORRISETTE JULY 21, 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 SDP 98-070. VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK MINOR AMENDMENT and SP 98-25 VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to re-open an existing bank of approximately 2,150 square feet with four drive-through windows (three standard windows and one automatic telle0. Attachment A is a reduced copy of the site plan. PETITION: SP 98-25 Virginia National Bank Sunny Hill Land Trust petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for drive-in windows [Sections 31.2.4 and 25.2.2.4 of the Zon'mg Ordinance] associated with a bank, to be constructed on 0.781 acre zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment D). Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel t20Z is located west side of Route 29 [Seminole Trail], across from Fashion Square Mall (Attachments B and C). This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and recommended for Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 1. SDP 98-070 Virginia National Bank Minor Amendment Applicant seeks Planning Commission authorization of an internal circulation waiver [Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance] to construct a branch bank with drive-through windows and an automated teller mach'me as described above. CHARACTER OF AREA: The property is located on the west side of Route 29 [Seminole Trail], across from Fashion Square Mall (Attachment C). The site is adjacent to commercial property zoned HC, Highway Commercial, on alt sides. Brown Oldsmobile Honda is located to the north. A Day Care Facility is located to the west. Good Year Tire and Service Center is located to the-south. This site is occupied by a former bank. The bank ceased operation and leased the space out as a political headquarters, The bank is currently vacant The property entrance is direet}y offof Route 29, approximately 1,300 feet south of State Route 631 [Rio Road]. The site shares an entrance with Brown Oldsmobile Honda. A small creek flows through the site, but it is not FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] registered. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This area is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Banks are a listed use in Regional Service Areas. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan· PLANNING. AND ZONING HISTORY: 1. SDP 80-025 Virginia National Banld29 North Site Plan - May 27, 19g0, The Planning Commission approved an application to construct a bank on the subject site. · REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The drive-in aspect of this proposal requires special use permit, approval by the Board of supervisors. In accord with the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission must act on the applicant's request for a modification to allow one-way circulation [4.12.6.2] and angled parking [4.12.6.5c]. STAFF COMMENT: The prior bank was approved before the Board of Supervisors' adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in December ofl9g0. Therefore, approval of a special use permit was not necessary. Additionally, Planning Commission approval of angled parking and one-way circulation were not necessary. The applicant seeks these necessary approvals with this application. No additional drive-through lanes are proposed, staffwill comment on the special use permit and site plan separately· SP 98-25 VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK Recommendation: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions. StaffAnalysis: Staff`will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent propeny, The proposed use will not have a detrimental affect to other by-right uses on adjacent properties. The prior bank's drive-through use existed for a number of years with no detrimental affect to other by-fight uses of adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The proposed site is located within an intense commercial district. Banks and associated drive- throughs are consistent with other uses in the district. The Proposed site is also subject to Albemarle County Architectural Review Board [ARB] review. The applicant is currently in the ARB rev'~ew process. No major conflicts have been identified during the preliminary ARB review. Staff has included a condition for ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to the Planning Staff approval of the minor amendment (Condition 2, Page 5). and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance of Section 1.4, Section 1.5, and Section 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and finds no conflict. with the uses permitted by fight in the distric_t.t Staffhas identified that the proposed drive-through is accessory to a by-fight use and is in harmony with other by fight uses located in this primarily commercial district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance provides no additional regulations. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Site Review Committee has identified no adverse affect on public health, safety, and general welfare. The Department of Engineering finds no major internal traffic circulation concerns with the proposed development (Attachment E). The Virginia Department of Transportation [V.D.O.T] has not identified any major traffic concerns (Attachment F). Summary: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. Consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Consistent with Section 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Consistent with prior use of the facility; The proposed use will not cause substantial detriment to adjacent properties; and, The proposed use will not change the character of the district Staff has not identified any factors which are unfavorable to this request. Stafffinds that the proposed use of drive-through windows is an acceptable and expected accessory to a bank. Recommend.ed Action: Staffrecommends approval of the proposed drive-through windows with conditions. Recommended Conditions of Approval: Drive-through windows will be limited to four [41 (Three traditional and one ATM window). SDP 98-070 VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK MINOR AMENDMENT The Site Review Committee has reviewed this site plan and may grant administrative approval subject to the Planning Commission waivers of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance [One- way circulation] and Section 4.12:6.5c of the Zoning Ordinance [Angled parking]. The one-way - circulation pattern and the angled parking are not proposed to change from what currently exists. An adequate bypass lane currently exists on site. The applicant is requesting a waiver for one-way internal circulation, due to the use of the drive- through windows (Attachment G). Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states "One-way cirgulation aisles shall not be permitted, except that the commission may approve one-way circulation in such case where the same is necessitated by the peculiar character of the site or of the proposed use such as but not limited to uses involving drive-in windows and automobile laundries". A one-way circulation waiver was not necessary at the time of Planning Commission approval of the site plan in 1980. Since the existing use has ceased, the applicant must obtain a waiver to reestablish use. The Site Review Committee has reviewed the applicant's proposal for installation and maintenance of control devices such as bypass lanes, signage, and pavement markings, and recommends approval of the internal circulation waiver request. The applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow for angled parking (Attachment G). Section 4 12.6.5c of the Zoning Ordinance states "Where practical considerations warrant, the Commission may authorize other angled, curvilinear, and/or parallel parking". An angled parking waiver was not necessary at the time of Planning Commission approval ofthe site plan in 1980. The Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and finds no major conflict with the proposed layout for angled parking. Planning Staff recommends approval of the angled parking waiver request. Recommended Action~ Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the internal circulation waiver request and the angled parking waiver request, subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement makings as indicated on the site plan amendment; and, 2. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB. ATTACHMENTS: A ~ Site Plan B - Tax Map C. Location Map D - Applicant's Special Use Permit Request and Just'dication E. Engineering Comments F - V. D. O. T. Comments G - Applicant's Request For Waivers ~INV~{ qVNOLLVi, I VINIDhIIA ALBEMARLE GOUNTY ~ENT B 1 VIRGINIA NA11ONAL BANK OF CHARLOTTESVILLE · ~.~' ~ .... JAOK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION GHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS U VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK IATTACHMENT C I O '~'xl & GE ILOTTES- Comit3 of Albem~' + l)elmrtment of Buitdi Code and Zoning Services OFIqCE USE ONLV ~ ~ Application for Special Use Permit *Existing Use Bank_ (V_acant) ]*Zoning District ItC (*staff will assist you with these items/ Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submilting a sile developnmnt plan with Ihis application? Proposed Use _}?~an]~. *Zoning Ordinance Section numimr requested ~ 1 . 2 o 4.1 221 Yes~ No [~ Yes[] No ContactI)er$oll [Whomshouldwecall/writeconcemingthisproject?): _Kurt ~. Gloock~er Address 2246 Ivy Road~ Suite 11 ~_CityCharlg~kesville State Vg Zip 2290~_ ~DaytimePhone(~04 ) 971-1591 .Fax#.29~-76~2 E-mail Owae; of land ~as li~l~a i. m~ Co~my';~m-~;): Snn~ ~11 Address : " : - '. - ~- ~,,~o~ City~ State V~ Zip ~-~ Daytime Phone ~ ~Z/- ~ Fax ~ Applicant(w,,ois,h,:con,a~,t,~raon~ep,'esenting?Whois~cquesm,§lhe$1,ecialuse?! ( Virg~_nxa National Bank A--.ess2218 Ivy Road, Suite 302 City Charlottesvill~$tate VA Zip22903 Daytime Phone ( 804) 293 -8621 Fax# E-mail Tax map and purcel 6 ] 1 20~ 7.[ I hysical Address fifassignml) Locationofproperty(Imidmarks, intersections, orod,er) Route 29 North adjacent to Brown's Honda on south bound lane Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those lux Illllp filial parcel ItUlllbel'S NO omc ust o t v Fee amount $~80 ~ Date Paid lfistory: El Special Use Permits: ~O L.I Variances: Concurrent review of Site Dcvek)pment I lan'. ZMAs and Proffers: Yes ~ No 40t Mclniire Road + Charlottesville. VA ;.~902 · Voice: 296-5832 · Fax: 972-4126 IATTACHMENT D~ Section-31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hemunden 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 distric! will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, salary 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 inforlnation 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 Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Commercial Itowwilltheproposedspccialuscafl~ctadjaccntproperty? Ali adjacent properties are commercial H~wwi~th~pr~p~scdsp~cia~us~af~ctth~character~.~hedistrictsurr~undingthepr~periy`~i~ not affect surrounding properties. HowislhcuseinharmonywithlhepurposcandiutentoflheZoniugOrdinance?.Yest it is the reactiviation of an identical use (bank). How is thc use in harmony with thc uses permitted by right in the district? Commercial use in a commercial district. Whatadditi~na~regu~ati~nspr~videdinSec~n5.~£~heZ~ning~rdinanceap~t~thisus~?~in~r site plan amendment required. How willthisusepromotethepublicheahh, sa~ty, andgeneralwelhreofthecommunity?.The same use was successful until bank merger. 2 Describe'your request in detail and include all pertinent information st, ch as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and ally unique features of the use: Th'ia will be a small bank with a small staff with usual banking hours. ATTACIIMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page nmnber or Plat Book and page number. Soo site plan Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, ,t 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 ora trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person sigmng below has the authority todoso. See site plan If tile applicant is a contract purchaser, a docmnent acceptable to the County must be snb,nillcd containing thc ow icl s w~itten consc ~t 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. Attached Additional Information, if lilly. None I hereby certify tbat I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application; t also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signh[0ry 3 I ATTACHIqENT E I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depm'tment of Engineering & P.blic Works M EMOI~.ANI)UM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Eric Morrisette, Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~c,~ 24 June 1998 Virginia National Bank, site plan amendment The revised site plan received on 17 June 1998 has been reviewed. The Engineering Department will recommend approval when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. I. [Water Protection Ord.] Provide conceptual plans and preliminary computations for storn~water (water quality) management. The correspondence from the applicant indicates that this will be done with final design after the special use permit is approved. It is preferable to peform the removal reqmremem computation at this time and have a conceptual idea of the best hmnagement practice (BMP) which will be used. Depending on fl~e conceptual BMP, the site layout may be affected. Correspondence from the applicant requests that the waivers for one-way travelways and angled parking be combined with the special usc permit. Thc applicant indicates that these waivers were previously approved. However, we have no records of a previous plan or approval. As indicated in our last memorandum, the Engineenng Department can support these waivers with the addition el'one-way signs and pavcmem markings at the entrance to the travelway. No such traffic control provisions have been shown on this revised plan. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional intbrmation. GEB/ Copy: SDP-98-070 File: vabank2.doc DAVID R. Gl=HR COMMIS$1Oi',JER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CI IARIO]q-ESVIll E, 22911 ATTACHMENT F [ RECEIVED ,JUN 1 7 Planning Dept A. G, TUCKER RES/DENT ENGINEER June 15, 1998 Public Hearing Submittals July 1998 Mr. Ron Keeler Dept. of Plannin9 & Community Development 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find our comments listed below for July Public Hearin9 submittals as follows; SP-98-20 Chestnut Grove Ba~ti__mt C([t~r__C~L Route 723 There are Ewe (2} entrances that appear to currently serve the church, however I believe the northern most entrance is actually a private entrance and the church has been usJn~ it for some time. The southern ent;raace should be llRproved t:o meet: commercial ellt. ranc~: :H.alldarda. (?urret~t].y it i.s only wi.de enoggh:for one vehicle at a cime. This ~eErance meats sigh~ distance requirements for it ~o be ~mproved [:o a commercial, entrance. .8, P-98-23 Cq.lenial Ba_ptist Ch___ur_.c.h_~__Rot~._te 25--0 Adequate entrance and ricjht curn lane. SP-~8-24 ~undie T~ucktng, Rou~e 641 This enKranee shou].d be improved to meet commercial entrance standards. Currently Jt Js a wide ~ravel. cnt~cu~c;e w~tlh on].y 286 feet: el sJ. ght distance ~o the werE. Sight distance needs to mee[ 450 feet to ~he wes~ as it is to the eas~. The entrance is beinfl used by very large vehicles which make sight distance an lmperauive for safety. The entrance should be paved the length of SP-98-25 Virginia National Bank, Route 29 Adequate geometric$ of lanes and entrance exist at a traffic signal. ATTACHMENT G GLOECKNER ENGINEERING/SURVEYING. INC. I Ktu'l M. Glocckncr I~E.. June 17, 1998 Eric Morrisette, Planner County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Virginia National Bank - Waivers One Way Travel and Angled Parking JO l I 7 199:1 [: la:'lrdng Dept Dear Eric, Glenn Brooks states that the Planning Commission needs to review the existing one-way travel lanes and angled parking. We are requesting waivers on these 2 items or request that the County make these conditions of the renewed special permit. If we need the waiver, please schedule on the first commission meeting possible. If we don'T please have the special permit staff member make it a part of the special permit process since these lanes and spaces are existing and were previously approved. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Kurt M. Gloeckner, President P.E., P.L.S. KMG:tpm cc: Joe Chambers August 12, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 W. Douglas Gilpin, Jr., MA Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton P O Box 2555 Charlottesville, VA 2902-2555 RE: SP-98-26 Albemarle First Bank Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block B, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Gilpin: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to theBoard of Supervisors, Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Elhninate the western Wesffield Road entrance Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors w'dl review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 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, Margaret M. Pickart Design Planner MMP/jcf Amelia McCulley Albemarle First Bank lack Kelsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Margaret M.M. Pickart August 4, 19~98 August 19, 1~998 SP~98-26 ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK Applicant's Proposal: The Applicant, is requesting a special u~e permit to operate a lhree-lane drive- through banking facility at 1265 Seminole Trail. The site is cuixently occupied by a building that was constructed in the mld-1960s as a bank with a two-lane drive tlg'ough structure. The 6x~stmg drive- through structure would be demolished and a new drive-through~ structure would be erected. The building has most recently been used as medical offices. Petition: Request for a special use permit~ m accord with the pr~visions of Section 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, to operate a bank with a three-lane, drive-up teller facility on approximately L028 acres of land at 1265 Seminole Trail, situated at the southeast comer of Route 29 North and Westfield Road. The existing building on the site (currently used as medical offices, Previously used as a bank with a drive-up teller facility) will be renovated to accommodate the new use. Ye property, described as Tax Map 61W. Section 2, Block B, Parcel 1, is located in the Rio Magisterial District~ The property ~s zoned C-l, Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and ig designated as Community Service in Neighborhood 2 of the Land Use Plan. A site plan showing proposed development of the property has been submitted. Character of the Area: This site is situated in a developed commercial area. The site is bounded by Route 29 on the west, and Wesffield Road on the north. Properties situated to the south and east are zoned C-1 Commercial. A service station stands to the south. The parcel to the east is vacant. Parking along the east side of the bank parcel is sustained by a maintenance agreetuent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions o£the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 98-26 subj~ ct to conditions. Planning and Zoning History_: The existing building on this site was constructed in the mid-196 required. A site plan showing the current proposed development through structure would encroach into the required 30' side setbac] setback from 30' to 7' was approved by the BZA on July 7, 1998, , at which time no site plan was ~ being~ reviewed. The proposed drive- :. The~pplicant's request to reduce the SUB 86-138 First Virginia Bank Final Plat: Division of Parcel B-I into Parcels 61W~2-B-1 and 61W-2-B~ IA. SUB 88-1-75 Investors Savings Bank and Citgo Petroleum Corpora[ion: Parcel "X" (25' x 200') at southwest comer of Parcel 61W-2-B-I added to Parcel 61W-2-B~31 situated to the south. Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, The Comprehensive Plan identifies community-scale commercial, professional, and office uses providing business services for this service designation. STAFF COMMENT[ Drive-through facilities are permitted by special use permit only due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns, combined with high traffic volumes. Staff comments on each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance are outlined below. 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 ut~on a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent pronertv. The adjacent properties to the south and east are zoned for commercial use, as is the property to the north across Westfield Road. The proposed use is not expected to be a detriment to these properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The nature of the use is consistent with the commercial zoning in the area and will not change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Section 1.4 of the Ordinance includes the provision of convenient access, reduction or prevention of congestion in the public streets, provision of adeqnare transportation, and protection against danger or congestion in travel and transportation as purposes and intents, which are relevant to this application. Traffic volumes have been estimated for this use. Calculations utilizing the trip generation rate per drive in window indicate that 1,234 vehicle trips per day would be generated by this development. The rate for this site with the two existing winah~ws is 822 vehicle trips per day. (See Attachment D.) The major concern for this request relates to its potential impact on local circulation. Several factors affect the circulation internal to this site: The proposal calls for three drive-through lanes (two served by the teller window, one to access the Automatic Teller Machine). Placed in the same location as the existing facility, the 3-lane drive- through proposal allows no room for a bypass lane. Section 4.12.6.2 of the Ordinance states that in cases where one way circulation aisles are necessitated by drive-in windows, "the commission shall require installation and maintenance of control devices such as bypass lanes..." Western Entrance Zxit on Westfield Road: Although one parking space would be eliminated from the northwest comer of the site, sight distanceTor drivers exiting the western Westfield Road exit remains limited. There is also potential for congestion at this exit due to vehicles exiting the drive- through at this location. VDOT has recommended closure of this entrance due to the sight distance problem and to the possibility of stacking and blocking on Westfield Road. The Engineering Department has recommended that the entrance be closed. The Applicant has proposed the addition of curbed islands at the ends of the two front parking rows situated parallel to Route 29, to help protect parked vehicles and to clarify circulation on the site. The Applicant is not agreeable to eliminating the third drive-through lane for the ATM or closing the western Westfield Road entrance. Staff recommends that the western Westfield Road entrance should be eliminated to reduce conflicts on Westfleld Road. It is staff's opinion that the obscured sight distance, the proximity of the entrance to Route 29, the possibility of on-site congestion, and the possibility of stacking and blocking of Westfield Road necessitate the elimination of this entrance. Staff also recommends that a bypass lane be provided to allow convenient and safe access to the drive- through facility. Staffopinion is that this condition is needed to allow vehicles to exit the area without traveling through the teller area, and without using Westfield Road as a bypass. In the proposed location, this condition would require a reduction in the number of drive-through lanes. Options include relocating the drive-up ATM to the rear of the building or to a remote site, providing a walk-up ATM rather than a drive-up ATM, and locafmg the drive-through facility in a different Iocation. The applicant has indicated that the drive-through will assist in reducing congestion due to parking and will improve transact/on stop-over time. with the uses permitted by right in the district. This type of use is consistent with other permitted commercial uses in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing bank drive-through facilities. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The review of the site plan will insure that the public health, safety and welfare are met as to physical development. Staff is recommending conditions of approval regarding a bypass lane, perpendicular parking, and sight distance that would improve access and safety on the site. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: 1. The nature of the use is consistent with the commemial zoning and use in the area. 2. The use is consistent with other permitted commercial uses in the district. 3. The use should not result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property. Staffhas identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: 1. The proposal lacks a bypass lane at the drive-through, which may promote congestion and confusion in cimutation and entering/exiting the site, as well as the use of Westfield Road as a bypass. 2. The existing configuration of the site and the position of the western entrance on Westfield Road could contribute to on-site congestion and conflicts on Westfield Road. 3 Staff opinion is that the additional traffic generated by the proposed drive through lane can be adequately accommodated if the unfavorable conditions noted above are addressed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP-98-26 subject to the following conditions: 1. Limit the proposal to two drive-through lanes and provide a bypass lane. 2. Eliminate the western Westfield Road entrance. Should the Commission decide to allow the western Westfield Road entrance to remain open, adequate sight distance should be provided for. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Site Plan D- 1TE Trip Generation Calculation Memo 4 C 0 ATTACHMENT A O,9 SP 78-26 ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK ALBEMARLE OOUNT'~ ATTACHMENTB SP 78-26 T IIANK -\ CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 61-W r / / ~ENOVAT~ON TO LANDSCA~ ELAN Approved: $ ~OVATION TO DP, ZVE-T~mOUaI-Z ~ Af.~BMARLB Yn<ST BANK EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN Approved: ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depar~nent of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Margaret Pickart FROM: William D. Fritz, AiCP DATE: July 22, 1998 SP 98-26 Albemarle First Bank This request would add an additional drive thru lane to an exist'rog building. I have reviewed the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the traffic volumes which would likely be generated by this use. Using the various methods available in the ITE Manual this site could be expected to generate from 822 to 2,175 vehicle trips per day. Utilizing the trip generation rate per drive in window indicates that 1,234 vehicle trips per day would be generated by this development. The previous trip generation rate for this site with the two existing windows is 822 vehicle trips per day. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-98-09 CFW W~reless (Arrowhead) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2(6) to allow the construction of a telecommunication facility on Tax Map 88: Pamel 26. This property is zoned PA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor~ and is ocated on the east side of Rout 29 South (Monacan Drive), south of Route 745 (Arrowhead Valley I~,oed), in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is net located in a designated development areas. A location map is included as Attachment A in the staff report;, the applicant's site plan is Attachment B; the applicant's justification is Attachment C; a topographic map is Attachment D. The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Ms. Thomas AGENDA DATE: August 19, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ffEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: x INFORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: At the Commission meeting ofApd121, 1998, the applicant requested deferral of this project to allow investigation of alternative sites for the proposed tower. As a result of this deferral, however, the applicant has indicated that no alternative sites have been located, and thus no revisions have been made to the special use permit application request. A letter from the applicant is included as Attachment F. DISCUSSION: Minor revisions have been made to the original staff report; these are indicated in bold font where they occur throughout the repo~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff's original recommendation of approval (with conditions) remains unchanged (p. 10 - 12); however, Condition #1 has been modified in the revised staff report to reflect changes suggested as a result of discussion by the Commission at the April 21 meeting, as follows: The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the elevation of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the towel Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches diameter. 98, July 22, 1998 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5823 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless P O Box 1328 Waynesboro, VA 22980-0909 RE: SP-98-09 Arrowhead CV 152 Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 D~ar Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14, 1998, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this denial was based on the following: 1 2. Because adjacent not property under conservation easement and historic properties; and Applicant could show no evidence that other sites were considered, which was requested by the Commission at the previous hearing. Please be advised that the Albemarle Count) Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 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, William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner WDF/jcf CC: 1~ ll~a Cia Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey T. E. Wood (This staff report has been updated since the meeting of .4pri121, 1998, at which the Planning Commission granted the applicant's request for a deferral Revisions appear in bold font in the body of the report.) STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS JULY 14, 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 SP 98-09 CFW WIRELESS (.ARROWHEAD) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval to install a self supporting wooden pole of tree height (estimated to be 75 - 100 feet) to provide improved PCS cellular phone coverage for the Route 29 South corridor, within Albemarle County. Currently CFW Wireless service is available in the area, but significant areas of weak signal or even no s~gnal exist along this corridor. The proposed tower location is a 10 foot x 10 foot fenced site in the northwestern portion of Tax Map 88, ?arce126, approximately 300 feet southeast of the State Route 745 (Arrowhead Valley Road) .right-of-way, east of the Southern Railroad. At the Commission meeting of April 21, 1998, the applicant requested deferral of this project to allow investigation of alternative sites for the proposed tower. As a result of this deferral, however, the applicant has indicated that no alternative sites have been located, and thus no revisions have been made to the special use permit application request. A letter from the applicant is included as Attachment F. Petition: Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2(6) to allow the construction of a telecommunication facility on Tax Map 88, Parcel 26. This property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor, and is located on the east side of Route 29 South (Monacan Drive), south of Route 745 (Arrowhead Valley Road), in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. 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 a site plan waiver. Character of the Area: This property is located off Arrowhead Valley Road, approximately I/4 mile east of Route 29 South. In general, the area's existing developmem pattern is characterized by smaller parcels near the state highway, with parcel size increasing as one moves toward the higher elevations both east and west. Attachment 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 760 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. The closest dwelling is approximately 600 feet from the proposed site, and approximately 10 residences are located within 2.000 feet (0.37 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing rowers are located in the immediate area. -The closest existing CFW Wireless facility is located on Carter's Mountain. The closest existing tower to the proposed site is the 360 Communications site at Camp Holiday Trails, north of Interstate 64 in Ivy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance vcith the provisions of Section 31 ;2.4. l of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History_: None available. Comprehensive PIan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower, clearing for access from the existing driveway and the proyision 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. 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 the Rural Areas; it is alsoidentified as lying within a designated Entrance Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan and Zoning Ordinance. currently, the Comprehensive Plan contains limited.review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources ofthe County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this: application are limited to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, which is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. 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; m sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism." If this 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 Overlay District, because it is a wooden pole, equal in height to and surrounded by existing trees, located approximately 300 feet from Arrowhead Valley Road and 1/5 mile from Route 29 South. 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 from a 15 foot wide easement from Arrowhead Valley Road, through an existing farm entrance. The'Virginia Department ofTransportatioia (VDOT) has indicated in its comments of March 25, 1998 that the entrance to the site should meet commercial entrance standards, and that the tower should be positioned so that, should it collapse, it will not fall into the roadway. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues ofthis 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. [copy attached] 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 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 97.7 feet from the nearest property line (to the south); that boundary is shared width Tax Map 88 Parcel 20. The owner of Parcel 20 has dedicated a conservation easement on it which also includes Parcel 17, located to the ~northeast. This easement is held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). Although Albemarle County is not a party to .this conservation easement (under the Code of Virginia, Sections 10.1 ~1700- 1705, VOF fulfills that rote), Part IV Protection'Techniques of the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan sets forth a number of mechanisms currently used to protect open space resources, among them conservation or open space easements, the Arrowhead Farm conservation easement, encompassing Parcels 2Oand 17 located to the south of the proposed tower site, incorporates various provisions which meet VOF's requirements for accepting and holding this type of negotiated agreement. Parcel 20 (the adjacent property to the south) also contains a historic site, the Arrowhead complex, which includes a residence and outbuildings. These structures are included on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. They are located in the western portion of Parcel 20, close to Route 29 South and the proposed tower is not anticipated to adversely_impact them. The Hardware AgriculturaFForestal District is located to the west of (across Route 29 South) thc parcel on which the tower use is proposed. the proposed mini-cell site is wooded; the applicant's survey information indicates that the existing trees are between 75 and 100 feet tail, and the tower is proposed to match their height. (Should the Commission recommend approval of the tower, staff recommends that'the applicant's surveyor certify the height of the trees within 25 feet of the tower, prior to issuance of a building permit.) 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. Because of its location in a wooded area visually positioned against a wooded hillside, within a small enclosure that will necessitate minimal cleating and disturbance to the property, the tower is expected to be a minor feature in the landscape. The applicant's photo simulation indicates some visibility from the state highway, but the use of wooden and fiberglass components makes .the tQwer unremarkable in the landscape, particularly at the posted travel speeds. Staffnotes that the use of non-reflective dark colored materials would minimize the metallic appearance and visual impact of the fencing which the applicant has proposed. Visibility from adjacent property, including the easement property, would be further reduced if the fencing were deleted altogether, which staff recommends. Staff also notes that limiting the tower height to the height of the trees located at the same elevation as the proposed site or at a lower elevation appears to further reduce visual impacts, in that the structure would more effectively screened by the trees between it and the state highway, the point from which it is likely to be most visible. Development of the access road to a minimum standard to avoid erosion and surface damage is also recommended. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts~ 1'he 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 to 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 opportunities 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 opportunities exist, future collocation on this tower, should ~t be approved, should not introduce telecormmunications facilities that more s~gnificantly ~.mpact the adjacent property and the district. Because of the relatively low height, wooden pole construction, and lack of capacity for vertical separation of antennae, collocation does not appear probable. If approved, future facilities should be substantially of the same nature as the whip antennae proposed with this application so that additional impacts are not created. 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 wit1 not be changed~thereby, Staff has reviewed the impact of the proposed tower relative to the character of the Rural Areas District and Emrance Corridorl with particular attention to its potential to establish a precedent for additional future facilities of this nature on this~site which might, perhaps, have a greater impact than this particular installation. Because of the minimal physical impacts to the property anticipated from the mini-cell design, and the fact that future collocation ts problematic at best on a tower of this type, staff finds that the proposed tower would not alter the character of the Rural Areas district significantly. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas in the past, without a finding of significant change to the character of the district depending upon the specific site and its surrounding terrain, land use, etc. However, over time increasing tower density may incrementally change the character of the district, possibly diminishing the aesthetic qUalities for which these districts are noted. Staff suggests that site specific factors such as size, construction type and site be considered within the larger context of the pattern of tower location during the special use permit review process. At the present time, there does not appear to be an excess of tower facilities in this area~ The property is also EC, Entrance Corridor. If approved, the tower will be reviewed by the ARB. Above-ground utilities occur along Route 29 South and other state roads, utilizing wooden poles similar to the proposed tower. Because of the wooded nature of the area and the placement of the rower approximately 300 feet from Arrowhead Valley Road within the external boundary of the property, staff finds that the proposed tower does not signify a change in the character of the district. It is expected to be only minimally visible bom the closest public road and adjacem properties, with a direct impact commensurate with that ora telephone or power pole. and that such use will be in harmony with the pure_ ose 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 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.8, and 1.5. Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.4, and 1.5 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. Sections 1.4.5 and 1.4.8 address preservation of historic areas and agricultural, ~brestal and other lands significant to the natural environment. Although these resources are present on this site or within the area, staff finds that negative impacts to them are minimal. 5 Staffnotes 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 a tower is needed in the vicinity of this site due to the topography and curving alignment of this portion of the Route 29 South corridor, paralleled by mountains both to the east and west. The applicant has indicated that collocation on existing facilities in this portion of the county would not provide the same level of service as the proposed tower. Staff opinion is that this request complies with this provision of Section 3 t .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 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 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 ennssions, lhis 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 snares: "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 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 minimum of 75 - 100 feet from the edge of the property, depending upon the exact height of the existing trees which under the applicant's proposal would determine the tower height. The proposed tower is located approximately 97.7 feet from the southern property line. Staff does not recommend waiving the setback requirement, based on the presence of the conservation easement on the affected adjacent property. In this case, it is staff's opinion that any impacts from tower collapse should remain on the parent parcel and not affect the parcel to the south. Based on the operation of Condition #1, it appears unlikely that the setback waiver wilt be necessary.. Section 704(a~(T}(b)(I)(ID of th~ Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the olacement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local goverranent or instrumentalit-v 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. Staffopmion 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. Staffdoes 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, staffdoes not believe that denial ofthis 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. As discussed above, collocation options for this site appear to ha~e been exhausted. The applicant's letter of May 28 (Attachment F) states that CFW Wireless has not been able to locate alternate sites for this tower. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zonin~ Ordinance. Section 32.2.2 allows the Commission to waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the propose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver (Zoning comments are included as Attachment E). Based on this review staffis 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: 1. 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. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: l. The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.43, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties; 3. Access to the tower will be from an existing road, through an existing entrance, over an access easement; and 4. Due to its location, construction type, and the existing tree cover on the site, the tower will be minimally visible from other portions of the property, adjacent properties, and public roads. 5. Collocation options and alternative sites appear to have been exhausted. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: l. A non-agricultural/forestal use will be introduced into a rural area. The following factor is relevant to this consideration: 1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The options for collocation on adjacent poles appear to have been exhausted. 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: The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the elevation of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the rower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter; 'The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood; b. Guy wires shall be not permitted: c. The rower shall have no lighting; d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color; 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "SC 611 ~' and initialed "SET. 2/25/98." The tower shall be located on the site as follows: (l) The tower shall be located so that, in the event of structural failure, the rower and all of its components will remain within the lease area; 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in length 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 other wireless telecommtmications providers to locate antennas on the rower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan reqmrement, the permittce shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location 10 lO, 11 12. and will negotiate in good faith with such otlier piovider requesting locate on the tower or the site; 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 6r controlled by another provider within Albemarle County; Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that ail light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding feature. 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 m the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove exist'rog trees with'm two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment build'rog, or the vehicular or utility access; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage ~mprovements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the tower reqnire provision of greater access improvements, these improvemems shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed; The access road shall be gated; The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service; The towe? 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 I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; 14. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 15. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls~ rever-ments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. 16. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter: [7. 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 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. Provision of one parking space; 3. Issuance or. Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final zoning approval. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Applicant's Site Plans C - Applicant's Justification D - Topographical Map E - March 16, 1998 Memorandum from Building Code and Zoning Services F - May 28, 1998 Letter from the Applicant C: ITOWERSMRROW. RPT 12 IEL MILLER DI$'FRtGT ~,~ SP 98~09 ~., SECTION 25 $OOTTSVILLE ,~I~ILIEL NIILLEfl ALBEMARLE COUNTY ,?4 ALBEM~ fO0 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT 8B SECTION 88. , '~'~ '" '"' 'r ~ SC OTTS' --- - " - SAMUEL Mil i :'"" ?; ,7. J . .. ... ,.. .).):.::..:" ,/; .', .... /' SC611 SITE PLAN WIRELESS ?TACHI~ENT B 't j! TOkYER SITE FOR C F 1~I kYIRELESS CV- 152 PROPERTY OF T. E. tYOOD S,41~IUEL NfILL ~E ~I~TEIC~ ~BEMARLE CO., SC~' I" = 40' FEB. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of'supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district wilt not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your 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 Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Howwilltheproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentpropeny? 7fe " c go ,'[/ ~2e t'~ e/':~ ~ r~' How will the proposed spocial use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? What add tional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? 2 Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers Of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and. any unique features of the use:. ~td ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary Survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If Ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to. the name of a corporation, partnership or associauon, 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 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 mae and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signatur~ Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW' Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a Mini-cell Communications Tower and associated equipment on the T.E. Wood's Property at Arrowhead. The TelephOne Pole will be supporting 2 antennas. The survey drawing will have the base height of the telephone pole and locations to include easement to the site. The height of the Pole will be at tree top level. Find attached a site plan drawing showing the Mini-cell layout. 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 revolution in cellular technology. It is a r~hone witb caller ID. a pager, and an answering machine ia one lightweight, band-held unit ail for ie~s than current ceilul,'ir service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange carrier giying the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing avcay 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 Arrowhead to provide coverage for residents and commuters along Route 29. This site will tie into other proposed sites North and South of this one. The property at Arrowhead is zoned AG. CFW' feels that a Pole at tree top level wilt allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC. j ,i TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Phone f 804) 296-5832 Fax (804) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM William Fritz, Senior Planner John Shepherd, Permit and Plan 'Specialist ¢~'_ March 16. 1998 SP 98-09 Arrowhead CV 152 Site Plan Waiver Request [ATTACHPIENT E[ The Department of Building Code and Zoning Services recommends approval of this site plan waiver request subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide one parking space. '~ 2. Department of Planning and Community Development verification that: Construction of the tower will not result in earth disturbing activities on slopes exceeding 25%. The tower will be set back from property lines at a distance that at a minimum equals the height of the tower. Please call me if you have questions. WIRELESS 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive P.O. Box 1328 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980-0909 540 946-3500 FAX: 540 g32-2210 May 28. 1998 County of Albemarle Dept~ of Zoning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Attn: Susan Thomas RE: CV152, Arrowhead Site for SUP Dem- Susan. CFW Wireless requcsts that the application for our Arrowhead Site be place on the Planning Board's agenda for approval with the other sites subtnitted last week. We have looked at our options in this a~ea and determined that this site is critical to our build-out and cas not be moved ,any considerable distance toward Britts Mtn or the Red Hill proposed site or we will degrade our service in this area. We still need a site in this area for coverage and the West side of Hwy 29 is on a ridge line which will cause shadowing along the North part of Hwy 29 where it curves around Britts Mtn. By being on thc East side of I-lwy 29, we provide a better line of site to the highway with no shadowing, It is our plan to take an Arial photo of this corridor to provide a better picture of our situation in this ama. We will provide you a copy of this when we get it completed. ir yuu have any questions plea~ call me at (540) 942-8590 or (540) 471-8099. Sincerely, Mgr. for CFW Wireless RECEIVED JUN 0 lOO Planning Dept. PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON SP-98-09. Arrowhead CV 152 (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. iNDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELiNQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS NAME (Please print clearly) /~"~,,,., , , 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PHONE NUMBER (Optional) / Form. 3 7/25186 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 98-27 CFW Wireless at Red Hill SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Petition by CFW Wireless to construct a 150 foot tall telecommunication tower with associated ground facilities on a portion of 2.071 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corr'~lor [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B, is located on the southeast side of State Route 29 South [Monacan Trail Road], approximately 1 mile southwest of State Route 708. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated Development Area. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Citimberg, Morrisette AGENDA DATE: August 19, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REV,EWED By: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission heard the applicant's petition to construct a Personal Communications [PCS] Tower at its July 24, 1998 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended denial of SP 98-27 to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall tower. In the report, staff had identified the possibility of co-location of the communications antennae on the existing power poles serving the Virginia Power 500 kilovolt transmission line. Since the Planning Commission's action, the applicant has provided additional information regarding the feasibil~ of such co;lecation. DISCUSSION: This executive summary serves as additional information for your consideration. In the attached report, staff identified two alternative opfions for the proposed tower facility; 1) collocation on the existing power poles serving virginia Power's 500 kilovolt transmission line, and 2) reduction of tower size to 120 feet. Although less invasive, staff finds a 120 foot tower would negativelyimpact the Entrance Corridor Oveday District. The applicant has pursued the possible co-location option with Virginia Power and has determined that the existing structures are incapable of supporting additional facilities. The applicant has provided a letter to this affect as Attachment A. It states Virginia Power has determined that, due to the age and present loading for any structure that is an FLT Tower, no additional equipment can be added. RECOMMENDATION: Although co-location on the power poles is no longer a feasible option, staff opinion is that the proposed 150 foot high tower would have an adverse impact on the Entrance Corddor Overlay District. Therefore, staff recommendation has not altered in light of this new information. 98.157 ~' 22, 1998 "1150 Shenandoah villas~ Drive - Waynesbom, VA 22980 In response to your inquiry concerning the attachment of additional cquipment to thc structures located near the Red ~ North C~rden area in Ch~ottesville, V[rgi~aPower has determined that due to the ago and present loading for any structure that is an FLT Tow~, no additional equipment can be added. Structures 486 ~nd 487 on transmission llne 553 are I~'LT Towers and cannot be considered for your use. Please cull me at (g04)257-4090 if you have any questions. Sinccrcty, //~ .Vera L. Houghton Designer, Transmission Lines-OiaM Support ~lr~uis Power RECEIVED JUL 2 7 1998~ ' Plannin9 DepL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July22,1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Commuaity Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless P O Box 1328 Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-98-27 CFW Wireless ired Hill) Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14, 1998, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this denial was based on the following: Other possible locations have not been explored which would be less objectionable to the community and less visible from the Entrance Corridor. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also denied a request for a waiver of the drawing of a site plan. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eric Morrisette Planner EM]jcl Ce: t--E~a Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ERIC L. MORRISETTE JULY 14, 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 SP 98-27 CFW W/RELESS [RED HILLl Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot monopole communications tower to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for southwestern Albemarle County. Currently, no PCS service is provided in this area. The specific location of and design of the proposed tower are shown on Attachment B. Staffhas indicated the proposed tower locationand access on a topographic map, which is included as Attachment A. A detailed description prepared by the applicant is included as Attachment C. Petition: Petition by CFW Wireless to construct a 150 foot tall telecommunication tower with associated ground facilities on a portion of 2.071 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B, is located on the southeast side of State Route 29 South [Monacan Trail Road], approximately l'mile southwest of State Route 708 (Attachment D). The proposed tower site is approximately 60 feet from the western side of Route 29 South. l'his site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated Development Area. CharacTer of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is at the American Electric Power [AEP] Red Hill substation, on the southeast side of Route 29 South. The proposed tower location is approximately 80 feet north of the AEP's 230 kilovolt transmission line and 100 feet north of Virginia Power's 500 kilovolt transmission line. The 500 kilovolt transmission line is supported by "T" shaped lattice structures, which are 90 feet tall and approximately 25 feet higher in elevation than the tower site [One "T" shaped lattice structure is 20 feet higher in elevation and the other "T" shaped lattice structure is 30 feet higher in elevation]. Taking the elevation and the lattice structure height into account, the proposed tower would result in a height 30 feet taller than the highest electrical lattice structure in the immediate vicinity. l'he tower site is located at a relatively fiat area and wilt be served by an existing entrance currently serving the AEP substatior~ No critical slopes exist on the site. The entrance is located directly off of Route 29. Attachment A is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower and nearby houses. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 630 feet ASL. Tt~e closest dwelling, which is on an adjacent parcel, is approximately L000 feet distant. [This dwelling is also approximately 70 feet higher in elevation than the ground level of the tower,] Seventeen [17] houses are located within 2,000 feet [0.6 miles] of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located within the area. The nearest towers are located: 1) approximately 5.6 miles to the west, on Castlerock Mountain [U.S. Cellular] and 2) approximately 5.7 miles to the north, at Camp Holiday Trails [360 Communications]. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4. i of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning History: No planning or zoning history is available for this site. A power substation exists on the site. Comprehensive Plan: The impact of the tower has been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan discourages USes not related to bona fide agriculture or t~orestry. Currently, the Compreher~s]ve Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting 0ftelecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The only resource identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application is the Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board [ARB] currently addresses the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This proposed tower and the property exist entirely below the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Open Space Plan. Critical slopes do not exist on the site. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor. The tower site is only 60 feet from Route 29 and will be highly visible from the Entrance Corridor. Therefore, it will require ARB design approval prior to construction. An antenna location unthe existing "T" ~shaped lattice structures supporting the 500 ky power lines would provide an alternative that would be less invasive to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The applicant has acknowledged this collocation option for PCS, but has indicated the difficulty of obtaining easements from Virginia Power. United States Cellular, who seeks collocation with CFW at a later date, has indicated that electromagnetic interference would occur if they were to collocate cellular antennas on top of the lattice structures. The applicant has also indicated that the tower could be designed to be no taller than the height of the "T" shaped lattice structures supporting ttie V[rginia Power 500 ky transmission lines [120 feet total height], but such an option would not allow for collocation at a later date~ Staff also finds th/s option to be less invasive to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The impact of this tower on resources identified in the Open Space Plan is, in the opinion of staff, significant due to the size of the tower. As stated previously, the tower would be at a height of 30 feet taller than the existing lattice structure serving VirginiaPower's 500 kilovolt electrical line. 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) ofthe Telecommunications Act of t996, and; Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. [Located after the "Recommended Conditions of Approval".] A. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property, The proposed tower is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staff review of design and height of this tower, it will be highly visible from adjacent dwellings and Route 29. The proposed tower is also located approximately 25 feet from the nearest property line. Staff has identified that a waiver of side setback is not required, becanse the proposed pole is engineered to collapse entirely within the lease area should the structure fall. Two adjacent property owners have contacted staff to express their concerns with this proposal. The underlying theme of their concern is the extreme visibility of the tower clue to theheight and location in an open area~ Staffconcurs with the adjacent property owners regarding this visibility, which arguably could be considered a substantial detriment to adjacent property. Lighting of the tower is unlikely to be necessary, as the tower is less than 200 feet in height. Should the Board of Supervisors approve the applicant's request, staff has included a condition that prohibits lighting (Condition 2c). The proposed tower location is on the southeast side of Route 29 South, which is open pasmreland. Virtually no screening exists to provide screening of the equipment at the base of the tower from the entrance corridor, except for small shrubs along Route 29. I'he applicant has indicated that the equipment and shed at the base of the tower will be fenced. Should the Board of Supervisors grant approval of the applicant's request, staff has included the condition that the fence be a screening fence and/or appropriate screening be planted (Condition 11). The proposed tower does offer collocation possibilities. The applicant has indicated that U.S. Cellular will be seeking collocation approval on the proposed tower [if approved] in the near future. that the character of the district _will ~ Staff has reviewed the impact of the proposed tower relative to the character of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Rural Areas District, with particular attention to its potential to establish a precedent for additional future facilities of this nature on this site which might have a greater impact than this particular installation. The applicant's request is for a tower 30 feet taller than the "T" shaped lattice structures . . v transmission lines, which are only 100 feet distant. Staff ortin the Virginia Power 500 k . . : - ' ane- thus altering the character of ~on i~that the additional 30 feet utters the extstmg hexght pl · the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. As previously stated, the additional thirty feet is requested to allow for future collocation. Should the applicant reduce the height of the tower to 120 feet in height, the impact to the character of the district would also be diminished. - stand-alone facility. Towers have been permitted in the Staff has considered thxs tower as a Rural Areas in the past, without a finding of significant change to the character of the district depending upon the specific site and its surrounding terrain, land use, etc. However, over time, increasing tower deusity may incrementally change the character of the district, possibly diminishing the aesthetic qualities for which these districts are noted· Staff suggests that site- specific factors such as size, construction type and site be considered within the larger context of the pattern of tower location during the special use permit review process. At the present time, there does not appear to be an excess of tower facilities in this area. ~, - ose andinet ntofthis Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated 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 servxce as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase ion use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion, is that this request is in harmony with the propose and intent of these sections of the Ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, · nnit~" The provision of this facility does increase the attractive and harmomous corem ~y · availability and eonvemence for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an ,'attractive community" because of the potential visual impac~ to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does not comply with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted bv right in the district, The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available on this. 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 Pacilifies and appropriate conditions are proposed m ensure compliance with this provision of the Ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased conmmulcation 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 rodin frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio f~equency emissions. This requirement will protect the public health and safety. The Virginia Department of Transportation [VDOT] has reviewed this proposal and provided comment (Attachment E). The only comment VDOT provided is the requirement that the enurance adhere m commercial entrance standards (Condition ~2). B. Section 704(aX7h°o)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications ~Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instmmentaiity thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting.the provision of persunal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoping Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process or the denial of this . application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower constmcfiun. 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 indicated that the proposed site location is necessary to fill existing voids in their service area. As previously stated, staff had identified the possibility of collocation on the existing Virginia Power lattice poles. Staffhas also discussed, with the applicant, the minimum height requirements for their PCS operation. The applicant has indicated that a height of 120 feet would be sufficient, but seeks a height of 150 feet to allow for collocation. Staffreminds the Planning Commission that approval of the proposed 150 foot tall tower does not ensure collocation of other facilities at a later date. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in this area. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless communication capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provtsions of Sections 1.4.4, and 1.5; The tower wilt not restrict permitted uses on adjacem properties; and, The proposed tower location is in area of other significant structures of height. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: Visually impacts the Entrance Corridor resource identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, particularly due to the additional height above the existing power poles; Alternative pole size exists as well as the possibility of collocation on existing "T" shaped lattice structures supporting the Virginia Power 500 ky power line; and, The tower will not contribute tO an attractive community, which may be considered inconsistent with the provision of Section 1.4.3. 4. The tower will be highly visible from adjacent dwellings. Staff has identified the following factor which is relevant to this consideration: There is an existing reasonable use on the property. RECOMMENDED ACTION:~ Staff opinion is that this request is inconsistent with the prowsmns of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. (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 Telecommunications Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to remm to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The height of the tower shall not exceed 150 feet in height The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of a monopole, self-collapsing design; Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and, d. The tower shallnot be painted; e. The tower material shall be of Iow refiectivity. 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-113". Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna height shall be limited to the maximum height of the tower [150 ft]; and, h Satellite add 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: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (t) 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; and, (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted.is projected below a horizontal plane rumng though the lowest pa~ of the shield or shielding part of the luminalre. For purposes of this condition, an "Aluminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighfmg shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginnmg construction or installafion'of the tower or the equipment bnild'mg, or installation of access for vekicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by-the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing ofthe lease area shall not be required; The rower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning adm'mistrator 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 seawice provider; 11. The fencing of the lease area shall be constructed to fully screen all associated utilities and structures. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Community Development, appropriate landscaping may be approved in lieu of the screening fence; and, 12. The exisfmg entrance mu~t be upgraded to adhere to VDOT commemial entrance standards. Only the Planning Commission 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; and, 2. Provision of one parking space. ATTACHMENTS: A - Topographic Map B - Sketch Map and Construction Diagrams C - Application for Special Use Permit D - !tax Map E - Letter of Opposition, Dated March 20, 1998 F ~ Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of The Zoning Ordinance / / / / TM 87, PARCEL D.8. 1469, pS, TOWER S-rTE FOR CFW WZRELE,S,S / · / · *~ C/L PR OVER E~ ,Z~T'ZN~ E61*TI~ANCE ~ / AEp E~C POWE~ / ~ I~ON / L GRAVEL IATTACHMENT BI CV-113.RED HILL MINI CELL WIRELESS County of Application for SPECIAL USE PERMIT Date Submitted ~5 - I~ .~' - Receipt Number ] ~ 9_00 Department of Zoning 401 Mchatire Road · Charlotteaville, Virg/nia 229024596 :~ 804 296-5875 phone :~ 804 972-4035 fax J~ NEW SP (see Zoning Ordinance Section 35.0 for Appropriate Fee) [] AMENDMENT OF A VALID SP SP #. ($85.00) .EX NS ON OF A VALID sv: (s55.0o) EMst~gZomg: ~ & ~ PROPOSEDUSE:; ~,~/'c~&/~ ~;-/~ ~r /"CC~, P~>~.~, ~: L;r~a,,.~ . _ Phon~=: , Day T~e Phonc' ~ Phone~:, i?~ 4~'-) q y ? - - :~ , Day T~e Phone:, CO~A~ N~e (ffdifferent from above): , .? ,, ~ v ;.- d g,o 71 I hereby disclose that the owner or owners of the subject property also have an ownership intarest in the following tax map and parcel numbers, which abut or are immediately across the street or road from the subject properly: If ownership of the subjecf pmperty is in the name' of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name ora. corporation, partnership, or association, or in the name ora trust, or ln a fictitious name, the applicant must sumit with this application a document acceptable to the County which certifies that the pemon signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract 13urchaser of the subject property, the applicant must submit a document acceptable to the County containing the owneFs wdtten consent to the application. /f the applicant is the agent of the owner, 'the applicant must su~mif a document acceptable to the County that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my' knowledge and belief. ,- ~"~Signatu-re DESCRIt'TION OF ~Q~ST: ~lea~e attach additional i~omatmn ~ needed) JUSTIFICATION: (Please attach additional information as needed) OFF[CE USE ONLY TAX MA?/PAP,.C EL: r..6.I~q~ .. ¢,, .-Ou- o? 5 6,b 2. __- - -__ 3. 47 5. .- - - 6. ~."- ~. - - - 9. .... ZONED: MAG DIST: ~ ~ ~STED ~DEK O~ANCE SECTION: ~: ~ , ~' ~ ~s~'us'~:';':' ."- '. :"; ,. k~t,~E ~ ' '"S~k~k~s~ uss:' '~ '' ¢¢m~,~',~¢~'- ~ ~ ~ ~¢,.s cg m ~ ZMAs ~d Proffers: ~ Letter ~ Authorization ALBEMARLE COUNTY SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT I ATTACHHENT D I CFW WIRELESS RED HILL SECTION 87 Gap - SP 98-27 Ct:W WIRELESS RED HiLL [an'Ac..,.-,. "1 July Public Hearings SP-98-26 Albemarle First BaDk, Route 29 Page 2 June 12, ~998 The western most entrance on Westfield Road should be closed since it is so close to turning movements from Route 29. Vehicles parked on site obstruct the motorist from seein~ vehicles approaching. SP-98-27 CFW - Wireless (.C~.11~), Route 29 The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial entrance standards. Spr98-29'CFW Wireless (CVZ~S) Stony Point, Route 20/600 The proposed site should' be served by an entrance that meets commercial entrance standards It appears from the section map that perhaps a private entrance would serve the site. Due to a tall wooden privacy fence, sight distance is only 85 feet to the east Sp-98-30 gFW Wireless (C~.~3~) K~ene, Route 712 The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial entrance standards. SP-98-31 CFW Wireleeef Route 53/7~9 The proposed site should be served by an enErance that meets commercial entrance standards. If you have any questions, please advise before releasing comments to the developer. HWM/tdw CC: Karen Kilby John Giometti; Irma vonKutzleben J. H. Kesuerson ¥C~ur e truly, //, ,. Assistant Resident Engineer 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 AUTHORITY AND ENACTMENT This ordinance, to be cited as the Zoning Ordinance of Alb-m-rle County, is hereby ordained, enacted and published by the Board of Supervisors of klb~m=rle County, Virginia, pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article S, Code of Virginia, 1950, and amendments thereto. AMENDMENT TO ADOPT An ordinance go reenact and readopt the klb-mmrle County Zoning Ordinance and the Alb~mmrle County Zoning Map, Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia; That the'following ordinance know, as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, together with the Zoning Map attached thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacted effective ir~mediately upon adoption of'this ordinance. EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be effec- tive at and after 5:[5 P.M.. the 10th day of December, i980 and at the same time [he Albemarle County "Zoning Ordinance" adopted December ZZ. 1969, as amended, is hereby repealed. PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as ~s practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the prov,slons of Title 15.1. Chapter 11. Article 4, Code of Virginla. 1950. as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title q5.1. Chapt'er 11. Article 8, As set forth ~n sectuon %%.1-&~7 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public h~alth. Nafety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Alb-,~rke County. ~r~;n;a. and ~o plan for the future development of coram~n~t~e~ ~' th~ end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that n~.~ co~m~n;ty centers be developed with adequate highway, ut;1;tv, health, educational and recreational facilities; that .%he nee~ ~,! att%culture, industry and business be recognized in future Erow%n~ %nat residential areas be provided with healthy surro%u~dings ~or ~an:lv l~e; that agriculturel and fores[al land be preserved: and ~ha~ 'ne growth of the comm~nity be consonan~ with the efficient and econo=~cal use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it or~a~nec {,v [ne Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~irginia. {or the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the {Supp. t~6g, 9-9-91) 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6 1..4 1.4.8 1.4.10 1.4.11 1.5 I ATTACHMENT F I future development of the comm~hity, 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: To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive a~d harmonious community; To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protectidh, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community faci- lities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; To encourage economzc development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (A~ended 9-9-92) To provide for the preservatzon of agricultural and foreetal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environ- ment; (Amended 9-9-92) To protect approach slopes and ocher safety areas of licensed pit- ports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) To include reasonable prov[szons, not znconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section §2.!-&-.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11-1-89; Amended To promote affordable housznK. (Added 9-9-92) R~tATION TO ENVIRON~T This ordinance is desi~neu to treat lands which are similarly situated and envirommentallv s:milar ~n like manner with reasonable considera- tion for the exxst~ng use and character of properties, the Comprehen- sive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or thange, [ne current and ~uture land and wager requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the re~uxrements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for -2- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) 1.6 1.7 the conservation of natural resournes~ and preservation of fleo~ plains, the preservation of agricultural and forental land, the con- servation of l~roperties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughou= the county. (Amended 11-1-89) ~ATION TO GOMi~LYJi~SIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consi~ deration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance no create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is no he encouraged in Villages, Coat,unities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives~ and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities', water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended 1i-1-89) OFFICIAL ZONING MAP The unincorporated areas of Alb-~==la County, Virginia, are hereby divided into districts, as indicated on a set of map sheets entitled "Zoning Map of klb~rle County, ¥ir~inia" which, nogether with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and de- clared ~o be a par= of this ordinance. The Zoning~MaD shall be identified by the signature or the attested signature of the Chairman of the goard of Supervisors, together with the date of adoption of [hks ordinance. The zoninE administrator shall be r~sponsible for maintainihE the Zoning Map, which sha~l be located in his. offices, to~ether with the current zonin~ snares of land and water areas, buildings and other structures :in the county. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to interpret the current ~oning status of land and ~ater areas, buildings and other structures in the county. No changes of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map or any matter shown thereon except in conformity with the. procedures and requirements of th~s ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person to- make unauthorized changes, on the official Zoning Hap. Violations of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 57.0. CERTIFIED COPY. PILING ~ certified copy of the toning Ordinance and Zoning Map of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be filed in the office of the zoning admini- strator and in =he office Of ths Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe~ merle County, Virginia. ~3- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) RECEIVED July 1, 1998 JUL 0 6" Planning Dept, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director Albemarle County Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: Special Use Permit Application SP 97-27 Dear Mr. Cilimberg, The construction of a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden would adversely affect the value of the community in general and the surrounding properties in specific. North Garden is a lovely area in Albemarle County and is an old community. I have lived on my small farm for 18 years. Not only would the communications tower be an eyesore for me it would devalue the 32.75 acres and the 5 division rights allowed. It saddens me greatly to think the county would consider the location of this tower adjacent to a lake which has been used by the local community as a tiny recreational area convenient for local gatherings and fundraising events. The fire department has used the location for years to host a fundraising BBQ evem. In the years I have lived in the area there have been hayrides along RT 760, a 5k run, and gospel music events: Often on beautiful Albemarle days I will see folks fishing, picnicing and relaxing by the lake. The safety hazzards presented by that specific location is of great concern. The Appalachian Power facilities atthe location involve immense electric power voltage. I find the possibility of a real disaster to be greatly increased with a eom- munications tower also erected at the site. I trust your research into this request will confirm the inadvisability of permiQng this use not allowed by right and you will take action against the request for a special use permit. Sincerely, Irene Brenneman 3822 Red Hill School Road North Garden, Virginia 22959 OF SUPE 5/ISOR$ August 12, 1998 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: Special Use Permit Application SP 97-27 Dear Mr. Tucker, The construction ora communicationtower onthe Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden would adversely affect the value of the community in general and the surrounding properties in specific. Not only would the tower be an eyesore for those living in the community but for interstate travelers as well. Exist- ing power line towers, which are an environmental blight in the county, provide no excuse to submit our community to the additional impact of a communications tower as well. I own 32+ acres which adjoin the site and have lived on this small farm for almost 18 years. I believe the tower would devalue my property and the 5 division rights allowed. My neighbors would find their properties devalued as well. It saddens me greatly to think the county would consider the location of this tower adjacent to a lake which has been used by the local community as a tiny recreational area convenient for local gatherings and fundraising events. The fire department has used the location for years to host a fundraisin~ BBQ event. Often on beautiful Albemarle days I will see folks fishing, picnicmg and relaxing by the lake. There is virtually no screening between the lake and the tower site. The safety hazzards presented by that specific location is of great concern. The Appalachian Power facilities at the location carry immense electric power voltage. I find the possib'flity of a real disaster to be greatly increased with a eom- munications tower also erected at the site. North Garden is a lovely area in Albemarle Co,mnB, a~x! welcomes travelers to Albemarle from the south. I trust that your research into this request will confirm the inadvisability of permitting this use not allowed by right. Please deny special use permit application SP 97-27. Sincerely, Irene Brenneman 3822 Red Hill School Road North Garden. ~5rginia 220~I;[INTY OF ALBEMARLE PETITION TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PERMIT REQUEST 97-27 We, the undersigned, request that you recommend decrial of the permit to construct a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden because we believe it would have an adverse affect on the conmaunity and on the experience of travelers using the 29S corridor. ADDRESS (city and state) PETITION TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PERMIT REQUEST 97-27 We, the undersigned, request that you recommend denial of the permit to construct a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden because we believe it would have an adverse affect on the community and on the experience of travelers using the 29S corridor NAME ADDRESS (city and state) lk PETITION TO: ALBFeaMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PERMIT REQUEST 97-27 We, the undersigned, request that you recommend denial of the permit to construct a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden because we believe it would have an adverse affect on the community and on the experience of travelers using the 29S corridor. ADDRESS (city and state) PETrrION ~O: ALBEMARLR COUNTY PLANNING COIVIMISSION RE: PERMIT REQUEST 97-27 We, the undersigned, request that you recommend denial of the permit to construct a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden because we believe it would have an adverse affect on the community and on the experience of travelers using the 29S corridor. ./ ADDRESS (city and state) PETITION ~0: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PERMIT REQUEST 97-27 We, the undersigned, request that you recommend denial of the permit to construct a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Re 29 in North Garden because we believe it would have an adverse affect on the community and on the experience of travelers using the 29S corridor. NAME ADDRESS (city and state) PETITION TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PERMIT REQUEST 97-27 We, the undersigned, request that you recommend denial of the permit to construct a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in North Garden because we believe it would have an adverse affect on the community and on the experience of travelers using the 29S corridor. ADDRESS (city and state) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Mark Gartley Project Manager United States Cellular Corporation August 19, 1998 Response to Planning Staff's Report on SP 98-27 Application of CFW Wireless for a Communications Tower in Red Hi/1 The Board of Supervisors ("Board") has before it the application of CFW Wireless ("CFW") for a special use permit to build a cellular tower on property owned by American Electric Power ("AEP") on Route 29 in the Red Hill section of Albemarle County. On July 14, 1998, the Planning Commission for Albemarle County ("Plarming Commission") considered CFW's application and recommended against it. The Planning Staff of Albemarle County ("Staff") prepared a report wkich recommended against granting a special use permit for the Red Hill site. The United States Cellular Corporation ("U.S. Cellular") believes that the Staff in fact bases its decision on a single factor, the visual impact of the tower, and does not give weight m a number of other factors which supp0~t CFW's application and are relevant to the Board's decision. The Staff report addressed the issues the Board must consider in deciding on a special use permit. According to § 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, "[s]pecial use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that [1] such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, [2] that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and [3] that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, [4] with the uses pemfitted by right in the district, [5] with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and I6] with the public health, safety and general welfare."' U.S. Cellular will respond to the Staffs report by addressing each of these factors. 1. Substantial detriment to adiacent property. CFW's proposed cellular tower does not create a substantial detriment To the adjacent property. According to the Staff report, the tower ~vould be located 80 feet from AEP's power lines, I00 feet from Virginia Power's 500kV transmission lines and 1,000 feet from the 'The numbers/n brackets are not in the original. They were added to correspond with the subheadings in this memorandum and with the Staff's analysis. nearest dwelling. The top of the towers supporting Virginia Power's transmission lines would be 30 feet below the level of the cellular tower. The Staff has expressed concern about the "extreme visibility of the tower." Despite the Staff's concerns about the visual impact of the tower, almost every property in sight of the proposed cellular tower is also in sight of the power transmission towers. This location is not a pristine viewshed; thus, the addition of the cellular tower would result in only an incremental change. It is difficult to believe that a 30-foot increase in heighl over the current utility structures would constitute a substantial detriment to adjacent property. There is no evidence that the proposed tower would have any nnpact on the property values of adjacent property. In fact, the proposed tower's only impact on adjacent property is that it can be seen along with the current utility structures. 2. The character of the district will not be chanaed. The proposed tower location is in a Rural Areas district and an Entrance Corridor Overlay district. The Staff has taken the position that the character of the Entrance Corridor Overlay district would be changed because the proposed tower is 30 feet taller than the power transmission towers. The Staff was also concerned that allowing a tower on this site might create a precedent for the addition of more towers on this site and an even greater impact. Actually, the proposed tower site has a m~nimum impact on the character of the district because of its location next to the power transmission lines. This location was chosen to minimize the effect on the surrounding area. Placing the tower on AEP's property conforms to the intent of both the Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor Overlay districts. The Staff suggests that the height of the tower in the Entrance Corridor Overlay district alters the character of the district. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the Entrance Corridor Overlay district exists to protect, among other things, '~he county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including the preservation of natural and scenic resources.., to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources: [and] to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors .... " Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.1. The clear goal of the Entrance Corridor Overlay district is to minimize disruptive development near major rural highways. Equally clear is the need for cellular service on Route 29. The proposed location for the tower is consonant with the intent of the overlay district and the need for cellular service. The viewshed on Route 29 is already degraded by the presence of the utility towers. A cellular tower on this location would have minimal ~mpact on a site where utility towers already disrupt the view. Placing towers on developed land ensures that development is compatible with, and protective of, the scenic resources. Locating a tower to serve Route 29 at another location in the same area would create a much greater disruption to the viewshed and to the scenic and natural resources. Tourists and visitors to Albemarle County are less likely to notice a cellular tower if it is placed next to a transmission line tower. These visitors would also reap the safety and welfare benefits of 2 quality cellular service in this area. Thus, by locating the cellular tower next to the transmission lines the character of the Entrance Corridor Overlay district will be preserved and a public need will be served. The intent of the Rural Areas District is the "[p]reservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;... [and] [c]onservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources .... It is intended that permitted development be restricted to land which is of marginal utility for agricultural/forestal purposes." Zoning Ordinance 8 10.1. By locating the tower on AEP's property, CFW preserves agricultural and forestal lands by developing land that is already being used for utility infrastructure instead of land currently being used for agriculture and forests. The location of the tower on the utility right of way makes only an inaremenml impact on the scenic resources of the community, and conserves the natural and historic resources by limiting construction on undeveloped areas of the county. The Staff admits that a cellular tower does not necessarily change the character of a Rural Areas district. Instead, the Staff is concerned about the impact of multiple towers. However, there are not multiple towers in this location. 3. The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. The location that CFW has chosen for the Red Hill cellular tower is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff, however, believes that the proposed tower would not be m harmony with 8 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which states that the Ordinance is intended "[t]o facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." According to the Staff, the proposed tower would not contribute to an "attractive community." Implicit in this decision is the conclusion that an attractive community is the most significant provision of the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff report concedes that the proposed tower is in harmony with several subsections of the Intent and Purpose Section of the Zoning Ordinance. For instance, the Staff states that cellular service provides a needed public service. Fulf'flling this need is in harmony with 88 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. As the Staff points out, increased cellular service also contributes to a conveniem community in accordance with 8 1.4.3. The proposed tower is also in harmony with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that the Staff did not consider. Section 1.4.7 states that another purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is "[t]o encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base." Increased availability of cellular service encourages economic development by making the county more attractive for outside investment. Increased investment in local business and resources enlarges the tax base. The proposed tower would be in harmony with 8 1.4.8 which "provides for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment." As discussed in the previous section, the proposed location of the tower would minimize the impact on agricultural and forestal lands by placing the tower in a utility right-of-way. Despite the fact that the proposed tower is in harmony with most of the applicable subsections of the Purpose and Intent section of the Zoning Ordinance, the Staff has argued that the potential visual impact creates noncompliance with this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff's conclusion is not supported by the weight of the factors of the Purpose and Intent section. This analysis re-enforces the idea that the Staff's only concern is the visual impact of the tower. When all of the factors are considered by the Board, the proposed cellular site conforms with the purpose and intent of-the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Uses permitted by right. The Staff found that the tower would not impact by-right uses of AEP's property or any other property. 5. Additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance. The Staff proposed changes to the plan to conform to the provisions of § 5.0 which deal with towers. These proposals are nor problematic. 6. The public health, safety and ~eneral welfare. The Staff believes that increased cellular service is consistent with public health, safety, and general welfare. The Staff's Summary. The Staff summarized its recommendations and suggested four factors which it believed were unfavorable to CFW's application. One of those factors was the possibility of collocation on Virginia Power's transmission towers. This possibility has been ruled out by Virginia Power, so it can no longer be considered a negative factor. The three other factors are the same factor expressed three times: (1) the tower's visual impact on the Entrance Corridor, (2) the tower does not contribute to an attractive community, and (3) the tower is highly visible from neighboring property. As the previous discussion made clear, the tower site was chosen to minimize the visual impact and to comply with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The visual disruption should be considered in conjunction with the substantial impact on the viewshed that the power transmission towers already have. In addition, the potential visual impact should be only one factor, not three, to be considered by the Board. When all of the factors are considered and given their appropriate weight, the Board should approve CFW's application for a special use permit for the Red Hill site. The proposed site has a mmimally disruptive impact on the viewshed; is in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance; and preserves the scenic and natural resources of Albemarle County. 4 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON SP-98-27. CFW Wireless [CVll3] Red Hill (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS ~,,//' NAME (Please prim dearly) PHONE NUMBER (Optional) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 July 22, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dep~ of Planning & Community Dev¢lopmen! 401 Mclntire Road Charloltesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296:5823 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Larry Ryan CFW Wireless P O Box 1328 Waynesboro~ VA 22980 RE: SP-98-$0 CFW Wireless (Keene) Tax Map 121, Parcel 89 Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14, 1998, by a vote of 5-1 recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, Please note that this denial is based on the following:: Other potential locations have not been explored; and Concerns were expressed about the fact that the type of antennae (panel} is much more visible than the omni-directional antennae which were used at the Bellair site. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervmors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Planning Commission also denied, by a vote of 5:1, a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accordance with provisions of Section 32.2. Page 2 Jury 22, 1998 ffY0U 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 WDF/jcf Cc: ~a Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley 2 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN THOMAS JULY 14; 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 ~S_P 98-30 CFW W/RELESS CV 134 (KEENE} Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval to install a self supporting wooden pole of tree height (95 feet) to provide improved PCS cellular phone coverage for the Highway 20 South corridor. within Albemarle County. Currently CFW Wireless has no PCS CDMA coverage along this route, south of Carter's Mountain. This site is planned to connect to a proposed site near Round Top Mountain and Carter's Mountain. The proposed tower location is a 20 foot x 20 foot fenced site in the north central portion of Tax Map 121, Parcel 89, approximately 300 feet east of Highway 20 South (Scottsville Road), in the northeast quadrant of its intersection with State Route 712 (Coles Rolling Road). Petition: Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2{ fi) to allow the construction of a personal wireless telecommunication facility on aparcel of approximately 9.5 acres, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 89, located on the east side of Route 20 South (Scottsville Road) in the northeast quach~mt of its intersection with State Route 712 (Coles Rolling Road). This property is zoned R_A, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor, and lies within the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located w/thin a designated development area. A location map is included as Attachment A; a plat of the property is Attachment B; the applicant's site plan is Attachment C; the applicant's justification is Attachment D. The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver. Character of the Area: Access to the site is an existing driveway approximately 60 feet from the Highway 20 South/State Route 712 intersection, which currently serves the Gentry home. In general, the area's existing development pattern is characterized by large rural/agricultural parcels, with a series of smaller residential lots located on the south side of Route 712, east of this property. Property located within the Totier Agriculmml/Forestal (A/F) District lies approximately ½ mile east of the proposed tower site, on the south side o£Route 712; property included w/thin the Carter's Bridge A/F District is located approximately 1-1/2 miles to the north, on the east side of Route 20. Attachment E is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby house structures, and other features. 3_ The proposed tower site lies at an elevation of approximately 572 feet ASL (Above Sea Level). The closest dwelling is approximately 200 feet from the proposed site, and approximately 10 residences are located within 2,000 feet ~0.37 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the immediate area. The closest existing CFW Wireless facility is located on Carter's Mountain. The closest existing tower m the proposed site is the 360 Communications site at Camp Holiday Trails, north of Interstate 64 in Ivy. RECOMMENDATION: staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History_: None available. Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower, cleating for access from the existing driveway 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. Staff can identify no provision in the Comprehensive Plan which prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless commtmications. This site is located in the Rural Areas; it is also identified as lying within a designated Entrance Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified iesources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are limited to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, which is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. 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 pint,se," 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 frnm tourism." If this 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 Overlay District, because it is a wooden pole, equal in height to and surrounded by existing trees, located approximately 300 feet from Route 20 South and 430 feet from State Route 712. 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. 2 Access to the tower will be from a 15 foot wide easement from State Route 7t2,.through an existing driveway. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated in its comments of June 15, 1998 thru the entrance to the site should meet commercial entrance standards. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will 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. [copy attached] 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 itsetf the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be ~ssued upon 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 240 feet fi:om the nearest property line I to the west); that boundary is shared with Tax Map 121 Parcel 89A, the site oft he Green Mountain Country Store, which sells food, fuel, and other products. Because of the wooded nature of the terrain and the relatively high level of commercial activity and vehicular traffic generated by the store, the proposed tower is not anticipated to create impacts that would be of detriment m the adjacent property. The proposed mini-cell site is wooded; the applicant's survey information indicates that the. extsting trees are 95 feet tall, and the tower is proposed to match their height. (Should the Commission recommend approval of the tower, staffrecommends that the applicant's surveyor certify the height of the trees within 25 feet of the tower, prior to issuance of a building permit.) The two panel antennae will add another 6 feet to the height of the tower; these are expected to be visible but not visually negative. They are not unlike certain types of television antennae currently used by many homeowners around the county. Because of its location in a wooded area visually positioned against a wooded hillside, within a ' small enclosure that will necessitate minimal clearing and disturbance to the property, the tower is expected to be a minor feature in the landscape. The applicant's photo simulation indicates some visibility from the state highway, although the use of wooden and fiberglass components makes the tower 'unremarkable in the landscape, particularly at the posted travel speeds. (Staffis unsure of the accuracy oft. his type of photo simulation in replicating actual impacts.) Staffnotes that the use of non-reflective dark colored materials would minimize the metallic appearance and visual impact of the fencing which the applicant has proposed. Visibility from adjacent property would be further reduced if the fencing were deleted altogether, which staff recommtnds. Staff also notes that limiting the tower height to the height of the trees located at the same elevation as the proposed site or at a lower elevation (also a recommendation by staff) appears to further reduce visual impacts, in that the structure would more effectively screened by the trees between it and the state highway, the point from which it is likely to be most visible. Development of the access road to a minimum standard to avoid erosion and surface damage is also recommended. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings 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 siteis 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 opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantialeollocation:options. Staff notes that although the County encourages collocation of facilities where opportunities exist, future collocation on this tower, should it be approved~ should not introduce telecommunications facilities that more significantly impact the adjacent property and the district. Because of the relatively low height, wooden pole construction, and lack of capacity for vertical separation of antennae, collocation does not appear probable. If approved, furore facilities should be substantially of the same nature as the whip antennae proposed with this application so that additional impacts are not created. 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: Staff has reviewed the impact of the proposed tower relative to the character of the Rural Areas District and Entrance Corridor, with particular attention to its potential to establish a precedent for additional future facilities of this nature on th/s site which might, perhaps, have a greater impact than this particular installation. Because of the minimal physical impacts to the property anticipated from the mini-cell design, and the fact that future collocation is problematic at best on a tower of this type, staff finds that the proposed tower Would not alter the character of the Rural' Areas district significantly. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas in the pasT, without a finding of significant change m the chhraeter of the district depending upon the specific site and its surroUnding terrain, land use, etc~ However~ over time increasing tower density may incrementally change the character of the district, possibly diminishing the aesthetic qualities for which these districts are 4 noted. Staff suggests that site specific factors such as size, construction type and site be considered within the larger context of the pattern of tower location during the special use permit review process. At the present time, there does not appear to be an excess of tower facilities in this area. The property is also zoned EC, Entrance Corridor. If approved, the tower will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Above-ground utilities occur along Route 20 South and other state roads, utilizing wooden poles similar to the proposed tower. Because of the wooded nature of the area and the placement of the tower approxknately 300 feet from Highway 20 South and 430 feet from Route 712, centered within the external boundary of the property, staff finds that the proposed tower does not signify a change in the character of the district. It is expected to be only minimally visible from the'closest public road and adjacent properties, with a direct impact commensurate with that ora telephone or power pole. 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 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1;4.5, 1.4.8, and 1.5.~ Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.4, and 1.5 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 m use. Based on the provision ora public service, staffopinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance, Sections 1.4.5 and 1.4.8 address preservation of historic areas and agricultural, forest,al and other lands significant to the nataral environment. Although these resources are present on this site or within the area, staff finds that negative impacts to them are minimal. Because of the absence of existing towers in the area, collocation on an existing telecommanicafion facility appears problematic or impossible as an alternative to the new tower. Staff is not aware of collocation opportunities on other utility structures in the area. Staff opinion is that this request complies 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 regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordln~nce, Section 5. I. 12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower ~acilities and appropr/ate 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 requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704ra~(7~(b~(B(IB of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staffopinion 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 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, staffdoes notbelieve that denialofthis application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. Because of the absence of existing towers along this section of the Route 20 South corridor, as previously mentioned it has not b~en possible to identify any suitable collocation opportunity which would eliminate the need for construction of this tower. Due to the limited impact anticipated by this site. 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. Section 32.2.2 allows the Commission to 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 and indicated no objections to the granting of it. Based on this review, staff is unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan. Staffrecommends approval ora full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (includ'mg 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. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.43, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties; 3. Access to the tower will be from an existing road, through an existing entrance. over an access easement; Due to its location, construction type, and the existing tree cover on the site. the tower will be minimally visible from other portions of the property, adjacent properties, and public roads; and 5. Collocation options do not appear to be available for this site. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. A non-agricultural/forestal use will be introduced into a rural area; 2. Alternative locations for this tower have not been fully explored. The following factor is relevant to this consideration: 1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that this request complies with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff feels that negative impacts from the tower would be minor and such impacts are balanceff by the benefits 0fincreased wireless service. Therefore, staff supports this application and offers the following recommended conditions of approval, RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the elevation oftbe tallest tree. Antenna may extend 6 feet above the height of the tower, and shall be of panel type; 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood; b. Guy wires shall be not permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; d. 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 on the site as shown on the attached plan enfttled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless'CV 134" ~nd initialed "SET, 5/27/98." The tower shall be located on the site as follows: (1) The tower shall be located so that, in the event Of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the lease area; 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to two (2) panel antenna not to exceed six (6) feet in height; b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be u~ed, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The petmittee 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 th~ 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 8 10. I1. 12. 13. locate on the tower or the site; 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 nights 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 mrming though the lowest part of the shield or shielding feature. 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 m the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet ofthetower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the tower require provision of greater access improvemena, these improvemems shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed; The access road shall be gated; The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless commtmications purposes is disconthmed; The permittee ~hall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by 9 not later than July 1 of that year. l'he report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; 14. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 15. 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. 16. The access road-shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 17. 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 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. Provision of one parking space; 3. Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final zoning approval. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Plat C - Applicant's Site Plan D - Applicant's Justification E - Topographical Map C:\TOWERS~KEENE.RPT ALBEMARLE COUNTY rA 12¢ / SP 98-3O CFW WIReLeSS KE~N~ 22 129 SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 121 _A~CHt4ENT BJ TOWER SITE FOR C F W wIRELESS CV- 154 PROPERTY OF DA~AS ~ EMMA GENTRY · ~LE D/STRICT, ,~LBEMARIE CO., VA. scOTTSV~ .. ~.~, MAY 4. 1998 ~ sCA~: (: ~ S~i~ ~ VA. Sp~al U.~ P~rrnit Application 2 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Please attach additional information as needed) ,/USTIFICATION: ('Please attach additional information as needed) OFFICE USE ONLY' TAX MAP/PARCEL: 4.__ __ ~.__ __ __-. 6.__ 7. ,--- -__ g.~ .-~- , 9.____ : 1LE~UESTED UNDER ORDINANCE SECTION: ~_ ?-- - .~, & !~x~S~.'v~:,...: .... ~'(.~ ~.~.,,. "P'~os~us~: c~'~n:~ ~- T~¢ ~~ , ~. SPs: ~ ZMAs ~d Proffers: ~ 'VAs: ~ LcRerorAuthorlzation RECEIVED,. JUL fl 9 199 Planning Dept. July 6, 1998 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Hauning Commission c/o Department of Planning mid Cozmnunity Developmeni; 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 . · RE: 8P98-30 CFW Wireless, CV134, Keene Ladies and Gentlemen: I write on beha/f of Oreenmont Farms Ltd. Partnership. We are the largest landowner adjacent to the above referenced site for-a proposed communications tower. Our preference would be to see this tower located elsewhere. We also recognize that towers of this sort are inevitable and that public demand for the communications services they provide only'escalate in corning years. They must eventually be permitted in strategi0 locations throughout the county. But, the visual impact of towers, including this proposal, can be minimized. As the owner of several tower companies and as the developer of a number of Similar towers I have the following suggestions -- any or all of which you might consider as conditions to the grant of tl~is permit (should you decide that it is in the public interest to granf it). F,.~.., a .... o. emoot,, u,e,v th~ B.~ar,.' o~ aupe..w,oor~ ,,, ,~onslder vo..lo~,uon r~qu,;emen,s, There ~e ~e Feder~ Comu~cations Comssion ~cemes Br mob~e telephone se~ice wMch have already been granted by the Federal Goye~ent covering ~bemarle C~ty. O~y t~ee of these ~cemes~e comme{ed md ~e eu~ent¢Se~ga~ively m~keted. Potenti~ly, five m0re ca~ers'~ yet to come. There ~e, h addition, over a d~zen paging licenses, a ha~dozen sped~ized mohle ra&o (S~) li~nses, and another dozen Cederal licenses for new semices'such as "L~S" and38 G~ "~eless fibe/' auto,ed for t~s county. ~I of these se~ices Mit require tower locations in ~bemarle over the co~g d~ade. F~ worse than one tower at a rural intersection like Keene would be a "tower fire" ~ke what currently e~ts on Ca~er's Mountain. A long term way to prevent such obtrusive clusters of towers is to require now either as a condition of tho ~ speci~ use pe~t or a~ a matter of law by county ordin~ce, tho co-location of mflfiple c~ers on the sine tower. Tbs ~s tec~ologicaLly feasible (dan't believe c~ers wh0. te~ you othe~sO but is r~ely volunteered by the ~ers for competitive reasons. There is, as the st~ is no aouot aware, I~ model local government ordinance covering co-location requirements. ~ The grant this request ~urg county should consider adopting it promptly. In the meantime, if you must ' ' ' ~ e you to require as a condition that CFW allow future carriers to co-locate on this structure or a structurally stronger replacement (at fair market rates) without building a second tower a[it~s ~-. 'ii- location. In addition to co-location I would encourage the following conditions to minimize visual impact. Require that the tower be an artificial tree design as opposed to the more common place bare components. While this is not feasible for a tower with multiple users arid it is more expensive than a standard tower, it would be possible here. The second best alternative is, as I understand it, what is currently proposed -- a .wooden telephone pole. ~ > c Require that the applicant plant double rows of evergreens around the equipment sh~d fence. Evergreens, such as white pines, that will reach 50' or more in height at maturity should not interfere with the RF signal provided the mast of the anterma extends 15' or more above the tree tops. Carriers may be reluctant to plant such-trees because they may require future pruning as their tops approach tower heigl~t, BUt, this is a fair condition for the location of a tower in a rural residential area. 3. Neither the tower nor the equipment yard below it should be lit after dark. r In summary, we would prefer no tower in our "back yard". But if the Board feels compelled to approve it please attach reasonable conditions that minimize its impact. Sincerely, GREENMONT FARMS LTD. By: James B. Murray, Jr. luly 6, 1998 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission clo Depa~ment of P!ar~g and Co~rcar2~' Devalopment 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: SP98-30 CFW Wireless, CVt34, Keene Ladies and Gentlemen: I write on behalf of Crreenmont Farms Ltd. Partnership. We are the largest landowner adjacent to the above referenced site for a proposed c~ommurfications tower. Our preference would be to see this tower located elsewhere. We also recognize that towers of this sort are inevitable and that public demand for the communications services they provide will orfly escalate in coming years. They must eventually be permitted in strategic locations throughout the county. But, the visual impact of towers, ~neluding th/s proposal, can be miniraized. As the owner of several tower companies and as the developer of a number of s'mfilar towers I have the following suggestions - any or all of which you might consider as conditions to the grant of this permit (should you decide that it is in the public interest to grant it). F[~t, avd faremosr, I urge t~,e Board of Super~ors to consider co.,iocation rcqukemenrs. There are nine Federal Communications Commission licenses for mob~e telephone service which have already been granted by the Federal Government covering Albemarle County. Only three of these licenses are constructed and are currently be'rog actively marketed. Potentially, five more carriers are ye~ to come. There are, in addition, over a dozen paging licenses, a half dozen specialized mobile radio (SMR) licenses, and another dozen federal licenses for new services such as "LMDS' and 38 GHz '~v~ireless'fiber' authorized for this county. All of these services will require tower locations in Albemarle over the coming decade. Far worse than one tower at a rural intersection like Keene would be a "tower farm" like what currently exits on Carter's Mountain. A long term way to prevent such obtrusive clusters of towers is to require now either as a condition of the first special use permit or as a matter of law by county ordinance, the co-location of multiple carriers on the same tower.- This is technologically feasible (don't believe carders Who tell youotherwise)butisrarelyvolunteeredbythecmaSersforcompetitivereasons. Thereis, asthestaff is no doubt aware, a model local goverranent ordinance covering co-location requkements. The county should consider adopting it promptly. In the meantime, if you must grant tlfis request I urge you to require as a eondltion that CFW allow futare carriers to co-locate on this structure or a structurally stronger replacement (at fair market rates) without building a second tower at this location. In addition to co-location I would encourage the following conditions to minimize visual impact. Require that the tower be an artificial tree design as opposed to the more cormuon place bare components. While this is not feasible for a tower with multiple users and it is more expensive hhan a standard tower, it would be possible here. The second best alternative is, as I understand it, what is currently proposed -- a wooden telephone pole. Require that the applicant plant double rows of ever~eens around the equipment shed fence. Evergreens, such as white pines, that will reach 50' or more in height at maturity should not interfere with the RI* signal provided the mast of the antenna extends 15' or more above the tree tops. Carriers may be reluctant to plant such trees because they nmy require future prun/ng as their tops approach tower height. But, this is a fair condition for the location ora tower in a rural residential are& 3. Neither the tower nor the equipment yard below it should be lit afmr dark. In surmuary, we would prefer no tower in our "back yard". But if the Board feels compelled to approve it please attach reasonable conditions that mirfimize its impact. Sincerely, GREENMONT FARMS LTD. By: James B. Murray, Jr. McGumEWooDs BATi .E &BooTHE Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TOD (804)977-2500 · Fax (804) 980-2222 Steven W. Blaine Writer's Direct Dial 804/977-2588 June25,1~8 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McLntire Road Charlottesville, Virgi~fia 22902 Mr. Ron Keeler Planning Depamnent, County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Via Hand Delivery Gra_v Roclr Dear Ms. Carey and Mr. Keeler: This will confirm our phone conversations yesterday and today regarding the schedule of Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings for the Gray Rock Rezoning application. I understand that the matter will be discussed at the Planning Con,mission meeting on Tuesday, July 28, and at the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 19. I wanted to confirm these dates because it will be necessary, to make arrangements for the owners and for the various consultants who are out of tow-n to make travel arrangements. SWB:ctg cc: Mrs. Barbara J. Fried w~v, mwbb.com PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO~ SP-98-30. CFW Wireless [CV134] Keen~ (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAIC PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER (Optional) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BO^RD 0F'SU'?ERVBt s COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Comrnunit~ De,~elopment 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 July 22, 1998 Larry Ryan CFW Wireless P OBox 1328 Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: 8P-98-31 CFW Wireless (Route 53 & 729) Tax Map 93, Pared 46B Dear Mr. Ryan: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14, 1998, by a vote of 4-2, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a statement from a certified land surveyor on the elevation 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. 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. c The tower shall not be painted. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site 6 " for CFW Wireless, CV-131" and initialed "WDF /25/98 . Page 2 July 22, 1998 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. 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 other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions, Prior to approval cfa final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. 'Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by 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 ofthe luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a tuminaire 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. All lighting shall be shielded from Route 729, Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance. 7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from 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 exisfmg trees within two hundred (,'200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility acc~s. The perrmttee 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. 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. 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; 12. Any equipment on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 19, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Planning Commission granted a waiver of the requirements of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2.subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Provision of one parking space. The Panning Commission granted a modification of Section 4.10.3.to allow location of the tower approximately 67 feet from the property line. 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: vEll~-Carey Amelia McCuiley Jack Kelsey Charlie Kingrea 3 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP JULY 14, 1998 AUGUST 19, 1998 SP 98-31 CFW Wireless (Route 53 and 729] Applicant's Proposal: The applicant'is proposing to construct a tower at tree top level to provide PCS, Personal Communication System,' coverage for eastern Albemarle County, and western Fluvarma County. The proposed tower is a wooden pole. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The specific location.and design of the proposedIower 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. Petiti,on: Proposal to construct a personal wireless telecommunication fac'dity on approximately 4 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas in accord with the provisions of section 10.2.2(6) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property, described as Tax Map 93 Parcel 46B is located onthe east side of Route 729 (Buck Island Rd.) approximately 0.3 miles south of Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkwy) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed facility is east of Route 729 south of Route 53 near an existinghigh voltage power line. Two dwellings are currently located on the property. Scattered trees surround the houses on the site and the rear of the site is wooded. The proposed towel is located at the edge of the tree line, a survey showing the location is included as attachment C. Attachment D is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed facility, nearby houses, structures and the power line. This potion of Albemarle County is gently rolling. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 400 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. The closest dwelling to the proposed facility [not on the same parcel as the proposed facility] tower is approximately 600 feet distant. This dwelling is located on the west side ofRome 729 directly opposite the site. The nearest existing tower is located approximately 4 miles to the north at Boyd Tavern. This tower is operated by CFW Wireless. IA tower has been approved in Fluvanna County approximately 3.4 miles to the northeast ofthis site. This tower is 120 feet tall and is under construction. It will accommodate CleW Wireless and US Cellular.] RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: No history is available. Comprehensive Plan: Staffnotes that in order to construct the proposed facility no rearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, only the impact ofthe facility [wooden pole and ground equipment] have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. No resources are identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan for this area. Currently the Comprehensive Plan comains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. No provision of the Comprehensive Plan prohibits or has the effect of prohibifmg Personal Wireless Services. As the parcel for this siting is currently used for residential use and has no agricultural/forestal production potential staff opinion is that approval of this request would not reduce the potential for use under the intent of the Rural Areas designation. Based on the.location of the tower outside any resource areas ident'rlied in the Open Space Plan and limitedcontent of the Comprehensive Plan, staffop'mion is that this request is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, considering the limited review criteria in the Comprebensive Plan staffis unable to find that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)g0 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996~ Reduction of 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. Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinanc~ 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 57 feet from the nearest property line and floes not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is at the edge of the tree line, scattered trees exist between the site. and Route 729. These trees combined with the topography of the site will provide screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these tree~ are approximately 72 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 identified as not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will offer limited visibility of the tower. The proposed tower is located approximately 600 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staff review this tower will have limited visibility from any dwellings or Route 729. Lighting of the toweris 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 adjacent property. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings 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 to ensure that back,up power systems are working. [Back up power is provided by batteries.] This schedule is not e)rpeeted to create adverse impacts to adjacent property. Four wheeldrive sport utility v~hicles [Jeep type] are generally used for this purpose. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staffhas 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. The cumulative effect of towers within the Rural Areas may result in a change in the character of the Rural Areas. Staffopinion 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/electticity, and no impact'on this or other property for any by-tight agricultural/forestal use, Based on'the limited visibility and limited maintenance impact caused by this tower staff opinion is that thisxequest does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmon_'/with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas 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. All of these provisions address, in one form Or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones dearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use, Based on the provision of a pubhc 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 ~reation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility~ does increase the availability and convenience for users. 9fwireless phone technology. 3 Staff in prior reviews for telecommunication facilities has noted that the visibility of the site may be inconsistent with the intent of providing an attractive community. As this facility wilthave limited visibility Dom surrounding areas staffopinion is that this request does not 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 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, 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 requii'ed 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. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit of 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 speciai use permit process nor the denial 0fthis application has the effect of prohibiting 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 reason, stafEdoes not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staffin an effort to ~dentify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Due to the limited impact anticipated by this site alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated include the power line running northwest/southeast in eastern Albemarle. This power line is located approximately 600 feet to the east at its closest point. In response to staff question about the possibility of locating on this power line the applicant responded. "In response to your letter dated June 18, 1998, I did survey the wooden power poles belonging to VEPCO in the area where we selected this site. I have pictures of these and showed them to the RF Engineers when we were evaluating this area for possible co-location. The RF Engineers agreed that these poles would not be a good candidate. Ihese poles are in the 50' range and ~ve designed our network for 80' minimum with antennas at the top of the pole. Additionally this line go up a valley for quite some distance before going up a hill to the SE of this intersection. Additionally, we have not been successful in getting approval from the Power Companies to use the wooden pole lines because of the windloading, and the tension already on them from the heavy trunk lines they use, With the mini-cell technology, we cannot be very far away from this intersection for our PCS CDMA to provide a link from Carter's Mountain to a site we are co4ocating on at Lake Monticello with US Cellular (120' Monopole) and still cover Hwy 53. The way this road twists and tums and goes up and down, makes it very difficult to cover with the one cell site, but it does reach by using two panels instead of the whips. We are able to direct our signals more along the direction of the roadway, instead of-360 degrees. Moving any further South of the intersection changes our directional line of site and shortens the distance we can cover. I would really prefer to be at the intersection, but as you noted there is no co-location available of sufficient height and no tree cover to screen a pole site." No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in eastern Albemarle. Reduction of setback in accord with the prowsions 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, spkes, 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 linethan 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 hereal~er located on existing public utility easements". By the requirements Of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 72 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 67 feet from the property line. Staffopinion 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 this situation the proposed tower is a wooden pole which cannot be designed to collapse in a predictable manner. Relocation of the tower to a site which would meet the setback is an option, but would result the facility being located away from the tree line making it more visible. Should the tower Collapse it would hot be near any dwelling on adjacent property. Staffhas talked to the adjacent property owner. The adjacent property owner does not oppose the reduction in setback. Therefore, staff'is able to support this request. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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, Generally.the site review committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of telecommunication facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area impacted by the proposed use and the ability to obtain the required information through an erosion and sediment control plan and the braiding permits, In this case the construction of the facility will require activity only for the extension of utilities which are currently on site and the placement of the tower and ground equipment. Based on the minimal activity necessary for installation staffis unable to identify any purpose, which would be served by requiring the submission ora site plan. Staff recommends approval of a 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; The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. This request complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 The design of the tower is such that it will haVe limited visibility. Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: This is a non-agricultural/forestal use in the Rural Areas; . 2. Alternate sites have not been studied. The following factor is relevant to this consideration: 1. There'is an existing reasonable use of the property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the site will accommodate a telecommunication facility without creating adverseimpacts. Therefore, staffisabletorecommendapprovalofthisrequest. Shouldthe Board choose to approve this request, staffhas provided conditions of approval. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff request consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to:return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. The eievation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a c~ified statement on the elevation of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Eqfftpment extending above the tower ishall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: The tower shall be of treated wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted, b. The tower shall have no lighting. 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-131" and initialed "WDF 6/25/98". 4. Antenna 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 O) inches in diameter. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. 7 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other ~. wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: 10. 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 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 suchlocation and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee'shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location..: Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited, to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for r6ciprocal 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 ofthe shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire isa 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. All lighting shail be shielded from Route 729. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance. 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 staffto remove existing trees on the site. The County staffshall 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. 8 11 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; Should the Planning Commission support a waiver of the requirements of a site plan 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 provisioo~s of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. Should the Planning Commission support a reduction in setback, the Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower aS:i'~equested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 67 feet fi.om the property line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's Information D - Topographical Map A:\sp9831 .rpt,doc 9 ATTACHMENT A ::ILOTTES - _LE SP 98-31 CFWWIRELESS CV131 ALBEMARLE~ COUNTY ATTACHMENT B 3O 57' 54D 5O RIVANNA AND SCOTTSVILLE DISTRIOTS 53 SECTION No. 865-B '~ 1 ROU7E ATTACHMENT C TO~'ER SITE FOR C f Y/Y/IRELESS CV- 131 PROPERTY OF CHARLIE F. KINGREA SCOTTSV~LE DISTRIC~ ~BE~RLE C~. SC~" I" = 40' MAY ~ 1998 ~ H~RI~ L.S STUARTS DR~ V~ 03:55 ?~ FA2 NO, ATTACHMENT C 2 JUSTIFICATION; ~IcaSe attach additional informer{on ~s needed) ~,l~,..~ ~ 1~~ ~ ATTACHMENT C "'......! J CFW WIRELESS To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors Ella Washington Carey, CMC, C~erk P~eading List for August 19, 1998 August 14, 1998 April 3, /996 December 4, 1996 Februa~ 5, 1997 April 8, 1998 July 8, 1998 ~ages 28 - end - Mr. Bowerman pages I - 20 (Item #9) - Ms. Thomas Perkins ~. Humphris Bowermao /ewc and re . 3 Ol'.'e WO"~.~3" ~,..mm,,nw, alL, ,.., V., g "ia ths tJrl~zed S.a'.es o' A,'ne~ ::a. and :';is CoLmtv d:: no~. u-jusdv discdm n~,to a'gams: ~ir's and w3men and any o:he: ,.';ro..p' a';d WI-iEREAS, ~n;:~st '.reaLms,a: ~.asod o" views of inequality ~t ~s app'opda:6-',or tr':s Co.my [o recog"~zc. , Consti:uuon of i¢'e Uni:ed States thc amcrlomenL m~[ g..-3ve tn(: r~. ~ .,[ .., ~,g~ to A~ncqcao w3me;,' NOW. THEREFO ,"Jo .... r~ [~rccla'm August as BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED :hat .he Board c" Superv:s,~rs ,.rg~s all c~t z~ns .o.e!"~l "a:e all .,njus: d~sc; mina[ on ~.':d pr~ud~c~ aga;~st women e'~d ens~,re e~Li~ 't/eL ,~h,~. ~rl ~11.~o~. ,~,.u ~.~orts.~, .Lies [or ~. v, omer and men. Sigqe.~ arm scaled t~'~s :gL" da'/o[,\.,gus!: 1998 ' Board 3f S.,perwsors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 DRAFT WHEREAS, many decades of effort by workers for women's rights were required to give women the right to vote; and WHEREAS, citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and pohcies in the Commonwealth of Vk~ma, the United States of America and this County do not unjustly discriminate against girls and women and any other group-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" -sand WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the amendment that gave the right of suffrage to American women; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of~upervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim August 26, 1998, as WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY, in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and men; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens to eliminate all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women, and ensure equality of rights, privileges, and responsib'dities for all women and men. Signed and sealed this 19th day of August 1998. Forrest Marshall Chair, Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virghtia CNOW P.O. Box 5082 Charlottesville, VA 22905 or e-mall: carosilver~juno.com August 14, 1998 The Honorable Sally Thomas Member, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear ~-- The Charlottesv~e and Albemarle regional chapter of the National Organization for Women respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors read aloud and adopt this Proclamation at its Wednesday, August 199 public meeting, in anticipation of the 789 anniversa~ of the passage of the 19~ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gave women the vote. This is especially important as the Supervisors' regular meetings are well covered by the media for the local area citizens. We appreciate your support and efforts to improve and strengthen our community. We live in a very special place;, in its tradition we should lead in doing the right thing and setting a high standard for other communities. Thanks very much, and if you have any questions please call us. Sincerely, Katherine Ballard Hoffman President, CNOW 804/295-2566 Vice e 804/293-6239 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, many decades of effort by workers for women's rights were required to give women the right to vote: and WHEREAS. after great effort there is still no reliable protection in the U.S. Oonstitution for women against sex discrimination in general; and WHEREAS. aws and potces in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly discriminatedageinst girls and women--such as in manners of reproductive rights, sexual assault, marita .property; and sexual haressment-andsithough some laws and policies have ,been eased, such improvements can be: have been. and are being reverseQ; and WHEREAS. some "facially neutral" policies still have inequitable effects on women--such as those dealing with insurance, pension, i~arnily medical ~eave, job promotions, occupationa!choice, recreational opportunities, access to medical care (including reproductive and; abortion ser~ieaS) and business opportunities-and stereotypes styli exist whicn limit women's roles and activities; and WHEREAS, young gir.ls and adult Women still must contend with unwanted touching, sexual and verbal assault, and race. and being viewed by men as objects to use; and WHEREAS. most of the care of the young and the elderly is still given primarily by women, many of whom must also work in the job market and/or at home; and WHEREAS, in many other ways the tasks of providing equal Opportunities to women and remowng burdens which fall unjustly or] women remain uncompleted: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.. Chairman on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclairo August 26~ 1998 as WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY in remembrance of all those wom~n and men who have worked to deve opa more equitablecommunitywhich: acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences b~tween women and men; an~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens t,0 treat all distinctions and classificati0nsac?ording to sex as initially suspect, examine all "facially neutral" criteda including physical statu~e and other occupational qualifications to determine whether they have disparate impact on W~menl Promote affirmative action in the p ~ublic;,,=, voluntary, and pdvate sectors, eliminate all Unjust di~crlminafi0n and prejucflce againstwomen, and ensure equality of rights, privileges, and responsibilitiesfor all women and men. Signed and sealed this 19th day of August. 199~. Forres~ R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors '\ o :~ ~ :~ __5 o ~o ~ ~ .o ~ . ~ ~ ~ o ~e .~ · ~ ~ o o~ ~